My homemade black powder

[Trapper-Jack]

Yes, I put the thermometer on the outside and on the bottom of the "oven" bucket. I had a couple of them that they sell to tell you how hot the top of a wood stove is. I judged when it was done by the lack of smoke coming out of a small hole in the bottom of the "oven" bucket. I've toyed with the idea of putting a vent, like the air intake on a wood stove, to better control the temperature. I don't know if it would be of an advantage or not. I would guess it took about 45 minutes to an hour to cook the charcoal. The paint can was filled with willow limbs from about 2 inches in diameter to about 1/2 inch. All of them were charcoal to the center. No undercooked ones.

[SeaMonkey]

Bretscher did a test with a willow stick in an oven which was preheated to 600 Degrees Celsius.

It is interesting to note that he found "smoke ceased" at a certain temperature.

Even without a thermometer it is therefore possible to see by the smoke generation approximately what temperature the charring wood is at.



Indian Joe mentioned a while back that he uses this "signal" (as do many others) to indicate when his cook is done.

I do believe, however, that where possible the monitoring thermometer within the kiln load offers the best capability to achieve the best or desired cook temperature.

[DoubleBuck]

From the book 'A Handbook of the Manufacture and Proof of Gunpowder" page 31:
"...to be the readiest means of ascertaining when the wood is properly and thoroughly done. This is shown by the flame which issues into the fire becoming a violet tint, indicating the formation of Carbonic Oxide."
Carbonic Oxide is Carbon Monoxide. When the flame begins to turn purple, which I have witnessed many times, and didn't realize it's importance. That is when you know the charcoal is done. That is how they knew when the wood was done and didn't consider time critical. They just observed the fire off the retorts.
Waltham Abbey's cook times were from 2 1/2 - 3 1/2 hours per batch. But they were doing 3 cords of wood at a time.

[MOA]

Well I just started reading this thread due to powder shortages in general, but I'm also interested in possibly making BP for loading in a couple of my straight walled rifle cartridges along with a few 44 caliber BP revolvers. I've got the potassium nitrate covered along with the sulfur. It's the charcoal that has got my interest currently. In reading about the retort containment vessels would it be possible to use my home built lead smelter as the retort. If one put a steel screen across the bottom to keep the wood up off the metal surface and stacked full with the cut lid placed back on top of the bottom half of the propane tank and a Roto metals thermometer that goes to 1000° F fitted to thread into where the valve use to be could this actually work for making charcoal or would the slight air leakage where the two haves come together prevent it from working????? If so, what could one use as a one time use each time you made charcoal to seal off the crack for each batch. Here's the smelter I've got to maybe work with. The turkey fryer burner is located just below the tank bottom. Any thought how to make this work is appreciated.

[Trapper-Jack]

I saw your set up on another thread. It's quite impressive, I like it. The first thought that came to mind about sealing the seam between the base and lid was to maybe wrap the seam with aluminum tape to seal it.

[MOA]

Funny you mention aluminum tape. I thought that also, but don't know if it would work. I bought a roll years ago for using on molds to get a bit fatter boolit. Any idea of what temp I should shoot for in the vessel and for how long at that temp? Of course I'm maybe getting ahead of myself in thinking it would work in this size vessel. I think it will hold lots of wood though.

[almar]

Funny you mention aluminum tape. I thought that also, but don't know if it would work. I bought a roll years ago for using on molds to get a bit fatter boolit. Any idea of what temp I should shoot for in the vessel and for how long at that temp? Of course I'm maybe getting ahead of myself in thinking it would work in this size vessel. I think it will hold lots of wood though.

MOA. It depends. I took me a few tries to get it right, you may end up with alot of BBQ charcoal and wasted alot of good BP charcoal wood if you mess it up. Its why, before i had my electric kiln, i made small batches at one time.

If it was me, I would wrap the wood in aluminum foil make it about 2 inches thick and wide enough to span across the diameter of the vessel. Raise it up about 4 inches. Put an electronic thermometer with a long metal wire in the can on the surface closest to the heat source and make sure the temperature does not get over 590 or so. Let it cook an hour or so.

edit: cook time starts when heat reaches above 500.

[MOA]

Almar, that sounds like a good approach. I certainly don't want to waste good BP wood.

[HighUintas]

Yes I'd probably do something similar to what almar suggests. I'd just put it in a paint can inside the tank lifted off the bottom surface and try to regulate the temperature inside the tank

[almar]

So Seamonkey and whoever is interested, i finished up a batch of "special test" powder 78-17-05. This is half the sulfur and more charcoal for the KNO3, logic being that since this is a low temp charcoal i made this morning at 530 deg, i may not need as much sulfur and although it isnt 2% sulfur, its alot lower. Ill test it out tomorrow in a 45 colt just for curiosity but the primary test will be in the 45-90 with the 34 inch barrel. I'll look for how much it fouls, recoil and of course, velocity.

It burns well right now in open air, fast and clean.

I'm hoping that it provides less of a hard impulse and more of a prolonged propulsion that will hopefully give better accuracy and speed. If there is little or no difference. ill adjust the proportion to get the full cocoa 78-20-02 and mill again.

[HighUintas]

That sure is exciting. Good luck!! I hope you can see through the smoke a bit easier!

[SeaMonkey]

Yes Almar, very much interested!

We are all very fortunate that you have the means and the circumstance to be able to do what you're doing!

What an incredible learning experience this is becoming.

[almar]

the results are not as good as with a higher sulfur content. Lower velocity and not a very good velocity variation. Maybe a lower sulfur content is better with much higher pressures like naval guns.

This is the 45-90, the average was 1220 fps and the stdev was 9 fps compared to 1242fps and a stdev of 4fps.



This powder was not meant for pistols but i tested the 45 colt anyways. average 999fps with a stdev of 15.56fps compared to 1020 fps and a stdev of 4.95fps.

[SeaMonkey]

Yes, the Brown Low Sulfur (or no Sulfur) Powder is best suited for guns which have long barrels. Longer than normal barrels.

And the powder charge may need to be increased.

Your testing is certainly answering questions and providing insights. Very much appreciated!

A little Naval History:

Back in the 60s the most common gun size on destroyers was the 5 Inch 38.

Bore diameter was 5 inches and barrel length was 5 X 38 or 190 inches. The guns didn't have a long enough range for modern warfare.

In order to increase the range new powder formulations were tried to add power which resulted in the barrels exploding before the projectile exited.

The solution was to extend the barrel length and increase the normal powder charge. The modern 5 inch Naval Gun is therefore the 5 inch 54.

The bore is 5 inches and the barrel length is 5 X 54 or 270 inches.

The moral of the story: For long range a long barrel will do the job.

[Trapper-Jack]

I find this very interesting Almar. One of my earlier batches I increased the potassium nitrate a couple percentage points. I don't have the equipment as you do but I felt from shooting it that it wasn't as energetic as the 75/15/10. I added more charcoal and sulfur to come up to the 75/15/10 ratio and re-ran it through the mill. I felt better about it the second time around. Thank you for your experiment and the trouble you went through to do it.

[almar]

It was worth exploring. I will weigh the batch now and derive what the amount of sulfur and other ingeredients i need to add.

[Vettepilot]

Just me I guess, but I would never re-process a batch, especially when testing scientifically. It's probably no big deal, but errors could creep in, plus the double processing itself induces a variable.

No, instead I would just shoot up the test batch(es) as is, and move on from there. Shotgun shells loaded up with such "discard powder" are a fun, and non-accuracy related manner to use it up. Let the kids shoot 'em; they tend to love them!

If it's legal in your area, making up some firecrackers would also be a worthwhile (fun) way to get rid of powder...

Or, just send it to me!

;~)

Vettepilot

[LAGS]

I just lay out substandard powder and light it off in front of my grand daughters.
They like the POOF.
They think it is a magic show.

[almar]

i reprocessed several previous batches and they all turned out fine, you just need to do the math and mill enough. This reprocessed batch will be tested as per usual and if up to par, will be blended with others to average them out.

I am taking advantage of the cooler winter temperature to make my powder, making this stuff in the summer here is tough.

[Trapper-Jack]

I am taking advantage of the cooler winter temperature to make my powder, making this stuff in the summer here is tough.

This made me smile. My cooler winter temperature involves 0-30 degrees, at least a 10 mile per hour wind and trudging through a foot of snow to get to the shop.