So I heard a good one today. BS or valid?

Ol' Flinter said:
My understanding of the modern BP manufacturing process is that the Charcoal, Sulphur and Potassium Nitrate are combined in a slurry with water or alcohol so it cannot separate, Then the slurry is dried, crushed to fine particles then passed through a series of sieves to sort into the various size particles. Then a bit of graphite is added to improve pourability and reduce static cling. BTW, there have been many experiments by the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association to ignite BP by an electrical spark and all have failed - urban myth. My understanding of the physics is that the carbon in the BP conducts the electrical charge so easily (no heat-causing resistance like in a stove element or toaster) that the powder doesn't reach ignition temperature.
Click to expand...

http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/sparks/sparks.html
 
I was always under the impression that black powder itself does not soak up moisture. Once it is burnt, the resulting ash (or whatever you want to call it) will soak up the moisture.

Kevin
 
I have met many many instructors (and worked with several) that were totaly adamant about somthing and it took going and looking up the rule to prove that they were wrong.

Mind you i also had a police officer state that the black marks on the road from a burn out or a hard stop were not rubber but burnt pavement.
 
Original black powder, and here we are talking about late fourteenth century until well into the sixteenth century, WOULD separate into its constituent materials until the discovery that 'corning' clumped them all together into a material with the correct mixture in each and every particle.

One of the many problems with the stuff in those early days of use came about during transportation, when the appalling state of the 'roads' would serve to 'vibrate' the containers thus separating the mixture.

Needless to say, this does NOT happen now, and has not been a problem since the middle of the 1500's.

tac
 
There is a lot of misinformation out there about black powder. I think most of it comes from people who have never used the stuff. Black powder doesn't absorb a lot of moisture, but the fouling from burned powder will pull a lot of moisture from the air. When I load my schuetzen rifles at the bench using a single case, the scraped out fouling goes into a little cup. On really humid days the fouling will turn into a grey/black gooey liquid from absorbing moisture from the air.

Chris.
 
The term for the propensity of BP residue to absorb water is "hygroscopic".

I think I recall reading about damp black powder being spread out to dry during the French and Indian wars.
 
Just an odd bit.
In WW2, the American Navy published a booklet about defusing Civil War Ordnance.
One of the Navy bases dated back to that time period. it seems that sailors were finding cannon balls in the area and attempting to defuse them for souvniers, sometimes with nasty results. BP NEVER goes bad!:eek:
 
A spark stuck from steel is a white-hot steel particle that, like those struck from a frizzen, will ignite BP. As per the above, a static spark will not. I am convinced they knew the difference even though they might not have been able to explain it in modern physical terms.
 
plinker 777 said:
Interesting; do you suppose when our ancestors made everything in a powder magazine out of copper, brass and wood to prevent a spark from steel, they were also discounting static (even lightning) because they didn't understand, or they were experienced enough with powder and its potentials that it wasn't a concern?
Click to expand...

Id say they made it out of those as they wont spark when struck, only ferris metals will spark when struck. Copper, and brass will conduct electricity so it cant be because of that.
 
I have some FFG black powder that is at least 80 years old. It is in metal cans, there is no rust, and it still gives very accurate results.
It is Dupont powder and it seems to leave less fouling that GOEX
 
plinker 777 said:
Interesting; do you suppose when our ancestors made everything in a powder magazine out of copper, brass and wood to prevent a spark from steel, they were also discounting static (even lightning) because they didn't understand, or they were experienced enough with powder and its potentials that it wasn't a concern?
Click to expand...

There was no real understanding of electricity for hundreds of years after BP was in common ussage. They used the tools they did because they prevented known caused of ignition. In ship use, the men working in the magazine would wear felt slippers, and the floors had gaps between the boards and a sub floor underneath to prevent walking on spilled powder as much as possible, and preventing sparks from shoe nails. It's really interesting reading, and one is forced to wonder how many blew them selves up learning the in's and outs.

Mechanically mixed powder was serpentine powder...as opposed to corned or wet mix powder. Another interesting read is the history of du pont's powder mills in the states. There is also a really interesting section on BP in Hatcher's Note book
 
Cocked&Locked said:
There was no real understanding of electricity for hundreds of years after BP was in common ussage. They used the tools they did because they prevented known caused of ignition. In ship use, the men working in the magazine would wear felt slippers, and the floors had gaps between the boards and a sub floor underneath to prevent walking on spilled powder as much as possible, and preventing sparks from shoe nails. It's really interesting reading, and one is forced to wonder how many blew them selves up learning the in's and outs.

Mechanically mixed powder was serpentine powder...as opposed to corned or wet mix powder. Another interesting read is the history of du pont's powder mills in the states. There is also a really interesting section on BP in Hatcher's Note book
Click to expand...


Interesting I have a copy of Hatcher's somewhere and will look it up thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom