Guest no6 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Not quite sure where I found it but it's what we're doing with great results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mumbles Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Have you gotten a chance to compare it against normal BP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Ive honestly never noticed the difference between the two consistently so after 2 batches of the PGI optimised I went back to the version that is impossible to forget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asilentbob Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Black powder can be optimized for the purity or lack there-of of the components, the type of charcoal, the purpose it is designed for, etc... there really is no "optimal mix." Simply mixes that tend to work well for a variety of purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) Have you gotten a chance to compare it against normal BP? Not yet. But here is the link: Optimal BP from Pyroguide PN 74.64Coal 13.51Sulfur 11.85 That equals 100 in case you're wondering. We lifted a golf ball over 400' with 10% lift. Of course a golf ball is a work of aerodynamic art. Edited April 6, 2011 by no6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Just to give a little bit of background on our process... The PN is ground finely in a coffee mill. Our coal is air-float and the sulfur is as well. Then the ingredients are screened well before being added to the barrel. 3 hours of milling with the 15lb tumbler and 2 HF jars yields us 10% and under results. It's hot and arid in the desert and our results are quite different from wet climates it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagabu Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 PN? Lets stay with abbreviations we all know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 If you think that people actually weigh their ingredients to four figures, you delude yourself. Most people don't have the equipment or experience to weigh to 1% let alone 0.01%. The number of forum members who have mill clumping issues indicates the number of people who do not dry the ingredients, what is the point of weighing to 0.01% if there is "About" 5% water in there? Accurately weighing to 1%, dry selected ingredients with charcoal chosen from the choice woods, then milled thoroughly is the best way of making working charcoal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagabu Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 If you think that people actually weigh their ingredients to four figures, you delude yourself. Most people don't have the equipment or experience to weigh to 1% let alone 0.01%. The number of forum members who have mill clumping issues indicates the number of people who do not dry the ingredients, what is the point of weighing to 0.01% if there is "About" 5% water in there? Accurately weighing to 1%, dry selected ingredients with charcoal chosen from the choice woods, then milled thoroughly is the best way of making working charcoal. I make a kilo at one time to eliminate all of the "rounding up" problems it causes. KNO3 746gCharcoal135gSulfur 119g =1000g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 PN? Lets stay with abbreviations we all know I'm sticking with PN. It's less threatening. Don't get your PP in a wad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 If you think that people actually weigh their ingredients to four figures, you delude yourself. Most people don't have the equipment or experience to weigh to 1% let alone 0.01%. The number of forum members who have mill clumping issues indicates the number of people who do not dry the ingredients, what is the point of weighing to 0.01% if there is "About" 5% water in there? Accurately weighing to 1%, dry selected ingredients with charcoal chosen from the choice woods, then milled thoroughly is the best way of making working charcoal. I'm only relaying my experience and working conditions. YMMV. I'm not a fan of arguing about fireworks. Everybody is working under a different set of circumstances. What may work for them may not work for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagabu Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I'm sticking with PN. It's less threatening. Don't get your PP in a wad. If it confused me to read a made up abbreviation for KNO3, it will mislead new people as well, it is better for the community to stay with abbreviations we can at least look up, PN is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Ill make a chart of known abbreviations and the context in which they are known/used Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagabu Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Thanks Ralph! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Thanks Ralph! Gunzy is helping me with any I have missed and correcting any spelling errors that spell checker just cant work out we are upto L , allot of HE acronyms have intentionally been left out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagabu Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Gunzy is helping me with any I have missed and correcting any spelling errors that spell checker just cant work out we are upto L , allot of HE acronyms have intentionally been left out No problem, I dont have any interest in HE and most dont, perhaps a separate list in HE will suffice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 YMMV = Your mileage may vary. I have no interest in HE as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
optimus Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 If it confused me to read a made up abbreviation for KNO3, it will mislead new people as well, it is better for the community to stay with abbreviations we can at least look up, PN is not one of them. PN in a thread about BP isn't really that confusing is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I meant potato nacho. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Hey dag, You were right about Lloyd's book. I had mixed my sources. Here's the link for the milling temperatures: Cool BP milling info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagabu Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 NO6, I'm cool with you, you challenge me and I challenge you, we both learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSM Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I've never tried it (intentionally) but wonder if adding a half percent of fine powdered red iron oxide to the BP mixing would speed things up (catalyze the release of oxygen from the KNO3) like it does in candy propellant?! Any thoughts? WSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 NO6, I'm cool with you, you challenge me and I challenge you, we both learn. I appreciate that, Dag. Dag knows I'm a fool. But I'm a heavy reader and willing to learn from others mistakes. There is a treasure trove of information out there and you all have helped me find it. I found the "optimal mix" and my buddy jumped all over it. We have yet to do the comparison with the 75/15/10. It will come soon enough. But here's what I have learned through all of this. You have to work within your own limitations. You have to work with what you've got. If your lift gets your shell to 200' then your timing must match that result. If your lift gets your shell to 300' then you must accommodate that result. Or vary the percentage of lift used and so on and so forth. The variability is seemingly endless. It is instructive that no one can duplicate Master Tom's recipes. He's worked out his own formulas based on his own repeatable results over a long period of time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but repeatable results are critical to repeated success. Don't try to copy anyone, just try to improve what you've got. I have no interest in making one of the master's designs. It's already been done and much better than I will likely achieve. Just food for thought from a fool. Thanks all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagabu Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 So "been there, done that" with TR's shells. I would chase his designs all over the world and back but I cant afford to spend 20 hours on a single rocket... ever. When making cap-plug inserts, i make up a batch big enough in one day to make a dozen shells. The next time I roll all the shells, then I load them and fuse them. The third day is making motors and attaching them. About 20 hours for a dozen rockets. They are not a s grand as Toms' but they look good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 And isn't it cool that we can test our stuff using cheap aerial shells without wasting our precious sticks? Haha. I fire a lot more shells than rockets. Hoping to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts