|
Post by smshogun on Mar 6, 2014 10:54:29 GMT -5
Nowhere have I stated that rock or any other material in the blend has any calorific value other than the coal content, I think you are confusing the two materials.
Coal is burned because it has the calorific value and can generate heat through combustion, this heats the other rocks and materials added to coal to make the blend, this absorbs heat from the burning coal and the blown air increases its temperature well above that of coal. This serves two purposes, it slows the rate of combustion of the coal and absorbs heat from the burning coal, when it reaches a specific temperature and blown air is added it actually increases the heat.
This is exactly the same principle by definition as oxy-acetylene cutting, you heat the steel by using a mixture of gas and oxygen until part of the steel melts and blow more oxygen to cut the steel by the oxygen intensifying the heat and melting it, in the meanwhile you can turn off the gas and the steel will continued to be cut by oxygen alone.
|
|
|
Post by bulwellbrian on Mar 7, 2014 5:04:39 GMT -5
Nowhere have I stated that rock or any other material in the blend has any calorific value other than the coal content, I think you are confusing the two materials.
Some rocks do have a calorific value when they contain carbonaceous material, Rocks close to coal seams are in this category such as Seatearths & Mudstones. When we took seam sections for analysis in the lab we included roof & floor and determined the CV of both. Obviously they will not burn on their own but the CV will be released in when burnt in a coal mixture.
|
|
|
Post by John on Mar 7, 2014 8:38:05 GMT -5
Nowhere have I stated that rock or any other material in the blend has any calorific value other than the coal content, I think you are confusing the two materials.
Some rocks do have a calorific value when they contain carbonaceous material, Rocks close to coal seams are in this category such as Seatearths & Mudstones. When we took seam sections for analysis in the lab we included roof & floor and determined the CV of both. Obviously they will not burn on their own but the CV will be released in when burnt in a coal mixture.
I'd forgotten about those Brian, I recall when I first started, we had this huge coal fired stove in the electrical workshop and had to go to bank with a wheel barrow to get coal for it. There was one particular "rock" I was told to watch for and shown, it burned hot and better than the coal we had, it was oily and probably soaked in oils from the seam below it..Great for starting a fire, but "spit" a lot as it burned, no problem in the large coal burning stove though.
I suppose today it would be called Kerosene shales.
|
|
|
Post by bulwellbrian on Mar 7, 2014 11:06:46 GMT -5
I'd forgotten about those Brian, I recall when I first started, we had this huge coal fired stove in the electrical workshop and had to go to bank with a wheel barrow to get coal for it. There was one particular "rock" I was told to watch for and shown, it burned hot and better than the coal we had, it was oily and probably soaked in oils from the seam below it..Great for starting a fire, but "spit" a lot as it burned, no problem in the large coal burning stove though.
I suppose today it would be called Kerosene shales. It is called cannel coal and is very high in volatiles, including Hydrogen. It can be easily lit and a lump will burn on its own. Its a long time ago since I worked at the Lab, I moved on in 1969 but if I remember correctly the Deep Hard at Cotgrave had Cannel at the bottom of the seam. I also think there was some in the Tupton at Babbington. There was certainly more elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by John on Mar 7, 2014 12:41:01 GMT -5
It is called cannel coal and is very high in volatiles, including Hydrogen. It can be easily lit and a lump will burn on its own. Its a long time ago since I worked at the Lab, I moved on in 1969 but if I remember correctly the Deep Hard at Cotgrave had Cannel at the bottom of the seam. I also think there was some in the Tupton at Babbington. There was certainly more elsewhere. I recall it was cannel, there was a local name used, but damned if I can recall it..At the time I mentioned we were mining the last two panels of the Deep Hard seam and one face in Tupton, so it's anybody's guess which seam it came from.
From what I recall from my mining science classes years back, "cannel" probably was derived from "candle" as it burned with a black candle like smoke.
|
|
|
Post by Wheldale on Mar 7, 2014 13:49:30 GMT -5
Cannel coal from what I remember is ideal for carving into sculptures etc, I believe it has no "grain" making it ideal for carving.
|
|
|
Post by smshogun on Mar 16, 2014 13:00:19 GMT -5
It was never used in the power station blend as its emissions meant the blend would fail the set standards.
|
|
|
Post by cromercolliery on Aug 8, 2014 13:27:49 GMT -5
Hi ,im new to this forum and this interested me as I've worked for the railway for 31 years The first part of this thread mentioned that deltics had 'old'napier engines and class 47s had newer sulzer engines in fact both types of loco and power units were contemporary with each other. Also as far as I know BR never converted diesel any locomotive to run on coal certainly no class 47 The north British locomotive company did start but ultimately didn't complete a gas turbine locomotive that was to burn pulverised coal in the 50s
|
|