Lime Kiln 1/3 - quicklime, lime mortar

[@ghehe4776]

hi welcome back to lime talk

[@MyLevelheaded]

the lime stone gets quite a bit lighter once the carbon is released so if you need 10 tons better figure on at least 20 of raw limestone and of course the corresponding amounts of coal or charcoal! so making quick lime as they call it can be quite the undertaking! and the burn and heat mist be maintained over a protracted period...many say over 24 hours at the targeted temperatures! so good idea to be able to feed the base of the fire while the coal burns through! many modern operations also run fans to assure forcing oxygen into the fires for very even and intense heat! In India where batch processes are used commercially i have seen electric fan boxes and even leaf blowers at the base of kilns forcing air into the burning chambers Through pass thrugh pipes built into the frame work of the kilns at the bases to sort of act as bellows the the combustion chamber!

[@TerrapinCreations666]

Much of that space will be taken up by the wood needed to heat the kiln, so there's no way you'd get a yield of 50 tons of quick lime from that.

[@archanth]

I was intrigued, so I checked. It’s not the Middle Ages, so they’re using coal, not wood-half and half. 1500 cu ft converts to “42 475 269.888 cubic centimetre” = 425 x 10^5 cc The specific gravity of quicklime is 3.3-3.4 g/cc. (I used 3.3 for simplicity). 50 short tons = 45 x 10^6 grams = 136 x 10^5 cc of quicklime. Since 50% of 425 x 10^5 cc is greater than 136 x 10^5 cc, I would say that, providing my calculations are correct, the first kiln is large enough to yield 50 tons.

[@TerrapinCreations666]

archanth It doesn't matter if it's coal or wood. The entire space measured would not be filled with just lime stone. I have a few old stone lime kilns within a mile of my house here in Montague NJ. The ones by me were fired with wood that they had to feed for 3 days. It took about 13 cords of wood for each firing. Amazing how much work went into this process.

[@archanth]

Bill Tracy Presumably you made your comments before watching part 2, and you didn’t check my calculations or the conversion factors before making your second comment. Of course they used fuel-if limestone underwent spontaneous combustion, the planet would be in dire straits. They say that they will use coal to raise the temperature to 900ºC. Does it matter whether it’s wood or coal? The specific energy of coal is 50% higher than that of wood, so the necessary volume would be 50% less than the volume of wood. In part 2, they use 20 shovel-fulls of coal to 25 of limestone (at 3:20 in part 2 they say 12 tons of limestone / 3 tons of coal). However, I calculated in an even larger margin of fuel when I wrote “Since *50%* of 425 x 10^5 cc is greater than 136 x 10^5 cc ….” Unless you've found an error in the conversion factors or my math, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

[@TerrapinCreations666]

archanth I'm commenting on this video. Otherwise you would be reading these comments elsewhere. I'm just saying they measured the space and converted it directly to tons, which is no where near what the actual yield would be. They were able to get around 10 tons from what they did here, which was filling it about 3/4, so it it was full there's no way they would have gotten 50 tons.

[@archanth]

I know what you're saying. However, unless the conversion factors and my calculations are incorrect, the *first* kiln would have yielded 50 tons. Did you not notice that they moved to a second kiln to produce 10 tons of quicklime from 12 tons of limestone? Perhaps that's the origin of your confusion.

[@metallitech]

As much as I like lime, it would have been hyrdaulic limes and cement that were the wonder materials of the Georgian era.

[@gingershark8488]

Hello class 7