Niall

While forums are an excellent resource for information and we would be willing to help, I can't help but notice a hint of ignorance.

I don't mean that in the rude sense, I mean it by way of 'unknown knowledge'. We aren't here to get you a bang.

The problem I'm tackling is that this is really basic knowledge that is available through meticulous background reading.

I don't mind being wrong, I hope you are well read, and I encourage people into the hobby and to learn more.

But it isn't easy. As much as it may appear otherwise. It's fair enough having access to formulae and simply mixing it.

Understanding what you are doing is far more important. Substitutions are a dangerous area for the uninitiated. The mechanisms of reaction are not simple, one oxidiser or chlorine donor is not the same as another. Some are 'top heavy' and will go off before you get near a match.

Can I encourage a little research of your own across the literature? I say it because it is vital. If you are not prepared to trawl forums for info, how much else can't you be bothered with?

It is all very well advising on substitutions, but how do we know you won't try the same with an aluminium mixture, or barium? How do we know you have sufficient knowledge of volatile incompatibilities? What if your perchlorate is not high purity and you mix it with sulphur? What can you expect? What should you watch out for?

We would be extremely happy to help, but the level of question you are asking seemingly exposes your background experience to us as very little.

My best advice is to start with oxidation and fuels. Research incompatibilities and then come back to us. And you will be made very welcome to discuss this further.

There is a reason that 'flash' is not for beginners, you are admittedly a beginner. What makes it better for you to overlook this fact?

Can you see where we are coming from?

If anything, get your black powder right first. This will teach you far more than you think you are learning at the time.

If you can't make a shell with just black powder, this is not the hobby for you, nor will you ever become competent.

There is no restriction on 100g of explosive. There is no license requirement for up to 100g in terms of building separation distances.

Explosive applies to explosive article also unless specified otherwise.

Once you have made your article. Which you may fuse and assemble for display purposes, you have a firework. Note the law for firework possession, recognise the categories and how the laws apply to the device you have constructed.

Observe health and safety law. Observe firework behaviour laws. Observe public order laws. Maintain common sense.

Keep safe, be considerate in your every activity, have safety response options and if you do get a knock on the door, it's because you have caused it by not observing the above.

Now let's see what 100g can achieve..... You'd be shocked.

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.

Thanks for promoting it David!

As Cooperman says, it is more expensive to get it right and requires constant supervision. I have been working on this process, including careful analysis, for over a year.

All the charcoal I have bought previously has been absolutely dire. Stuff that says it is willow clearly is not. Some of the 'willow' I bought performed worse than bbq charcoal. Of course, it's hard to know that it is dire until you get something better! I agree with the idea of making your own too, it's how I started. I can give tips if you have the means to try.

Ultimately, once my initial outlay is well covered, I will bring the prices down. This includes doing deals to get the wood I want etc. the idea being that if you buy from me, you know exactly what you are getting, and it saves you the hassle of making your own.

What I am selling is exactly what it says it is. You pay for that guarantee. I could sell my main charcoal as willow because it is better than most willow sold on the net, but I don't because I'm a pyro.

There are so many myths and mistakes in this subject that it boggles the mind.

My stuff is the price it is because of what it is. I have to recover my research costs. I sell the 950g to keep postage costs down giving the best value for money across the range.

David will also tell you, that if you message me to tell me you are from any one of a select number of forums, including this one, you get a deal that leaves you smiling. I want to make money, but I also want to let the guys who contribute to these discussions to benefit from my effort.

After all, that's why I started making charcoal.

If charcoal was just charcoal, it wouldn't matter what type you buy. If you buy cheap, you get cheap stuff.

Some might say there is gold dust mixed in!!! Enjoy.

Ps why not message me for a sample, see if it is what it claims to be? I'm that confident!

I hope this post isn't seen as rude or arrogant, it isn't meant that way, I sometimes write in a way that could be read differently to my intended sentiment! Just the way my brain does stuff!