Sawdust Paper Log Press Project

[Remundo]

you need a combustible binder

it seemed to me that the method for obtaining a paste is grinding with the addition of water.

I am very skeptical about this method.

I'm not saying that I have the solution.

But I think it would take a finer grinder, with confetti of less than 5 mm, and mix everything hot with a liquid that solidifies at room temperature.

I am thinking, for example, of heavy oils or fat waste.

The molding could then be done without any mechanical pressure, simply poured into a container to be unmolded cold.

or consider other combustible binders from recycling.
This container could even be metallic, a wick could be added, and burn in the form of a large candle.

[sicetaitsimple]

Each "classic" log weighs 300 g for a volume of 30*12*5 (e)=1800 cm³, which remains low, hence a modest effect in terms of combustion compared to an "average" wood log.

Sorry for my question, you had already answered here, and it's not very old.....
by Ahmed "07/03/23, 21:11
The density of dry oak is 715 Kg/M3, that of my paper logs at M3 is only 166,65 (according to my calculations, so check).

Admittedly, it's not huge... Rather a use in short outbreaks in mid-season when you are "next to" the stove ready to refuel it almost continuously?
And I have no doubt that progress is possible concerning "work". The shredding phase still needs to be a quick pump up though, at least I think it would pump me up fast!

[Ahmed]

Remundo, your suggestion of a hot binder, although not devoid of interest, does not correspond to my initial criteria and would be on the one hand quite complex to implement (due to the very fine grinding) and on the other hand we would have to find this recovery binder, which moreover should burn properly: that's a lot of conditions...
Sicetaitsimple, no worries! The density of the paper log can hardly be increased, which is why I intend to play on the total volume, which would also have quite a few advantages in terms of handling. To obtain a log 8 cm thick, staying on the original format of 30*12, you will need a mold depth of 27,2 cm, roughly 10 more than the current one.

Shredding is actually not a particularly attractive step, hence the need for the in-built crusher.

[sicetaitsimple]

[ it will take a mold depth of 27,2 cm, which is roughly 10 more than the current one.

??? 2 times?
Regarding Remundo's thoughts, why not, but it wouldn't be the same process, the same product, the same constraints....Incorporating "fat" whatever its origin, heating, changes everything. In short, it's something else. And for an individual....if it's simple...it's still less complicated!

[Ahmed]

??? 2 times?

The volumetric ratio between the total height of the mold and that of the briquette formed is 3,4 (my current mold is 17 cm deep for a 5 cm product). If you want to get 8 cm, you have to multiply this value by this ratio: 8*3,4=27,2 cm.
I'll give you the details, because I could be wrong in my calculations!

[sicetaitsimple]

??? 2 times?

The volumetric ratio between the total height of the mold and that of the briquette formed is 3,4 (my current mold is 17 cm deep for a 5 cm product). If you want to get 8 cm, you have to multiply this value by this ratio: 8*3,4=27,2 cm.
I'll give you the details, because I could be wrong in my calculations!

So a little less than twice as much? (2/27,2).
But there is written "10 times more" a little above? Drop it, either it's a typo or I didn't understand anything, it doesn't matter.

[Ahmed]

It's neither one nor the other: you simply misread!
I wrote: "it will take a mold depth of 27,2 cm, which is roughly 10 more than the current one. It's not 10 times more, but ten cm more than the old mould. I should have specified cm after the 10 to eliminate any ambiguity.

[sicetaitsimple]

I had indeed misread.

[Christophe]

I think my January logs are dry, I weighed and marked 3 with a marker:

Initial masses:

1325 g
1650 g
1850 g

Final masses:

451 g
576 g
717 g

Difference = water evaporated by mass:

874 g
1074 g
1133 g

% of water / initial evaporated mass:

66%
65%
61%

No idea of ​​the residual humidity but it is necessarily not zero...(15-20%?)...

[gegyx]

It's more frustrating than cured pork.

It decreases by 30% in 3 weeks.