Welcome, Guest

Shop Amazon.com and support the WKC | WKC T-Shirts

Author Topic: Charcoal weight vs volume  (Read 3232 times)

austin87

  • WKC Ranger
  • Posts: 1542
Charcoal weight vs volume
« on: March 01, 2015, 10:15:34 PM »
Grillfellas, I am using some new lump vs KBB http://weberkettleclub.com/forums/grilling-bbqing/anyone-use-fogo-charcoal/ and I also got in on the Lowe's deal for Coshell Coconut Briqs at approx 6 20lb bags for $20.

My question is - what's a better apples to apples measurement of fuel - volume or weight? KBB Briqs have fillers, so a weight comparison might be off compared to pure lump. Most people measure by volume (full chimney, half chimney, etc.,). I wonder if irregularly shaped lump is close to an equal weight of standard briqs if volume is the same. Has anyone done any tests or have any input here? For reference this thread made me think more about the weight vs volume question http://weberkettleclub.com/forums/weber-kettles-accessories/royal-oak-insanity/

I don't have the right type of scale to test reliably but am curious enough to consider buying one if no one else has an answer.

Jammato

  • WKC Ranger
  • Posts: 543
Re: Charcoal weight vs volume
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2015, 08:57:25 AM »
Austin
When comparing anything to KBB you have to realise you are comparing to the most engineered charcoal on the planet.(well maybe, lets say the most engineered charcoal for backyard cooking) They have worked to make the product easy to use, have maximum amount of surface area,(those imprinted K's) be able to read when it is ready (that additive is for that) and to burn very consistent. They have it down to a science and are still trying to improve the product. It is good stuff, but it also has it's drawbacks, like additives.
Kingsford is not a all wood charcoal, it also contains anthracite coal, added to make the coal burn hotter, Limestone or other mineral to make it turn white when burning, starches to help it bind together and a few other additives used in the processing of the product.
The main ingredient is sawdust that they actually dry to a char, not burn as in the normal process of making charcoal, they make it in a retort.
Once mixed they get the moister content to 35% to press the briquettes and then dry them down to somewhere around 4 % and package.
It is a very stable product to use.
I am not saying that it is everyones choice, as a lot of guys do not like the additives, but it all burns down in the end pretty darn evenly and that is why it is number one in the good ole USA. did no say the best, just the best engineered and numero uno in sales.
Now Coshell is a very green product, made of coconut husk. They say shell but that is misleading as it is actually made from the husk, every coconut has this thick fibrous husk that needs to be removed and the shell is underneath. At any coconut processing plant in the world you will find huge mounds of the husk which now are being turned into charcoal and is a renewable source as compared to chopping down trees. However the husk is fibrous so you will not see lump coshell, it is therefore made into a briquette. and that means adding a starch as a binder, but then starch is natural so they can claim it is a 100% natural product because it does not contain coal or limestone.

that means KBB and Coshell should be of a similar density at the same amount of dryness Kbb may weigh a bit more because of the mineral content.

How hot coconut shell burns as compared to sawdust, I cannot say, but KBB does have a hot burning coal in it.
Do you want to cook over real coal like in KBB? That is up to you

Now lump charcoal is normally made it a retort commercially but beginning product is large pieces of wood or bark that they end up with a product they do not need to grind down to make briquettes from, they just bag the end product, weigh up a cubic foot of lump, and one of briquettes and the lump is lighter, it is not as dense. A lot of people complain about lump burning unevenly because of the multiple sizes it comes in. Others swear by the stuff. I am sure this post will be discussed because of that, I use lump and briquettes, in different paces.

If we were meant to grill with gas then the garden of Eden would have had a pipeline

Jammato

  • WKC Ranger
  • Posts: 543
Re: Charcoal weight vs volume
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2015, 09:12:50 AM »
So as far as volume vs equal weight? I would have to say lump takes a bit more volume because of the density compared to briquettes. Remember briquettes were developed to be even and easy to judge. I read once that the difference in density was 6 to one but I find that figure a bit flaky.
As far as KBB being equal to Coshell, I think that would have to be done by using a lab and testing BTU values, I mean KBB has rock in it as a visual modifier, but it also has coal to burn hotter. does the coal offset the rock not burning? does the rock retain heat?
We could go on for quite a time here, my advice is to experiment till you find what you like.

I like KBB for it,s ease of use and evenness of the burn. I also use RoyalOak and Coshell. for the same reason. It is a matter of what is on sale when I stock up. I can buy KBB any day at around 50 cents a pound, when the sales start I go after bang for the buck and can get charcoal for as low as 25 cents a pound.

I also keep a bit of lump around but only buy that when on sale. I like to use it but it seems I have gotten my best results using briquettes.

I keep around apple wood chunks I get from the apple growing valley about 50 miles from the house, every year I get a few hundred pounds and chunk it up and let dry, and I harvest a good amount of mesquite from trees I have planted around my property. I chunk that. I do not believe that you get much wood taste from charcoal as all the aromatics should have been burnt of during the carcoalling process so I use chunks of wood.

my advice to you is to experiment with your grill/smoker/bbq and different fuels to find what works the best for you, and keep some notes.
Everyone seems to get different results according to equipment, climate and style.

Hope these post helped

 
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 09:19:21 AM by Jammato »
If we were meant to grill with gas then the garden of Eden would have had a pipeline

Troy

  • Statesman
  • Posts: 9479
Re: Charcoal weight vs volume
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2015, 09:52:00 AM »
if you're trying to scientifically calculate anything - use weight.

Johnpv

  • WKC Ranger
  • Posts: 653
Re: Charcoal weight vs volume
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2015, 10:28:07 AM »
Now lump charcoal is normally made it a retort commercially but beginning product is large pieces of wood or bark that they end up with a product they do not need to grind down to make briquettes from, they just bag the end product, weigh up a cubic foot of lump, and one of briquettes and the lump is lighter, it is not as dense. A lot of people complain about lump burning unevenly because of the multiple sizes it comes in. Others swear by the stuff. I am sure this post will be discussed because of that, I use lump and briquettes, in different paces.

The density of the lump is going to totally depend on the the wood you start with.  Start with a really dense heavy wood and you'll end up with a dense heavy lump.  Like binchōtan, which is made from a very dense Oak.   Or even stuff like Wicked Good, which is considerably denser than the stuff from say Cowboy lump or Royal Oak. 

IMHO the higher the quality of the lump the better it'll be.  Denser lump burns hotter, and longer compared to less dense lump.