View Single Post
Old 8th June 2010, 01:52 PM   #18
celtan
Member
 
celtan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: PR, USA
Posts: 679
Thumbs down

Thank you, Bluelake. Probably the quality and purity of the ingredientss (sources) in the 16th C would not have been the highest. So, we are left with BP that was effectively less powerful than what was available in the 18th C.
Best

Manuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluelake
I think a lot of it would relate to your point #3. One big problem was having the niter separate; without it, you just have a smoky, smoldering mess, as it is the oxidizer for the bp. However, even when the separation was accounted for, a finely ground powder can still leave a lot to be desired.

I've made bp and tested it alongside modern commercial types, using a standard ratio mix (75:15:10), along with some other ratios. I also used a binder (rice rinse water), which kept things from separating. However, instead of corning, I did a fine grind, which would have been similar to bp here in Korea back in the 14th C. I used a flintlock eprouvette and compared my powder to commercial powders (FFG-FFFFG) and the results were quite lopsided; my powder would register 1~2 on the scale, while the commercial was 3~5. I think that not only was separation a big problem, but also the ratio of niter/charcoal/sulfur. Still, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either type

Last edited by fernando; 8th June 2010 at 03:21 PM. Reason: Inconvenient path
celtan is offline   Reply With Quote