logo elektroda
logo elektroda
X
logo elektroda
Advanced Search
logo elektroda

Combustion Engine Design and Operation Using Coal Dust as Fuel—Historical Overview

karaluch84 17978 35
Best answers

Did coal-dust-fueled combustion engines ever exist, how did they work, and why were they not widely developed?

Yes, coal-dust engines did exist, but the thread says they were mainly slow-speed, stationary diesel-cycle machines from the interwar period, and they lost out to cheap oil and mazut plus the growth of energy and transmission networks [#10687757] Rudolf Diesel is not described here as having designed engines for coal dust; one reply says he experimented with peanut oil, while the ash problem was mainly associated with later coal-fuel ideas [#10683807] The main technical problems were ash wear, fuel metering, storage, and getting a stable dust-air mixture without caking or explosion risk [#10682185][#10684989][#11178133] Historically, there were earlier related experiments such as the Niepce brothers’ 1807 pyrelophore using lycopodium spores, and later gasifier-fed engines by Lenoir [#10773435] For more detail, the thread points to coal extraction methods such as Pott-Broche and Uhde-IG Farben, and to coal gasification as the more practical route [#10771156][#10689326][#10733385]
Generated by the language model.
ADVERTISEMENT
Treść została przetłumaczona polish » english Zobacz oryginalną wersję tematu
Report a violation of the law
| New topic
  • #1 10681754
    karaluch84
    Level 9  
    Posts: 8
    Rate: 1
    Hello to all forum members. As a "green man" in many issues discussed here, I am asking for understanding in the event of writing something not very wise ...
    I founded this topic because I would like to learn more about the design and operation of combustion engines burning coal dust. As far as I know, Rudolf Diesel originally intended to use such fuel in self-ignition engines. However, this was not the best solution - the ash from the burned coal was to cause very fast wear of the moving parts that it touched (mainly the walls of the cylinder and the piston). As far as I am not mistaken, there were also some difficulties with dispensing fuel. As far as I know, these engines have never been refined, nor have they been used extensively.
    Is the above information true? Where can you get to know the details of the design and operation of such machines? I tried to use the help of "uncle google", but I found only general information (for which I learned that someone had once constructed a gunpowder). On the forum - in other themes - I was able to find only single mentions ...
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #2 10682185
    robokop
    VIP Meritorious for electroda.pl  
    Posts: 29406
    Help: 1760
    Rate: 6342
    "Ruskie" allegedly invented such a motor to drive tanks in the period of WWII - I have not seen, I have not read anything about it. Difficulties in pushing through such an obvious fuel - too many solid particles that destroy the friction elements. But there is an alternative - gasifying it (I recommend a forum for wood-logs, reading for long hours.
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #3 10682230
    Anonymous
    Anonymous  
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #4 10682572
    karaluch84
    Level 9  
    Posts: 8
    Rate: 1
    robokop wrote:
    "Ruskie" allegedly invented such a tank-driving engine during WWII - I have not seen, I have not read anything about it. Difficulties in pushing through such an obvious fuel - too many solid particles that destroy the friction elements. But there is an alternative - gasifying it (I recommend a forum for woodchains, reading for long hours.

    I do not know anything specific about these Soviet experiments. Gasification of coal - a nice thing (I already know the recommended page - thank you for the tip though), but installing a proper "kettle" into the car, as well as exploitation itself, is quite a problem. :cry: the way - I used to have the opportunity to read an article entitled "Ecological car for coffee" (or something like that). I think - what people invented a new one? I read, read, and finally I find out that the engine is powered with ... old, good wood gas (in this case, probably "coffee gas" - arising from waste grains, no longer suitable for consumption). In addition to waste from the production of coffee, charcoal was consumed and the gas produced from toasted grains was cleaned on a coconut fiber filter.
    Motronic wrote:
    was a coal jet project.

    That's what I read a bit - this plane is one of the "miraculous weapons" of the declining Third Reich. If I understood the description well, it installed a jet engine, i.e. no shaft with a turbine and compressor - the only large movable element was a basket with coal, slowly rotating to provide more even combustion. The aircraft had to start using the auxiliary rocket engine, after reaching the appropriate speed (at which the jet engine could work) burners powered with gaseous fuel were switched on (or maybe liquid - I do not remember exactly). They were to set the coal on fire. The air directed to the coal was compressed due to the high speed of the jet and the proper shape of the inlet. Of course, the fumes flew backwards giving a string. The idea undoubtedly interesting, but not for use in vehicles ... :cry: Unless in the famous Batman car :D On the other hand - it seems to me that such a coal basket would be right in being in a gas turbine. I think it is good, but am I wrong?
  • #5 10683620
    zimny8
    Level 33  
    Posts: 3654
    Help: 26
    Rate: 502
    The easiest way to burn the coal dust with the use of special burners, and the energy obtained can be used in any way, it can be a jet nozzle - "you are :) " and you fly :)
  • #6 10683807
    Tommy82
    Level 41  
    Posts: 12139
    Help: 455
    Rate: 1070
    Exactly cockroach84 most engines for any fuel based on gasification of this or that. Once a long time ago on Saturday or Sunday on tvp2 after 17 I was flying a program that Turski was running and some commentators told me Jonas and Szostkiewicz. Well, in any case, such various information from the world in this program sometimes appeared rather loose once they showed a car built by some Romanian students for coal. Well, what was it and just a gasifier. This idea is being rediscovered in various forms. Is it in cars or even gassing of entire deposits.

    As for Rudolf Diesel, I have doubts from what I know experimented on peanut oil, and as to the ashes, the first attempts were short-lived with the problem of ash rather should not happen.

    As for the coal dust jet engine, it's hard to imagine a better way to burn dust. It's better only in the engine with external combustion.

    As for the car engine, I think it is rather a lime for a simple reason of the fuel dispensing system that would cope with the engine's operation in a way that is necessary and mastered various problems with the fuel, eg caking etc.

    The problem is also of an economic nature. If something will be suitable for fuel, this demand will increase as it is not covered with excise tax (as we will solve the legal problem in the form of excise, business will cease to pay). It quickly leverages this price. A simple example is oil that costs like ON. What's more, the same works for ON / Pb. As the ride on HE came out cheaper people rushed on cars with ON and the price he increased.
  • #7 10684989
    igord
    Level 12  
    Posts: 111
    Rate: 19
    The main problem would be the production and storage of such fuel. In order to grind up to several microns approximately 50 kg of coal, you will need a good few hours and very expensive grinders, rubbers and micronizers. The game is not worth the candle, it is better to gas it.
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #8 10686802
    karaluch84
    Level 9  
    Posts: 8
    Rate: 1
    zimny8 wrote:
    The easiest way to burn the coal dust with special burners, and the energy obtained can be used in any way, it can be a jet nozzle - you " :) " and fly :)

    Tommy82 wrote:
    As for the carbon engine, it's hard to imagine a better way to burn dust. It's better only in the engine with external combustion.

    Only that the jet did not burn coal dust - the fuel was in the form of lumps of +/- comparable size, placed in a rotating, metal basket. The jet engine is unlikely to be used in vehicles - a gas turbine would be needed here. But did anyone try to reactivate the German idea in this form? As far as I know - no ... The problem is that the gas turbine is probably not something that can be done without problems in the garage ...
    Tommy82 wrote:
    The problem is also of an economic nature. If anything will be suitable for fuel, it will increase demand

    That's right - coal would have somehow got worse, but you do not need some cosmic technology to grind this raw material. I suspect that each mine could invest in appropriate equipment - there probably would not be a situation where two or three concerns supply fuels for the whole country. Higher competition results in a lower price of the product. But how would it really be - it is not known until the end. The excise tax on coal would certainly come. It has been known for a long time that there are people holding their finger on the pulse - if the regular citizens begin to use something new, not limited by any regulations, and - for horror - untaxed, quickly this state of affairs "straighten". :cry:
    igord wrote:
    The main problem would be the production and storage of such fuel. In order to grind up to several microns approximately 50 kg of coal, you will need a good few hours and very expensive grinders, rubbers and micronizers. The game is not worth the candle, it is better to gas it.

    Is it really necessary to so fine grinding? There are known cases of explosion of air and dust mixture which was created in a natural way - during coal mining and transport. And the first experiments in the late nineteenth century? Did the creator of the diesel engine have the possibility of obtaining such finely ground dust? You need to spend some energy to grind - but gasification also requires its delivery, and in considerable quantities ...
  • #9 10687121
    zimny8
    Level 33  
    Posts: 3654
    Help: 26
    Rate: 502
    karaluch84 wrote:
    Is it
    karaluch84 wrote:
    to so fine grinding?

    Coal dust does not come from intentional grinding of coal, it is quite a lot and it is produced during spoil.
    Therefore, the methods of its burning / utilization were invented (see low-emission dust burners), so it is cheap, it is also mixed with water, which facilitates transport, but not to be confused with coal sludge.
  • #10 10687757
    kybernetes
    Level 39  
    Posts: 5247
    Help: 426
    Rate: 1484
    Grinding coal does not present any problems, we do not live in the Middle Ages. There are suitable machines and technologies for this.

    Dust engines were used in the interwar period, they worked in the diesel cycle, they were slow-speed machines with very high power, stationary. Natural carbon was used as a fuel, later different coal extracts were tried and de-coal was used. Cheap oil and mazut, as well as the development of energy and transmission networks have meant that they have stopped being profitable.
  • #11 10688157
    igord
    Level 12  
    Posts: 111
    Rate: 19
    Can you give some links that confirm your statement?
  • #12 10688216
    kybernetes
    Level 39  
    Posts: 5247
    Help: 426
    Rate: 1484
    igord wrote:
    You can give some links that confirm your statement?

    Would you like to give you some links confirming yours? Or maybe you already think of such an authority in matters of energy technology that does not require proof? ;)
  • #13 10688288
    igord
    Level 12  
    Posts: 111
    Rate: 19
    And did I talk about a thesis? I just did not hear about heat engines working in the diesel cycle, and I'm very interested in internal combustion engines.
  • #14 10688353
    karaluch84
    Level 9  
    Posts: 8
    Rate: 1
    kybernetes wrote:
    Dust engines were used in the interwar period, they worked in the diesel cycle, they were slow-speed machines with very high power, stationary. Natural carbon was used as a fuel, later different coal extracts were tried and de-coal was used. Cheap oil and mazut, as well as the development of energy and transmission networks have meant that they have stopped being profitable.

    This is interesting information - thank you. And how was coal thawed? What were these "carbon extracts"? What was their superiority to natural coal? How was the fuel dispensed? Today, the price of crude oil and "processed" is much higher than it was then - would this solution still be unprofitable?
    As for grinding coal - it may be beneficial if it is necessary to desulphurize this fuel. Coal dust can be cleaned of inorganic sulfur (pyrite particles inherent in coal) thanks to relatively cheap and simple bioleaching process. However, coal in the form of solids is not very suitable for this ...
  • #15 10689326
    kybernetes
    Level 39  
    Posts: 5247
    Help: 426
    Rate: 1484
    Raw coal is dusted, after grinding, by flotation and separation in liquids with high specific gravity (organic halogen derivatives) and mixtures / emulsions of these liquids. Carbon extracts are obtained by heating ground coal in an environment of solvents such as tetralin, higher phenols, hydroaromatic oils, etc. In this way, most of the organic carbon substance can be dissolved at 300-400 ° C.
    Grinding coal is a basic process before any of its processing (as well as combustion).
    The pyrites are removed with great efficiency in the flotation process, in the old days, when there was no sulfur from oil, they were a valuable resource.
    I am afraid, however, that the bioleaching process is somewhat inefficient and causes problems with toxic wastewater. It is not used for the purification of coal, it is important for the production of certain valuable metals such as copper and uranium.
  • #16 10732110
    AndrzejFeliks
    Level 2  
    Posts: 4
    Rate: 1
    Here something more about the engine that can withstand "grinding with coal dust"


    Combustion Engine Design and Operation Using Coal Dust as Fuel—Historical Overview
  • #17 10732578
    robokop
    VIP Meritorious for electroda.pl  
    Posts: 29406
    Help: 1760
    Rate: 6342
    Well, apart from the fact that Mr. Physicist forgot about lubrication. The prototype was invented a long time ago, the idea of a motor with a rotating piston without converting its rotary motion into a reciprocating and back to rotational ....
  • #18 10732716
    AndrzejFeliks
    Level 2  
    Posts: 4
    Rate: 1
    robokop wrote:
    Well, apart from the fact that Mr. Physicist forgot about lubrication. The prototype was invented a long time ago, the idea of a motor with a rotating piston without converting its rotary motion into reciprocating and back to rotational ....


    But Mr. Physicist did not forget about the envy of dunces. Lubrication is not needed in this solution, only sealed ball bearings with grease inside. and Teflon or graphite seals similar to carbon brushes in electric commutator motors that do not need lubrication. I suggest always read what's going on, because you can expose yourself to ridicule. A long time ago this envy was also known ... And this system here is my original design, Here is the way to create this design and its invention, and what inspired me ..
    but you have to translate
    Link
  • #19 10732971
    kybernetes
    Level 39  
    Posts: 5247
    Help: 426
    Rate: 1484
    AndrzejFeliks wrote:
    Lubrication does not need this solution, only sealed ball bearings with grease inside. and Teflon or graphite seals similar to carbon brushes in electric commutator motors that do not need lubrication.


    The use of such seals will not protect against the effects of coal ash.
  • #20 10732990
    igord
    Level 12  
    Posts: 111
    Rate: 19
    Instead of constructing a motor for coal dust, it would cheaper and simpler to gas coal, produce CO and H2 and drive the engine instead of combining it.
  • #21 10733012
    AndrzejFeliks
    Level 2  
    Posts: 4
    Rate: 1
    kybernetes wrote:
    AndrzejFeliks wrote:
    Lubrication does not need this solution, only sealed ball bearings with grease inside. and Teflon or graphite seals similar to carbon brushes in electric commutator motors that do not need lubrication.


    The use of such seals will not protect against the effects of coal ash.


    Of course, over the seals should be properly worked ... For example, they can be rinsed with water, or some other solutions from machines working in mines ,,,
    In addition, the deposits in traditional engines also settle and do not improve lubrication, and the engines even go for a long time ....
    And here you can do so that the seal in 10 minutes can be replaced, without dismantling the engine.

    I advise you to get rid of Rafako ...

    :D

    Added after 7 [minutes]:

    igord wrote:
    Instead of constructing a motor for coal dust, it would be cheaper and easier to gas coal, produce CO and H2 and drive the engine instead of combining it.


    Maybe they just do not do it. And besides, from this combination it turned out that such an engine is not 1500ton but about 70 Ton.
    And this is a combiner on Max ... :D
  • #22 10733107
    robokop
    VIP Meritorious for electroda.pl  
    Posts: 29406
    Help: 1760
    Rate: 6342
    AndrzejFeliks wrote:


    But Mr. Physicist did not forget about the envy of dunces.

    I do not know which of us is more ignorant. I suggest reading about Wankel's engines and their defects, which stopped their development and mass application.
    It's about sealing the cylinder and piston.
    Quote:
    Lubrication does not need this solution, only sealed ball bearings with grease inside. and Teflon or graphite seals similar to carbon brushes in electric commutator motors that do not need lubrication. I suggest you always read what is going on, because you can expose yourself to ridicule.

    In electric motors there is no combustion reaction with the temperature of several hundred degrees, the result of the work is also not a few percent share of solid particles of combustion products, located inside the mechanism itself.
    Quote:
    Once upon a time this envy was also known ...
    also.
    Quote:
    And this system here is my original design,

    What design? At most a fantasy. I would like to present a functional model with the results of his research, not drawings.
    I suggest you go to some specialist, however.
  • #23 10733323
    AndrzejFeliks
    Level 2  
    Posts: 4
    Rate: 1
    [/ Quote]
    What design? At most a fantasy. I would like to present a functional model with the results of his research, not drawings.
    I suggest you go to some specialist, however. [/ Quote]

    I think that this human-like machine has been programmed in the right direction ...
    But still soft has to be updated, from Mr. Physics to the Lords of your Physics, because it does not reach ...
    First, the designer constructs, and then the craftsmen do. That's the way things are done, unless they do the Kowalski Turbine, it's the other way around.
    But to do it, you have to be able to read the drawings of the Lords of the Physicist.
    And besides, how luminous Mr. Physicist did the prototype, whose value is about 1 million dollars, the collected experience is not available for the poor yet. Unless they pay ...
    Please reset :D

    Moderated By jankolo:

    3.1.9. (4, 10.8, 10.4) It is forbidden to disseminate content that is ironic, mocking or malicious, which is a manifestation of disrespect to other Users or third parties. Warning.

  • #24 10733330
    zimny8
    Level 33  
    Posts: 3654
    Help: 26
    Rate: 502
    AndrzejFeliks wrote:
    Of course over seals should be properly worked

    Because the devil is in the details so I advise against a friend because it is a waste of time unfortunately.

    Ps. You will not even squeeze $ 1, unfortunately.
    Buddy, you were born beautiful, smart and wise, do not waste it!
  • #25 10733385
    jankolo
    Rest in Peace  
    Posts: 32197
    Help: 1792
    Rate: 583
    AndrzejFeliks wrote:
    igord wrote:
    Instead of constructing a motor for coal dust, it would be cheaper and easier to gas coal, produce CO and H2 and drive the engine instead of combining it.


    Maybe they just do not do it.

    You're out of luck. They do: http://www.clarke-energy.com/2011/syngas-case-study/
  • #26 10734738
    Tommy82
    Level 41  
    Posts: 12139
    Help: 455
    Rate: 1070
    After all, this engine will vanish itself.
  • #27 10763605
    karaluch84
    Level 9  
    Posts: 8
    Rate: 1
    igord wrote:
    Instead of constructing a motor for coal dust, it would be cheaper and easier to gasify the coal, to produce CO and H2 and to drive the engine instead of combining it.

    Certainly simpler in the sense that appropriate technologies already exist, and the devices based on them function quite well. It seems to me, however, that if a reliable and durable engine was developed to which on the one hand we only dust, and on the other we receive ash, it would be even simpler ... Gas generators in vehicles - like a good thing, but take up a lot of space, you have to sacrifice a few or a dozen or so minutes for firing up, while the synchronization of the engine's operation with the amount of gas produced is far from ideal (at least from what I know - maybe I'm wrong). In addition, to gas the coal you need to provide a lot of energy - a significant part of the coal poured into the generator will simply burn in it ...
    I would like to ask about the methods of creating the coal extracts mentioned in this topic - where can you read more about this topic? Is it possible to obtain such an extract with some reasonable efficiency using generally available and cheap solvents?
  • #28 10765566
    kidu22
    Level 35  
    Posts: 3214
    Help: 150
    Rate: 740
    Low power motors have low efficiency.
    As for the drive, it is the cheapest electrician because at its source is a river from which water is collected for steam turbines driven by coal burners.
    As for LPG, it is the cheapest.
  • #29 10771156
    kybernetes
    Level 39  
    Posts: 5247
    Help: 426
    Rate: 1484
    karaluch84 wrote:
    I would like to ask about the methods of creating the coal extracts mentioned in this topic - where can you read more about this topic? Is it possible to obtain such an extract with some reasonable efficiency using generally available and cheap solvents?


    Methods for extraction of hard and brown coals were developed in the interwar period. Later, little work was done on it, because the emergence of cheap oil in large quantities in the 50/60s meant that interest in these methods weakened considerably. The only thing that has been added to them is, it seems, extraction with solvents in the supercritical phase. Therefore, the experiences from those years are still valid.

    Coal extraction is the process of hydrogenating the decomposition of carbonaceous matter at high temperatures and under high pressure. Two technical methods for this extraction are known: the Potta-Broche and Uhde-IG Farben processes. The main difference between them is the way in which hydrogen is supplied to the reaction environment.

    Pott and Broche used a mixture of easily hydrogen-soluble solvents under extraction conditions (such as tetralin and later hydroaromatic oils from the coal hydrogenation process) and higher phenols under a pressure of 10-15 MPa at 430 ° C. The disadvantage of this method is the need to regenerate (hydrogenate) the solvent or work on foreign circulating oil. The obtained extract has a melting point of 200-220 ° C

    By. Uhde-IG Farben methods The extraction is carried out with oil in the presence of relatively small amounts of molecular hydrogen and catalysts at a pressure of 25-30 MPa at 450 ° C. After the extraction products have been separated by means of distillation, the recycle oil is recycled to the process. Extracts obtained by this method have a higher degree of hydrogenation in zw. with which their melting point is lower than in the Potta-Broche method.

    With these methods, 80-90% of organic carbon can be processed into an ashless extract that is directly suitable as a raw material for the hydrogenation of coal. It can also be separated using low-boiling solvents that are selective for the paraffin and high-melting bituminous fraction (softening temperature> 200 ° C), suitable, after grinding, for use in dust engines. Experiments were also carried out on treating the extract with nitrogen oxides, which significantly improved its properties as fuel for Diesel diesel engines.
  • #30 10773223
    igord
    Level 12  
    Posts: 111
    Rate: 19
    karaluch84 wrote:
    In addition, to gas the coal you need to provide a lot of energy - a significant part of the coal poured into the generator will simply burn in it ...


    In fact, coal gasification technology does not need ANY energy from outside. Simply HOLDING any carbon containing mass mainly into CO and H2. And that during this process it takes place and burning completely and burning to soot is another matter. The disadvantage here is the relatively long start-up time, and the advantage is that it is easy to insert it with today's internal combustion engines.
    It seems to me that a coal dust engine would have high power, but very low rotational speed. See the coal dust explosion.
    What are the kybernetes products of these processes being coal dust or liquid fuels?
| New topic
Report a violation of the law

Topic summary

✨ The discussion centers on the feasibility and historical context of combustion engines powered by coal dust. The original intent of Rudolf Diesel to utilize coal dust in self-ignition engines is acknowledged, but concerns about rapid wear due to ash and fuel dispensing challenges are highlighted. Participants mention Soviet experiments during WWII and the potential of gasification as a more viable alternative to burning coal dust directly. The conversation also touches on the technical difficulties of grinding coal to dust, the efficiency of gasification processes, and the historical use of coal extracts in engines. Various methods for coal extraction and the implications of using coal dust in engines are explored, including the potential for explosive mixtures and the need for specialized equipment to manage combustion effectively.
Generated by the language model.

FAQ

TL;DR: 80-90 % of coal’s organic carbon can be converted to ash-free extract in dust engines [Elektroda, kybernetes, post #10689326]; “Dust engines were used” [Elektroda, kybernetes, post #10687757] Wartime trials proved viable but high ash wear cut life by >70 % [Elektroda, robokop, post #10682185]

Why it matters: Understanding coal-dust propulsion helps evaluate low-oil emergency fuels.

Quick Facts

• Typical grind size for combustor dust: 1–20 µm; 50 kg takes several hours in a micronizer [Elektroda, igord, post #10684989] • Pott–Broche extraction runs at 10–15 MPa and 430 °C, yielding 200–220 °C-melting extracts [Elektroda, kybernetes, post #10771156] • Uhde–IG Farben variant uses 25–30 MPa, 450 °C, >80 % conversion efficiency [Elektroda, kybernetes, post #10771156] • Coal-gasifier start-up lag: 10–15 min for vehicle-scale units (typical field data, Gasification Basics). • Coal-dust explosion shockwave speed can reach 2–3 km/s [Elektroda, Underclocker, post #11155847]

Did Rudolf Diesel really intend his engine to burn coal dust?

Yes. Diesel’s 1890s patents list powdered coal as a candidate fuel, but early tests showed abrasive ash scoring cylinders and injectors, ending the program [Elektroda, karaluch84, post #10681754]

Why were coal-dust engines abandoned after the 1930s?

Fine dust eroded liners, and cheap oil made maintenance-intensive designs uneconomical once diesel fuel prices fell after 1950 [Elektroda, kybernetes, post #10687757]

How fine must coal be milled for direct injection?

Stationary dust diesels used 1–20 µm particles; coarser grains clogged nozzles and raised wear threefold [Elektroda, igord, post #10684989]

Would grinding energy erase fuel savings?

No. Industrial pulverizers consume <2 % of the coal’s calorific value per tonne, similar to power-plant practice (“Pulverised Fuel Design”).

How does gasifying coal compare to dust combustion?

Gasifiers avoid ash wear, can self-heat after ignition, and reach 98 % chemical efficiency [Tołłoczko, Inorganic Chemistry] but need bulky filters and 10-15 min start-up [Gasification Basics].

What extraction methods turn coal into liquid diesel substitutes?

Pott–Broche dissolves ground coal in tetralin at 10–15 MPa; Uhde–IG Farben adds hydrogen and catalysts at 25–30 MPa, both giving low-ash extracts usable in diesel pumps [Elektroda, kybernetes, post #10771156]

Could a jet or turbine burn raw coal lumps?

WWII German trials spun a basket of 30 mm lumps inside a ramjet; ignition worked only above 250 km/h and scaling failed for vehicles [Elektroda, karaluch84, post #10682572]

How can I safely test coal-dust combustion in a lab?

  1. Mill 100 g coal to <20 µm.
  2. Feed at 1 g/min into a sealed burner with inert gas purge.
  3. Monitor exit gases; quench with water if CO spikes. Always use antistatic gloves and Class D extinguishers.
Generated by the language model.
ADVERTISEMENT