Richtee Posted December 3, 2022 Posted December 3, 2022 Mostly basic info, but as with most anything, jewels to you may lie among the stones. Historical in nature, but not much has changed, really Newbs, wanna-bes, kewls, this is vital info....and the generally curious will find it interesting, if from nothing more than a historical viewpoint. http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2016/07/black-powder-i.html 1
cmjlab Posted December 3, 2022 Posted December 3, 2022 That's some interesting history. There was a gentleman that did a bunch of B.P. testing and had a site with the info posted as well, but he had a graph that demonstrated the different B.P. comps and where the max "power" / comp ratios fell (and various other info on less than ideal ratios, and it's uses). I really wish I remember the guys name, I think he was Swedish or German.... (Narrows it down right?.... :-) ) Charles 1
Richtee Posted December 4, 2022 Author Posted December 4, 2022 Here’s an interesting chunk of info from Pt II of the blog " For instance, dogwood charcoal was found to yield about 25% more gas than the same weight of charcoal made from fir, chestnut or hazel trees and 17% more gas than charcoal made from willow. This is why dogwood was preferred for black powder intended for pistols and rifles, while willow charcoal was preferred for making powder for cannons." 1
cmjlab Posted December 4, 2022 Posted December 4, 2022 Ulrich Bretscher?Yes! Thank you, that's the one. Pretty good info too. Charles
JAWChemist Posted January 20, 2023 Posted January 20, 2023 Ulrich Bretscher had a response surface map of black powder performance at http://soggybiscuits.icu/recipe.html. Although presented as a Cartesian map, it could be shown as a ternary diagram map. If you're interested in a little more history, an alternate gunpowder formulation interpretation (~68:16:16//KNO3:C:S) of the Franciscan monk Roger Bacon's formulation for gunpower based on the Harley Manuscript (MS) 3528 presented by R. Steele in Nature can be found at https://jawchemist.blogspot.com/ (my blogsite). Although it is a blog, the page is fairly long and deals with other items. The Bretscher map was not in the blog page but was used to help validate that the suggested formula interpreted from the MS 3528 was reasonable. Steele's article and this interpretation brings into question Hime's anagram and formulation interpretation (7:5:5//~41:29/29). The Roger Bacon Research Society (RBRS, member) studies section (https://rogerbaconresearchsociety.com/studies/, Steele, R. 2nd entry) referenced the blog page likely because the Steele reference was not well known. A Franciscan university's had sufficient interest in the paper to send it to the dean of science (a chemist) and to the history department. If you have an interest in formulating a mixture, you may want to look at https://jawchemist.blogspot.com/p/using-design-of-experiment-methods-for.html. Its an optimization method that works with qualitative results. If you can instrument the results and build a model, it works but a more traditional approach would be better. It was used to make commercialized emulsifier bases for soluble cutting oils. They required qualitative evaluations of an emulsion. Products were sold to several major oil companies and generated >$100M so it seems to work. To present the method married with my youthful pyrotechnic work is why I joined the forum.
justvisiting Posted January 20, 2023 Posted January 20, 2023 Since getting into pyro, I've always been fascinated with black powder and the varying and often contradictory perceptions of it. Reading Richtee's blog and JAW's/Bretscher's blog bring up a lot of questions that I forgot I had. Of course, I've got as many opinions as questions The first blog compares different charcoals and is the ONLY reference I've ever seen to the amount of gas a particular charcoal produces. II wonder how they measured it. I've seen gas production mentioned quite a few times, but no source of information was ever stated. The second blog looks at gasses produced during carbonizing instead. I wonder how those two things relate? Also, it's been said that the gas produced is only partly responsible for the energy the powder produces. The solids produced are significant, and are contributing to the total energy as well, I've been told. I wonder about that relationship? The second blog looks at different formulas with the same charcoal. I think the map would look different with different charcoals and with different preparation methods for the charcoals and black powders. I like the proving mortar. Gotta get one of those My own work with black powder has shown me that the particle size of the charcoal is a very important variable. My lay opinion is that the production methods for all these experiments are just as important as the charcoals and cooking methods in evaluating powders. There's a study in Pyrotechnica that evaluates charcoals for black powder that finds oak to be a very good BP charcoal, and they put it near the top of the list of charcoals tested. My experience with it has been similar. Bretscher puts it quite a way down on his list. If black powder was not a complicated subject, there wouldn't be so many thousands of pages of literature detailing the study of it from so many different angles. One could get lost in that sea of information. I have. Now I have to read every word of both blogs 5 times to see what penetrates Thanks guys!
Richtee Posted January 20, 2023 Author Posted January 20, 2023 Now I have to read every word of both blogs 5 times to see what penetrates Thanks guys! Yer welcome It fascinates me as well. A pretty simple compound with SOO many variables as to make it mind-boggling!
Recommended Posts