element or compound in tree bark that it burns with too much ash

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
[Only registered users see links. ]
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote: >

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

Re: 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!!


<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1141584038.045314.210400@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...

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" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1141608098.284147.162900@v46g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...

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 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.

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.

P.S. Without your Post Script I doubt you would have received such a
spurious answer to a very simple (no offence) question.

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:
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" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1141653875.221484.242090@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
[Farooq]

In article <1141653875.221484.242090@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups .com>,
Farooq W <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

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.


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.


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.

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

This article is available online (free) at

[Only registered users see links. ]


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!

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

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

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
[Only registered users see links. ]
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies