COMPARISON OF TYPICAL PRODUCTION CHARCOALS OF THE PRINCIPAL BELLIGERENT NATIONS --------+----------+-------------+--------+-------+----------------- | | |Apparent|Service| Country | Date |Raw Material |Density | Time | Remarks | | | | Corr. | | | | |to 8-14| | | | | Mesh | --------+----------+-------------+--------+-------+----------------- U. S. A.|Nov. 1917 |Cocoanut | 0.60 | 10 |Air activated U. S. A.|June, 1918|Mixed nuts, | 0.58 | 18 |Steam activated | | etc. | | | U. S. A.|Nov. 1918 |Cocoanut | 0.51 | 34 |Steam activated England | 1917 |Wood | 0.27 | 6 |Long distillation England |Aug. 1918 |Peach stones,| 0.54 | 16 | | | etc. | | | France | 1917-18 |Wood | 0.23 | 2 | Germany | Early |Wood | ? | 3 |Chemical and | | | | | steam treatment Germany |June, 1917|Wood | 0.25 | 33 |Chemical and | | | | | steam treatment Germany |June, 1918|Wood | 0.24 | 42 |Chemical and | | | | | steam treatment --------+----------+-------------+--------+-------+----------------- “It is at once evident that the service time of most of these charcoals is very much less than was obtained with the laboratory samples. However, in the emergency production of this material on a large scale, quantity and speed were far more important than the absolute excellence of the product. It will be noted, for instance, that the cocoanut charcoal manufactured by the United States, even in November, 1918, was still very much inferior to the laboratory samples made from the same raw material. This was not because a very active charcoal could not be produced on a large scale, for even in May, 1918, the possibility of manufacturing a 50-min. charcoal on a large scale had been conclusively demonstrated, but this activation would have required two or three times as much raw material and five times as much apparatus as was then available, due to the much longer time of heating, and the greater losses of carbon occasioned thereby.