Thread: Ulrich Bretscher's SMOKELESS BLACK POWDER & HANDGONNE web page. Re-found!

@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Much scholarship became outdated with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, documents that were thought to be late compositions were found among the DSS dating several hundred years BCE in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.

Originally Posted by mimms2

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.

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

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....

Originally Posted by 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....

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

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

Just stick to using it in your semi

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.

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.

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.