A fact from Charcoal appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 December 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As for 'sumi-e', the 'sumi' here means ink, not charcoal. They are homophones in Japanese, and the ink is made from (I believe) pine soot, but sumi-e is ink painting, not charcoal painting.
I guess the top image is from 1890, not 1990. Perhaps Meteor2017 can confirm this? -- TrygveFlathen 08:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The second picture in the Purification and Filtration section does not appear to match its caption or this article. 2603:6011:341:2B94:39E2:9E5E:E92A:22F3 ( talk) 08:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Should discuss use of charcoal in art, and mention parsemage. -- Daniel C. Boyer
Does it really make sense to say that gunpowder is "one of the most important uses"? Especially when by gunpowder we mean black powder. --conana
Should also make reference to the wide use of sedimentary charcoal in palaeoenvironmental studies, in the study of the history of fire ecology and regimes.
The external link at http://www.swuklink.com/BAAAGFDO.php is interesting but very poorly formatted and difficult to read. Anyone else agree? -- Dave C. 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
No, that link formatted fine for me. -- Syrthiss 14:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure as to how to write this, but I have heard charcoal is used in those bags where fecal matter enters on the stomach surface. To adsorb the stench of flatulence and feces?
maybe add to the top of the page the reasons for using charcoal instead of just burning wood in a fire for cooking/heating? I assume the removal of the water and other components allows charcoal to burn to a higher temperature, but am not sure. 66.92.173.28 19:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That and the fact that the product of its combustion is mainly carbon dioxide, hence, very little smoke. Regular wood gives off a good ammount of steam and unburnt carbon particles (soot) in the smoke.
Is the use of charcoal contributing to global warming? Since it gives off carbon dioxide, will it soon be removed from the market?
I came to this page to say exactly this. The article describes lots of things that charcoal has been used for over the years, but nowhere does it say why people started using it in the first place instead of just continuing to burn wood. Etymology and Method of production are important, but not as important as "Why" 69.245.81.97 ( talk) 00:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
"Under average conditions, 100 parts of wood yield about 60 parts by volume, or 25 parts by weight, of charcoal; small scale production on the spot often yields only about 50%, large scale was efficient to about 90% even by the 17th century."
What does the 50% and 90% refer to here?
It probably means that 90% by weight of the carbon in the wood remained as charcoal, but unless that's cited, I really dont' know whether that should be included in the article -- 204.169.28.98 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me the basic difference between charcoal dust and coal dust produced during mining (i.e. steam coal dust) whether charcoal dust can be used in place of steam coal dust in foundry sand addition?
Nitin Poddar
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coal_dust"
I think you probably can, unless it's bad for your eyes.
DarkestMoonlight ( talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
See above.
DarkestMoonlight ( talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that a new little section be added to strictly talk about charcoal in art. There is quite a bit to talk about, and maybe include a picture. 68.114.63.51 14:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
can body tell me please where you can find charcoal
i really need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.170.7 ( talk) 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This page should include a link to "Wood Gas" and to "Pyrolysis". The pyrolysis of wood produces a solid; the charcoal, and also gasses; the "wood gasses". These are all related concepts. I haven't figured out how to add links or I would do it myself. Alexander Selkirk Alexselkirk1704 ( talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There should be more details given on how charcoal is made. If not a whole section, at least a link should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.230.55 ( talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I would agree. I came to the page curious about how its actually produced, but its not explained. If someone knows, it would be a nice addition to the page. 207.115.84.2 ( talk) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, perhaps useful is a small text I made at http://www.appropedia.org/Charcoal_making 81.242.235.99 ( talk) 09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"Under average conditions, 100 parts of wood yield about 60 parts by volume, or 25 parts by weight, of charcoal; small scale production on the spot often yields only about 50%, large scale was efficient to about 90% even by the 17th century. The operation is so delicate that it was generally left to colliers (professional charcoal burners), who often worked in isolated groups in the woods and had a rather bad social reputation."
This clearly needs a citation, and it's certainly not in the Henry Ford reference.-- AaronRosenberg ( talk) 00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Charcoal can be given by a doctor to a patient to absorb poisons in the patient's stomach. For example, if a patient attempts suicide by overdosing on some kinds of medicine, after inducing vomiting, getting the patient to swallow charcoal can help by the charcoal absorbing poisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaydell ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it can, although many doctors would prefer to use the activated form...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_carbon. 203.184.2.183 ( talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the US patent office Ellsworth B.A. Zwoyer patented the Charcoal Briquette in 1897. (Design Patent Number D27483) He started the Zwoyer Fuel Company following WWI. This patent predates the Ford story of Charcoal invention in 1920 by 23 years.
The "wood colliers" term is interesting. I wonder if there is any connection with the Scots Gaelic word "coille", meaning wood or small forest. Gordonjcp ( talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a sentence or three on the question "what was the point of charcoal, originally?". I.e., there are many uses and advantages listed that apply to modern times (medicinal, art supplies, production of chemicals, filtration, etc etc), but in terms of burning it for fuel, what was (and is) the advantage to burning off a large percentage of the energy in the wood, especially in places where wood is scarce and the processing isn't easy, etc.? Is it simply that it burns with less smoke? Thanks! Chconnor ( talk) 04:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
May have answered my own question? -- apparently the advantage is the lightness of charcoal for transporting from centers of fuel production to faraway destinations? Early uses are listed (e.g. metallurgy) but in terms of burning for simple fuel, the ease of transportation seems worth mentioning (if in fact it's correct). Otherwise it doesn't make much sense to waste the energy in producing charcoal from wood. Also, the first paragraph under "History" seems ambigious about the percentages given: "efficient" in what sense? The reduction of volume or weight or energy in the wood? Sorry to just critique, but I don't know enough to make the edits myself. Chconnor ( talk) 06:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph on the supposed health effects of using "charcoal briquettes" in third world countries because first of all it is a health issue, not charcoal subject matter. Secondly, the "briquettes" used for cooking are NOT charcoal, they are coal or coke with fillers in them. This is the article on CHARCOAL not coke. There is already enough confusion among the population about what charcoal is, let's not increase by taling about coal products in an article on charcoal. Coal and charcoal are different things. Thirdly the paragraph was NPOV and patronising towards poor countries. John Chamberlain ( talk) 20:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
COULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME IF USING CHARCOAL IN A GRILL TO COOK, IS IT HARMFUL FUMES GOING INTO OUR MEAT?????? THEY SAY THE BLACK PART OF A CHARCOAL GIVES OFF TOXIC FUMES INTO OUR MEAT. THANK YOU, KATE — Preceding unsigned comment added by KATEDONTKNOW ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't "shout". Real charcoal is certainly not harmful, modern charcoal briquettes, I am not so sure about
IceDragon64 ( talk) 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we have some dates in the History part. When was Charcoal first used, when was it used in various places, that kind of thing.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Degradation section is unclear. What temerature is rised? And what is the name of the bacteria that degrades charcoal (wiki link says that the name diplococcus only describe bacteria's shape)? 78.88.118.112 ( talk) 14:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Charcoal. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The present text states, without source, that charcoal burns at up to 2,700 degrees C, which is much higher than the melting temperature of iron (1,500). I don't know what is the absolute maximum burning temperature of charcoal, but in historical times a temperature as high as 2,700 was never achieved. A traditional charcoal smelting furnace, with bellows, could only achieve about 1,300, which was high enough to soften iron or iron ore, but not to melt it. For that reason in Europe iron and steel could not be melted and cast, but only beaten and welded on an anvil, before about 1300 A.D. In China, cast iron was produced earlier due to the use of larger blast furnaces with continuously blown air, but even these probably could not quite reach 1500, the melting point of pure iron. Cast iron contains a significant proportion of carbon, absorbed from the charcoal, which reduces its melting point. Maybe in modern furnaces, using pure oxygen, and with excellent thermal insulation, temperatures as high as 2700 can be reached, but if so I would like to see a source for this. 109.150.75.22 ( talk) 13:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
In reading this article, I noticed that the "History" section of the page cites only one source in the last 2 sentences. The rest is entirely unsourced, and according to the template, has been for 6 years. I've removed the offending information per WP:USI, which states that "unsourced information can be boldly removed". I don't think there's anything bold about removing information that hasn't been verified in over half a decade, but if anyone disagrees with my edit, please post here. FadyP ( talk) 13:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Currently (as of me writing this), the first "ash" word of the article, links to Ash (analytical chemistry) but I'm not sure if this is correct and whether it should be Ash instead. Mikkeli22 ( talk) 15:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charcoal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems at the top of the article we want to articulate the function/benefit/purpose of charcoal. It is very likely to be enabling higher temperatures (e.g. for heat engine efficiency), and also compactness of combustion chamber, but we need the real charcoal experts to provide this info. We need the people to come to expect the fundamental info first, and all the mountains of peripheral info second. This is only common sense. Rtdrury ( talk) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The section "Cosmetic Use of Bamboo Charcoal" could be moved into a subsection of "Purification and Filtration" or rename the two as "activated carbon" or something similar. This is burning "bamboo" to obtain "bamboo" charcoal to essentially obtain "bamboo" activated carbon/charcoal. The mentioned "highly effective absorbing properties at a microscopic-state/fine-grained level" is essentially from the properties of activated carbon i.e. "high degree of microporosity" and "high surface area" as mentioned in Activated carbon. This is per the definition "Charcoal is the lightweight black carbon and ash residue hydrocarbon produced by removing water and other volatile constituents from animal and vegetation substances." where bamboo is the vegetative substance. --- Joedf ( talk) 17:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
How come there is no information about charcoal's chemical composition and structure? Is that available in some other wikiarticle? -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 22:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charcoal pile which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 23 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lavender4095 ( article contribs).
A fact from Charcoal appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 December 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As for 'sumi-e', the 'sumi' here means ink, not charcoal. They are homophones in Japanese, and the ink is made from (I believe) pine soot, but sumi-e is ink painting, not charcoal painting.
I guess the top image is from 1890, not 1990. Perhaps Meteor2017 can confirm this? -- TrygveFlathen 08:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The second picture in the Purification and Filtration section does not appear to match its caption or this article. 2603:6011:341:2B94:39E2:9E5E:E92A:22F3 ( talk) 08:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Should discuss use of charcoal in art, and mention parsemage. -- Daniel C. Boyer
Does it really make sense to say that gunpowder is "one of the most important uses"? Especially when by gunpowder we mean black powder. --conana
Should also make reference to the wide use of sedimentary charcoal in palaeoenvironmental studies, in the study of the history of fire ecology and regimes.
The external link at http://www.swuklink.com/BAAAGFDO.php is interesting but very poorly formatted and difficult to read. Anyone else agree? -- Dave C. 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
No, that link formatted fine for me. -- Syrthiss 14:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure as to how to write this, but I have heard charcoal is used in those bags where fecal matter enters on the stomach surface. To adsorb the stench of flatulence and feces?
maybe add to the top of the page the reasons for using charcoal instead of just burning wood in a fire for cooking/heating? I assume the removal of the water and other components allows charcoal to burn to a higher temperature, but am not sure. 66.92.173.28 19:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That and the fact that the product of its combustion is mainly carbon dioxide, hence, very little smoke. Regular wood gives off a good ammount of steam and unburnt carbon particles (soot) in the smoke.
Is the use of charcoal contributing to global warming? Since it gives off carbon dioxide, will it soon be removed from the market?
I came to this page to say exactly this. The article describes lots of things that charcoal has been used for over the years, but nowhere does it say why people started using it in the first place instead of just continuing to burn wood. Etymology and Method of production are important, but not as important as "Why" 69.245.81.97 ( talk) 00:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
"Under average conditions, 100 parts of wood yield about 60 parts by volume, or 25 parts by weight, of charcoal; small scale production on the spot often yields only about 50%, large scale was efficient to about 90% even by the 17th century."
What does the 50% and 90% refer to here?
It probably means that 90% by weight of the carbon in the wood remained as charcoal, but unless that's cited, I really dont' know whether that should be included in the article -- 204.169.28.98 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me the basic difference between charcoal dust and coal dust produced during mining (i.e. steam coal dust) whether charcoal dust can be used in place of steam coal dust in foundry sand addition?
Nitin Poddar
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coal_dust"
I think you probably can, unless it's bad for your eyes.
DarkestMoonlight ( talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
See above.
DarkestMoonlight ( talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that a new little section be added to strictly talk about charcoal in art. There is quite a bit to talk about, and maybe include a picture. 68.114.63.51 14:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
can body tell me please where you can find charcoal
i really need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.170.7 ( talk) 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This page should include a link to "Wood Gas" and to "Pyrolysis". The pyrolysis of wood produces a solid; the charcoal, and also gasses; the "wood gasses". These are all related concepts. I haven't figured out how to add links or I would do it myself. Alexander Selkirk Alexselkirk1704 ( talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There should be more details given on how charcoal is made. If not a whole section, at least a link should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.230.55 ( talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I would agree. I came to the page curious about how its actually produced, but its not explained. If someone knows, it would be a nice addition to the page. 207.115.84.2 ( talk) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, perhaps useful is a small text I made at http://www.appropedia.org/Charcoal_making 81.242.235.99 ( talk) 09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"Under average conditions, 100 parts of wood yield about 60 parts by volume, or 25 parts by weight, of charcoal; small scale production on the spot often yields only about 50%, large scale was efficient to about 90% even by the 17th century. The operation is so delicate that it was generally left to colliers (professional charcoal burners), who often worked in isolated groups in the woods and had a rather bad social reputation."
This clearly needs a citation, and it's certainly not in the Henry Ford reference.-- AaronRosenberg ( talk) 00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Charcoal can be given by a doctor to a patient to absorb poisons in the patient's stomach. For example, if a patient attempts suicide by overdosing on some kinds of medicine, after inducing vomiting, getting the patient to swallow charcoal can help by the charcoal absorbing poisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaydell ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it can, although many doctors would prefer to use the activated form...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_carbon. 203.184.2.183 ( talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the US patent office Ellsworth B.A. Zwoyer patented the Charcoal Briquette in 1897. (Design Patent Number D27483) He started the Zwoyer Fuel Company following WWI. This patent predates the Ford story of Charcoal invention in 1920 by 23 years.
The "wood colliers" term is interesting. I wonder if there is any connection with the Scots Gaelic word "coille", meaning wood or small forest. Gordonjcp ( talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a sentence or three on the question "what was the point of charcoal, originally?". I.e., there are many uses and advantages listed that apply to modern times (medicinal, art supplies, production of chemicals, filtration, etc etc), but in terms of burning it for fuel, what was (and is) the advantage to burning off a large percentage of the energy in the wood, especially in places where wood is scarce and the processing isn't easy, etc.? Is it simply that it burns with less smoke? Thanks! Chconnor ( talk) 04:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
May have answered my own question? -- apparently the advantage is the lightness of charcoal for transporting from centers of fuel production to faraway destinations? Early uses are listed (e.g. metallurgy) but in terms of burning for simple fuel, the ease of transportation seems worth mentioning (if in fact it's correct). Otherwise it doesn't make much sense to waste the energy in producing charcoal from wood. Also, the first paragraph under "History" seems ambigious about the percentages given: "efficient" in what sense? The reduction of volume or weight or energy in the wood? Sorry to just critique, but I don't know enough to make the edits myself. Chconnor ( talk) 06:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph on the supposed health effects of using "charcoal briquettes" in third world countries because first of all it is a health issue, not charcoal subject matter. Secondly, the "briquettes" used for cooking are NOT charcoal, they are coal or coke with fillers in them. This is the article on CHARCOAL not coke. There is already enough confusion among the population about what charcoal is, let's not increase by taling about coal products in an article on charcoal. Coal and charcoal are different things. Thirdly the paragraph was NPOV and patronising towards poor countries. John Chamberlain ( talk) 20:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
COULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME IF USING CHARCOAL IN A GRILL TO COOK, IS IT HARMFUL FUMES GOING INTO OUR MEAT?????? THEY SAY THE BLACK PART OF A CHARCOAL GIVES OFF TOXIC FUMES INTO OUR MEAT. THANK YOU, KATE — Preceding unsigned comment added by KATEDONTKNOW ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't "shout". Real charcoal is certainly not harmful, modern charcoal briquettes, I am not so sure about
IceDragon64 ( talk) 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we have some dates in the History part. When was Charcoal first used, when was it used in various places, that kind of thing.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Degradation section is unclear. What temerature is rised? And what is the name of the bacteria that degrades charcoal (wiki link says that the name diplococcus only describe bacteria's shape)? 78.88.118.112 ( talk) 14:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Charcoal. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The present text states, without source, that charcoal burns at up to 2,700 degrees C, which is much higher than the melting temperature of iron (1,500). I don't know what is the absolute maximum burning temperature of charcoal, but in historical times a temperature as high as 2,700 was never achieved. A traditional charcoal smelting furnace, with bellows, could only achieve about 1,300, which was high enough to soften iron or iron ore, but not to melt it. For that reason in Europe iron and steel could not be melted and cast, but only beaten and welded on an anvil, before about 1300 A.D. In China, cast iron was produced earlier due to the use of larger blast furnaces with continuously blown air, but even these probably could not quite reach 1500, the melting point of pure iron. Cast iron contains a significant proportion of carbon, absorbed from the charcoal, which reduces its melting point. Maybe in modern furnaces, using pure oxygen, and with excellent thermal insulation, temperatures as high as 2700 can be reached, but if so I would like to see a source for this. 109.150.75.22 ( talk) 13:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
In reading this article, I noticed that the "History" section of the page cites only one source in the last 2 sentences. The rest is entirely unsourced, and according to the template, has been for 6 years. I've removed the offending information per WP:USI, which states that "unsourced information can be boldly removed". I don't think there's anything bold about removing information that hasn't been verified in over half a decade, but if anyone disagrees with my edit, please post here. FadyP ( talk) 13:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Currently (as of me writing this), the first "ash" word of the article, links to Ash (analytical chemistry) but I'm not sure if this is correct and whether it should be Ash instead. Mikkeli22 ( talk) 15:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charcoal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems at the top of the article we want to articulate the function/benefit/purpose of charcoal. It is very likely to be enabling higher temperatures (e.g. for heat engine efficiency), and also compactness of combustion chamber, but we need the real charcoal experts to provide this info. We need the people to come to expect the fundamental info first, and all the mountains of peripheral info second. This is only common sense. Rtdrury ( talk) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The section "Cosmetic Use of Bamboo Charcoal" could be moved into a subsection of "Purification and Filtration" or rename the two as "activated carbon" or something similar. This is burning "bamboo" to obtain "bamboo" charcoal to essentially obtain "bamboo" activated carbon/charcoal. The mentioned "highly effective absorbing properties at a microscopic-state/fine-grained level" is essentially from the properties of activated carbon i.e. "high degree of microporosity" and "high surface area" as mentioned in Activated carbon. This is per the definition "Charcoal is the lightweight black carbon and ash residue hydrocarbon produced by removing water and other volatile constituents from animal and vegetation substances." where bamboo is the vegetative substance. --- Joedf ( talk) 17:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
How come there is no information about charcoal's chemical composition and structure? Is that available in some other wikiarticle? -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 22:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charcoal pile which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 23 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lavender4095 ( article contribs).