PyroAce Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I'm sure I'm not the first to notice it, and I am sure that it has been said on forums before and probably on this forum as well, but has anyone noticed a mistake in Lancasters book Fireworks, Principles & Practice? A hint is that it's in the Glossary section. It's a decent mistake too in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starseeker Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I'm sure I'm not the first to notice it, and I am sure that it has been said on forums before and probably on this forum as well, but has anyone noticed a mistake in Lancasters book Fireworks, Principles & Practice? A hint is that it's in the Glossary section. It's a decent mistake too in my opinion. My self and a few others were lucky enough to be able to visit Kimbolton fireworks with the UKPS and we had a guided tour by the rev Lancaster himself.At the end of the visit we asked rev lancaster to sign our fireworks,priciples and practice which he gladly did and at the same time he kindly gave us a appendix for the mistakes in the 4th edition of which there are quite a few,if you point out which one i can confirm. I must add that the rev lancaster is a total gent and was only to happy to answer our questions,he even supplied the formulation for a old firework no longer produced,what a fantastic day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdmiralDonSnider Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Didn´t know there already is a 4th edition. What is new compared to the 3rd? Any new chapters? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starseeker Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Didn´t know there already is a 4th edition. What is new compared to the 3rd? Any new chapters? Thanks! I have to get ready to go out now,i will let you know in a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyroAce Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 Yeh mine is 4th edition. That would have been an amazing tour!The mistake I am referring to is in the Glossary, under Black Powder, have a look and see if you can pick it, it might not be as obvious as some may think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mumbles Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I have the 3rd Ed. Despite spelling sulfur wrong (see IUPAC you darn Brits), they have sulfur and charcoal backwards in the ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warthog Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 ....he gladly did and at the same time he kindly gave us a appendix for the mistakes in the 4th edition of which there are quite a few,if you point out which one i can confirm. As an owner of this particular edition, it would be nice if there was a way for all of us who have it to access such a document,. Is there a way I don't know of? If I were to pay you for the postage, would it be possible to obtain a copy for myself? I have no doubt at all that the Rev. Lancaster is a fine man but it is sort of sad that he has a "ned" edition that is out there and costs as much as it does with that many errors in it and isn't sending out a sort of general "HEY OVER HERE!" with directions on how to obtain said errata. Perhaps I am simply missing his attempt to do so? In any case I really want to get this errata sheet if it is at all possible. I am a pretty big fan of the book but it now has me wondering what I should and should not try out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyroAce Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 I have the 3rd Ed. Despite spelling sulfur wrong (see IUPAC you darn Brits), they have sulfur and charcoal backwards in the ratio. We have a winner! The Sulfur & Charcoal ratio is backwards, not a big deal, but if someone did happen to refer to this ratio when making black powder they might be a tad disapointed with the end result! The reality is even the amatuer pyro has the 75:15:10 ratio memorised anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starseeker Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 As an owner of this particular edition, it would be nice if there was a way for all of us who have it to access such a document,. Is there a way I don't know of? If I were to pay you for the postage, would it be possible to obtain a copy for myself? I have no doubt at all that the Rev. Lancaster is a fine man but it is sort of sad that he has a "ned" edition that is out there and costs as much as it does with that many errors in it and isn't sending out a sort of general "HEY OVER HERE!" with directions on how to obtain said errata. Perhaps I am simply missing his attempt to do so? In any case I really want to get this errata sheet if it is at all possible. I am a pretty big fan of the book but it now has me wondering what I should and should not try out. There are only two serious chemical errors,page 98 ,line 35 should read explosive ammonium chlorate and page 225 ,line 16 should read pottassium perchlorate 39. The rest of the errors are mainly typographical. After a request from warthog for a scanned pdf copy i am going to send one over and then maybe anybody wanting one could get one stateside from him, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starseeker Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Didn´t know there already is a 4th edition. What is new compared to the 3rd? Any new chapters? Thanks! The 4th edition came out in 2006,it is a total of 497 pages and it is thouroughly updated, This is taken directly from the back cover to give you some idea, This fourth edition of the classic "Bible" of fireworks" has been thouroughly revised and updated. New material includes substantial updates to many chapters,many more illustrations, and the additionof major new sections,including "fireworks displaysin the twenty - first century,"by darryl fleming; Thelegislative framework of firework control,by Dr.T.A.K. Smith;and "sixty years love of fireworks-diamonds in the sky,"by Ron Lancaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrophury Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I have the 3rd Ed. Despite spelling sulfur wrong (see IUPAC you darn Brits), they have sulfur and charcoal backwards in the ratio. It's 'Sulphur' and has been since before the Americas were even discovered. While you're at it.. it's 'al-u-min-i-um' not 'aloominum', stop bastardising our language you bloody Yanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdmiralDonSnider Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) New material includes substantial updates to many chapters,many more illustrations, and the additionof major new sections, Well, I have overlooked this for 6 years then. lolSounds very interesting. Too pricey for 3rd edition owners though. If anyone would take time to briefly sketch the major points of the additions, that would be great, though. I also wonder if it contains 21st cent. formulas...^^ Edited February 12, 2012 by AdmiralDonSnider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peret Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 It's 'Sulphur' and has been since before the Americas were even discovered. While you're at it.. it's 'al-u-min-i-um' not 'aloominum', stop bastardising our language you bloody Yanks! The IUPAC adopted the spelling sulfur in 1990, as did the Royal Society of Chemistry Nomenclature Committee in 1992.[43] The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for England and Wales recommended its use in 2000,[44] and it now appears in GCSE exams.[45] The Oxford Dictionaries note that "In chemistry... the -f- spelling is now the standard form in all related words in the field in both British and US contexts"[46] Humphrey Davy settled on aluminum by the time he published his 1812 book Chemical Philosophy: "This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina."[63] But the same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, in a review of Davy's book, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium, "for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound."[64] In other words, you owe your quaint use of the spelling "aluminium" to some anonymous book reviewer who thought it "sounded better" than the name given it by its discoverer. How scientific. Oh well, ye traditions of Olde England die hard, but let's hear no more about "sulphur" at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagabu Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 It's 'Sulphur' and has been since before the Americas were even discovered. While you're at it.. it's 'al-u-min-i-um' not 'aloominum', stop bastardising our language you bloody Yanks! July4th, 1776... Sulfur and Aluminum thank you very much, Limey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patsroom Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I just can not help myself . Well since we are writing about spelling lets add in speech too, Where did you Limeys get such a funny accent? ................Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrophury Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 In other words, you owe your quaint use of the spelling "aluminium" to some anonymous book reviewer who thought it "sounded better" than the name given it by its discoverer. How scientific. Oh well, ye traditions of Olde England die hard, but let's hear no more about "sulphur" at least. Sir Humphry originally named his discovery alumium(1807) before changing it to aluminum, then settled on aluminium in 1812 because it chimed more harmoniously with potassium, sodium, and magnesium, all of which had been named by Davy. His classically educated scientific colleagues preferred aluminium right from the start, because it had more of a classical ring. But Webster's Dictionary of 1828 only had the old aluminum spelling and wasn't updated to the correct aluminium, which was the standard spelling amongst US chemists throughout most of the 19th century, until the 1913 Unabridged edition. You can keep sulfur though, we like to keep things as simple as possible for our American cousins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potassiumchlorate Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Funny turn this took. It's aluminium in my language too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warthog Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Well, as soon as I can make a cood version of the scan I have I will upload it to the files area here so everyone can grab one if they wish. Thanks to Starseeker! So folks know, I am going to re-tyoe it since it is sort of hard to read now then upload a PDF of that for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warthog Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Thanks to Starseeker for providing a scan of this errata sheet via email. I did reduce it a bit so if you feel this is not legible then leave a comment and I will see about making it clearer. The scan was a full sized, 8 1/2"x 11" (by my request) full resolution scan as a JPG so it seemed way to big to post in that form. Here is the link to the document I uploaded then into my gallery. Lancaster's Fireworks: Principles & Practice 4 ed Errata Sheet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyroAce Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Thanks for that They didn't pick up on the Black powder ratio error though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warthog Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Thanks for that They didn't pick up on the Black powder ratio error though I noticed that too. there is an email address, why not shoot them one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyPyro Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 I know that this thread is 5 years ancient, but I wish sulfur were called sulfurium, since it seems to make many reactions furious-er. <grin> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzoMittle Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Since we're already necro'ing this thread.... does anyone have a copy of that errata sheet available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yus Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Are there big difference between 3th and 4th ed. of Fireworks, Prinicples & Practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharkWhisperer Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 The Third edition (1998) might be located here.... Link removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts