Page 2 of 2

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:53 am
by jackssmirkingrevenge
SpudBlaster15 wrote:I assumed you were suggesting that confinement has no effect on the burn rape of a loosely packed quantity of powdered/granulated pyrotechnic composition such as black powder.
Oh dear... this IS going off topic!

:D :D :D

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:22 am
by SpudBlaster15
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras nec placerat erat. Vivamus dapibus egestas nunc, at eleifend neque. Suspendisse potenti. Sed dictum lacus eu nisl pretium vehicula. Ut faucibus hendrerit nisi. Integer ultricies orci eu ultrices malesuada. Fusce id mauris risus. Suspendisse finibus ligula et nisl rutrum efficitur. Vestibulum posuere erat pellentesque ornare venenatis. Integer commodo fermentum tortor in pharetra. Proin scelerisque consectetur posuere. Vestibulum molestie augue ac nibh feugiat scelerisque. Sed aliquet a nunc in mattis.

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:26 am
by CasinoVanart
Does "cheese rape" count?

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:27 am
by CasinoVanart
Hey spudblaster do you still suck?

Edit: No offence intended.

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:37 am
by kenbo0422
Safety Note? The destruction of a 16" gun turret was due to use of black powder ( I think that's what they used ). Be aware. Its relatively small size and high power is probably why its not allowed to be discussed here as a spud gun propellant, among all the other solid propellants. It is also very susceptible to static discharge :!:

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:54 pm
by jimmy101
kenbo0422 wrote:Safety Note? The destruction of a 16" gun turret was due to use of black powder ( I think that's what they used ).
Do you have any idea just how much powder was involved in that accident?
(Hint, the powder bags are moved with a crane.) The same volume of gasoline, if ignited in the turret, probably would have been just as fatal to the gun crew.

In addition, the powder bags were something like 50 years old.

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:56 pm
by kenbo0422
The powder bags are 16 inches in diameter, and about a foot and a half tall. You can pick them up. No crane needed. They are loaded with mechanical rams and an elevator system from a magazine just below the turret that is grounded to keep accidents from happening (along with the procedures in place for loading). The bags are silk to help prevent static sparks. The amount? Depends on the distance the projectile needs to go, but I would say a couple of hundred pounds. There is no cartridge, just a projectile and a few bags of powder behind it.

Have you ever seen a silk shirt from the 1700's? I have, and it was just as strong as the day it was made. General Washington had the best stuff... My great great (whatever) grandfather was a Hessian Soldier in that war and we have some very old relics from that time.

The accident was more likely a breach of procedure which caused an errant spark. The system was well thought out, only human error could cause the problem.

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:59 pm
by D_Hall
SpudBlaster15 wrote:I think we can agree that simply increasing ambient pressure will have little effect on the burn rate of such materials, and that a single big chunk of pressed composition will be relatively unaffected by a casing of any strength.
And that's where you'd be wrong.

Again, BP is relatively unaffected by such, but most other energetic materials exhibit EXTREME behavior differences due to such scenarios.

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:18 pm
by D_Hall
kenbo0422 wrote:Safety Note? The destruction of a 16" gun turret was due to use of black powder ( I think that's what they used ).
Incorrect. Well before WWII black powder fell out of favor in the firearms community and nitrocellulose-based propellants came into favor (where they remain to this day). Seriously, no firearm that claims to be modern in any way shape or form has used blackpowder since about 1900.


PS: In the Iowa disaster, the powder in question was something called D-846.

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:27 pm
by SpudBlaster15
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras nec placerat erat. Vivamus dapibus egestas nunc, at eleifend neque. Suspendisse potenti. Sed dictum lacus eu nisl pretium vehicula. Ut faucibus hendrerit nisi. Integer ultricies orci eu ultrices malesuada. Fusce id mauris risus. Suspendisse finibus ligula et nisl rutrum efficitur. Vestibulum posuere erat pellentesque ornare venenatis. Integer commodo fermentum tortor in pharetra. Proin scelerisque consectetur posuere. Vestibulum molestie augue ac nibh feugiat scelerisque. Sed aliquet a nunc in mattis.

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:38 pm
by jackssmirkingrevenge
D_Hall wrote:PS: In the Iowa disaster, the powder in question was something called D-846.
According to this book while BP is not the main propellant it is still part of the ignition system if the main charge on the 16" guns.