# Community > Resource Library >  Ulrich Bretscher's SMOKELESS BLACK POWDER & HANDGONNE web page. Re-found!

## Cordite

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the web page of this retired Swiss engineer.  Interests in sewage treatment, in watches, and in blackpowder and muzzle loaders.  Hey, that's engineers for you.

Interesting is his information on handgonnes - the first handheld firearm. You can fit many into a standard safe, so why not add one to complete your collection?

Also, Ulrich did some fascinating work on home made gunpowder, particularly on optimised charcoal and on the role of sulphur in gunpowder... and what happens when you make gunpowder without sulfur:

- higher ignition temperature (only a problem in flintlocks, not with percussion primers)

- slightly lower power.

- Minimal smoke/smell and less fouling.

Would be a useful item for someone to produce, as it is a historical recipe from the 1800s and not subject to blackpowder shipping restrictions, since it is not blackpowder as defined in the law (a triple recipe with saltpetre/sulphur/charcoal) and it is less dangerous to handle what with a higher ignition temperature.

Sadly, Ulrich's web site has gone off line for the past year or more, and before that he did not respond to emails.  But I (re)found it mirrored in perpetuity on the internet archive archive.org - here is a link for you all to enjoy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110520....ch/index.html


Ulrich Bretscher - thanks for your good work.

----------


## Micky Duck

awesome site,thankyou for sharing it....I can see a couple of "experiments" in the near future.

----------


## 40mm

Thanks Cordite.

----------


## Tommy

I like that proving mortar

----------


## 300CALMAN

> I like that proving mortar


a mortar with a bore of @40mm

----------


## 40mm

> a mortar with a bore of @40mm


wee bit on the small side.... a pal of mine has one that fits baked bean tins and burns 600 gn each time....

----------


## 2post

Thanks @Cordite I’m still reading though all the links but great read.

----------


## Max Headroom

> wee bit on the small side.... a pal of mine has one that fits baked bean tins and burns 600 gn each time....


Are the beans cooked when it lands??

----------


## 40mm

upon ignition they would be puree!

I forgot to mention the bean tin is full of concrete..... and they come down with snow on em, they go so high!

----------


## Cordite

A shot with sulfur-free gunpowder, showing smoke.  Shame no comparison shot with the sulfur BP.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/S-aJqTRm0as/h...WSdclLUApHmXaQ

SlowER...but not slow.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qzm7ZBJ0-V8/h...u3W0XTRXCDjjHQ

----------


## Micky Duck

Anyone else giving the home rolled stuff a go????
I see you can buy a kg of both the salt petre and "pot" for less than $30 off trademe

----------


## 40mm

> Anyone else giving the home rolled stuff a go????
> I see you can buy a kg of both the salt petre and "pot" for less than $30 off trademe


Ah that would be illegal without the proper paperwork. So nobody on this forum has done or ever will attempt such a childish thing.

----------


## MSL

Plenty of people making their own black powder

----------


## Cordite

> Plenty of people making their own black powder


I think @40mm was referring to the possibility of buying pot rather than potassium nitrate off TM.  (-:

The smokeless gunpowder is anyway NOT black powder, as it only has two of the three ingredients of BP as defined in our transport regulations.  At most it is a safer "BP substitute".  What Ulrich Bretscher never tried was making sulfur free gunpowder using the more volatile brown charcoal.

I wonder how the slower sulphur free gunpowder performs in a modern bottleneck cartridge.

----------


## Carlsen Highway

I can feel myself moving exponentially closer to blowing myself up.

----------


## 300CALMAN

> I can feel myself moving exponentially closer to blowing myself up.


Just don't take Port Chalmers with you!

----------


## Micky Duck

correct potassium nitrate...... and no your local pharmacy or fertilizer store WONT have either sulphur or salt petre    but good news is they are for sale on trademe...and look to be finely ground....

----------


## Beaker

Have seen the components ground up in a old vitamizer (spelling), the older version of these new smoothie makers, and then combined. Seemed to work OK..... was for a pack howitzer.....and it went bang.

----------


## Marty Henry

Garden centre's are a good source of potassium nitrate (stump rotter) and flour of sulphur (organic fungicide) Flour of sulphur needs no grinding either but the nitrate does.

----------


## Micky Duck

Garden centre.....now why didn't I try there LOL

----------


## Beaker

> Garden centre.....now why didn't I try there LOL


Amateur...  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## 40mm

> Garden centre's are a good source of potassium nitrate (stump rotter) and flour of sulphur (organic fungicide) Flour of sulphur needs no grinding either but the nitrate does.


There is a better way.... NOt that I know from personal experience. 
The stump rotter is sold in small jars for lots of dosh.
Try a hydroponics store, should get a big sack for bugger all.

----------


## Beaker

> There is a better way.... NOt that I know from personal experience. 
> The stump rotter is sold in small jars for lots of dosh.
> Try a hydroponics store, should get a big sack for bugger all.


Expert level.

----------


## Cordite

> There is a better way.... NOt that I know from personal experience. 
> The stump rotter is sold in small jars for lots of dosh.
> Try a hydroponics store, should get a big sack for bugger all.


Just make sure it is potassium nitrate, not sodium nitrate.  Sodium nitrate is hydrophilic and makes your gunpowder moist just through being exposed to atmospheric humidity.

A sackful... are you planning on powering your 40mm au natural?

----------


## 300CALMAN

be interesting to see how you get on. I have noticed potassium nitrate disappearing from some of the traditional sources.

----------


## Cordite

Ask your local hunting/gun shop to get it in.  It's also used for making sausages!

----------


## Cordite

A research link.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_compositions

And abstract in Chinglish, last sentence at odds with Ulrich's findings, but maybe they did not test in a gun chamber:

"Gaseous phase products and thermodynamic parameters of various charcoal/KNO3 compositions are calculated using the least free-energy principle. From the point of view of reaction kinetics theory, simulation results are analyzed and ratios of compositions optimized. Taking ratio of gas products, force of the powder and temperature of explosion as target functions, low corrosion and environmental-friendly sulfur-free black powders were designed and their thermodynamic properties improved. The physical, chemical and output properties of the optimized compositions compared with normal black powder. Results show that the *sulfur-free black powder is more sensitive to flame, and insensitive to impact and electrostatics.* *The output power is also considerably higher than the normal composition.*"

----------


## Micky Duck

bumpity bumpity

----------


## Tentman

Hmmm - farken great thread resurrection, just added another high priority project to my lockdown list, now to scrounge some saltpetre

----------


## Cordite

> Hmmm - farken great thread resurrection, just added another high priority project to my lockdown list, now to scrounge some saltpetre


The extent you have pre-pulverised the charcoal is critical for having good powder. It determines how intimately the saltpetre crystals are associated with the charcoal. Basically, the better ground the charcoal the larger its surface area onto which saltpetre crystallises when the solution cools! Using the wet method/CIA method/Mickey Duck method, you don't grind the saltpetre - this gets dissolved and then recrystallises onto the charcoal, hence the focus on as fine as possible charcoal.

Tentman, where in Invercargill are you going to scrounge KNO3 in a lockdown situation?

I've requested a copy of that academic paper linked in my last post, see if something comes through.  If anyone is a member of Researchgate ( @stug ?) they may be able to help here.  Looks like it's got some info that needs to be added to this thread.

----------


## Tentman

I need it to keep my hyroponics operation going, thanks Mr Farmlands

----------


## akaroa1

So who on the forum has made the smokeless black powder?

----------


## akaroa1

I'm a tree farmer
So have all sorts of wood available for the charcoal 

Willow
Acacia
Hazel
Walnut
Euc 
Leyland
Macro
Lusitanica
Lots of natives

So small lots of different charcoal could be tried to find what works best

----------


## Micky Duck

a coffee tin with hole in lid on the BBQ works too.....takes some time ,but its worth it in the end...the head off a sledgehammer and an old meatdish NOT MUMS GOOD ONE....and a couple of hours rolling the lumps down to fine grit works...so Im told.

----------


## stug

Sorry not a member of research gate. 

Find a copy of “Life in the Gorge” by Les Marriott. He talks about making his own gunpowder in the depression and the resulting exploits.

----------


## MSL

Flowering willow works best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## akaroa1

I have heaps of willow
It's on my list for tomorrow to go cut and peel a heap

----------


## MSL

Maybe you should speak to my mate.  Hes a real enthusiast and has it pretty well sorted.  Gets results equal to and better than commercially available stuff, and shoots quite a lot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## madjon_

> So who on the forum has made the smokeless black powder?


Not smokeless, used green pussie Willow, peeled,paint tin with 2 small holes,cooked in a fire till gas stops burning, cover the holes and let it cool.
There's your charcoal. I ground it through a cast iron mincer then a gem tumbler with 50 cal round balls for about 4 hours.
Added some other ingredients, tumbled again at the full length of my longest extention cord,now you have "gunmeal"add 5% dexrin,dampen slightly and push it through fly screen mesh.let it dry on newspaper.
Quite fast and clean.

----------


## homebrew.357

I always thought the grains of the stuff you buy are very hard so at the damp stage it could be compressed into round pucks, then dried and then granulated, should give you nice hard grains with more oomp. I have found my case cleaner also is good for removing the spruce off my lead round balls, a ball mill!!!, nar. Have made a puck maker that fits in my reloading press, just for fun and giggles only you know.

----------


## canross

> I always thought the grains of the stuff you buy are very hard so at the damp stage it could be compressed into round pucks, then dried and then granulated, should give you nice hard grains with more oomp. I have found my case cleaner also is good for removing the spruce off my lead round balls, a ball mill!!!, nar. Have made a puck maker that fits in my reloading press, just for fun and giggles only you know.


Good point!

I'm dramatically out of my depth in that I haven't done it myself, but have read about compressing BP to get the an accepted standardized density so that true BP (Not substitutes) is equal for both weight and volume at whatever that given density is, which I thinnnnnnnnnk came about because traditionally volumetric powder measures are far more practical, affordable, and robust in day to day life when people were using BP guns for feeding themselves or fighting. There may also be a benefit that hard BP grains don't disintegrate over time from shaking until they end up as FFFFg dust.

Also have a vague memory of black powder grain burn rates decreasing as density increased(??I may be wrong??), which could explain why people making their own are getting faster, fluffier powders at the same gravimetric weight than the denser commercial manufacturers.

Two neat pages relating to density vs weight
BP Conversion Sheet (revised December 2012) - would have been neat to see a 5 or 10 shot median velocity with same projectile/firearm with each load/powder

https://www.chuckhawks.com/blackpowder_volumetric.htm


I'm curious if one were to make smokeless(sulphurless) black powder, whether it would behave similarly at the standardized black powder compressed volumetric/gravimetric grain weight..... probably not, but would be neat to find out, and would certainly make measuring it with the normal BP volumetric scales easier.

----------


## Marty Henry

There are no smokeless black powders the smoke cloud is solid potassium salts caused by the reaction of the nitrate with the sulphur and charcoal. Potassium carbonate, sulphate, and sulphide which gives the rotton eggs smell.
The gasses are colourless. Reducing or removing the sulphur might reduce the smoke in humid air as sulphur dioxide reacts with water to form sulphurous acid, the droplets of which are white.
This has really got me thinking about going back to making my own.

----------


## akaroa1

> Good point!
> 
> I'm dramatically out of my depth in that I haven't done it myself, but have read about compressing BP to get the an accepted standardized density so that true BP (Not substitutes) is equal for both weight and volume at whatever that given density is, which I thinnnnnnnnnk came about because traditionally volumetric powder measures are far more practical, affordable, and robust in day to day life when people were using BP guns for feeding themselves or fighting. There may also be a benefit that hard BP grains don't disintegrate over time from shaking until they end up as FFFFg dust.
> 
> Also have a vague memory of black powder grain burn rates decreasing as density increased(??I may be wrong??), which could explain why people making their own are getting faster, fluffier powders at the same gravimetric weight than the denser commercial manufacturers.
> 
> Two neat pages relating to density vs weight
> BP Conversion Sheet (revised December 2012) - would have been neat to see a 5 or 10 shot median velocity with same projectile/firearm with each load/powder
> 
> ...


Ok so I read all that and now my head hurts !
Can you get coronavirus from thinking too much ?

----------


## Cordite

> I'm curious if one were to make smokeless(sulphurless) black powder, whether it would behave similarly at the standardized black powder compressed volumetric/gravimetric grain weight..... probably not, but would be neat to find out, and would certainly make measuring it with the normal BP volumetric scales easier.


Ulrich Bretscher did that comparison in an Enfield muzzle loading rifle, home-made three-component gunpowder vs home-made two-component smokeless gunpowder.  Found that the two-component was about 10% less powerful.



The page with the diagram above and the discussion around it.

Bretscher created an impressive three dimensional graph varying both sulfur and charcoal proportions.

Swiss artillery created a type of smokeless gunpowder created by the usual method but eliminating sulphur from the mixture. It overcame the problem in fortresses that you blinded yourself to what attackers were up to once you had fired the first cannon salvo, instead the two-component powder left a light haze. @Marty Henry's post above explains the difference.

To go on from your question canross, Bretscher mentioned that he wondered if the smokeless powder would behave differently in modern, large case small calibre bottlenecked cartridges rather than in an old Enfield muzzle loading rifle.

----------


## canross

Thanks Cordite! I see what you're saying around the comparison of his two home made powders.

I think I usually write too much without being very clear - what I was trying to say (poorly) was I was curious about whether the sulphurless BP would behave the same was as sulphur based BP when compressed as part of the manufacturing process. You can make BP without pressing into pucks before graining it into Fg, FFG, FFFG etc, but you'll get a very light fluffy powder. Pressing into pucks then corning it down to the appropriate grain size gives you a "standard" powder. I have no idea what that standard is, but it seems like there is one. Again, I haven't done it, just read about it. 

I didn't see Ulrich's write-up mention compressing his powder so that the mass (1 gr) matched whatever the accepted "standard" density of BP is, which apparently affects burn rate (from what I've read: as powder density increases from pressing, burn rate decreases). In that way I suspect that home made powders by their nature are faster burning than commercial powders because they are lower density, but at the cost of being less robust and bulkier.
Since we have powder measures that have volumetric graduations, and most countries historically used volumetric measurements for their powders, there must be some sort of accepted density for powders that most current commercial companies follow where they can say that X weight of BP equals Y Volume of BP. I know historically that exact density varied between countries, but within one area of standardization (military, country, region, alliance) they tried to keep that density fairly consistent so one batch of powder wouldn't be significantly stronger or weaker at a given charge volume than another (though it did happen as angry letters from supply agents to powder mills and officials demonstrate).

If the whole "density increase=burn rate decrease" thing is correct, then I'm curious if the two powders (sulphur and sulphurless) might behave the same or differently when compressed as part of manufacturing. Might be that the sulphurless stuff burns faster than its sulphur counterpart when compressed, or maybe it burns slower, or maybe compression doesn't affect it any differently than its identically treated sulphur-using counterpart. Maybe it's even harder to ignite when compressed, maybe it's easier. I'd assume that it would continue to be 10% less powerful in compressed form than its sulphur counterpart.... but maybe it isn't? If there wasn't a significant decrease in performance it would at bare minimum mean you could use your standard volumetric powder measure to measure loads with your muzzle loader and not have to offset your charge weight because it was a sulfurless powder.

Anyways, that's me rambling. It would make a fun experiment I guess is what I'm trying to say at the end of it all.

----------


## Cordite

> Thanks Cordite! I see what you're saying around the comparison of his two home made powders.
> 
> I think I usually write too much without being very clear - what I was trying to say (poorly) was I was curious about whether the sulphurless BP would behave the same was as sulphur based BP when compressed as part of the manufacturing process. You can make BP without pressing into pucks before graining it into Fg, FFG, FFFG etc, but you'll get a very light fluffy powder. Pressing into pucks then corning it down to the appropriate grain size gives you a "standard" powder. I have no idea what that standard is, but it seems like there is one. Again, I haven't done it, just read about it. 
> 
> I didn't see Ulrich's write-up mention compressing his powder so that the mass (1 gr) matched whatever the accepted "standard" density of BP is, which apparently affects burn rate (from what I've read: as powder density increases from pressing, burn rate decreases). In that way I suspect that home made powders by their nature are faster burning than commercial powders because they are lower density, but at the cost of being less robust and bulkier.
> Since we have powder measures that have volumetric graduations, and most countries historically used volumetric measurements for their powders, there must be some sort of accepted density for powders that most current commercial companies follow where they can say that X weight of BP equals Y Volume of BP. I know historically that exact density varied between countries, but within one area of standardization (military, country, region, alliance) they tried to keep that density fairly consistent so one batch of powder wouldn't be significantly stronger or weaker at a given charge volume than another (though it did happen as angry letters from supply agents to powder mills and officials demonstrate).
> 
> If the whole "density increase=burn rate decrease" thing is correct, then I'm curious if the two powders (sulphur and sulphurless) might behave the same or differently when compressed as part of manufacturing. *Might be that the sulphurless stuff burns faster than its sulphur counterpart when compressed, or maybe it burns slower, or maybe compression doesn't affect it any differently than its identically treated sulphur-using counterpart. Maybe it's even harder to ignite when compressed, maybe it's easier. I'd assume that it would continue to be 10% less powerful in compressed form than its sulphur counterpart.... but maybe it isn't?* If there wasn't a significant decrease in performance it would at bare minimum mean you could use your standard volumetric powder measure to measure loads with your muzzle loader and not have to offset your charge weight because it was a sulfurless powder.
> 
> Anyways, that's me rambling. It would make a fun experiment I guess is what I'm trying to say at the end of it all.


Yes, lots of unknowns.  Sadly... I don't think anyone on this forum will invest in a 30 ton pressure BP mill to find out. This is the commercial powder difference.  

Anyway Bretscher found that, by weight his homemade sulfur BP was more powerful than Swiss commercially milled powder! The dense commercial kernels help get a lot more charge into a fixed cartridge space *but does not seem to make the best out of the powder otherwise*. This is good news for muzzle loaders who want to make their own powder as they don't have to make compromises. They can load by weight.  And if you want to load subsonic loads you might even get enough into a cartridge case!

Got a tin of sulfur free BP sitting there and some of shooternz's 212 grain .303 boolits, life on the range is going to be good post-lockdown, but I must remember to bring a cleaning rod... (O:

----------


## Micky Duck

@Coote

----------


## Coote

Well how interesting thanks Micky.

I recall reading somewhere that New Zealand's own native Mahoe (whitey wood) was once used to make charcoal for powder manufacturing.

----------


## Coote

It is interesting that Mahoe is also said to be one of the woods used by the Maori to make fire.   I've used it successfully as a bow drill hearth to create embers.

----------


## Micky Duck

Ive "heard" that charcoal made from totara....like the one growing in my front yard....makes great charcoal but will take much longer to burn down in tin can...and BP made with said totara charcoal weighs heavier than BP made with willows ...like the ones growing in river down the road...wink wink.

----------


## Micky Duck

if you look at properties of willow for burning....burns quickly,sparks a bit,clean ash,very light in weight
totara is similar but I believe TAWA would be very very similar to willow...unfortunately tawa isnt down here in south canterbury.

----------


## Coote

Cant recall for sure, but I think I've heard that grape vines make good charcoal for the purpose.  And all this has got me thinking about producing your own potassium nitrate.  I recall hearing/reading that urine and wood ash were part of the process.  So I just looked it up and came across this simple description:  Science Minus Details: Why Pee is Cool - entry #3 - "Explosive Urination" or "Gunpowder Comes from Pee!!!"

----------


## Micky Duck

read what mr B says about it....really interesting site

----------


## Moa Hunter

> Yup. The hay from barns is an easy source, pre soaked in horse/cow piss. 
> You can of course grow your own.
> 
> Urine also used in tanning fish skins.
> Amazing now how much time, effort and enrrgy society spends "dealing with waste" what was once considered a resource...


I've been to piss farms in Canada where pregnant Mares are kept in stalls and their piss collected. Wonder if any have blown up lately ?

----------


## Marty Henry

Off topic but pregnant mares urine is used to make PMGS pregnant mare gonadotropin serum used in artifical insemination to synchronise ovulation.

I did read somewhere that one of the commercial BP substitutes, 777 I think it was used a complex sugar like mannitol that contains a significant amount of oxygen already as part of the fuel along with the charcoal.

----------


## Marty Henry

> "rocket candy" is made with plain ol' table sugar,and gives a bit bit of lift...


The favourite sweetener of the PLO in the Gaza strip

----------


## Cordite

> The favourite sweetener of the PLO in the Gaza strip


Fascinating to see all that hatred fueling such creativity.  Maybe they'd do better drinking it in some nice coffee glasses while watching the sunrise.

----------


## Cordite

> Maybe they'd do better if they didn't have one of the most well funded military Industrial complexes' jackboot on their neck enforcing the unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory.
> 
> It's like the school jock beating on a nerd. A completely stacked "fight"


Yes, you do get what I talk about. Hating so much you continue a futile fight, passing it on to your children too.

And  the nerd keeps on going back to that fight.  He has Isbergerlam syndrome and so has only one tune in his whistle when it comes to Jews.

----------


## Cordite

> I don't have much time in my life for hate. Conscientious direction of the other, though.
> 
> Palestine "go back to the fight"??? for THEIR land... as opposed to what? capitulate and accept genocide from the zionista?
> 
> Perhaps your memory doesn't go back past, what, 1917? When Israel didn't exist...


Palestine was a roman name, used for a larger region than ancient israel, including what we call jordan now for example.  Funny though that jordan has not been that accommodating of arab palestinian refugees.

Have you considered that Jews have lived in that country for thousands of years? Call those Jewish palestinians. Jews also lived throughout the middle east but were expelled, or should we say inspelled, to Israel and were accommodated. Arabs that moved the other way were deliberately non-assimilated into their destinations to keep the issue / the hatred alive. If you watch Al Jazeera you may there learn some extra facts about the plight of Palestinians in the Lebanon for example. Palestinians in the Lebanon are not allowed to own real estate. So, sure, there is a Palestinian arab issue, but it's as much palestinian arabs vs other arabs as palestinian arabs vs the all-powerful Zionistas.

Being back to those Israelis, they make great stuff, be it cool qualiware guns to rockets to tanks and medical hardware, let's at least agree on that. (-:

----------


## Finnwolf

> Yup. The hay from barns is an easy source, pre soaked in horse/cow piss. 
> You can of course grow your own.
> 
> Urine also used in tanning fish skins.
> Amazing now how much time, effort and enrrgy society spends "dealing with waste" what was once considered a resource...


As an aside, waaay back in pre Charles Dickens days small children used to collect dog poo to rub into leather to soften it..a great job if you were nursing a hangover from hell!

----------


## Cordite

@mimms2

Groucho said it, I am but his imperfect follower! (-:  He heh.

I admire your fortitude in boycotting everything Israeli, but if consistent one should really boycott China too, given they annexed the Tibet just a couple years out from the announcement of Israel and have a generally atrocious record re human rights.  But at least they are better at making victims disappear and not turn up on BBC World to complain about their lot.

Much scholarship became outdated with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, documents that were thought to be late compositions were found among the DSS dating several hundred years BCE in some cases.  Even older, the Hinnom scrolls were from the pre-exilic period (1000-600BCE), so whatever Mitchener based his 400BCE date on, even if a qualified guess he is since then shown to be demonstrably wrong, at least as far as Mosaic Judaism religion is concerned. Mitchener was not stupid, but just did not have the benefit of the Dead Sea scroll evidence, or the Hinnom scrolls -- all come to light of day since the 1960s when he wrote his novel.  That said, Judaism has clearly changed over the years and there is no doubt the Exile period was a period of consolidation and reflection within Judaism, so and the present form of Judaism is very much shaped in the Babylonian exile (cf. much of the Talmud, fatter then the entire bible as we know it), and at least in that way the 400bce date is correct insofar it was a watershed period for Judaism.

I've not seen that wall in person.  Sure it's not a perfect solution, but the solution is shaped by the problem it solves.  We both recall why they ended up having to build it after Ariel Sharon let the PLO back in from the Lebanon and elsewhere -- something he was criticised for, especially later when things turned nasty, intifada, etc.). But when Sharon did it I thought (and I still do) that he did the right thing by them.

----------


## Cordite

> I do (insofar as possible) boycott china.
> 
> 400 was my number, not Mitcheners. That should have been seperate point.
> 
> The "solution" eh. Final solution...


Yep the Endlosung / final solution was not the one they chose for their enemies.   Not universally reciprocated of course.

----------


## Marty Henry

Can we get back on track? This conversation has blown the thread way off track

----------


## Micky Duck

1 plastic 2 3/4" hull...primer 1 1/8th oz scoop of black powder,steel shot cup wad without slits and same 1 1/8th oz scoop of lead shot...so following old rule of same quantity shot and powder...crimped down
AWESOMENESS......BIG cloud of black smelly smoke ,stuff all recoil and it patterns tighter than a tight thing due to lower velocity and unslit wad....

----------


## Cordite

> 1 plastic 2 3/4" hull...primer 1 1/8th oz scoop of black powder,steel shot cup wad without slits and same 1 1/8th oz scoop of lead shot...so following old rule of same quantity shot and powder...crimped down
> AWESOMENESS......BIG cloud of black smelly smoke ,stuff all recoil and it patterns tighter than a tight thing due to lower velocity and unslit wad....


I take it in that particular land of the big cloud you don't bother with double barrels.

----------


## Micky Duck

havent put any through a double yet.......

----------


## Marty Henry

Just stick to using it in your semi

----------


## Cordite

Ullrich Bretscher's page discusses one of the inventive ways of improving on Black Powder at the end of its era while Nitrocellulose based powders replaced it. One such powder was "brown powder", or "prismatic powder" or "cocoa powder" made with brown charcoal. Brown charcoal is charcoal charred at a lower temperature. Brown powder was more powerful than black powder. But there were anecdotes of it being less stable and more prone to go off by itself. One theory is that the magazine explosion which sank the USS Maine in Havana Harbour (triggering the Spanish American War of 1898) was caused by brown powder, but the cause is still debated.

USS Maine blows up, this may be a screenshot of contemporary cellphone footage but I cannot confirm that:


Brown powder was made with 1%-3% sulphur instead of 10% sulphur as the brown charcoal itself made up for the lack of sulphur, both by lowering ignition temperature and also by acting as a binder, it having some tar left in it. The powder was made by charring straw with hot steam at a desired temperature. (This is the modern method of making "activated charcoal" as the hot steam causes the charcoal to be more porous and have a larger, reactive surface area).

Image of prism powder, click on image to see article on victorianshipmodels.com  

Interesting enough, the coastal batteries at Oamaru had similar rifled muzzle loading cannons as depicted in the link.

I came across some interesting Wikipedia information on the charcoal component which somewhat explains the behaviour of brown powder:

  The question of the temperature of the carbonization of wood is important:
  220 °C (428 °F) Brown charcoal.
  280 °C (536 °F) Deep brown-black, after some time. 
  300 °C (572 °F) Brown, soft and friable, and readily inflames at 380 °C (716 °F).
  310 °C (590 °F) An easily powdered mass.
  Higher temperatures: Hard and brittle charcoal which does not fire until heated to about 700 °C (1,292 °F).

I note Ulrich Bretscher made his BP with charcoal charred to 350°C (the temperature at which smoke stops being given off) and he found that the ignition temperature of his sulfur-free smokeless black powder was 440°C, while his sulfur-containing black powder ignited at 300°C. He determined his sulphur-free smokeless black powder was some 10% less powerful than the traditional recipe (but NB, this was sulfur free powder made with black charcoal, not brown charcoal).

For the historical brown powder, the the ignition temperature was artificially increased and burn rate reduced by reducing sulphur content. The brown charcoal, being slightly tarry, took over the role of sulphur as a binder and for cannon use it was hydraulically pressed into prismatic powder to further slow the burn rate. Brown powder provided higher impulse power than black powder as it combusted into carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide which were both of a lower molecular weight compared to hydrogen sulphide from burning sulphur - i.e., more gas volume for same powder weight.

So, if one makes black powder it's worth looking into smokeless, not-so-black, powder.

----------


## Cordite

For my fellows in the forum nerd herd interested in BP chemistry, I gleaned this from a youtube greenie lecture on bio char (the sensitive souls can't bring themselves to say "charCOAL").

Biochar has value in remineralising soil, and works synergistically with chemical fertiliser in increasing crop yields.  This slide looks at the persistence in soil of different types of charcoal, grouped according to the temperature it's made at.



"Brown", less hot pyrolysed charcoal consists of smaller molecules, whereas in charcoal cooked at hot temps the carbon has polymerised into larger and more stable molecules (hence it's tinkly, glassy sound!). The lighter cooked charcoal is more easily broken down in soil than the hotter cooked charcoal with its larger, more stable molecules. 

The traditional explanation for brown charcoal/gunpowder's easy ignition and higher power is that its brown charcoal has not had all the wood tars cooked off. Brown charcoal's smaller, more reactive carbon molecules seems to be another reason.

----------


## Cordite

And table giving an idea of how charring temperature affects carbon to tar/volatiles ratio. Burnt at 300C a third of its weight is volatiles, but at 800C it's no volatiles and about 95% carbon. The chemical formula for the reaction of burning different colour BP would seem quite different for this reason alone.

Source: Chapter 4 - Carbonisation processes



Brown charcoal is more hygroscopic, so for heating purposes it means a lot of heat is lost up the chimney in the steam. 

In gunpowder, it higher water content would be a negative in regard to keeping one's powder dry. Water-to-steam usually means more pressure generated, and heat loss is no problem as you don't want efficient barrel heating.

----------


## Cordite

@mimms2

Groucho said it, I am but his imperfect follower! (-:  He heh.

I admire your fortitude in boycotting everything Israeli, but if consistent one should really boycott China too, given they annexed the Tibet just a couple years out from the announcement of Israel and have a generally atrocious record re human rights.  But at least they are better at making victims disappear and not turn up on BBC World to complain about their lot.

Much scholarship became outdated with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, documents that were thought to be late compositions were found among the DSS dating several hundred years BCE in some cases.  Even older, the Hinnom scrolls were from the pre-exilic period (1000-600BCE), so whatever Mitchener based his 400BCE date on, even if a qualified guess he is since then shown to be demonstrably wrong, at least as far as Mosaic Judaism religion is concerned. Mitchener was not stupid, but just did not have the benefit of the Dead Sea scroll evidence, or the Hinnom scrolls -- all come to light of day since the 1960s when he wrote his novel.  That said, Judaism has clearly changed over the years and there is no doubt the Exile period was a period of consolidation and reflection within Judaism, so and the present form of Judaism is very much shaped in the Babylonian exile (cf. much of the Talmud, fatter then the entire bible as we know it), and at least in that way the 400bce date is correct insofar it was a watershed period for Judaism.

I've not seen that wall in person.  Sure it's not a perfect solution, but the solution is shaped by the problem it solves.  We both recall why they ended up having to build it after Ariel Sharon let the PLO back in from the Lebanon and elsewhere -- something he was criticised for, especially later when things turned nasty, intifada, etc.). But when Sharon did it I thought (and I still do) that he did the right thing by them.

----------


## Cordite

> I do (insofar as possible) boycott china.
> 
> 400 was my number, not Mitcheners. That should have been seperate point.
> 
> The "solution" eh. Final solution...


Yep the Endlosung / final solution was not the one they chose for their enemies.   Not universally reciprocated of course.

----------


## Marty Henry

Can we get back on track? This conversation has blown the thread way off track

----------


## Micky Duck

1 plastic 2 3/4" hull...primer 1 1/8th oz scoop of black powder,steel shot cup wad without slits and same 1 1/8th oz scoop of lead shot...so following old rule of same quantity shot and powder...crimped down
AWESOMENESS......BIG cloud of black smelly smoke ,stuff all recoil and it patterns tighter than a tight thing due to lower velocity and unslit wad....

----------


## Cordite

> 1 plastic 2 3/4" hull...primer 1 1/8th oz scoop of black powder,steel shot cup wad without slits and same 1 1/8th oz scoop of lead shot...so following old rule of same quantity shot and powder...crimped down
> AWESOMENESS......BIG cloud of black smelly smoke ,stuff all recoil and it patterns tighter than a tight thing due to lower velocity and unslit wad....


I take it in that particular land of the big cloud you don't bother with double barrels.

----------


## Micky Duck

havent put any through a double yet.......

----------


## Marty Henry

Just stick to using it in your semi

----------


## Cordite

Ullrich Bretscher's page discusses one of the inventive ways of improving on Black Powder at the end of its era while Nitrocellulose based powders replaced it. One such powder was "brown powder", or "prismatic powder" or "cocoa powder" made with brown charcoal. Brown charcoal is charcoal charred at a lower temperature. Brown powder was more powerful than black powder. But there were anecdotes of it being less stable and more prone to go off by itself. One theory is that the magazine explosion which sank the USS Maine in Havana Harbour (triggering the Spanish American War of 1898) was caused by brown powder, but the cause is still debated.

USS Maine blows up, this may be a screenshot of contemporary cellphone footage but I cannot confirm that:


Brown powder was made with 1%-3% sulphur instead of 10% sulphur as the brown charcoal itself made up for the lack of sulphur, both by lowering ignition temperature and also by acting as a binder, it having some tar left in it. The powder was made by charring straw with hot steam at a desired temperature. (This is the modern method of making "activated charcoal" as the hot steam causes the charcoal to be more porous and have a larger, reactive surface area).

Image of prism powder, click on image to see article on victorianshipmodels.com  

Interesting enough, the coastal batteries at Oamaru had similar rifled muzzle loading cannons as depicted in the link.

I came across some interesting Wikipedia information on the charcoal component which somewhat explains the behaviour of brown powder:

  The question of the temperature of the carbonization of wood is important:
  220 °C (428 °F) Brown charcoal.
  280 °C (536 °F) Deep brown-black, after some time. 
  300 °C (572 °F) Brown, soft and friable, and readily inflames at 380 °C (716 °F).
  310 °C (590 °F) An easily powdered mass.
  Higher temperatures: Hard and brittle charcoal which does not fire until heated to about 700 °C (1,292 °F).

I note Ulrich Bretscher made his BP with charcoal charred to 350°C (the temperature at which smoke stops being given off) and he found that the ignition temperature of his sulfur-free smokeless black powder was 440°C, while his sulfur-containing black powder ignited at 300°C. He determined his sulphur-free smokeless black powder was some 10% less powerful than the traditional recipe (but NB, this was sulfur free powder made with black charcoal, not brown charcoal).

For the historical brown powder, the the ignition temperature was artificially increased and burn rate reduced by reducing sulphur content. The brown charcoal, being slightly tarry, took over the role of sulphur as a binder and for cannon use it was hydraulically pressed into prismatic powder to further slow the burn rate. Brown powder provided higher impulse power than black powder as it combusted into carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide which were both of a lower molecular weight compared to hydrogen sulphide from burning sulphur - i.e., more gas volume for same powder weight.

So, if one makes black powder it's worth looking into smokeless, not-so-black, powder.

----------


## Cordite

For my fellows in the forum nerd herd interested in BP chemistry, I gleaned this from a youtube greenie lecture on bio char (the sensitive souls can't bring themselves to say "charCOAL").

Biochar has value in remineralising soil, and works synergistically with chemical fertiliser in increasing crop yields.  This slide looks at the persistence in soil of different types of charcoal, grouped according to the temperature it's made at.



"Brown", less hot pyrolysed charcoal consists of smaller molecules, whereas in charcoal cooked at hot temps the carbon has polymerised into larger and more stable molecules (hence it's tinkly, glassy sound!). The lighter cooked charcoal is more easily broken down in soil than the hotter cooked charcoal with its larger, more stable molecules. 

The traditional explanation for brown charcoal/gunpowder's easy ignition and higher power is that its brown charcoal has not had all the wood tars cooked off. Brown charcoal's smaller, more reactive carbon molecules seems to be another reason.

----------


## Cordite

And table giving an idea of how charring temperature affects carbon to tar/volatiles ratio. Burnt at 300C a third of its weight is volatiles, but at 800C it's no volatiles and about 95% carbon. The chemical formula for the reaction of burning different colour BP would seem quite different for this reason alone.

Source: Chapter 4 - Carbonisation processes



Brown charcoal is more hygroscopic, so for heating purposes it means a lot of heat is lost up the chimney in the steam. 

In gunpowder, it higher water content would be a negative in regard to keeping one's powder dry. Water-to-steam usually means more pressure generated, and heat loss is no problem as you don't want efficient barrel heating.

----------

