I have noticed that when I burn wood it leaves little ash but when I
burn mostly tree bark, that it leaves a volume of ash that is about 5
times greater than wood. I have asked this question before with no
answer. What is the element or chemical compound in tree bark versus
tree wood that explains this difference. Is it potassium that the
potassium compounds are metabolized into the bark.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

wrote:
I have noticed that when I burn wood it leaves little ash but
when I burn mostly tree bark, that it leaves a volume of ash
that is about 5 times greater than wood. -=-

$$ Your bark is 5 times worse than your bite.
$$ Your bark burns about 5 times less efficiently than your wood.
$$ Perhaps this helps. ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).

-=- I have asked this question before with no
answer. What is the element or chemical compound in tree bark
versus tree wood that explains this difference. Is it potassium
that the potassium compounds are metabolized into the bark.

Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
element or compound in tree bark that it burns with too much ash.

Yes, you always make a complete ash of yourself when you smoke that wacky
wildwood weed, Archie!!!!

Why don't you do an elemental astrological analysis of it using your
continuum transfunctioner?

Most likely it will be your very own element: halfassium!!


wrote in message
oups.com...
I have noticed that when I burn wood it leaves little ash but when I
burn mostly tree bark, that it leaves a volume of ash that is about 5
times greater than wood. I have asked this question before with no
answer. What is the element or chemical compound in tree bark versus
tree wood that explains this difference. Is it potassium that the
potassium compounds are metabolized into the bark.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Presumably, the bark is less pure cellulose than the wood, cellulose
ought to burn with no ash, going to CO2, H2O. The bark probably has
lots and lots of compounds in it, I don't know what myself, but
anything with Na, K, Ca, Mg would presumably leave ash.

P.S. For some of those who needed to make wisecracks about a
more-or-less reasonable question, you are a much worse contributor to
dreck on this board than Archimedes. I'll take this question over
babbling about RELATiViTY that doesn't have anything to do with
chemistry anyways, any day of the year.

At least we don't have marks on our knees like some crybaby who shall go
unmentioned. If you want to be one of Archie's fool sycophants, that's your
problem.

Obviously, tree bark may be contaminated by soil and dirt particles from the
environment. There is no hidden mystical meaning behind it.


"Mark Kness" wrote in message
oups.com...
Presumably, the bark is less pure cellulose than the wood, cellulose
ought to burn with no ash, going to CO2, H2O. The bark probably has
lots and lots of compounds in it, I don't know what myself, but
anything with Na, K, Ca, Mg would presumably leave ash.

P.S. For some of those who needed to make wisecracks about a
more-or-less reasonable question, you are a much worse contributor to
dreck on this board than Archimedes. I'll take this question over
babbling about RELATiViTY that doesn't have anything to do with
chemistry anyways, any day of the year.

Dan wrote:
Soil and Dirt particles?! Is that a scientific analysis? Contaminated?
Do you see many pure celulose trees?

Ideally, you should get CO2 and H2O, but nothing's ideal. You don't get
enough Oxygen to get such efficient burning, so, you get a lot of
charcoal (near pure carbon), as well as lots of other stuff like
nitrates and salts that are absorbed from the soil.

We know this because ash used to be the main source of nitrates

I strongly doubt that. Nitrates would not survive high temperatues (of
burning wood) especially in the presence of organic matter. Wood ash is
indeed rich in what we call as
pot-ash and hence the name potassium.

An analysis of Oak/Beech/Bracken tree ash was published Archaeometry
Volume 47 Page 781 - November 2005. The results for Oak tree ash:
%
SiO2- 14.62
TiO2 - 0.06
Al2O3 - 0.76
Fe2O3- 0.65
MnO 6.35
MgO 6.87
CaO 31.06
Na2O 0.40
K2O 18.80
P2O5 12.87
SO3 1.09
Co 15.5
Ni 75.7
Cu 178.5
Zn 2112.4
Ge 3.0
As 1.9
Se 1.3
Br 3.4
Rb 107.9
Sr 533.6
Y 3.0
Zr 41.6
Nb 1.6
Mo 6.5
Ag 1.0
Sn 7.5
Ba 3560.3
Pb 46.1
Th 0.4
U 4.7




You could look at some analytical techniques ot detect levels of such
nitrates and salts, which should be fairly straight forward, but I'm a
chemoinformatician not an analyst....

Happy Ashin'

Dan.

ahahaha... ahahahaha... Hey, yo!.. Farooq!.... ahahahaha...
That is some kind of super Oak you've burnt there... along
with some high class Ph.D. chemist doing his over-unit analysis:
%
Sr 533.6
Ba 3560.3
Pb 46.1
Zn 2112.4
Eating this ash ought to be good for prostate problems (Zn)
.... and great for/as an X-ray contrast medium (Ba & Sr).
The Lead (Pb) might be a problem, however there appears
to be sufficient P2O5 and SiO2 present to from very, very
insoluble Pb-products. Still the enviro shits will declare this
to a be a very toxic and hazardous substance... while levying
and assessing you with permit charges, user fees and enviro
surtaxes... even if you never make or sell any of this miraculous
ash... and then the tree huggers will sue you for having burnt
such a valuable and endangered plant which has sucked up and
decontaminated so more than its possible share of toxic
substances from the environment thru'/via its bio remediation....
ahahahahaha.. Thanks for the laughs, Farooq.... ahahahaha.....
ahahaha... ahahahanson

"Farooq W" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan wrote:
Soil and Dirt particles?! Is that a scientific analysis? Contaminated?
Do you see many pure celulose trees?

Ideally, you should get CO2 and H2O, but nothing's ideal. You don't get
enough Oxygen to get such efficient burning, so, you get a lot of
charcoal (near pure carbon), as well as lots of other stuff like
nitrates and salts that are absorbed from the soil.
You could look at some analytical techniques ot detect levels of such
nitrates and salts, which should be fairly straight forward, but I'm a
chemoinformatician not an analyst....
We know this because ash used to be the main source of nitrates
Happy Ashin'
Dan.

[Farooq]
I strongly doubt that. Nitrates would not survive high temperatues (of
burning wood) especially in the presence of organic matter. Wood
ash is indeed rich in what we call as pot-ash and hence the name
potassium.

An analysis of Oak/Beech/Bracken tree ash was published Archaeometry
Volume 47 Page 781 - November 2005. The results for Oak tree ash:
%
SiO2- 14.62
TiO2 - 0.06
Al2O3 - 0.76
Fe2O3- 0.65
MnO 6.35
MgO 6.87
CaO 31.06
Na2O 0.40
K2O 18.80
P2O5 12.87
SO3 1.09
Co 15.5
Ni 75.7
Cu 178.5
Zn 2112.4
Ge 3.0
As 1.9
Se 1.3
Br 3.4
Rb 107.9
Sr 533.6
Y 3.0
Zr 41.6
Nb 1.6
Mo 6.5
Ag 1.0
Sn 7.5
Ba 3560.3
Pb 46.1
Th 0.4
U 4.7

In article .com,
Farooq W wrote:

Dan wrote:
Soil and Dirt particles?! Is that a scientific analysis? Contaminated?
Do you see many pure celulose trees?

Ideally, you should get CO2 and H2O, but nothing's ideal. You don't get
enough Oxygen to get such efficient burning, so, you get a lot of
charcoal (near pure carbon), as well as lots of other stuff like
nitrates and salts that are absorbed from the soil.

We know this because ash used to be the main source of nitrates

I strongly doubt that. Nitrates would not survive high temperatues (of
burning wood) especially in the presence of organic matter. Wood ash is
indeed rich in what we call as
pot-ash and hence the name potassium.

Yeah. The potassium nitrate for gunpowder came from under old
manure piles. Potash was used for making soap, historically, since
wood ash was more accessible than lye before industrial chmistry.

An analysis of Oak/Beech/Bracken tree ash was published Archaeometry
Volume 47 Page 781 - November 2005. The results for Oak tree ash:
%
SiO2- 14.62
TiO2 - 0.06
Al2O3 - 0.76
Fe2O3- 0.65
MnO 6.35
MgO 6.87
CaO 31.06
Na2O 0.40
K2O 18.80
P2O5 12.87
SO3 1.09

This much is reasonable -- I'd expect high K and Ca, but the P and Si
are a bit of a surprise. I suspect the Si came from the bracken, since
some ferns (and notably the non-fern horsetail (Equisetum) concentrate
silica, or perhaps it's from dirt. Maybe that explains the high P, too.
While wood ash is an excellent source of K, it usually regarded as only
a moderate source of P, for fertilizer. Non-woody material is higher
in P, Mg and other elements important to plant nutrition.

Not sure what Archaeometry is, but if it's analysis of ancient materials,
the high silica may be due to infiltration from the soil, an early stage
in fossilization. If these numbers come from the residue from an ancient
forest fire, it would explain the higher levels of plant nutrients, since
a lot of live green material would have been included.

Co 15.5
Ni 75.7
Cu 178.5
Zn 2112.4
Ge 3.0
As 1.9
Se 1.3
Br 3.4
Rb 107.9
Sr 533.6
Y 3.0
Zr 41.6
Nb 1.6
Mo 6.5
Ag 1.0
Sn 7.5
Ba 3560.3
Pb 46.1
Th 0.4
U 4.7

I suspect these are in ppt or more likely ppm, rather than %, or we'd be
giving up mining in favor of forestry. The amounts of these trace
elements probably vary a lot with the composition of the soil in which
the plants grew.

As for Mr. Plutonium, I can say from personal experience that yes, bark
gives more ash than wood, because it contains more minerals than wood.
Apparently trees don't pull as much good stuff out of bark cells as they
die as they do from the cells that become wood. Note also that hardwood
generally produces far more ash than softwood, at least for the North
American temperate species I'm familiar with. "Tree" is a descriptive
term, unrelated to phylogeny. Trees have evolved many times from different
lineages, and conifer trees are unrelated to angiosperm trees.

wrote:
In article .com,
Farooq W wrote:

Dan wrote:
Soil and Dirt particles?! Is that a scientific analysis? Contaminated?
Do you see many pure celulose trees?

Ideally, you should get CO2 and H2O, but nothing's ideal. You don't get
enough Oxygen to get such efficient burning, so, you get a lot of
charcoal (near pure carbon), as well as lots of other stuff like
nitrates and salts that are absorbed from the soil.

We know this because ash used to be the main source of nitrates

I strongly doubt that. Nitrates would not survive high temperatues (of
burning wood) especially in the presence of organic matter. Wood ash is
indeed rich in what we call as
pot-ash and hence the name potassium.

Yeah. The potassium nitrate for gunpowder came from under old
manure piles. Potash was used for making soap, historically, since
wood ash was more accessible than lye before industrial chmistry.

An analysis of Oak/Beech/Bracken tree ash was published Archaeometry
Volume 47 Page 781 - November 2005. The results for Oak tree ash:

This article is available online (free) at

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...4.2005.00232.x

%
SiO2- 14.62
TiO2 - 0.06
Al2O3 - 0.76
Fe2O3- 0.65
MnO 6.35
MgO 6.87
CaO 31.06
Na2O 0.40
K2O 18.80
P2O5 12.87
SO3 1.09

This much is reasonable -- I'd expect high K and Ca, but the P and Si
are a bit of a surprise. I suspect the Si came from the bracken, since
some ferns (and notably the non-fern horsetail (Equisetum) concentrate
silica, or perhaps it's from dirt. Maybe that explains the high P, too.
While wood ash is an excellent source of K, it usually regarded as only
a moderate source of P, for fertilizer. Non-woody material is higher
in P, Mg and other elements important to plant nutrition.

Not sure what Archaeometry is, but if it's analysis of ancient materials,
the high silica may be due to infiltration from the soil, an early stage
in fossilization. If these numbers come from the residue from an ancient
forest fire, it would explain the higher levels of plant nutrients, since
a lot of live green material would have been included.

Co 15.5
Ni 75.7
Cu 178.5
Zn 2112.4
Ge 3.0
As 1.9
Se 1.3
Br 3.4
Rb 107.9
Sr 533.6
Y 3.0
Zr 41.6
Nb 1.6
Mo 6.5
Ag 1.0
Sn 7.5
Ba 3560.3
Pb 46.1
Th 0.4
U 4.7

I suspect these are in ppt or more likely ppm, rather than %, or we'd be
giving up mining in favor of forestry.

My fault... Its ppm for entries below SO3. More surprising the uptake
of heavy metals especially Th and U by the plants...Barium is
abnormally high or the soil on which that tree grew was rich in barium
ores!

The amounts of these trace
elements probably vary a lot with the composition of the soil in which
the plants grew.

Hi,
As it happens, I have done quite a lot of analyses for the various bits
of trees (particularly conifers). 14% silica is very high indeed for
plant material (though not impossible- rice husks can be 20%). I have
analysed bracken in the past for silica, and it would not make 14%.
Equisetum just might, but you would need this to be most of the sample!
I would think contamination or impregnation were both possible
explanations.
At least in conifers the bark and wood are generally lower in ash that
the needles. In some species silica can be quite high in needles (e.g.
spruce at 2% or more), and that can make up a substantial amount of the
ash.
Best Wishes,
Martin Hodson

wrote:
In article .com,
Farooq W wrote:

Dan wrote:
Soil and Dirt particles?! Is that a scientific analysis? Contaminated?
Do you see many pure celulose trees?

Ideally, you should get CO2 and H2O, but nothing's ideal. You don't get
enough Oxygen to get such efficient burning, so, you get a lot of
charcoal (near pure carbon), as well as lots of other stuff like
nitrates and salts that are absorbed from the soil.

We know this because ash used to be the main source of nitrates

I strongly doubt that. Nitrates would not survive high temperatues (of
burning wood) especially in the presence of organic matter. Wood ash is
indeed rich in what we call as
pot-ash and hence the name potassium.

Yeah. The potassium nitrate for gunpowder came from under old
manure piles. Potash was used for making soap, historically, since
wood ash was more accessible than lye before industrial chmistry.

An analysis of Oak/Beech/Bracken tree ash was published Archaeometry
Volume 47 Page 781 - November 2005. The results for Oak tree ash:
%
SiO2- 14.62
TiO2 - 0.06
Al2O3 - 0.76
Fe2O3- 0.65
MnO 6.35
MgO 6.87
CaO 31.06
Na2O 0.40
K2O 18.80
P2O5 12.87
SO3 1.09

This much is reasonable -- I'd expect high K and Ca, but the P and Si
are a bit of a surprise. I suspect the Si came from the bracken, since
some ferns (and notably the non-fern horsetail (Equisetum) concentrate
silica, or perhaps it's from dirt. Maybe that explains the high P, too.
While wood ash is an excellent source of K, it usually regarded as only
a moderate source of P, for fertilizer. Non-woody material is higher
in P, Mg and other elements important to plant nutrition.

Not sure what Archaeometry is, but if it's analysis of ancient materials,
the high silica may be due to infiltration from the soil, an early stage
in fossilization. If these numbers come from the residue from an ancient
forest fire, it would explain the higher levels of plant nutrients, since
a lot of live green material would have been included.

Co 15.5
Ni 75.7
Cu 178.5
Zn 2112.4
Ge 3.0
As 1.9
Se 1.3
Br 3.4
Rb 107.9
Sr 533.6
Y 3.0
Zr 41.6
Nb 1.6
Mo 6.5
Ag 1.0
Sn 7.5
Ba 3560.3
Pb 46.1
Th 0.4
U 4.7

I suspect these are in ppt or more likely ppm, rather than %, or we'd be
giving up mining in favor of forestry. The amounts of these trace
elements probably vary a lot with the composition of the soil in which
the plants grew.

As for Mr. Plutonium, I can say from personal experience that yes, bark
gives more ash than wood, because it contains more minerals than wood.
Apparently trees don't pull as much good stuff out of bark cells as they
die as they do from the cells that become wood. Note also that hardwood
generally produces far more ash than softwood, at least for the North
American temperate species I'm familiar with. "Tree" is a descriptive
term, unrelated to phylogeny. Trees have evolved many times from different
lineages, and conifer trees are unrelated to angiosperm trees.

wrote:
In article .com,
Farooq W wrote:

Dan wrote:

Soil and Dirt particles?! Is that a scientific analysis? Contaminated?
Do you see many pure celulose trees?

Ideally, you should get CO2 and H2O, but nothing's ideal. You don't get
enough Oxygen to get such efficient burning, so, you get a lot of
charcoal (near pure carbon), as well as lots of other stuff like
nitrates and salts that are absorbed from the soil.

We know this because ash used to be the main source of nitrates

I strongly doubt that. Nitrates would not survive high temperatues (of
burning wood) especially in the presence of organic matter. Wood ash is
indeed rich in what we call as
pot-ash and hence the name potassium.


Yeah. The potassium nitrate for gunpowder came from under old
manure piles. Potash was used for making soap, historically, since
wood ash was more accessible than lye before industrial chmistry.


An analysis of Oak/Beech/Bracken tree ash was published Archaeometry
Volume 47 Page 781 - November 2005. The results for Oak tree ash:
%
SiO2- 14.62
TiO2 - 0.06
Al2O3 - 0.76
Fe2O3- 0.65
MnO 6.35
MgO 6.87
CaO 31.06
Na2O 0.40
K2O 18.80
P2O5 12.87
SO3 1.09


This much is reasonable -- I'd expect high K and Ca, but the P and Si
are a bit of a surprise. I suspect the Si came from the bracken, since
some ferns (and notably the non-fern horsetail (Equisetum) concentrate
silica, or perhaps it's from dirt. Maybe that explains the high P, too.
While wood ash is an excellent source of K, it usually regarded as only
a moderate source of P, for fertilizer. Non-woody material is higher
in P, Mg and other elements important to plant nutrition.

Not sure what Archaeometry is, but if it's analysis of ancient materials,
the high silica may be due to infiltration from the soil, an early stage
in fossilization. If these numbers come from the residue from an ancient
forest fire, it would explain the higher levels of plant nutrients, since
a lot of live green material would have been included.


Co 15.5
Ni 75.7
Cu 178.5
Zn 2112.4
Ge 3.0
As 1.9
Se 1.3
Br 3.4
Rb 107.9
Sr 533.6
Y 3.0
Zr 41.6
Nb 1.6
Mo 6.5
Ag 1.0
Sn 7.5
Ba 3560.3
Pb 46.1
Th 0.4
U 4.7


I suspect these are in ppt or more likely ppm, rather than %, or we'd be
giving up mining in favor of forestry. The amounts of these trace
elements probably vary a lot with the composition of the soil in which
the plants grew.

As for Mr. Plutonium, I can say from personal experience that yes, bark
gives more ash than wood, because it contains more minerals than wood.
Apparently trees don't pull as much good stuff out of bark cells as they
die as they do from the cells that become wood. Note also that hardwood
generally produces far more ash than softwood, at least for the North
American temperate species I'm familiar with. "Tree" is a descriptive
term, unrelated to phylogeny. Trees have evolved many times from different
lineages, and conifer trees are unrelated to angiosperm trees.


I am surprized at all of the uranium, thorium and lead. A likely
inference that we intake uranium, thorium and lead in various plant
tissue we eat. I did not see mercury on that list and since coal power
stations are notorious for emitting mercury into the air, I wonder how
much mercury is in bark of trees.

But I know some tree species evolved into a fire resistant bark in order
to live in fire prone regions, so I wonder what chemical it is that
gives them the best fire resistance. Is it potassium and salts?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[Archmed] aka "a_plutonium" wrote
in message ...

[Archmed]
I did not see mercury on that list and since coal power stations are notorious for
emitting mercury into the air, I wonder how much mercury is in bark of trees.

[hanson]
Not too many plants do store Hg till they wilt. HgMe2 is
volatile. The main acquisition of Hg into coal comes during
the wet bog phase via sequestering/chelating of Hg by humic
acids from mineral leeching over LONG periods of time.
These organic Hg compounds then become/evolve into
molecules of increasingly more hydrophobic nature as the
coalfaction process continues... Hence they/Hg ends up
highly enriched in anthracite.

[Archmed]
But I know some tree species evolved into a fire resistant bark in order to live
in fire prone regions, so I wonder what chemical it is that gives them the best
fire resistance. Is it potassium and salts? Archimedes Plutonium

[hanson]
It's not so much the chemicals as it's the structure of the bark
that gives the fire resistance. .. And as far as the chemicals,
apparently everybody except you knows that, it is these
Group V elememts here that do the main assistance in breaking
ignition sequence chain events on the molecular level....
Farooq W
P2O5 12.87
As2O5 1.9

wrote in message
oups.com...
[hanson]
Not too many plants do store Hg till they wilt. HgMe2 is
volatile. The main acquisition of Hg into coal comes during
the wet bog phase via sequestering/chelating of Hg by humic
acids from mineral leeching over LONG periods of time.
These organic Hg compounds then become/evolve into
molecules of increasingly more hydrophobic nature as the
coalfaction process continues... Hence they/Hg ends up
highly enriched in anthracite.

[Archmed]
But I know some tree species evolved into a fire resistant bark
in order to live in fire prone regions, so I wonder what chemical
it is that gives them the best fire resistance. Is it K and salts?

[hanson]
It's not so much the chemicals as it's the structure of the bark
that gives the fire resistance. .. And as far as the chemicals,
apparently everybody except you knows that, it is these
Group V elememts here that do the main assistance in breaking
ignition sequence chain events on the molecular level....

[A.P. writes]
Thanks for the info and will keep in my scrap file.
Say, you would not happen to live in the Midwest, if my memory is
correct you are from Indiana. The reason I ask is that I need Rock Elm
seed, Ulmus racemosa (thomasii). Can you get some Rock Elm seed
and mail it to me. I will be eternally grateful.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[hanson]
Sorry, Archie, I am nowhere near from there. It's been 30 years
since I have seen a Rock Elm. -- Here, either in Raratonga or in
Kauai-Princeville there are only Palm trees and other tropical jungle
brush. But I am sure that you can get your Rock Elm seed from
http://seedrack.com/indexw.html or http://www.garden-adventures.com/
or even via the USDA, or perhaps some kind poster, who lives
where your object of desire grows, will oblige. BTW, should RE
not be a native species in your knack of the woods, consult with the
enviro agencies first. There may be laws against introducing non
native plants.
Good Luck,
hanson

"Dan"

|
| We know this because ash used to be the main source of nitrates for the
| production of gunpowder way back when (and may still be, but I doubt
| it). Ash is not a known mixture, it just means what's left after
| burning.


-----------
Sorry. Wood ash was never the source of nitrate, it was, however, the source of
potash (potassium carbonate) mixed with the cave (for instance) nitrate (calcium),
to convert it into usable potassium nitrate, calcium nitrate being hygroscopic.



--
donald j haarmann
-----------------------------
As if ordained by Fate, Nitre, that admirable salt,
hath made as much noise in Philosophy as in
War, all the world being filled with its thunder.
John Mayow
Ttractalus Quinque Medico-Physici, 1674

"Farooq W"

|
| My fault... Its ppm for entries below SO3. More surprising the uptake
| of heavy metals especially Th and U by the plants...Barium is
| abnormally high or the soil on which that tree grew was rich in barium
| ores!
|

-------------
The up take of uranium by plants is well know. See for example :-

Botanical Prospecting for Uranium on La Ventana Mesa, Sandoval County
New Mexico. US Geological Survey Bulletin 1009-M. 1956.

Some plants uptake serious amounts of selenium.

Description of Indicator Plants and Methods of Botanical Prospecting for
Uranium Deposits on the Colorado Plateau. US Geological Survey Bulletin
1030-M. 1957.



--
donald j haarmann
-----------------------
Science is a collection
of successful recipes.
Paul Valéry
French poet-essayist
(1871-1945)