Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

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



Blind faith in a single 72 year old "heritage" reference in the face of numerous later conflicting authorities calls one's judgment into question, wouldn't you say?

But so long as you now seem to accept that coal is NOT in fact a hydrocarbon, as your cherished reference confirms, my point is made.....

:-)

Brian W

Jack Uretsky wrote:
Read again. The figures are for anthracite.
Regards,
jlu
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Brian Whatcott wrote:

This paper seems to concern itself with bituminous coal.
Lignite coal would show even lower carbon content, I expect?

Brian W


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,


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