Big Green Egg - EGGhead Forum - The Ultimate Cooking Experience...
Welcome to the EGGhead Forum - a great place to visit and packed with tips and EGGspert advice! You can also join the conversation and get more information and amazing kamado recipes by following Big Green Egg at:

Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Instagram  |  Pinterest  |  Youtube  |  Vimeo
Share your photos by tagging us and using the hashtag #EGGhead4Life.


In Atlanta? Come visit Big Green Egg headquarters, including our retail showroom, the History of the EGG Museum and Culinary Center!  3786 DeKalb Technology Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30340.

Question about VOC\'s

2»

Comments

  • dude. listen up. lump is not wood. it used to be wood. your paragraph about how wood burns is spot on, baby. dead to rights correct. but it is about wood and to be blatantly clear, LUMP IS NOT WOOD.

    go google how lump is made, then come back and tell me it is still wood. it's carbon. with some rewsidual organics that aren't fully driven off or converted. thank the minor stuff left for the wood smell. but it is nearly otherwise pure carbon.

    you are incorrect about how lump is burning in the egg. because you are talking about something else entirely

    christ. how did i get you pete and jeffersonian jumping on my ass tonight?

    it's like the three horsemen of the dense-ocalypse.
  •  
    "I'm sort of excited" now that is scary my friend. :laugh: :laugh:

    A while back the neighbors house burned down and the Fire Chief was in our yard working the fire. When things slowed down and during the investigation we got to talking about the fire, how it developed and progressed as well as some bbq talk.

    I had had my medium which I have had some problems with starting and getting to temperature. I did some cooking for the crew and we got to more talking about fire.

    What I posted was some of the tings we talked about and also what got me to experimenting with the flow of air in the egg. That was partly where I got the idea about putting the foil rope between the outside of the fire ring and egg wall.

    Angry, not really.

    Kent
  • WessBWessB Posts: 6,937
    This topic comes up from time to time and always leads to trouble..I been avoidin it intentionally..
  • -NT-
  •  
    :) I have been purposely doing the same with the gasket posts.

    Kent
  • Uh Kent, you just replied to yourself ;) Just sayin.

    Steve

    Steve 

    Caledon, ON

     

  • WessBWessB Posts: 6,937
    MANY things are better off just left well enough alone....actually better off not asked but we obviously can control curiosity...
  • WessBWessB Posts: 6,937
    We've had some pretty good bar fights in here..but you guys done tore the place up bad..and somebodies payin....settle up at the door..and lets go cook somethin...better yet..lets go get drunk and be somebody....
  • Aw C'mon Wess...Let the boys have at it :laugh:

    Steve

    Steve 

    Caledon, ON

     

  • WessBWessB Posts: 6,937
    They can have at it all they want....I just want my cut...tryin to differ the costs of my next fest..and not walk away with any bruises myself... :) ...
  • Got your back man. FWIW

    Steve

    Steve 

    Caledon, ON

     

  • WessBWessB Posts: 6,937
    It's all good my friend....least it sure as hell should be.....seems like a lot of tension in here lately..not that I'm not responsible for my share..but I think ya hear me..
  • So enlighten me, how does the physics change when 'burning' lump as opposed to burning non carbonized fuel.

    It would seem the carbonizing process changes the flash point in the lump as opposed to when the lump was non carbonized wood.

    It seems the physics of the fire would be the same.

    Are there no off gassing from the lump as it heats?

    If enough air is introduced into the lump bed does it not flair up.

    If enough gasses develop in the egg and the dome is open is there not flashback?

    Other than the flash point and being able to control the burn at a molten state, where does any of this change?

    Kent
  •  
    See what your post did...

    Thanks for letting me know.

    Kent

     
  • cookn bikercookn biker Posts: 13,407
    ehem... :laugh: :) :evil:
    Molly
    Colorado Springs
    "Loney Queen"
    "Respect your fellow human being, treat them fairly, disagree with them honestly, enjoy their friendship, explore your thoughts about one another candidly, work together for a common goal and help one another achieve it."
    Bill Bradley; American hall of fame basketball player, Rhodes scholar, former U.S. Senator from New Jersey
    LBGE, MBGE, SBGE , MiniBGE and a Mini Mini BGE
  • WessBWessB Posts: 6,937
    Yes dear..I know I owe you lunch...but lets not talk about it right now... :laugh: some times humble pie comes in strange forms...this place is just plain freaky anymore..
  • WessBWessB Posts: 6,937
    all I can say is...LOL....crazy how things have changed...and now you're tellin me that this old stick I buried aint gonna become a diamond some day...no matter what it smells like......
  • when talking about VOC's, "volatile" does not necessarily mean flammable. volatile in this case means readily tending to vaporize. carpets and paints give of VOCs, new car smell is laden with VOCs.

    VOCs are a very specific class of things.

    flour burhing when it becomes airborne, as dust, is an example of a phenomenon that is very dangerous, yes. we get it. silos have been known to explode that way.

    but being organic as you say, and being able to be burnde, is not what scientists mean when they talk about volatile organic compounds.

    you may have misunderstood your instructor. airborne dust is explosive, but that doesn't make it fall under the classification of a Voltile Organic Compound.

    to repeat... "volatile" does not necessarily mean explosive, or even flammable. but Volatile Organic Compounds are almost always flammable. and they all tend to be gasses. by tend i don't mean "most are on average" i mean tend, as in part of their definition is that they will become gas easily.

    there's quite a bit wrong with the information you used to slam GG (many paints, carpets, etc.contain VOCs, -ex.>formaldehyde- and there's a massive movement to eliminate them from common products) , and your entire position seems to be one that "your instructor told you so".

    i know you don't think you need to read up on VOCs, but it really appears you do.

    not trying to berate you, but when you take GG and slam him to the mat like that, you should be correct. and if you aren't correct, you should be aware of it.

    same for me. when i say something i "think" to be true, i always try to qualify it ("i think.." "i've heard..." "is it true that....?").

    the most common one is methane. they are always going to end up as a gas, because that is what they mean by volatile in this case. although many are flammable, i don't think that's necessarily so.

    under your definition, a 2x4 is a volatile organic compound. it's flammable, and organic. and yet it is not a VOC....
  • sorry man, i'm not your physics tutor. if i were, you'd be in the wrong class anyway. we're talking chemistry. if i have to go back to square one re: physics vs. chemistry, i'm thinking we'd never have enough time to get to the concept of fire.

    lump is not wood. it does not burn like wood. and though it DOES have some volatile gasses in it, that is NOT what provides the vast majority of fuel for the fire.

    i'm sorry.

    i had three running "discussions" with three people yesterday, none of whom seemd able to back up and look at the wider picture. each picked a small outpost and chose to defend it at all costs, and at the expense of logic.

    i'm not doing that again.

    it's not my place to grab a chalk board and try to run thru remedial chemistry. i have no issues what so ever with opinions. when someone says to use foil (or not) with ribs, i don't give them any grief. but when you equate wood and lump; or when CW tells you there are no VOCs in (some) paints, or that (here's the laugher of the day) that flour is a volatile organic compound; or a shill for a thermometer company says all others suck because of a personal opinion based on a minimal sample; well, that sh!t can't stand.

    like i said, i'll reluctantly raise my hand to remind my teacher that columbus didn't really discover america, or that Magellan in fact never "circled" the globe. but when she mocks simple facts and prefers to simply believe what she was taught to teach, or refuses to see the obvious, it's not my job to educate her
  • i used to think it was odd when old-timers wuld drop off the forum three or four at a time. i could never understand their frustration.
    but i see it now.

    i can see why all of a sudden yer thinkin "what ever happened to that guy..". and when someone pings him (sorry man!) he responds "i just couldn't put up with the foolishness anymore"

    speaking of vanished people.
    where's my buddy max? i hope everything's ok. i know he's gotten slammed with snow too, but not like him to be away so long.
  • FidelFidel Posts: 10,172
    Max is probably holed up somewhere fondling himself non-stop as the Capitals continue their win streak.

    Joking aside, I hope he's OK too. Haven't had an email or a post from him in days, which is odd.
  • fishlessmanfishlessman Posts: 22,746
    do you take notes when running three "discussions" :laugh: sometimes im glad i dont post at night, way less frustrating :whistle:
  • you are a pretty level headed mellow dude on line.

    based on our online personalities, folks would probably guess i would be the one with a knife at the ready in the map holder of the driver's side door, awaiting a hitchiker. :laugh:
  •  
    I clearly realize there is a difference between physics and chemistry. I also know the world is not flat.

    Rather than expound on how I was "tutored incorrectly" I simply was hoping you would share your knowledge as to how lump (carbon) burned differently than how wood burns. If the difference is only the flash point, that was stated in prior posts.

    Further, it was you or CW that asked me if I was not burning lump in egg. My comment was the wood and lump(carbon) when heated produces 'off gasses'. It is my understanding that those gasses are what is burning. Again, I asked for clarification and the posts went into spontaneous combustion and other such...

    Kent
  • FidelFidel Posts: 10,172
    I'll try to oversimplify it.

    Wood burns. Heated wood gives off gasses. The flames are the visibly burning gasses given off from the wood. Once the gasses are completely gone, you are left with ash. If you prematurely extinguish the fire by removing the oxygen/catalyst, you are left with charcoal. Charcoal has most (95% +) of the properties with gaseous tendencies removed.

    Charcoal smolders. It does not necessarily produce flame. The chemical reaction between the carbon and oxygen produce heat as the carbon bonds are broken, carbon monoxide as free carbon atoms bond with oxygen, a little water, and remaining carbon atoms and nonburnable materials in the form of ash. It does not give off any other gasses that burn. This is a much slower chemical reaction than the burning of wood, which is much more violent.

    And the world is flat.
  • i didn't ask if you weren't burning lump. i told you that you were NOT burning wood. you posted over and over how wood burned, that it "ogg gassed" and that the gasses were what burned. wonderful. but that's got nothing to do with the discussion, since we don't burn wood in the egg. we burn lump.

    i am not going to walk you and CW down VOC lane. there's plenty of info out there as to what they are.
  • I'm not a chemist and I haven't read the entire thread yet, but my best guess is that, at the low temperatures in the firebox at lighting, the VOCs are the product of incomplete combustion. Once the lump catches and begins to burn in earnest, it burns at a high temperature independent of the actual dome temperature. This higher temperature then successfully combusts a high proportion of the fuel that would otherwise go up your chimney as VOCs and turns them into CO2 and H2O, with a few other things in small amounts.

    In an automotive paint show where I once worked, we used catalytic elements on the discharges of our curing ovens that passively took VOC-rich oven gasses and heated up to over 900*, thus burning those same gasses in a self-perpetuating reaction. We just had to monitor the discharge temp for the EPA to prove we had burned our VOCs as opposed to venting them to the atmosphere.
  • christ. how did i get you pete and jeffersonian jumping on my ass tonight?

    You might review that other thread and revise and extend your remarks about who's the jumper and who's the jumpee, amigo.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Click here for Forum Use Guidelines.