First of all, wood can be broken down into three elements: carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. To create fire you need heat, fuel and oxygen. By providing the wood you have fuel and since it contains oxygen, you have that as well. By raising the heat of it enough, even in a vacuum you are eventually going to cause it to spontaneously combust before any of those elements melt. So in short wood cannot melt before it starts burning.
No wood does not burn better than charcoal. In charcoal there are no particles that do not burn hence it gives you a clean flame.
no
We work at a lab testing wood and charcoal burning stoves. Charcoal doesn't burn hotter than wood in a stove. That's why it's better for broiling not burning steaks. Charcoal is used in lots of places like African cities because it makes little smoke and keeps burning for a long time which is more convenient than wood that requires tending. Also charcoal can be made and sold by the rural poor to the urbanites who have more money. And charcoal is lighter than wood for transport. However, more than half of the energy in the wood is wasted when turning wood into charcoal! From an ecological perspective it's a lot better to burn wood cleanly. Charcoal is almost pure carbon ... no moisture, no extraneous chemicals. But don't forget, charcoal is a residue ... a lot of wood was burned to make it.
1. It release less smoke whereas wood releases a lot. 2. It has greater efficiency of producing heat than the wood.
because it is not better than wood.
I think carbonisation is the word, the end result is charcoal.
Wood
well the answer to this is charcoal will burn better than wood because wood does not release gases that help the coal burn longer.
We work at a lab testing wood and charcoal burning stoves. Charcoal doesn't burn hotter than wood in a stove. That's why it's better for broiling not burning steaks. Charcoal is used in lots of places like African cities because it makes little smoke and keeps burning for a long time which is more convenient than wood that requires tending. Also charcoal can be made and sold by the rural poor to the urbanites who have more money. And charcoal is lighter than wood for transport. However, more than half of the energy in the wood is wasted when turning wood into charcoal! From an ecological perspective it's a lot better to burn wood cleanly. Charcoal is almost pure carbon ... no moisture, no extraneous chemicals. But don't forget, charcoal is a residue ... a lot of wood was burned to make it.
No they do not. to make charcoal you burn wood
Both. Heated wood gives off gasses that burn. Charcoal (carbon) will also burn.
Yes. Charcoal is produced by burning wood in kilns that restrict the oxygen, so causing the wood to smoulder rather than burn. It is renewable as tree planting and forestry is continuous.
Petrified wood- wood that has turned to stone. Any other wood WILL burn, some better than others.
1. It release less smoke whereas wood releases a lot. 2. It has greater efficiency of producing heat than the wood.
Ghk,guk gtujftn ftujhfvg dfryhdfb
The main difference is in the fuel source, and honestly, most of that is up to personal preference. With a charcoal grill, you get less control but more flavor depending on what material you burn. A gas grill allows for excellent control, but lacks some of the characteristic "grill" taste of charcoal. A ceramic grill may be a nice compromise because it functions at very high temperatures while still allowing for maximum flavor.
You can place coal in the furnace, then place any wood on the top slot to burn it to charcoal, or use a wood log on the bottom slot and one at the top and it'll burn that way as well.
Depending on what you mean by "better", it doesn't burn better. It might burn longer but it is much harder to ignite, and does not burn as hot as less-dense wood.
Char or charcoal is the remaining portion of the wood material that contains unburnable minerals and pure carbon. Charcoal fire emits no smoke as it is the residue of the wood as carbon without the gases