I like to use a cupcake paper for testing. It's quick to tape down a fuse and put a measure spoonful down. If the powder goes off without lighting the paper, it's good enough (ignoring the fuse run). The enclosed BP is just masking tape to close the cupcake!
Early willow:
Enclosed willow:
Early Pine:
Early HP:
These were all from when I started mass producing. They've improved quite a bit since then. I would mill, take a scoop, run out to test, make another mix! Every 4 hours the neighbours would see a ball of smoke emerge as a new mix completed!
People are disproportionately patient with me it seems.
Charcoal
Started by David G, Jan 30 2015 04:38 PM
55 replies to this topic
#47
Deano 1
-
- UKPS Members
-
- 412 posts
Pyro Forum Regular
Posted 08 February 2015 - 11:11 PM
I do the same with them small paper sauce cups I get my daughter to steal from McDonalds. 
Our saviours : In the ninth century, a team of Chinese alchemists trying to synthesize an "elixir of immortality" from saltpeter, sulfur, realgar, and dried honey instead invented gunpowder.
#48
Crazy Cat
-
- General Public Members
-
- 83 posts
Member
Posted 08 February 2015 - 11:29 PM
Certainly interesting documents, sadly they lack detail for our purposes. Are there any like that wrt BP? Or do you have access to any of that sort?
I'll direct you to this resource I've post before. http://www.pyrosocie...ge-2#entry83015
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. ― Albert Einstein ― Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.
#49
fruitfulsteve
-
- UKPS Members
-
- 1,079 posts
Member
Posted 08 February 2015 - 11:30 PM
I use them McD's sauce pots to, their wooden stirrer sticks are also pretty useful and their straws make brilliant straw flutes 
Yo Ho Ho, a pyro's life for me
#50
Niall
-
- General Public Members
-
- 47 posts
Member
Posted 08 February 2015 - 11:33 PM
Thank you for the link. Will have to chase that tomorrow! Looks like loads of stuff!
It isn't just me then......
Everywhere I go, everything I do, I'm looking how everyday objects can be useful for pyro.
Even better when McDonalds want you to have them for free 😂
It isn't just me then......
Everywhere I go, everything I do, I'm looking how everyday objects can be useful for pyro.
Even better when McDonalds want you to have them for free 😂
#51
Niall
-
- General Public Members
-
- 47 posts
Member
Posted 09 February 2015 - 02:39 AM
I've had a bit of time, now I've finished work, to look at the piece in ball milling.
As I have said, the errors are glaring. It's easy to say that, so I must try to demonstrate why. From there you will make your own minds up and perhaps conduct your own experiments to satisfy yourself of the likelihood of error.
From what I have read, this seems like somebody who is doing all possible to discourage milling, or at least minimise it. I can understand that. There is a lot of 'scare-literature' for ball milling.
Then we must check what is theorised against what actually happens, to see if there is any tether between the two.
Consider how many pyro's there are in Britain. How many do we know about, how many don't we know of?
There will be, and I have seen evidence of some appalling practices, poor practitioners. People who fail to sanitise, fail to keep good working practices, fail to maintain their mills and generally poor in every aspect of practice. You can well imagine that there will exist - around Britain and the world - some practitioners that are so dire that you will baulk at how they are still alive.
Now we consider the risks of ball milling, and refer to the amount of BP milling incidents across Britain alone. There seems to be some disparity between the notion and the effect.
This is not to say that ball milling is safe. I have written extensively on this topic at the pyro gear page, not that I am right, but I've at least tried to quantify the risks. I would happily add that some update is needed.
Trying to keep this brief, but bear with me. I have to respond a little better than 'no it doesn't', or, 'because I say so'.
Starting with particle size. The smallest size of an element is an atom, the smallest combination of a single element or combination of two or more is a molecule. Cells are made up of molecules. A cell is bigger than a molecule for that reason alone. Cells are gargantuan by comparison to molecules.
Ball mills are still one of the best methods for fine division. In fact despite all our technologies, it is widely argued that ball milling is still the best grinding process to date.
So why are we finding, by the author's unsubstantiated claim, that in the best particle division device (outside of colliders - but let's keep above the quantum) a particle that can be divided down to an atom or a molecule cannot be made to fit inside a cell? Does he demonstrate this in evidence? Does he present an electron microscopic slide? No, he just says so, against all the evidence to the opposite.
In there, he makes some grave definitional errors. As I offered in my post, there are two types of mixture, mechanical and intimate. Neither of these definitions means 'really close together'. Mechanical mixture refers to a mix that can be identified by its separate components in apposition to the others. Intimate mixtures are exactly what they sound like, the thing that a lot of our Friday nights set out to achieve, one thing inside of another. These are definitive mixture states, not some light casuistry. An intimate mixture may not necessarily be identifiable by visual examination to assess its components. This is because by the very description, some components house, conceal, or are occupied by the others. In the case of Black powder, as defined equally in law, the mixture is intimate, not mechanical.
If the claim of scales were true, how would the CIA method achieve the same surface bonding? The author has not examined his own contradiction.
The CIA method was, to my knowledge, nothing more than a Boy Scout method offered for the desperation of situation. It is a field method of obtaining a propellant when everything else is looking pretty poor. To my mind, once you are in the situation where you must consider creating BP using a kettle or leaving your piss in the sun, I'd rather consider my escape, or have a look at what is under the sink.....
Across the literature there are various comparative tests on BP production, including the CIA method. Why anybody is still looking at a method that requires you to 'tie a knot in your hanky, dissect the position of the sun from the big hand on your watch and hop three times on a female cane toad' absolutely beggars belief. This goes on to demonstrate that some of the silly noises that still get made in the pyro community are still echoing, and how many people are actually checking their veracity rather than keeping the echo bouncing.
One of the comparative tests actually uses the woefully long CIA method, then ball mills it to finish in order to obtain a measurable result. Funnily enough, it nearly matches the efficacy of ball milling. Is it just me or could we have snipped a bit of that process down? It all recapitulates to the sturdy mill.
A little more.... Cooperman raised the comment on binding and crystallisation in KNO3, the timing could not have been more apt. The CIA process is not dissimilar to the manner in which somebody would go about extracting KNO3 from a mixture. So why would it be a effective manner to achieve mixture?! It defies all sense.
KNO3 is well researched for its crystallisation properties, often described as freakish. We can look around our basements and find the stuff hanging out the walls. It loves to recrystallise in its own structure, which is why, as Cooperman alludes to, it gets drawn out if you don't manage your solvents and solutes. By extension, this demonstrates that the intimate incorporation of the BP can be undone by adding solvent, which is another boot in the author's butt! Potassium nitrate in solution will do all it can to to recrystallise as a complete crystal. This is why some granulation has piss crystals when it dries, all the work of the mill has been undone. Why aren't we seeing these crystals if they cannot fit into the pores?
I return to the author's misunderstanding of mixing and milling. If his claims were true, that screening repeatedly would arrive you at the same quality of powder, we would not use all-component milling to produce it. It is that simple. Again, it is holding a mirror up from the book to what you see around you. If you milled the components to their smallest achievable size, separately, and then screen mixed them, the author feels that an ad infinitum process would increasingly improve the mixture. No. Once homogeneity is achieved, you only alter it with each pass of the screen. You can even screen it once more and diminish the quality of your mix. Why bother with a screen? Why then would a stirrer not achieve the same result? Why are these processes not the industry standard? Because he is fundamentally wrong in the principle of the mixture he describes. He describes the arrival of good BP being available by mixing to a point that is intimate. But it is not an intimate mixture, he is describing a mechanical mixture.
He says that the ball milling is necessary, because it is a good mixer, this confuses me, given that which I have described above. Why then would a stirrer not achieve the same quality? He said himself it's 'just a mixer'. If it was just a mixer, why would heavier media have a better effect than ceramics? The actions would be no different.
No. The ball mill is used to exert a heavy moving force over the components, as the components move through the media they divide and integrate intimately into the charcoal.
The structure of willow and hardwoods remain extremely resilient in their charcoals, it is the resilience of the cellular structure during milling that is the benefit of the wood. This is why BP takes longer in hardwoods.
Then to softwoods. As made evident to me recently, I submitted my pine for testing, alongside the willows etc, it seems that the pine could achieve a fantastic powder in a short time. But when the mill was allowed to run longer, the quality started to diminish as the charcoal began to lose its properties.
There is something in this. If the author was right, the wood would not matter. We could just put carbon in, a bit of pyrolysed lignin and a touch of mineral and the results would be the same.
I'm sorry to go on, but I felt it necessary to respond properly. There is actually far more in this, hence it took me so long to get my breath. But I think there is enough on the table for now. I don't know where to start on his issues of static potential...... Meh
I hope you realise my rant is aimed at the author, not the poster.
Edit note:
In all fairness to the Author, despite not having read the fullness of his book, other than his comments being intrinsically inaccurate, I may have taken him out of context. I personally doubt it, but accept the possibility.
Whilst considering his work, one thought did come to mind. The possibility that his mill was not sufficient. That his method may not have been optimised.
There is much research and writing on ball milling. The final outcome for BP is rather simple. Half fill a cylinder with high mass non-sparking media and tumble at around 90 rpm. My finding is that the media seems best made up of antimony hardened lead balls at 15mm, if the weight is disproportionate to the media volume, some number of ceramics may be substituted. The noise should be a constant cascade and the balance of the cylinder should not incur undue load on the motor. The components should sit between or slightly above the media, which should be judged by the resultant volume rather than the initial (trial and error).
If the author fell short of this practice in any way, it might be a compelling error in his findings, but would explain the anomaly and perhaps substantiate his claims. I do not suspect he set out to mislead.
As I have said, the errors are glaring. It's easy to say that, so I must try to demonstrate why. From there you will make your own minds up and perhaps conduct your own experiments to satisfy yourself of the likelihood of error.
From what I have read, this seems like somebody who is doing all possible to discourage milling, or at least minimise it. I can understand that. There is a lot of 'scare-literature' for ball milling.
Then we must check what is theorised against what actually happens, to see if there is any tether between the two.
Consider how many pyro's there are in Britain. How many do we know about, how many don't we know of?
There will be, and I have seen evidence of some appalling practices, poor practitioners. People who fail to sanitise, fail to keep good working practices, fail to maintain their mills and generally poor in every aspect of practice. You can well imagine that there will exist - around Britain and the world - some practitioners that are so dire that you will baulk at how they are still alive.
Now we consider the risks of ball milling, and refer to the amount of BP milling incidents across Britain alone. There seems to be some disparity between the notion and the effect.
This is not to say that ball milling is safe. I have written extensively on this topic at the pyro gear page, not that I am right, but I've at least tried to quantify the risks. I would happily add that some update is needed.
Trying to keep this brief, but bear with me. I have to respond a little better than 'no it doesn't', or, 'because I say so'.
Starting with particle size. The smallest size of an element is an atom, the smallest combination of a single element or combination of two or more is a molecule. Cells are made up of molecules. A cell is bigger than a molecule for that reason alone. Cells are gargantuan by comparison to molecules.
Ball mills are still one of the best methods for fine division. In fact despite all our technologies, it is widely argued that ball milling is still the best grinding process to date.
So why are we finding, by the author's unsubstantiated claim, that in the best particle division device (outside of colliders - but let's keep above the quantum) a particle that can be divided down to an atom or a molecule cannot be made to fit inside a cell? Does he demonstrate this in evidence? Does he present an electron microscopic slide? No, he just says so, against all the evidence to the opposite.
In there, he makes some grave definitional errors. As I offered in my post, there are two types of mixture, mechanical and intimate. Neither of these definitions means 'really close together'. Mechanical mixture refers to a mix that can be identified by its separate components in apposition to the others. Intimate mixtures are exactly what they sound like, the thing that a lot of our Friday nights set out to achieve, one thing inside of another. These are definitive mixture states, not some light casuistry. An intimate mixture may not necessarily be identifiable by visual examination to assess its components. This is because by the very description, some components house, conceal, or are occupied by the others. In the case of Black powder, as defined equally in law, the mixture is intimate, not mechanical.
If the claim of scales were true, how would the CIA method achieve the same surface bonding? The author has not examined his own contradiction.
The CIA method was, to my knowledge, nothing more than a Boy Scout method offered for the desperation of situation. It is a field method of obtaining a propellant when everything else is looking pretty poor. To my mind, once you are in the situation where you must consider creating BP using a kettle or leaving your piss in the sun, I'd rather consider my escape, or have a look at what is under the sink.....
Across the literature there are various comparative tests on BP production, including the CIA method. Why anybody is still looking at a method that requires you to 'tie a knot in your hanky, dissect the position of the sun from the big hand on your watch and hop three times on a female cane toad' absolutely beggars belief. This goes on to demonstrate that some of the silly noises that still get made in the pyro community are still echoing, and how many people are actually checking their veracity rather than keeping the echo bouncing.
One of the comparative tests actually uses the woefully long CIA method, then ball mills it to finish in order to obtain a measurable result. Funnily enough, it nearly matches the efficacy of ball milling. Is it just me or could we have snipped a bit of that process down? It all recapitulates to the sturdy mill.
A little more.... Cooperman raised the comment on binding and crystallisation in KNO3, the timing could not have been more apt. The CIA process is not dissimilar to the manner in which somebody would go about extracting KNO3 from a mixture. So why would it be a effective manner to achieve mixture?! It defies all sense.
KNO3 is well researched for its crystallisation properties, often described as freakish. We can look around our basements and find the stuff hanging out the walls. It loves to recrystallise in its own structure, which is why, as Cooperman alludes to, it gets drawn out if you don't manage your solvents and solutes. By extension, this demonstrates that the intimate incorporation of the BP can be undone by adding solvent, which is another boot in the author's butt! Potassium nitrate in solution will do all it can to to recrystallise as a complete crystal. This is why some granulation has piss crystals when it dries, all the work of the mill has been undone. Why aren't we seeing these crystals if they cannot fit into the pores?
I return to the author's misunderstanding of mixing and milling. If his claims were true, that screening repeatedly would arrive you at the same quality of powder, we would not use all-component milling to produce it. It is that simple. Again, it is holding a mirror up from the book to what you see around you. If you milled the components to their smallest achievable size, separately, and then screen mixed them, the author feels that an ad infinitum process would increasingly improve the mixture. No. Once homogeneity is achieved, you only alter it with each pass of the screen. You can even screen it once more and diminish the quality of your mix. Why bother with a screen? Why then would a stirrer not achieve the same result? Why are these processes not the industry standard? Because he is fundamentally wrong in the principle of the mixture he describes. He describes the arrival of good BP being available by mixing to a point that is intimate. But it is not an intimate mixture, he is describing a mechanical mixture.
He says that the ball milling is necessary, because it is a good mixer, this confuses me, given that which I have described above. Why then would a stirrer not achieve the same quality? He said himself it's 'just a mixer'. If it was just a mixer, why would heavier media have a better effect than ceramics? The actions would be no different.
No. The ball mill is used to exert a heavy moving force over the components, as the components move through the media they divide and integrate intimately into the charcoal.
The structure of willow and hardwoods remain extremely resilient in their charcoals, it is the resilience of the cellular structure during milling that is the benefit of the wood. This is why BP takes longer in hardwoods.
Then to softwoods. As made evident to me recently, I submitted my pine for testing, alongside the willows etc, it seems that the pine could achieve a fantastic powder in a short time. But when the mill was allowed to run longer, the quality started to diminish as the charcoal began to lose its properties.
There is something in this. If the author was right, the wood would not matter. We could just put carbon in, a bit of pyrolysed lignin and a touch of mineral and the results would be the same.
I'm sorry to go on, but I felt it necessary to respond properly. There is actually far more in this, hence it took me so long to get my breath. But I think there is enough on the table for now. I don't know where to start on his issues of static potential...... Meh
I hope you realise my rant is aimed at the author, not the poster.
Edit note:
In all fairness to the Author, despite not having read the fullness of his book, other than his comments being intrinsically inaccurate, I may have taken him out of context. I personally doubt it, but accept the possibility.
Whilst considering his work, one thought did come to mind. The possibility that his mill was not sufficient. That his method may not have been optimised.
There is much research and writing on ball milling. The final outcome for BP is rather simple. Half fill a cylinder with high mass non-sparking media and tumble at around 90 rpm. My finding is that the media seems best made up of antimony hardened lead balls at 15mm, if the weight is disproportionate to the media volume, some number of ceramics may be substituted. The noise should be a constant cascade and the balance of the cylinder should not incur undue load on the motor. The components should sit between or slightly above the media, which should be judged by the resultant volume rather than the initial (trial and error).
If the author fell short of this practice in any way, it might be a compelling error in his findings, but would explain the anomaly and perhaps substantiate his claims. I do not suspect he set out to mislead.
Edited by Niall, 14 February 2015 - 04:53 PM.
- Vic likes this
#52
cooperman435
-
- Admin
-
- 1,911 posts
UKPS Caretaker & Bottlewasher
Posted 09 February 2015 - 03:07 AM
As bad as I feel writing little in response, I can't add much to this :-)
Good stuff!
Good stuff!
I do not intend to tiptoe through life just to arrive at deaths door safely!
Click here for Cooperman435, THE online shop for chemicals, materials and tooling
Click here to email me Personally,
Click here to email Optimum Fireworks, West Yorkshire's premium Display Company
Click here for Cooperman435, THE online shop for chemicals, materials and tooling
Click here to email me Personally,
Click here to email Optimum Fireworks, West Yorkshire's premium Display Company
#53
Niall
-
- General Public Members
-
- 47 posts
Member
Posted 09 February 2015 - 05:13 AM
Well, if we threw every book on the table and cited it as fact, we'd be Hinduslimistianuddhists, I'd love to keep all these gods happy, but I have work, beer, females, food, fireworks and sleep.
It is impossible to fit all these big things into the little gaps between the drink and the fireworks after a good sleep.....
💥🍻🔥😇......💤💤💤💤
It is impossible to fit all these big things into the little gaps between the drink and the fireworks after a good sleep.....
💥🍻🔥😇......💤💤💤💤
Edited by Niall, 09 February 2015 - 05:25 AM.
#54
megabusa
-
- General Public Members
-
- 280 posts
Pyro Forum Regular
Posted 09 February 2015 - 08:42 AM
I do the same with them small paper sauce cups I get my daughter to steal from McDonalds.
Not just me then !
I find they make perfect lift cups for 2" shells.
#55
Deano 1
-
- UKPS Members
-
- 412 posts
Pyro Forum Regular
Posted 09 February 2015 - 03:21 PM
I go by the 1.7cm per cubic cm. you can't go wrong with the puck press's I make.
Our saviours : In the ninth century, a team of Chinese alchemists trying to synthesize an "elixir of immortality" from saltpeter, sulfur, realgar, and dried honey instead invented gunpowder.
#56
Niall
-
- General Public Members
-
- 47 posts
Member
Posted 16 February 2015 - 06:33 PM
If it's of any interest to you guys, I am looking at conducting some tests to see how my claims mesh with reality!
I'll let you know where to find them when they are complete!
I'll let you know where to find them when they are complete!
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
