How Many Yards Are in a Ton?

 
User avatar
Lightning
Site Moderator
Posts: 14659
Joined: Wed. Nov. 16, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Olean, NY
Stoker Coal Boiler: Modified AA 130
Coal Size/Type: Pea Size - Anthracite

Post by Lightning » Tue. Mar. 24, 2015 11:24 pm

Rob R. wrote:Doesn't the size of the container compared to the coal have an impact on this? e.g. If you used 3/4" pipe instead of a pail the nut coal wouldn't fit at all. I suspect the closer in size the coal is to the container, the less dense it will pack...to a point at least.
I agree.. will 11 buckets of coal fill a 55 gallon drum exactly? :lol: Or by Larry's definition of a 5 gallon pail being 5.5 gallons, it would take 10 :P
Rob R. wrote:In my mind the water would fill the voids and provide another means of comparison.
Sure, that would tell you exactly the volume of space left among the coal.. Good idea. Messy, but clever.. :lol:

 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Tue. Mar. 24, 2015 11:45 pm

The three types of coal are anthracite coal, bituminous coal and lignite coal. Anthracite coal has a bulk density of 50 to 58 pounds per cubic feet, or 800 to 929 kilograms per cubic meter. It is a mature coal and is very hard and shiny. Bituminous coal has a bulk density of 42 to 57 pounds per cubic feet, or 673 to 913 kilograms per cubic meter. It ignites easily and burns long with a relatively long flame. Lignite coal has a bulk density of 40 to 54 pounds per cubic feet, or 641 to 865 kilograms per cubic meter. It is considered to be immature coal, and it is somewhat light in color and remains soft.

http://www.ask.com/science/bulk-density-coal-e551 ... b75b4deafc ^^^

seems right

 
User avatar
hotblast1357
Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: Mon. Mar. 10, 2014 10:06 pm
Location: Peasleeville NY
Stoker Coal Boiler: 1984 Eshland S260 coal gun
Coal Size/Type: Lehigh anthracite pea
Other Heating: air source heat pump, oil furnace

Post by hotblast1357 » Wed. Mar. 25, 2015 7:36 am

So I guess I will just have too measure what it takes too full my bucket with my coal and just go from there

 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Wed. Mar. 25, 2015 7:57 am

cabinover wrote:
I'm not doubting you I just can't wrap my mind around this for some reason. I would think the smaller coal would take up less space as it would pack more densely, like sand rather than rocks.
I'd assume with the sand the water weight plays a big factor becsue the sand will absorb it much better than the rock. You have all that surface are exposed to water.

Coal fractures in odd patterns compared to sand which is much rounder and this is why they prefer coal as filter media over sand, it lasts longer. Because it's smaller and you all that surface area there is much more air space created. If it was vibrated down it might be a different story.


 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Wed. Mar. 25, 2015 8:04 am

Sunny Boy wrote:Once again, I zeroed out the scale for weight of the empty bucket (13 ounces) and filled it with 20 pounds of fines.

First two pix show how full the bucket is with just that 20 pounds of fines and very little air space between particles (like sand).

Pix number three and four are the same bucket filled with 20 pounds of Blaschak bulk nut.

Paul
Not sure why your results with the bucket are not consistent with what I'm saying, perhaps it's the small container as Rob suggested. The nut is going to create a great deal of more space on the sides. All I know is my 15 years experience in the coal delivery business says smaller coal takes more space and anyone else in this business is going to tell you the same thing. If you go back to my truck picture if it were barley it would be almost falling off the truck to get 5 ton on.

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25567
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Wed. Mar. 25, 2015 8:45 am

I don't know either Richard, and I don't mean to imply that your wrong. We've both repeatedly measured different sizes of coal using the same volume on some reasonably accurate equipment. The only difference I see is the very large difference in container size. I'm interested to know why our results don't match when your truck bed is scaled down to my buckets.

I've run the volume to weight tests several times each using 5 gallon, that 2-1/2 gallon and the Glenwood mag shown in the pictures, 8 inch sonotube, and the firebox of my range. All were measured with Blaschak nut and stove.

Scottscoaled mention of sand reminded me that I had that bucket of saved fines, so I thought I'd take it one step further just for curiosity sake. Each time, the larger pieces take up more space for the same weight no mater what size container I used.

And, each time the difference between stove and nut comes very close to a 10% difference in weight when filling the same space.

Paul

 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Wed. Mar. 25, 2015 9:24 am

Sunny Boy wrote: I'm interested to know why our results don't match when your truck bed is scaled down to my buckets.
I think the difference is you have very large percentage of the volume against the side of the bucket where there is going going to be bigger air spaces than in the middle where coal is against coal and it can pack more tightly. The percentage against the sides might be 25% of the volume of the bucket. As the container size increases the percentage against the sides is going to decrease, In the truck it's going to be a very small percentage.

 
User avatar
windyhill4.2
Member
Posts: 6072
Joined: Fri. Nov. 22, 2013 2:17 pm
Location: Jonestown,Pa.17038
Stoker Coal Boiler: 1960 EFM520 installed in truck box
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Crane 404 with variable blower
Coal Size/Type: 404-nut, 520 rice ,anthracite for both

Post by windyhill4.2 » Wed. Mar. 25, 2015 11:44 am

Well,all I know is that someone better get this figured out,soon !! As Rev. Larry posted ,we can't work in the garden yet & this is about to make some of us :wacko: :)


 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25567
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Wed. Mar. 25, 2015 12:08 pm

Richard S. wrote:
Sunny Boy wrote: I'm interested to know why our results don't match when your truck bed is scaled down to my buckets.
I think the difference is you have very large percentage of the volume against the side of the bucket where there is going going to be bigger air spaces than in the middle where coal is against coal and it can pack more tightly. The percentage against the sides might be 25% of the volume of the bucket. As the container size increases the percentage against the sides is going to decrease, In the truck it's going to be a very small percentage.
Richard,
That's makes sense and is very likely what is happening. For the stoves with large, shallow fireboxes, they probably see a similar affect.

For those of us with stoves that have a smaller firebox, or firepot, they should see the same affect I get with the buckets and my range firebox - it holds more pounds of the smaller sizes.

Paul

 
User avatar
Doby
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue. Dec. 02, 2014 9:57 pm
Location: Elysburg PA
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Alaska Kast console and Alaska Channing III
Coal Size/Type: Rice
Other Heating: oil but not much

Post by Doby » Wed. Mar. 25, 2015 7:30 pm

could the round bucket play a role, similar to a sq peg forced into a round hole more space on the side. Rerun the test with a sq bucket

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25567
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Wed. Mar. 25, 2015 9:51 pm

No difference.

I have some square kitty litter buckets that hold 40 pounds of nut coal and less of stove coal.

The firebox on my range is a 7 x 15 rectangle 6 inches deep. Holds more weight of nut coal than stove. It's not the shape, but as Richard pointed out, most likely has to do with the size of the container.

Paul

 
User avatar
Doby
Member
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue. Dec. 02, 2014 9:57 pm
Location: Elysburg PA
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Alaska Kast console and Alaska Channing III
Coal Size/Type: Rice
Other Heating: oil but not much

Post by Doby » Wed. Mar. 25, 2015 10:00 pm

Yea that the only thing that makes any sense

 
User avatar
Scottscoaled
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue. Jan. 08, 2008 9:51 pm
Location: Malta N.Y.
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520, 700, Van Wert 800 GJ 61,53
Baseburners & Antiques: Magic Stewart 16, times 2!
Coal Size/Type: Lots of buck
Other Heating: Slant Fin electric boiler backup

Post by Scottscoaled » Thu. Mar. 26, 2015 12:43 am

How about seeing how many pounds of fines you could add to the bucket of stove. And then see how much the bucket would weigh.

Post Reply

Return to “Coal News & General Coal Discussions”