My homemade black powder

[Linstrum]

To avoid me going back and reading 100 pages from the past year, have you guys done any further experiments or made any improvements on making charcoal?

The last I remember is that the one guy had been making some primo charcoal with his diy built electric kiln type cooker and cooking it around 570F (I think)

That's Almar doing the precision roasting.

I don't have anything yet, but I have been trying to find information on creosote formation.

I'm doing some research regarding the ratio of cellulose to lignin in wood, how that relates to creosote, and what kinds of wood might be the better choices. It is not an easy subject because there just isn't any information about what I want to find out. All of that is tied in with how hot to roast wood, along with how long to roast wood. Whether it is long slow roast, or a quick roast, but both at the same exact temperature.

About cellulose, lignin, and the terpenes (pitch and turpentine) like in conifer wood, those come in different ratios with respect to one another, depending on plant species. All of those have an effect on how the charcoal with creosote in it perform.

Then there are plant cell size and how the cells are arranged in the wood grain - a honeycomb structure, brick wall structure, or picket fence structure, down at the microscopic level.

Different kinds of wood keep being tried, some that work well, others that don't. What I just mentioned are involved. I'm looking at things down at the molecular level to see what's going on.

[HWooldridge]

That's right! Almar. I was going to build an electric kiln based off his design, but then put my money into building a muzzleloader. That kiln may be a project for 2023.

FYI, used ceramic/pottery kilns are cheap - that's what I used to make my charcoal. I bought it off Craigslist several years ago for a bronze casting project (to burn out lost wax molds) and it's done double duty as an easily controllable heat source. I think I paid a couple hundred for a 20 year-old unit that still works just fine.

[HWooldridge]

That's Almar doing the precision roasting.

I don't have anything yet, but I have been trying to find information on creosote formation.

I'm doing some research regarding the ratio of cellulose to lignin in wood, how that relates to creosote, and what kinds of wood might be the better choices. It is not an easy subject because there just isn't any information about what I want to find out. All of that is tied in with how hot to roast wood, along with how long to roast wood. Whether it is long slow roast, or a quick roast, but both at the same exact temperature.

About cellulose, lignin, and the terpenes (pitch and turpentine) like in conifer wood, those come in different ratios with respect to one another, depending on plant species. All of those have an effect on how the charcoal with creosote in it perform.

Then there are plant cell size and how the cells are arranged in the wood grain - a honeycomb structure, brick wall structure, or picket fence structure, down at the microscopic level.

Different kinds of wood keep being tried, some that work well, others that don't. What I just mentioned are involved. I'm looking at things down at the molecular level to see what's going on.

Almar posted this link 101 pages ago. Seems to have some good info, although no conclusive list of woods.

https://cdn.hackaday.io/files/896338...roceedings.pdf

[HighUintas]

That's Almar doing the precision roasting.

I don't have anything yet, but I have been trying to find information on creosote formation.

I'm doing some research regarding the ratio of cellulose to lignin in wood, how that relates to creosote, and what kinds of wood might be the better choices. It is not an easy subject because there just isn't any information about what I want to find out. All of that is tied in with how hot to roast wood, along with how long to roast wood. Whether it is long slow roast, or a quick roast, but both at the same exact temperature.

About cellulose, lignin, and the terpenes (pitch and turpentine) like in conifer wood, those come in different ratios with respect to one another, depending on plant species. All of those have an effect on how the charcoal with creosote in it perform.

Then there are plant cell size and how the cells are arranged in the wood grain - a honeycomb structure, brick wall structure, or picket fence structure, down at the microscopic level.

Different kinds of wood keep being tried, some that work well, others that don't. What I just mentioned are involved. I'm looking at things down at the molecular level to see what's going on.

Yes I look every so often in my local classified for one, but they are always very expensive in my area no matter the age. The cheapest I've found locally is $500 and that's for a really old maybe functional unit. When I do get one, I'll have to test the result of charcoal cooking to the same temperature, but using different cooking time schemes.

[HighUintas]

Also, I know there was a little discussion of breaking up, grinding, and grading of pucks right after pressing, which was supposed to reduce fines to an extent. It would of course make the grinding process safer too. I was thinking I may try this next time I make some but was thinking that it may just end up clogging my sifting screens too much to be efficient on time and yield.

[Vettepilot]

Well, it's a bit of an irritation, but just smile sadly, gather up those fines, and re-process them.

Personally, some day I want to gather up a good sample of those re-processed fines, (only the fines; not mixed with first run), and do some very tightly controlled experiments with them against first run powder to see if there's a measurable difference.

Maybe...

Vettepilot

[Vettepilot]

However, unless you're doing black powder cartridge loading, I just don't see any real good reason to press powder versus just going with screened myself. Just load a correspondingly higher volumetric charge to compensate for the lower density, and save the work!

I used to worry about long term degradation of my granules, and saw pressing powder as a way around that. But with my rice starch binder, those granules are so hard they're not going to break down!

Vettepilot

[indian joe]

However, unless you're doing black powder cartridge loading, I just don't see any real good reason to press powder versus just going with screened myself. Just load a correspondingly higher volumetric charge to compensate for the lower density, and save the work!

I used to worry about long term degradation of my granules, and saw pressing powder as a way around that. But with my rice starch binder, those granules are so hard they're not going to break down!

Vettepilot

Hey VP
this stuff from the grocery store ?? it says glutinous rice starch .....or no good



If yes do I need to cook it like corn starch or just use as is ?

thanks...
Joe

If this not right what Do I look for?

[elmacgyver0]

Next thing you know we'll be adding a "missing fingers and eyes" forum to this web site. I will grant you that most of the guys here seem to be pretty responsible folks who experiment with care and caution and who I trust to do it safely, but there are a few I've noticed who seem ready to go off half-cocked and it is those folks I worry about whenever recipes and techniques for doing this turn up.

I guess everyone needs to know their limitations, I guess you know yours, but please let us decide for ourselves.

[indian joe]

I guess everyone needs to know their limitations, I guess you know yours, but please let us decide for ourselves.

Err --------replying to a 2011 post ??? did I miss sumptin here ????????

[Brimstone]

Chasing creosote content and finding effectiveness limits will be the new thing we establish.
No one has done this. How much creosote can we generate and preserve, how much gets converted into water vapor and how much moisture does the fouling retain. Is more wet fouling better than less fouling that is drier?

I've got a batch of creosote saturated char waiting for testing. I suspect it'll be quite moist, more so than all my previous batches and they were creosote rich too just not to this extent. My last batch allowed for firing from my test rifle (CVA Bobcat) with no need to clean or wipe. I simply had to give up after 30 some odd shots as no resistance to loading was encountered nor any loss of accuracy.

Even if I've reached a point of severely diminished return, I think I've offset the carbon and ash content significantly and that has to be worth something in itself.

I really need to assay the creosote content too.

[Vettepilot]

@Indian Joe: I've wondered myself if that rice "Flour" is the same as "rice starch". I strongly suspect that it is, but do not know.

Then again, one wouldn't want flour to be "glutinous" and sticky, so maybe that's not the right stuff. I just searched for and bought "Modified Glutinous Rice Starch" from somewhere's, and it works great.

If you find out what the "skinny" on that is, let me know.

As to some of these other posts, it is refreshing that we've not had many "obsessed safety cops" poking about in here, isn't it??

Vettepilot

[HighUintas]

Thanks, VP. That's a very good point on not corning powder if using a muzzleloader when you have the grain durability formula figured out. I do want to optimize my corned powder for use in my 45-90, but having the option to make some less labor intensive stuff for the ML will be great. I will search for the modified glutinous rice starch you mention and likely tap you later for process advice

Brimstone, about that creosote optimization. Are you just doing various charcoal cooking experiments and seeing how they perform in your rifle, or are you actually having the creosote content analytically determined somewhere?

[Vettepilot]

Thanks, VP. That's a very good point on not corning powder if using a muzzleloader when you have the grain durability formula figured out. I do want to optimize my corned powder for use in my 45-90, but having the option to make some less labor intensive stuff for the ML will be great. I will search for the modified glutinous rice starch you mention and likely tap you later for process advice

Brimstone, about that creosote optimization. Are you just doing various charcoal cooking experiments and seeing how they perform in your rifle, or are you actually having the creosote content analytically determined somewhere?

There's kind of an easy way to load our screened powder that I like.. You could just weigh your charges instead of loading volumetrically. If you are making decent powder, an equal weight of your home made powder should have close to the same power/force compared to factory powder, even though the bulk, or volume, will be different. Loading this way might be easier than figuring out a new volumetric loading, and it could very possibly lead to somewhat better accuracy as well. (More precise charges.)

So, how do you do this? Well, with pistols and screened powder, some just load the cylinder full, and let the ball scrunch the powder down. This works fine, and might have some accuracy benefits due to very little ball jump, though loading this way is basically back to volumetric loading. (Here, the literal volume of the cylinder.) What I often do is make up paper cartridges of weighed charges. The paper cartridges are kind of fun to make, and very, very handy to use in the field.

For my muzzle loader rifle, I'm going to go ahead and make up some loading tubes of weighed charges with a projectile in the end to cap them off. Just cut lengths of plastic/vinyl tubing a touch smaller id than your projectile, and cap one end with a piece of wood dowel, or whatever. Weigh out your charges at home, place them in the tubes, and cap the tube with a bullet. I will also give the wood dowel plugs a coat of epoxy or polyurethane so that the loading tubes will be air/water tight once done and loaded. These make reloads in the field much faster/easier. Places like Dixie's also sell these I believe. (Both for pistols and rifles.)

Quite generally, factory powder usually comes out the same whether measuring volumetrically or weighing. In other words, 100 grains volumetric of factory powder equals very close to 100 grains weighed. Our home made screened powder conversely, will have the weight equal less for a given volumetric measure. For example, a 100 grain volumetric measure might weigh only 60 grains. But if you add powder to that 100 grain volumetric measure until it weighs 100 grains, you'll have the same power as 100 grains of factory powder, given that you've made good powder...

It's a somewhat confusing subject for some; I hope I've explained it well enough.

As always; just my personal thoughts...

Vettepilot

[Brimstone]

Thanks, VP. That's a very good point on not corning powder if using a muzzleloader when you have the grain durability formula figured out. I do want to optimize my corned powder for use in my 45-90, but having the option to make some less labor intensive stuff for the ML will be great. I will search for the modified glutinous rice starch you mention and likely tap you later for process advice

Brimstone, about that creosote optimization. Are you just doing various charcoal cooking experiments and seeing how they perform in your rifle, or are you actually having the creosote content analytically determined somewhere?

Simple controlled charring and testing that char with different blend ratios to determine performance.
I do assay the woods I use but I've not performed a creosote burn off. It's merely an added step. I will add it to the process next time as I would like to know my percentage of carbon and ash offset. Also where the diminishing returns start.

Am I at 8% creosote? 3%? 12%? Maybe an unrealistic 20%? I can't put a number to it until I run the test.

[Vettepilot]

I, for one, will be interested in hearing about that...

Vettepilot

[Vettepilot]

Many "black powder" information sources are not all that clear about the intricacies of loading "holy black", or the substitutes. Indeed, many sources just say, "You must load black powder, and black powder substitutes VOLUMETRICALLY!", and leave it at that. So a long time ago when I first started, I had a touch of trouble "wrapping my head around it."

So I've decided to list a set of salient points here that 99% of you don't need, but it might help newcomers out a little, or anyone whom has not encountered all the information and/or doesn't yet fully understand. For some reason, it seems the info is rarely found all in one place, nor well explained?

Important points:

1. A measure of real, factory made black powder is very close to the same, whether it is measured volumetrically or weighed. 100 grains volumetric is about 101.6 grains weight.

2. This is not true of black powder substitutes. Black powder substitutes are engineered to have the same bulk and power (more or less), as real black powder, so that they can be safely measured out volumetrically, by bulk, as has traditionally been done throughout history. But the substitutes do NOT weigh the same. They weigh less. They have a lower "bulk density", BUT they have more power chemically for a given weight.

3. If you happen to measure black powder charges by weight instead of the traditional volumetric method, you should be fine and probably won't die. (Really!)

4. If you try to measure black powder substitutes by weight instead of volume as designed, you might die. (You have a possibly substantial overload.)

5. Yes, this has contributed to a ton of confusion and we know this. Just deal with it.

6. Load volumetrically. (or not...)

;~)

Vettepilot
EDIT TO ADD:
I've added humor for fun, but the points/facts are valid. Hope it helps someone.
VP

[Brimstone]

I only use volume because the internet says so. So I use my Lyman 55. Yes I'm poking a bit of fun at yet more lore.

I do weigh charges but only very reluctantly. The least enjoyable thing about smokeless carries over to black powder as well. Trickle charging is not my idea of fun times. Masochism if you ask me.

I can paper patch slicks all day long but there's something I just don't like about weighing my charges.

[LAGS]

I too load by volume.
I just use higher volume with my Homemade BP.
Then work out a load that shoots good.
For example.
One of my rifles shoots really good with a .490 patched ball loaded with 60 gr. of factory powder.
But the same rifle is just as accurate with 70 gr of my Homemade BP.
And recoils match ,

[indian joe]

Many "black powder" information sources are not all that clear about the intricacies of loading "holy black", or the substitutes. Indeed, many sources just say, "You must load black powder, and black powder substitutes VOLUMETRICALLY!", and leave it at that. So a long time ago when I first started, I had a touch of trouble "wrapping my head around it."

So I've decided to list a set of salient points here that 99% of you don't need, but it might help newcomers out a little, or anyone whom has not encountered all the information and/or doesn't yet fully understand. For some reason, it seems the info is rarely found all in one place, nor well explained?

Important points:

1. A measure of real, factory made black powder is very close to the same, whether it is measured volumetrically or weighed. 100 grains volumetric is about 101.6 grains weight.

2. This is not true of black powder substitutes. Black powder substitutes are engineered to have the same bulk and power (more or less), as real black powder, so that they can be safely measured out volumetrically, by bulk, as has traditionally been done throughout history. But the substitutes do NOT weigh the same. They weigh less. They have a lower "bulk density", BUT they have more power chemically for a given weight.

3. If you happen to measure black powder charges by weight instead of the traditional volumetric method, you should be fine and probably won't die. (Really!)

4. If you try to measure black powder substitutes by weight instead of volume as designed, you might die. (You have a possibly substantial overload.)

5. Yes, this has contributed to a ton of confusion and we know this. Just deal with it.

6. Load volumetrically. (or not...)

;~)

Vettepilot
EDIT TO ADD:
I've added humor for fun, but the points/facts are valid. Hope it helps someone.
VP

Mate Ya hit a nerve with this one - grains is weight - comes first - then comes a volume measure whose marking might or might nor represent an amount of weight - heres an exchange we had recently on this subject, another leg of the forum

QUOTE=Don McDowell;5481993]The only change is the internet myth about blackpowder being measured in volume... Read the old books, it's always been in grains or drams..[/QUOTE]

mine
yes! thank you
grains is a weight measure
The people touting volume have missed the bit where the maker of the volume measure took a weighed charge, poured it into a tubular measure of some sort and scratched a mark on the outside that represented where the weighed charge filled the volume measure to, OR they cut the tube (deer antler or whatever) to suit - whatever - somewhere back at the start was a weigh scale of some type.

Blackpowder being what it is, commercial density is consistent enough that most brands in most measures will weigh close enough to same that there is not a problem for volume loaders - however energy level of different brands is more variable (compare Wano to Swiss )

Don’s Reply back
Joe, back in the 1800's they used apothecary scales, and converted the the apothecaries to grains weight. In one of the Sharps catalogs they took a whole page to explain where the best place to get a scale was, and even provided the chart to convert apothecaries to grains and drams. You have it exactly right about using a known charge weight to make a volume measure.

Kenny (Wasserberger) has also done an extensive amount of historical research into the ways of the Old Dead Guys, and maintains a huge library of historical reference.
Things really got bolloxed up in the 1970's when Pyrodex was introduced, and after Hogdon bought the rights to Pyrodex it got sort of straightened out to the point that they put in their little reloading handbooks a chart that explained how it was intended to be used in a blackpowder volume measure, but provided the grain weight of the pyrodex compared to what a quality volume measure intended to be used with 2f blackpowder would weigh if that charge of Pyrodex was placed on a scale.