Water soaked powder charge

[Joe Salt]

XBBR Shooter so tell me you don't think anyone will figure out Perpetual Motion, maybe not in my life time. But no one figured Electricity would come this far. And I for one think that is how it will come to be. OH and as a benchrest Shooter I don't run my loads by books or at 70,000 KPSIA. I shoot with safe loads.

Joe Salt

 

[4Mesh]

Back in the early days of Black Powder, it was found that once the powder was dried, you could reconstitute it with water and then dry it again. The resultant powder had dramatically more energy than it had in its as-manufactured state before the re-wet cycle. This was found by the Chinese back in the very early days of gunpowder. So, again, I don't want to dispute chemistry of smokeless powder, but if someone told me that water was used to alter the burn rate, I'd at least consider the possibility.

 

[XBBR Shooter]

Back in the early days of Black Powder, it was found that once the powder was dried, you could reconstitute it with water and then dry it again. The resultant powder had dramatically more energy than it had in its as-manufactured state before the re-wet cycle. This was found by the Chinese back in the very early days of gunpowder. So, again, I don't want to dispute chemistry of smokeless powder, but if someone told me that water was used to alter the burn rate, I'd at least consider the possibility.

If you knew how black powder was made then, and made now, you would understand that it has nothing to do with water.

It has to do with the limited ability of the Chinese to mix powder in those days. Adding water and "doing it all over again" was just their way of making a more through mix.
Black powder is now mixed once.

 

[XBBR Shooter]

XBBR Shooter so tell me you don't think anyone will figure out Perpetual Motion, maybe not in my life time. But no one figured Electricity would come this far. And I for one think that is how it will come to be. OH and as a benchrest Shooter I don't run my loads by books or at 70,000 KPSIA. I shoot with safe loads.

Joe Salt

If you believe that perpetual motion is possible, then you slept through physics in school.

I'm really glad that you shoot with safe loads, but you have no idea what pressure your loads are producing.

 

[4Mesh]

If you knew how black powder was made then, and made now, you would understand that it has nothing to do with water.

It has to do with the limited ability of the Chinese to mix powder in those days. Adding water and "doing it all over again" was just their way of making a more through mix.
Black powder is now mixed once.

Seems, iirc, I saw this on a program on the History Channel years ago. The whole thing was about gunpowder and its beginnings. No doubt the process has changed. Back then, some poor bastard was relegated to constant stirring of a pot of boiling horse$__t. Sorta like reducing down a big batch of Au Jus, but a lot less aromatic. That's how they got the potassium or something else, whatever it was. It was kind of comedic how they mentioned that this wasn't a real desirable job!

I don't recall them mentioning anything about the second hydration making the powder "mix" better. But I could be remembering wrong, it's been a long time. I do remember them mentioning why it was done and how it affected the powder, but simply don't recall much about that detail.

I'm sure the process has changed today, but that does not mean the old process no longer does what it did back then.

/edit.
That program may be available streaming at history channel online.

 

[Vern]

Quote Originally Posted by 4Mesh "Just to add my personal opinion (which is of course not up for debate). If you do not think this subject belongs in a competitive shooting forum, then you do not belong in a competitive shooting forum."

Quote Originally by XBBR "You are right - I don't belong here."

I agree with both of you.

You do seem to act like a vulgar little child a bratty one at that.
Now I guess Ill put him back on ignore again.

 

[XBBR Shooter]

You do seem to act like a vulgar little child a bratty one at that.
Now I guess Ill put him back on ignore again.

Awww, wassa matter Vern, did your wittle feelings get hurt when you were prancing around like a childish prince that was acting like a know-it-all??

 

[a.JR]

Gee XBBR , Sure impressed me with your quick whitty remarks so far , good way the get on with the rest of the guys on BRC ,hey.. Won't be long and you'll have tie a pork chop around ya neck just to get the dog to play with ya .. Only my opinion of coarse..JR..Jeff Rogers

Awww, wassa matter Vern, did your wittle feelings get hurt when you were prancing around like a childish prince that was acting like a know-it-all??

 

[Joe Salt]

XBBR Now you are telling me I shoudn't be shooting my rifle that its not safe? I have a 10" bat action shooting a 300 wsm do you think it gets any safer than that! And as far as Physics goes you need one to get rid of your crap.

Joe Salt

 

[Stonewall]

What happened here ?
I was reading a very interesting post and then .....

And just what forum am I on now ?


Ar-15 .com ?

 

[HBC]

Here are three points to consider:

I. In my statement on hydrogen and oxygen dissociation, a portion of that statement follows: “and likely energy lost in dissociation of the hydrogen and oxygen”, note that the word “likely” was used. “Likely” implies uncertainty and that was the case. I tend to agree with you now, that there is no dissociation of the hydrogen and oxygen. In thinking about that situation, I came up with the same endless cycle mentioned except my example was the space shuttle’s three rocket motors, fueled by hydrogen with oxygen as the oxidizer.

II. Mention of one powder company adding water to reduce powder burning rate: The individual telling me of adding water to adjust powder burning rate also told me he works for that powder company and mentioned his position. An individual with the stated position would certainly be aware of adjustments to powder burning rate by adding water. He asked that he and his company remain anonymous and I will not violate that trust nor even mention the country where the individual is employed. I think I have a good record of detecting when someone is not being honest with me. I believe the statements of the individual, the individual referred to above.

III. I believe the maximum propellant gas temperature in long rang bench rest rifles exceeds 3000 F substantially and likely most loads have maximum propellant gas temperatures of around 4000 F and higher. That statement is based on measured heat transfer to barrels, by others, and considering that the heat transfer occurs in a time period of around 1.5 milliseconds. The heat transfer in this situation considers a hot, high density gas moving at high velocity and involves estimation of heat transfer coefficients and estimation of heat transfer by radiation from the gas.

Another basis of the statement in the first sentence of III above is the results of my writing an internal ballistics program, over many years, that models, thermodynamically, the application of gas pressure to the base of the bullet due to combustion of the propellant, in a large multiple of steps from chamber to muzzle in order to estimate gas pressures, temperatures, bullet acceleration and velocity.

I realize that the heat transfer considerations and the internal ballistics calculations referred to above are estimates but you can make me rethink my results by presenting evidence here, that the maximum propellant gas temperature is on the order of 3000 F.

Please add light, not heat.

Henry

 

[4Mesh]

In order for one of these circular transformations to take place, would the energy not need to be put back into what it just came out of?

To be clearer, (unless I'm mistaken), in order for what both of you have postulated, to happen, 100% of all resultant energy from the burning process would somehow need to be put back into what it just came out of. In other words, you would not be allowed to loose any energy due to friction, radiation, evaporation, etc. And somehow, you'd have to also not pollute the gas produced with any other atmospheric gasses, otherwise, you'd have to also heat that as well.
The "perpetual motion" analogies don't apply, except in theory. The reality is, there's other stuff to heat. And lots of it. There also has to be at least a little bit of time for this to take place, and I'm thinking .050 sec ain't enough.

Thoughts?

btw Henry, thanks for the very interesting reading.

 

[Bob Kingsbury]

I thank you as well Henry, your contributions here are always great

 

[HBC]

TEST WITH H1000 THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE WATER SOAK TEST:

In the H1000 Water Soak test, a test outlined in the first post of this thread, what is the weight loss profile of the water soaked charge compared to a dry charge of the same powder type and lot?

A test sample of 55.06 grains, dry H1000, lot 8 1122003725 (same lot as in Water Soak Test) was placed in a glass vile and covered with water at 7:57 hrs. on 8/2/2011.

At about 8:34 hrs., 8/3/2011 (after the powder was under water 24 hours, 37 minutes), the water and charge of H1000 were dumped onto a paper towel placed over a stainless steel bowl. The powder charge was dried as much as possible with the first paper towel and then dried further with a second paper towel. The powder charge was then dumped into an aluminum powder pan, spread out evenly in the pan and placed on an A&D model 310 electronic balance. A 3.5” diameter fan, placed four feet from the balance kept air flowing over the powder pan. The test results follow:

………………………TEST SAMPLE (55.06 gr. dry H1000 + 1.14 gr. water)

Time………….Charge + Added ……………….Wt. Change Relative To
…………………Water, grains…………………...Dry Test Sample, grains

……………..(AC in shop on from 8/3 to 8/4)

8:43 (8/3).….…..56.20.………..................................+1.14
8:53 ……………55.88.…….…………………….......+0.82
9:03.…………....55.76.…………………………........+0.70
9:13.…………....55.70.……….………………….......+0.64
10:03.…………..55.52………………..…......…........+0.46
11:04...…………55.36.………………..….................+0.30
12:56.…………..55.22.…………………………........+0.16
15:56.…………..55.09.…………………………........+0.03
18:13 (8/3)……..55.00.………………………….........-0.06
6:54 (8/4)………54.98.…………………………..…...-0.08
20:36 (8/4)……..54.96.…………………………..…...-0.10

…………….(AC in shop off from 8/4 to 8/8)

17:15 (8/8)……..54.92.……………………………......-0.14

…………….(AC in shop on from 8/8 to 8/11)

18:53 (8/10)……54.84.……………………………......-0.22
18:53 (8/11)……54.86.……………………………......-.020 (-0.36%)


……………………….CONTROL SAMPLE (71.18 gr. dry H1000 with no water added)

Time………….Charge + water, ………………….Wt. Change Relative to
…………………grains……………………………..Initial Control Sample, grains

…………………(AC in shop, on from 8/3 to 8/4)

16:00 (8/3)………71.18
18:15.……………71.10.…………………..……….....-0.08
19:38 (8/3)……...71.08.……………………………....-0.10
6:56 (8/4)……….71.08.………………….……...........-0.10
20:38 (8/4)……...71.08.……………………………....-0.10

…………………(AC in shop, off from 8/4 to 8/8)

17:17 (8/8)………..71.08.……………………………...-0.10

…………………(AC in shop, on from 8/8 to 8/11)

18:54 (8/10)………70.96.……………………………...-0.22
18:56 (8/11)………70.98.……………………………...-0.20 (-0.28%)


The Control Sample was exposed to the atmosphere at approximately the time that the wet Test Sample had lost most of its added water.

The temperature in the test area was maintained at a temperature of 80 F to 82 F at a dew point of approximately 60 F by a small AC unit, between the time of 8:43 hours, 8/3/11 to 6:56 hours, 8/4/11.

At approximately 6:56 hours, 8/4/11, the small AC unit was turned off over the next 4 days and 10.35 hours. During the 4 day and 10.35 hour period the AC unit was off, the maximum temperature within the test area increased to a maximum temperature of approximately 91 F.

The AC unit was turned on for the remainder of the test, starting at 17:17 hours, 8/8/11 and ending at 18:56 hours, 8/11/11.

By interpolating the TEST SAMPLE data, it can be estimated that the water soaked charge lost the water added by soaking, and possibly other substances, in approximately 8 hours. Over the following eight days and approximately two hours, both the TEST SAMPLE and CONTROL SAMPLE lost weight at approximately the same rate.

The rate at which the TEST SAMPLE lost weight equivalent to the 1.14 grains of added water was approximately eight hours as stated above but the time required to loose an additional 0.20 grains weight was 194 hours. Thus the weight loss per hour of the TEST SAMPLE for the first 8-hours of the test, on average, was approximately 553 times greater than its weight loss per hour over the last 194-hours of the test.





TEST WITH N165 IN AN OPEN GLASS VILE:

This test for N165 powder is unrelated to the test above. This test was conducted while loading a considerable number of rounds for 1000 yard and 600 yard matches for a 6x52 cartridge using N165 powder, DTAC 115 grain bullets, Wolf primers and Lapua brass. It would be interesting to measure the weight change of the N165 powder during the loading process but it would be impractical to measure the powder weight change in the powder measure hopper since powder was continuously being added and discharged during the cartridge loading process.

To test the N165 weight change, a charge of 41.72 grains N165, lot 802-04, was placed in a glass vile. The vile was opened only during the period when the match cases were being charged with powder, bullets seated and cartridge run-out was checked (previous to this test, cases were prepared and primed and bullets selected). The open vile, with the N165 charge inside, served to simulate a powder measure during the period when the cases were being charged. But the open vile should represent a more severe situation since the powder charge inside the open vile was exposed to the atmosphere during the entire test. During the test the actual powder measure hopper was replenished numerous times from a closed powder container and the hopper emptied at night into the manufacturer’s powder container which was then closed tight. The test ran over parts of three days, thus included two nights when the open vile was also closed tightly.

A second glass vile served as a control and the control vile would remain closed during the entire test. A charge of 41.86 grains of N165, lot 802-04, was placed in the control vile.

The time required to charge, seat bullets and check run-out on the ammunition was 17 hours and 2 minutes. Thus the open test vile with the N165 test charge was exposed to the atmosphere 17 hours and 2 minutes.

The results are short and sweet: There was no weight change of the test powder charge in the open vile over the 17 hours 2 minutes exposure to the atmosphere and there was no weight change of the powder charge in the control vile, which remained closed during the entire test. (In about the 11 th. post of this thread, a similar test with N165, conducted in 2005, is described but that test involved N165 of a different powder lot than lot no. 802-04 used in this test, TEST WITH N165 IN AN OPEN GLASS VILE.)



Henry Childs

 

[4Mesh]

Henry, I was tempted to do a small test and add the results, but I'm afraid my scales are out on loan right now. Might be for a month yet...

I wanted to see if 2 measured charges of a powder that were equal in weight before placing in water, would differ if one was soaked for say 24 hours, and the other for 10 min. Maybe I missed seeing it in your results, but from what I'm recalling, it seems like the powder has a limited absorption. A finite hygroscopicity if you will. (is that a word! hehe). I was just wondering the the time element has a significant affect on the results, or if time is more or less irrelevant. For what it appears to me you are trying to learn from this, that might be important when you apply this newfound knowledge to your 1K shooting. Maybe very important.

Yes? no?

 

[B.Johnson]

Following this discussion, I got out my book by Phil Sharpe, 3rd edition, 1949. What I found amazing was the amount of powder produced with that early technology. At one of the largest government owned, contractor operated plants at the peak of production turned out 206,700,000 rounds of .30 cal. This took 1,476,430 pounds of 4895. This amounted to 30 freight car load's at 50,000 lbs. each. This was one month production. One of the smaller plant's loading .50 cal. was using 42,860 lbs. every 24 hour's. I realize this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but I found it interesting as we are talking about powder. The acid production of 400,000, lbs. per day for nitric acid alone is also amazing for some very nasty stuff.

 

[HBC]

You are correct, again.

4Mesh,

Yes, I conducted the last test to learn more about water absorbed by smokeless powder. The results were interesting and might prove to be useful in the future.

For new shooters, the information on RH at Wikipedia is very useful and accurate. If a new shooter is concerned about the effects of humidity on smokeless powder, probably the first place to start is to learn the definition of RH and details of the subject. Don't be hesitant to study, such a "simple" subject. What one can learn at Wikipedia on RH can put him ahead of the vast majority of people on this Earth, including many weather reporters.

Here is another interesting source on RH, http://www.shorstmeyer.com/wxfaqs/humidity/humidity.html. The information there is from a meteorologist located in Ohio.

Henry

 

[dhenzler]

This is TRUE. Remember guys GUNPOWDER is essentially PLASTIC Nitro Cellulose with deterent coatings. What's to get soggy? Deterent's are graphite or blends thereof...

The military also did this years ago... only loaded ammo with it, and it shot identically...

Regards dhenzler@sonic.net

Several years ago, a charge of H4350 was soaked under water overnight. Next day the charge was dried quickly with several paper towels to get surface water off then arranged in a semicircle on the patio concrete floor. An equal amount of dry powder completed the circle. The powder was then ignited with a match and both dry and dampened powder charges burned normally and reached the opposite side of the circle at the same time. Interesting but not quantitative.

I have often wondered how such a water soaked charge would perform. Yesterday I placed 53.96 grains H1000 in a vile then covered the powder with water. This morning the water and charge were dumped, after 18 hr. 29 min. soaking, onto a paper towel, dried with that paper towel, dried with two more paper towels and loaded. As loaded, the charge weighed 54.74 grains, thus it gained about 1.45% water. The cartridge (6mm-284) with 6mm, 108-grain Euber VLD bullet seated to 3.013" COL, about 0.010" ITL, Winchester brass & Wolf primer was fired at a 25-yard target. Everything went normal with the bullet impacting about where expected after the rifle had been bore sighted.

The rifle: 700 Remington action (bought 49-years ago in Odessa, Texas), with Canjar set trigger, 26" Douglas chromoly barrel, 8" twist fitted with an Oehler M43 strain gage for pressure measurement.

The above test is preliminary to a 20-round test, with 20-charges weighed to 54.00 grains as close as possible, 10-charges soaked in water, 10-charges dry.

Measurements planned in the test:
1) Water weight gain for each of the water soaked charges
2) Muzzle velocity measured over a 48 foot sky screen spacing
3) Chamber pressure per the Oehler strain gage system
4) Groups captured electronically and with paper at 101.6 yards with the M43 system
5) BCg1 (this is just a byproduct but might as well be reported).

Why is this being done? Because it is interesting and I love to measure things.

Only the facts will be reported. Any shooter reading those facts can judge for himself the significance and sutibality for his purposes.

I forgot to say: The bullet was seated over the water soaked charge 17-minutes after the water and charge were dumped from the vile. The cartridge was fired 43-minutes after the water and charge were dumped from the vile.

H1000 was chosen for this test and H4350 chosen for the previous but somewhat similar test because those powders are extruded without a central hole. Thus it makes it easier to remove excess surface water from the powder granuels. The rifle will be equipped with a T16 scope.

Bob, I will take a photo of the pressure traces from both wet and dry charges and post them--I think the photos will be useable. I will probably shoot the test Tuesday morning.



Henry Childs

 

[alinwa]

This is TRUE. Remember guys GUNPOWDER is essentially PLASTIC Nitro Cellulose with deterent coatings. What's to get soggy? Deterent's are graphite or blends thereof...

The military also did this years ago... only loaded ammo with it, and it shot identically...

Regards dhenzler@sonic.net

Yeahh, Henry is one of our resident Smart People. If he tests something you'd best pay 'tention

al

 

[4Mesh]

This is TRUE. Remember guys GUNPOWDER is essentially PLASTIC Nitro Cellulose with deterent coatings. What's to get soggy? Deterent's are graphite or blends thereof...

The military also did this years ago... only loaded ammo with it, and it shot identically...

Regards dhenzler@sonic.net

Nobody said anything about it getting soggy. The discussion was about introducing water into it. And,that IS possible. You emphasize plastic as if to imply plastics don't absorb water, and in that you are wrong almost universally amongst common plastics. Look up hygroscopic plastics and you'll see what I mean. Have you ever placed food into saran wrap and expected it not to dry out? Now, how do you suppose things spoil so quickly when wrapped in that stuff? Well, it's cause the water goes right through it. Ever seen stuff leak out of it on a counter after a period of time? Yep, that's what's going on. It's acting like a reverse osmosis filter. It's not because of a hole in it. Well, not just one anyway.

Dunk a 2x4 in water and it won't dissolve either, but it'll certainly take on water.

Let water sit on the linoleum in your kitchen and after a while, the linoleum will have a milky stain from the water. Let it dry for hours, the stain goes away. Same thing for Polyurethanes.