Re: [Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Note the "fixed carbon" is not "carbon".  You "fix" with carbon, is not 
the same as "fix" with dogs,  a difference that some people don't seem to 
recognize until they reach my age.
				Regards,
					Jack
 On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Brian Whatcott wrote:

> Though it is not entirely clear what in fact bc is surprized about exactly
> (a feature of his telegraphic style) perhaps all would become at least
> somewhat clearer if he also consulted
> M.R Campbell "The coal Fields of the United Sates "
> US Geological Survey Paper 100-a which offers for Anthracite:
> Moisture 3.2% Volatile matter 1.2% Fixed Carbon 95.6% Heat Value 14400 BTU
>
> (As mentioned there, a  high rank semibituminous can indeed offer
> greater heating value of 15360 BTU at  a lower fixed carbon content
> 83.4% on an ash-free basis, though I fear that this USGS reference is
> almost as old as Jack's )
>
> More modern data are to be found in standard works such as
> W.Francis, Coal: Its Formation & Composition, 2ndEd 1961
> - but I cannot access its contents at this point.
>
> Brian W
>
> Bernard Cleyet wrote:
> > bc is surprised, so we are left w/ the rare instance of charcoal
> > briquettes, coke, etc.
> >
> > bc also surprised the best (only?) coke is from bituminous not
> > anthracite.
> >
> > p.s. from the article Jack referenced below:
> > ------------
> > COAL is not a hydrocarbon. Even if we leave out of
> >   consideration the technically very important constituents ash,
> > moisture, sulfur, and nitrogen, the
> > data in Table I show that, in a high-rank bituminous coal,
> > there may be one to nine oxygen atoms to every hundred
> > atoms comprising the coal substance.
> >
> > ----------------
> >
> > It's a matter of definition -- coal is a sugar!, partially carbonized
> > along w/ lignin and cellulose.  Which makes sense since that's from
> > whence it came.
> >
> >
> > On 2009, Mar 14, , at 15:55, Jack Uretsky wrote:
> >
> >
> > > See
> > >  	http://admin.pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50291a021
> > > which gives, for anthracite (by weight)
> > >  	78 \pm 12% C  and 20 \pm 12% H.  Since the atomic weight of carbon
> > > is 12 and that of H is 1 (the H is combined in  compounds), there
> > > is about
> > > one hydrogen atom available for each 7, or so, carbon atoms.
> > >  	Burning of coal, therefore, is not a simple process of combining
> > > carbon with oxygen.
> > >  				Regards,
> > >  					Jack
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Brian Whatcott wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Jack Uretsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > > Carbon is not, except in rare instances, a fuel.  The fuels we
> > > > > use are
> > > > > hydrocarbons....
> > > > >  					Jack
> > > > Huh? Anthracite coal, the formerly dominant fuel of steam
> > > > locomotives,
> > > > is reckoned to offer between 92% to 98% carbon....
> > > >
> > > > Brian W
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Forum for Physics Educators
> > > > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > > > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> > > --
> > > "Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
> > >  		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
> > >  		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley