[trial.rec.metalworking] charcoal, et. al.

okunewck@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Phil OKunewick) (12/15/90)

In article <23@talgras.UUCP> david@talgras.UUCP (David Hoopes) writes:
>In article <1990Dec12.234545.8492@csn.org> grusin@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GRUSIN MICHAEL) writes:
>>I'm interested in hearing about peoples experiences doing
>>small-scale smelting and casting; I occasionally see ads
>>for books on "building charcoal powered furnaces capable
>>of melting aluminum cans"; does this work? Is it practical?
>
> [ ... ]
>
>Charcoal could burn hot enough to do what you want but if you can get some
>coal it will burn hotter and longer.  

Not exactly on the subject, but perhaps relavent...

   In the 1800's, Central PA was a MAJOR Iron producer.  All the
necessary elements were here: high-grade iron ore, high-calcium
limestone, and acres of timberland for charcoal.  This entire area
was one big iron industry.

   There are ruins of many furnaces still standing all around here -
about one per 10 or 20 Square miles.  Each furnace was supported by a
small company town.  Furnaces were supplied by local quarries and
thousands of acres of timberland, and timber harvesting, aging, and
colling was a year round process.
   
   The furnaces were operating 24 hours per day, for 3 months
straight.  (Every 3 months the furnace was shut down to be relined
with firebrick.)  New charges (limestone, ore, and charcoal mixed)
were poured in every few hours; pig iron poured out the bottom and
slag poured out the side.  The air blast for the furnace was pumped
by bellows, which were either waterwheel- or hand-operated.  (During
the later years, the air blast was run through a heater to produce a
more efficient hot-blast.)

   Transportation was supplied by an extensive system of canals.  The
main arteries were along the Susquehana and Juniata rivers, and side
branches went everywhere.  Ruins of old canals can still be found all
over the place.  Canals couldn't handle floods very well, and
had to be rebuilt constantly.

   Lifestyle wasn't really good, by today's standards.  Small,
pre-industrial company towns where you either worked for the company
or you didn't work.  The lumberjacks/colliers lived in small forest
huts that resembled wooden, turf-covered teepees with fireplaces.

   There were only two things wrong: Coke (refined from coal) burns
hotter than charcoal, and there's a wonderful coal area over in western
PA.  Central PA is equally inaccessable by any means of transportation,
and again there are a wonderful set of deep rivers in Western PA.
(The Susquehana and Juniata are on shallow, undredgable rock beds.)
Andy Carnegie and friends built their iron (later steel) industry in
Western PA; the little furnace towns of central PA just couldn't match
Pittsburgh's ability to produce metal.

   (Isn't it ironic how Japan is doing the same thing to Pittsburgh?)


   Since the entire iron industry here was built on charcoal-fired
furnaces, I would conclude that yes, charcoal has the heat capacity to
melt iron.  But coal/coke is better.  Just ask Andy Carnegie.  (It's
amazing what an air blast will do - I've used newspaper and bellows to
melt lead.)