Cigar Ash as an Insulator

[Colt45]

Over the years, I've read many times that some feel a longer ash makes for cooler smoke. I never fully bought into the concept - I figured regardless of

ash length, the air gets drawn through the ash then through the ember.

But in thinking about it a bit, I started wondering if a bit more ash acts as an insulator, cooling the ember and in effect the smoke. Just a thought. I do recall

a thread where a few members mentioned a particular cigar, and how they all agreed keeping a longer ash helped keep it cool, but I can't exactly remember

the cigar.

Any thoughts appreciated.

[Guest rob]

I find that once my ash falls off I sometimes need to touch up the foot with a lighter to get the wrapper burning and keeping up with the inside.

Other than that I really haven't noticed anything.

[maalouly]

  rob said:

I find that once my ash falls off I sometimes need to touch up the foot with a lighter to get the wrapper burning and keeping up with the inside.

Other than that I really haven't noticed anything.

Same thing happens to me mate. Perhaps someone can explain it scientifcally for us?

[Guest rob]

I also should mention that I can actually taste the difference when the ash falls off. It's very obvious.

The flavour becomes muted and loses it's previous body and characteristics. - a sure sign a touch up with flame is required.

[mkz]

I´m with Rob on this one.

[laficion]

Sorry Ross, I don't see any real difference, If you smoke your cigar nice and easy

without taking fast and hard draws, your cigar will stay cool with or without a long ash

[Colt45]

  laficion said:

Sorry Ross, I don't see any real difference, If you smoke your cigar nice and easy

without taking fast and hard draws, your cigar will stay cool with or without a long ash

Guy, even taking smoking technique out of the equation, I pretty much feel the same way -

but wonder at the possibility.

[bolivr]

I wouldn't be surprised if Wilkey can help with this somewhat scientific question.

I think the flow of air with a length of ash on the cigar is a mixture of flow in from the side as well as through the ash on the front. Given that a cigar would naturally 'tunnel' without some resistance on the front via the ash then logically you would see more burn, hotter burn in the middle when there is little or no ash attached. So with the ash on the cigar the flow of air better promotes burn in the binder and wrapper thus sharing the burn more evenly and cooler.

So the ash is not insulating as such but acts as a diffuser of the air flow.

I think....

[pizzaguy]

  Colt45 said:

But in thinking about it a bit, I started wondering if a bit more ash acts as an insulator, cooling the ember and in effect the smoke. Just a thought.

my thinking is the opposite...

the ash imo insulates the burning area (the "cherry"), which means that more of it's heat is contained.

without it, lets say right after a cigar is ashed, more of the heat escapes since the cherry is in direct contact with the environment. and the smoke sucked through is at a lower temperature.

this could account for a brief lack of flavors.

also, with a regular cone ash that usually occurs, if the ash falls off, the heat escapes, instead of being trapped in the ash, next to the wrapper.

this could explain the need for a touch up

(i have really never noticed a correlation between ashing and needing a wrapper touch up, but thats just my experience)

[Guest rob]

That sounds like a good hypothesis Bolivr.

I will add, that if this is true - then the effect of the ash performing this function only happens when we draw on the cigar. It stands to reason that when no air is passing through it, it does nothing.

Thinking about it, and from a thermodynamic point, of view it seems to makes sense.

[Ginseng]

A fascinating question and I've got a few different ways to think about this. Unfortunately I've got to get my dissertation proposal draft ready before the weekend. I'm sorry lads. I'll be back to add my 2¢ when I've had a little time to think. Already you guys have come up with some quite logical and plausible explanations. I will give you this to think about: what function or effect does it perform on the draw as opposed to at rest between draws, is the function the same? How do these respective functions affect the smoking?

Wilkey

[bolivr]

A very worthwhile distinction between rest and drawing Wilkey, thanks I was hoping you were there !

My comment then is more to do with the effect of actually drawing on the cigar. At rest there would be some insulation effect from the ash. Look forward to more on this

[Guest rob]

  bolivr said:

A very worthwhile distinction between rest and drawing Wilkey, thanks I was hoping you were there !

Hey! No Fair.

I made that distinction in the post above Wilkey's.

[Ginseng]

  rob said:

Hey! No Fair.

I made that distinction in the post above Wilkey's.

Almost, Rob. Almost. Doing nothing is not quite the same as doing something different.

Wilkey

[Guest rob]

dang.... so close... yet so far away.

[zuma]

  Colt45 said:

Over the years, I've read many times that some feel a longer ash makes for cooler smoke. I never fully bought into the concept - I figured regardless of ash length, the air gets drawn through the ash then through the ember.

But in thinking about it a bit, I started wondering if a bit more ash acts as an insulator, cooling the ember and in effect the smoke. Just a thought. I do recall a thread where a few members mentioned a particular cigar, and how they all agreed keeping a longer ash helped keep it cool, but I can't exactly remember the cigar.

Any thoughts appreciated.

My two cents:

IMHO, The formation of ash results in two significant effects:

1. Reduces oxygen supply to the ember. Reduce O2 -> reduced burn rate -> lower temperature. Physically, this effect is seen in the conical shape of the ember (naturally, the conical shape is also an indication of homogeneous leaf density across the cigar).

2. Increased thermal emissivity, (that is, ash is a great heat radiator) that acts to equilibrate the heat balance towards the temperature prevailing environment.

The fact that the during the burning process different compounds are formed at higher temperatures than at lower temperatures (thermodynamically, the formation energy of different compounds is highly dependent on temperature) can explain the generally accepted notion that increased temperature alters the flavour.

In the absence of oxygen supply through the smoker drawing, the above two effects cause quenching of the ember... it just graciously dies off. In contrast, and in the case of cigarettes (structurally thin and excessively porous), the ash is very porous, and oxygen seeps in even without draw, so they burn very hot and they just burn themselves off...

[Jakester]

Zuma,

Just a bit of input regarding cigarettes: My understanding is that the "mass produced" cigarettes - such as Marllboro, camel, etc., all have chemical additives infused in the tobacco specifically to keep them burning. This would explain why you can light one of these, set them in an ashtray, and they usually will burn straight down to the nub.

In contrast, the "super-premium" cigarette brands - such as Dunhill, Nat Sherman, etc, are pure tobacco (or at least more nearly pure). These, I can attest from experience, act very much as do cigars. If you cease drawing, they will quickly go out.

Not sure on this, but my experience as a former cigarette smoker indicates this is true. Can any one else verify this or offer any input? Most appreciated!

Cheers!

[zuma]

Though I have no experience with them, I'd bet you those "super-premium" are denser than "mass produced" cigarettes: the leaf used would be more coarsely chopped and more tightly packed... thus, they would be less porous and, consequently, the resulting ash would also be less porous. The more porous, the easier is for oxygen seep in, and the hotter it would burn... again, just my A$0.02

  Jakester said:

Just a bit of input regarding cigarettes: My understanding is that the "mass produced" cigarettes - such as Marllboro, camel, etc., all have chemical additives infused in the tobacco specifically to keep them burning. This would explain why you can light one of these, set them in an ashtray, and they usually will burn straight down to the nub.

In contrast, the "super-premium" cigarette brands - such as Dunhill, Nat Sherman, etc, are pure tobacco (or at least more nearly pure). These, I can attest from experience, act very much as do cigars. If you cease drawing, they will quickly go out.

Not sure on this, but my experience as a former cigarette smoker indicates this is true. Can any one else verify this or offer any input? Most appreciated!

[Colt45]

Interesting stuff, guys. As is often the case, I now have more questions

For one:

  zuma said:

The fact that the during the burning process different compounds are formed at higher temperatures than at lower temperatures (thermodynamically, the formation energy of different compounds is highly dependent on temperature) can explain the generally accepted notion that increased temperature alters the flavour.

Could it not be said that poor combustion could also have an effect on flavor? I often find that a cigar that does not draw and burn well ends up

murky, mungy, perhaps even a bit melancholy.......

Just thinking out loud again - it's great to have a bunch of astro-physicists / molecular biologists as members

[BlackFriar]

http://www.friendsofhabanos.com/forum/inde...ackfriar+gloria

Don't know why, but i found the super skinny cigars are really picky when it comes to the amount of ash.

[Colt45]

  BlackFriar said:

Don't know why, but i found the super skinny cigars are really picky when it comes to the amount of ash.

Thanks Chris - you're great review was the one I was thinking of.

[jquest63]

Just a guess, but it may have something to do with the amount of oxygen available. I seems that the burning end would have less oxygen available with ash covering it than without, making it burn less hot. Never conducted experiment though.

[Jakester]

  zuma said:

Though I have no experience with them, I'd bet you those "super-premium" are denser than "mass produced" cigarettes: the leaf used would be more coarsely chopped and more tightly packed... thus, they would be less porous and, consequently, the resulting ash would also be less porous. The more porous, the easier is for oxygen seep in, and the hotter it would burn... again, just my A$0.02

You are correct, Zuma, on the density issue. The premiums are in fact more tightly packed, as prepared by the factory. However, most of my friends, including myself, always vigorously "tapped" the cigarette on the filter end, specifically to pack the tobacco. In this manner, a "mass produced" cigarette can easily be packed as densely as a "premium." However, even in the case where you "pack" both types of cigarettes, as I did for years (in my case, I smoked Camel filters and later Dunhill and Nat Sherman's), the "mass produced" cigarette almost always burns right to the nub even when not drawing on it, while the "premium" always goes out. I'm sure their are other mitigating factors, including the type/quality of the paper in which it's rolled.

I can't speak to any difference in the coarse-ness of the tobacco itself, as I never compared them against each other in such a specific manner. In any case, I believe the primary mitigating factor is that the "mass produced" smokes contain tobacco which is artifically infused with many chemicals, among which are agents designed specifically to keep the tobacco burning. Again, I can't be sure of this, but I believe it's the case.

Hopefully, someone who knows for sure can enlighten us. One thing I can say for absolute certain is that having smoked cigarettes for 20 years is the single greatest regret of my life. Glad I saw the light and now enjoy this great passion we all share. The other thing I can say for absolute certain is that I like your avatar - absolutely one of the greatest movies of all time. Peter Sellers and George C. Scott were superb!

Cheers!

[DrunkenMonkey]

As for the cigarettes, I remember reading that one of the things that the tobacco companies were accused of when they were in that big legal showdown a few years back, was they were accused of adding chemical additives to make the cigarettes burn faster. I think there were some internal memos as evidence of this. I always believed it too, because back when I used to smoke cigarettes, I used to roll my own. I remember testing this idea by rolling one cigarette with tobacco taken from a marlboro cigarette, and rolling another cigarette with my regular, organic American Spirit tobacco. When I lit them both and got them burning, then set them both down, the organic cigarette burned about a minute, then went out, as usual. The Marlboro tobacco burned completely, nothing left but a line of ash in the ashtray. This is getting way off topic, I know. But anyway, commercial cigarettes aren't just tobacco, they're a strange combination of horrible chemicals as well as the worst tobacco that can be found. It's not just the density, it's the chemical engineering.