Gentlemen, I would appreciate if anybody can post flame temperature, gas generated and chemical energy of all the known, or even some of the powders commonly in use.

I had a Hodgons Manual that had the data of the IMR powders, but the book sank in the sea and I can not get another in this country.
I have the data for some winch powders, and for some Somchem powders.

Thank you,

WAH

Never seen such a document and if it ain't on the internet, good luck finding it.

Thanks robster, but I am not interested in the relative burning rate, I need Flame temp. Gas generated and chem energy. Has nobody an older hodgons manual? It was on the left side bottom half of a page.
Maybe somebody else has some info.
If powder manufacturers would not hide their email address, I would ask direct, OK, I have to keep on trying. Maybe somebody at SAAMI has addresses.

Thanks You

Never seen anything like that either. From what I remember from school the max temperature is about 5000 degrees and the average volume is something like 212 cubic inches of gas at room temperature for high powered rifles.

Hi Speerchucker, I am metric. Temperatures range from 2400 Cel slow rifle to about 3800Cel for fast pistol/shotgun powder, gas generated 740ml/g at 25Cel for slow rifle to about 900g/ml at 25 Cel for fast pistol. and chemical energy (from memory but I may be wrong about that, not important to look it up as I need exact values.)about 3000 to4000Kcal.

Which school was that where you learned that? They might have the required info. Guys please help if you can. The final project of my life depends on this.

Thank you and regards
WAH

quote:

The final project of my life depends on this.

This sound ominous! What kind of project are you working on?

The only people that I know of that may have what you are looking for would be HP White laboratories. They have their twisted little fingers in just about everything that ends with (*.* mass destruction.)You would probably have to pay for the report.

Hi Thanks, I try them, but paying is out due to poor exchange rate. In any case every powder manufacturere establishes these values for every batch. Is the only way to ensure uniformity.

Thank you
WAH

quote:

Originally posted by ssdave:
[QUOTE]The final project of my life depends on this.

This sound ominous! What kind of project are you working on?

A database with all the powders. Don't be too confused, they might take your guns if they find out. Regards

WAH

quote:

Originally posted by WAH:
Hi Thanks, I try them, but paying is out due to poor exchange rate. In any case every powder manufacturere establishes these values for every batch. Is the only way to ensure uniformity.

Thank you
WAH

Powder manufacturers have little to no interest in gas volume and temperature. They are interested in moving objects in a controlled fashion, not burning things and blowing stuff up. Their interest is in charge weight, pressure and projectile velocity relative to its weight.

Buy Quickload.

You certainly got that totally wrong. Gas volume and temperature determine pressure in an available space, and pressure creates force and force moves the bullet. Unfortunately, this is difficult to grasp in the imperial system, but something every gunsmith in a metric country has to learn. How do you think wall thickness of a barrel or chamber is calculated? Or the muzzle pressure? Or pressure in a silencer? I have nice picture of a Moose silencer that blew up, and destroyed the scope. If there had been no scope, serious injury or even death would have been the result. It is clear that the Moose silencer was designed by imperial guesswork engineering. And how would you determine whether a glock chamber blew from an overload of wrong steel treatment. And if you were to develop a new cartridge and do it scientifically, you could determine its performance within a narrow margin before firing the first shot.
Thanks anyway

WAH

I checked my Hodgon manual from the 1970s; nothing like that in there. I seriously doubt if any powder maker will tell you what you are asking, for liability reasons.

Quickload gives the chemical energy, but not the other values, so I am told. That is good enough o calculate IBE, but not WCC for instance. What I am trying to figure out how to attache a file here, or a picture.

Thanks

WAH

That manual was from 1990 and I had it, did not copy it and it sank. I am absolutely certain it was there, but not sure which year it was. Why should liability become an issue if a hand loader has a better idea what he is doing?

Regards

WAH

I'm not sure what you mean by "imperial guesswork engineering." There is no calculation that is possible in the metric or SI system that cannot be performed using imperial units. If that silencer blew up it was because incorrect or no calculations were performed, or it was being used outside its correctly calculated design capabilities. Pv=nRT works in either system.

This website might be of some use: http://www.frfrogspad.com/intballi.htm
There are plenty of calculators on line which convert Imperial units to metric.

There is no difference between the Imperial system and metric system. We use both here in Canada. The math remains the same weather you apply it to metric or imperial. pi is still 3.14159, ceilings are still the same height doors are still the same size. Only the dimension of the graduation changes. 300 meters is still 300 meters whether you measure it in meters, yards, cubits or arshins. Using one system or the other makes absofuckinglutly no difference whatsoever. The same goes for temperature, pressure and cubic units. It's a forgone conclusion that I live in a metric country and I can assure you that gunsmiths learn exactly the same things in ALL countries. In fact, most people wanting to become gunsmiths have to go to the USA to get the training as there are only a handful of schools for it in the world. The Colorado School of Trades Gunsmithing and The Pennsylvania Gunsmiths School are the two that are most recognized world round.


My best guess is that if the gun had been fired several times before the unit blew up then we can consider it proved. If that is the case then the owner of the silencer poked it into the mud or left a cleaning patch in it which created a plug or obstruction which raised the pressures to unrealistic levels and caused it to burst.

If it happened on the very first shot, then my best guess is that the gunsmith installed it incorrectly or used a suppressor which was not for that caliber which caused the bullet to strike the side of the unit.

Occam's razor ALWAYS applies !

Hi, without powder specs, it is not possible to calculate pressure in a silencer. In theory you are right that any such calculation is possible, but in most cases incredible complicated. Lord kelvin had a good one when he referred to the imperial system as 'brain destroying'.

A quick test. Calculate the recoil velocity of a slide mass of 14.01 ounces, Bullet weight 125gr, vel 1148ft/s. What is the recoild velocity? I can do that in metric in my head, I doubt very much if you can do it in your head.

And then, how do you calculate the pressure at the muzzle if you do not have the powder specs? I would love to be delighted.

Or calculate WCC pressure in a weapon, assuming the bullet has not moved? For instance, shooting a .308Winfrom a .270? Or calculate the pressure at the gas port of an AKM, and thus the recoil velocity of the gas piston, and then with a given spring force, determine the cyclic rate of the weapon.
Trying to do this, you will probably agree with kelvin. In either example, you will need the powder specs.
Another example you can check for yourself. Go to the site of Winchester(?) loading data and you will see that 'an increase of 1% of the load results in about 1% increase of velocity'.
If you think this is correct, you have proven my point about 'imperial guesswork engineering'. If you know this is wrong, you have proven that presumable the most knowledgeable people have no clue as the result of 'imperial guesswork engineering'.
The correct statement is, that a proportional in crease of say 5% of powder charge, must result in 5% energy increase, and this means only 2.5% in crease in Velocity. How many tens of thousand re-loaders have looked at that and never noticed the mistake. Why is this so? For Kelvin statement about brain destroying imperial system. I still need the powder specs.
I know I will irritate some people, but I do it trying to show interest in the metric system, because shooters in the USA could understand much more about weapon or ballistics. I am not trying to make anybody look stupid I assure you, but look at SAAMI specs, there was a time when imperial measurements were first and metric nect to it in brackets, now it is creeping gin that metric is mentioned first, and imperial given in bracket.
I am not sure of the following, but I do think that Boeing does their design in metric, but I am not sure of that.
No matter what, metric system will come to the USA one day.
Best regards

WAH

Thank you, but this is not about online calculators. I check out the site and I hope I am lucky.

Best regards

WAH

Hi, can you explain slugfoot for me? And while it may be possible to do these calculations, but is immensely more complicated to do so.
Try this. Take your favorite pistol and calculate, initial recoil velocity of the slide, the velocity of the slide when the shell hits the ejector, and the remaining velocity at the rear stop of the slide travel. Ignore friction. Calculate the forward velocity as it stops at the chamber.
Or calculate why a SMG with a 10" barrel firing from an open bolt can not have a high cyclic rate as a SMG with a 4" Barrel firing from an open bolt, allowing in either weapon a max safe shell travel of 0.1". All other things equal. :-))

Remember what Kelvin said, about 'brain-destroying system'. Take it easy, don't damage yourself. :-)) I am still looking for the powder specs, and when I find them, you could all have the benefit of that.

All the best

WAH

"Gentlemen, I would appreciate if anybody can post flame temperature, gas generated and chemical energy of all the known, or even some of the powders commonly in use.

I had a Hodgons Manual that had the data of the IMR powders, but the book sank in the sea and I can not get another in this country.
I have the data for some winch powders, and for some Somchem powders.

Thank you,

WAH"


Is this it or close to it?: http://www.stardestroyer.net/A...itaryPropellants.htm

Hi, yes, some of it is useful,but one needs all three values, but gas generated is missing. I do believe a chemical engineer might be able from the mole of each component, be able to calculate the amount gas. But chemistry is not a field where I can claim expertise. Iam not good enouh to do it.
How powder manufacturers assure some uniformity of powders they do the following. They have a vessel called a 'bomb' in their slang. The temperature is uniformly stabilized for the vessel. Then a certain amount of powder is burned and the flame temperature is recorded.Also recorded is the temperature increase of the vessel. Then the vessel is cooled down or let cool down to either 0 Celsius (273.6 Kelvin) or to 25 Celsius (298.6 Kelvin)At this time, the temperature of the vessel (hot to cold) indicates the Calories of the powder and the pressure in the vessel indicates the amount of gas generated. So, they have then established, Flame temperature, chemical energy and the amount of gas generated in liters/kg, but for small arms ballistics we use ml/g or cm^3/g of powder. The pitfall is that we HAVE to know if the base temperature is 25 Cels or 0 Cels.
Having measured the velocity, we can than determine the max pressure and exactly where the peak pressure occurs.
If you think that is impossible, check out the three Paris cannons of the 1st world war. The max range was 165km, but they were used only at about 140km (from memory) For each cannon were 40 numbered projectiles provided. Each projectile had a larger diameter than the previous projectile, compensating for the wear of the barrel. These cannons were of no importance to the war. One of the cannons,on elevating the barrel after loading (propellant was in small sacks packed into the chamber), slipped the projectile and compressed the load. The cannon exploded and killed all crew. Forgetting this mishap, these cannons were apparently not test fired, and all was based on calculations by Prof Cranz, the greatest ballistician ever lived. I hope it shows how important the three values are for any advanced handloader. Lets find the specs.

Kind regards

WAH

WAH, your posts are an interesting mix of pseudo engineering and physics, with not a lot of grasp of any of them expressed.

Energy is energy, whether it is measured in ergs, joules, newton-meters, foot pounds, calories, or any system. The convenience of any one system is in what constants are used in the equations. Some things the metric system does well as it was designed to work well with easy to use constants. However, as Speerchucker said, any system will do, and it doesn't handicap someone from another culture that works in a different system than you. The only handicap is trying to explain the calculations to someone who is educated in another system. It really doesn't matter if gravitational acceleration is 32.2 fps or 9.8 m/s; those are just constants to make the math come out correct and match physical measurements that have been determined in the field. It may be more convenient to have a cc of water weigh 1 gram; but I can get by quite readily knowing that a cubic foot of water weighs 62.4 pounds and contains 7.481 gallons; all the other properties can be calculated from those constants that I know and use readily. Like you, I can do calculations in my head in the systems I learned; not because they're superior, but because I learned them that way.

I learned physics and engineering in both SI and imperial units, and can work in both. The fact that US powder manufacturers work with an empirical testing system instead of base chemical properties is a function of how they designed their test methodologies, not a handicap of imperial units. They could quite readily calculate the base properties you want, from their empirical data, but choose instead to use the empirical test data directly.

The thing that you are missing in smokeless powder calculations is that the rate is progressive; the net energy released is a factor of the conditions the powder is burned under. That is the primary reason US ammunition testing is empirical; the testing is done under the conditions that the ammunition will be loaded so that the results can be used directly. To use the flame temperature, gas volume and net energy to predict ballistics, you would have to also compensate for the difference in those values under the conditions that your calculations are based upon. So, the calculations would be iterative, with the conditions produced by the calculations being compared each iteration against the conditions assumed for the powder characteristics. When the iteration shows that the results closely match the assumed conditions, you would have a probable answer.

What you want to do is possible, but very clumsy and error prone, regardless of which unit system you use for your calculations. Most of the ballistic programs use surrogate variables such as burning rate and expansion ratios to predict internal ballistics, rather than using exact powder characteristics.

I wish you luck in your work, if you can develop a legitimate system to predict internal ballistics using base chemical/pressure/temperature/energy data of gunpowders, you have invented a system that is much superior to any being used today.

Hi thank you for the educated reply. But I do not for one second believe that powder manufacturer first make a ton of powder, then load some cartridges and compare it to the last batch and see what is happening? No, and the burning rate is taken care of anyway.
Look it from this way, very basic. Velocity is the result of acceleration. Acceleration is the result of force irrespective of all losses.
I would like to correspond with you directly via email.
No, I am not trying to develop something new. It all exists, but the values for the powders are missing. I have values for some of the Winch powder, possible one or two of them superseded. It is too cumbersome to post pictures and spreadsheets here. Would you have an open mind to co-operate? And question do you speak any German on a technical level? I would send you a pdf booklet GRUNDFORMELN DER BALLISTIC (Basic Formulae for Ballistics)You would see that what I am mentioning here is an old hat for gunsmiths in Europe.
However, I am preparing my CV about my gun involvements and I would like to see your CV as well. Just to make sure we are not talking past each other too much. That is only fair I think.
Nice meeting you, and I do mean it.

Regards

WAH

OH yes, just because you never heard of such things, that does not mean i am wrong. PM me youe email addre and we take it from there.

Regards

WAH

You know what the rest of the world has figured out? The metric system. It’s time the US got on board.
By David Wogan | August 20, 2013 |  87


Our choice of unit system is perhaps more important now than in recent years. Science is conducted using the language of SI units. If we want to have a scientifically literate populace, we should make sure that scientists and non-scientists speak the same language. In terms of national competitiveness, Americans are competing on a global market of information now more than ever. We are at a disadvantage by not speaking the international language of science at a time when we are struggling with truly global issues like climate change and resource depletion.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the government arm that sets standards and measurements to support American competitiveness, concludes that “the current effort toward national metrification is based on the conclusion that industrial and commercial productivity, mathematics and science education, and the competitiveness of American products and services in world markets, will be enhanced by completing the change to the metric system of units. Failure to complete the change will increasingly handicap the Nation’s industry and economy.”
Perhaps the most ironic fact about use of our of U.S. customary units is that since 1893, we have been defining our system of units in terms of the meter and kilogram. We have essentially given ourselves the additional burden of converting from the international standard to our own system and then back again.
The closest the United States got to adopting the metric system was in 1975 when Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act designed to “coordinate and plan the increasing use of the metric system in the United States”. The Act did not include any hard requirements to actually transition to the metric system and so like solar panels on the White House, our conversion to metric was axed in the early 1980s.
So what can we do? In December 2012, someone started a We The People petition to make the metric system the standard in the United States. The petition received nearly 50,000 signatures and prompted a response from Patrick D. Gallagher, Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, and Director of the National Institute for Standards and Technology:
In our voluntary system, it is

AK-74 Ammo

I still used the TI-51 scientific calculator when allegedly the first three 5,45x39 cartridges were brought out of Afghanistan by Journalist Al.J.Venter. One of them was given to Bob Brown Editor of SOF, one was sent the Council for Scientific Research in Pretoria, but the CSIR did not know how to analyse the single cartridge. One was given to Col.Des Radmore (Radish)who passed it on to me for analysis. I was not sure of the barrel length of the new AK rifle but guessed it would be about the same as any other AK model. Using the IBE method earlier developed by me, I arrived at three possible muzzle velocities of 870 if the Russians used unsuitable powder, 900m/s as the most likely muzzle velocity and at the most 930m/s as very unlikely if they really could do magic. I made a ballistic table for the 900m/s velocity which is found in my book published in 1989, but the table was made in about 1982 and at that time nobody in the west had a clue to the performance of the new AK round.
The Americans also obtained some cartridges before they obtained any rifles. They made dies to make ammo, tooling to produce test barrels at considerable cost to get results, but I am not sure what these results were, but as of today May 2014 still no complete ballistic tables to our standard can be made by anyone in the USA, and the fact is that the first ballistic table for the AK-74 cartridges seen in the west was made by me.
The table below is an extract from my book, still printed on a dot matrix printer long thrown away. The velocities in my table are corrected in red to what I believe to be original data of the Russians. The differences are insignificant considering that I had only one single cartridge and a TI-51 calculator.
After I presented Col Radmore with all measurements and the ballistic table, he made clean drawings and wrote a report to PMP, the SADF, the SWADF, the CSIR and Somchem which he stamped TOP SECRET.
Although I worked closely with the Army, the Police and Forensics in South Africa and South West Africa, it was never found that I needed a security clearance. So after it was stamped TOP SECRET, I wanted to have a look at the report for which I provided the information, Col. Des Radmore (we were actually friends) refused to let me look at it, because it was TOP SECRET. How is that for Red Tape? Or Bureaucracy?

How was this possible? And why did the US army spend a lot of money? Check out when the Texas Instrument TI-51 calculator was in fashion. That gives you the time. Obviously nobody in the US was capable of doing this. Not because Amercans are stupid at all, but because of the stone age imperial system.

Regrads

WAH

Lord Kelvin speaking at an American convention, but America missed the train!

"You, in this country, are subjected to the British insularity in weights and measures; you use the foot, inch and yard. I am obliged to use that system, but must apologize to you for doing so, because it is so inconvenient, and I hope Americans will do everything in their power to introduce the French metrical system. ... I look upon our English system as a wickedly, brain-destroying system of bondage under which we suffer. The reason why we continue to use it, is the imaginary difficulty of making a change, and nothing else; but I do not think in America that any such difficulty should stand in the way of adopting so splendidly useful a reform." [Source]

Regards
WAH

quote:

Originally posted by speerchucker30x378:

My best guess is that if the gun had been fired several times before the unit blew up then we can consider it proved. If that is the case then the owner of the silencer poked it into the mud or left a cleaning patch in it which created a plug or obstruction which raised the pressures to unrealistic levels and caused it to burst.

If it happened on the very first shot, then my best guess is that the gunsmith installed it incorrectly or used a suppressor which was not for that caliber which caused the bullet to strike the side of the unit.

Occam's razor ALWAYS applies !

None of your assumptions are correct. The pressure was simply too high in the silencer. And as for gunsmiths, no sir, an amercan trained gunsmith would ahve difficulties in Germany, Belgium or Austria. Of course you will not agree, but where are all the side by sides, over under etc Mad in USA? I have seen none, but that is one test a European gunsmith has to pass, to build such a rfle or gun.

And how would you go about calculating muzzle pressure of a rifle and the pressure in a silencer? I have posted a few problems here, and nobody comes up with an answer. Cur out all the BS and try and answer any one of them, but nobody can do it, no matter how you try and ridicule me. Just solve any of the little problems to prove me wrong.

Regards

WAH

260 CLS
270 PRINT " "
280 PRINT " WINCHESTER POWDER"
290 PRINT " ================="
300 PRINT " "
310 PRINT " FLAME GAS ENERGY "
320 PRINT " DESIGNATION TEMPERATURE GENERATED CONTENT "
330 PRINT " OF POWDER Cel. cm^3/g Joules "
340 PRINT " ----------------------------------------------------------- "
350 PRINT " WC 230 3251 867 5958 "
360 PRINT " WC 295 2790 921 3932 "
370 PRINT " WC 452 2934 903 4301 "
380 PRINT " WC 472 2901 909 4217 "
390 PRINT " WC 540 3000 898 4406 "
400 PRINT " WC 570 2969 903 4364 "
410 PRINT " WC 630 3495 838 5958 "
420 PRINT " WC 680 2713 934 3852 "
430 PRINT " WC 748 2570 950 3651 "
440 PRINT " WC 760 2506 959 3567 "
450 PRINT " WC 785 2548 954 3621 "
460 LOCATE 23,25:INPUT"TO CONTINUE PRESS ENTER";IN$
470 CLS
480 RUN"M16"
10000 RUN"M16"

Well Sir.

I was trained at CST in Colorado in the USA and did my 4 years apprenticeship after that. I have been a full time gunsmith for 35 years. I have done warranty work for Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Perazzi, Kimber, Savage, Weatherby and I have operated as a proof house for Remington arms installing warranty factory only parts such as barrels, bolts and receiver bodies. I also operated as the Canadian warranty and provable parts distributor for Weatherby. I have also worked with European trained gunsmiths. So I wasn't born yesterday.

And you are ?

Why would Perazzi need warranty work? They're designed using the metric system.

But you can not do a simple pressure calculation in a rifle or in a silencer. So we are back to guesswork engineering.
Regards

WAH

How should I know? Glock is also metric and I have 90 kaboom glocks on record. But glock never had a background in firearms at all.
And since nobody here can answer a simple challenge or calculate pressure, we are back to guesswork engineering, despite of all the clever comments. Calculate the pressure then I do believe you know what you are talking about, but you need the powder specs to do just that, and it is irrelevant if you are designing a silencer or the chamber and barrel profile, you need the powder specs to calculate the pressure, whether you can do it or not or if you understand it or not.

I only wanted to have the powder specs and I got side tracked, but I enjoyed the performance. Why do we something that neither of you or I have ever done before?

I saw here? or somewhere a reference to a .17 BMG that has never been fired because guesswork engineers could not come with an answer or a load. I could do that within a few minutes.

And yes, one gets big idiots anywhere. I had a German Gunsmith once. After 4 weeks I gave him the choice whether I should open his head with a Panga (what you call I believe Machete) to see what is inside, or if he liked to leave intact. He left quietly and intact.
So, how about making the .17 BMG shoot on paper? Come on guesswork engineers, prove me wrong and show me how to do it. without powder specs. I can do that with powderspecs

It must frustrating to try and argue but not understanding what you are talking about. Calculate pressure. Anyone. Never mind warranty work. Pressure calculation it is and powder specs.

Anyone interested to hunt for free in Africa? I have organized that for some other people, but you are not allowed to take trophies out,but you can take the pictures. On many farms you have to use a silencer for hunting not to make the game crazy.

Regards

WAH

Now, if you can not figure it out, I explain it to you. To make a machine or a gun its all the same, there are three components, 1 design, 2 material and 3 workmanship. Irrespective how you design, you can still fail on the other two points. Too difficult to understand? Or just clouding the issue of pressure calculation?

Have a wonderful and calm day without excessive blood pressure, well it can not be as high as gas pressure, but still. :-))

Regards

WAH

I'm curious. How do you expect to be able to calculate the pressure at the end of the bore without having the rate of acceleration? And because no two barrels are the same where are you going to get the rate of acceleration?

While you're at it, explain to me why powder and ammunition manufacturers use chronographs and pressure guns if simple math could provide all the answers?

Also, why is it that the information you want isn't already splashed all over the internet?

And, why don't you simply ask a European gunsmith these questions because they could do all of this in their heads with the metric system !

quote:

And since nobody here can answer a simple challenge or calculate pressure, we are back to guesswork engineering, despite of all the clever comments. Calculate the pressure then I do believe you know what you are talking about, but you need the powder specs to do just that, and it is irrelevant if you are designing a silencer or the chamber and barrel profile, you need the powder specs to calculate the pressure, whether you can do it or not or if you understand it or not.

if it is so simple maybe one should do it themselves

Dear OP,

Well I think the reason that this information is not readily available is that it is likely proprietary. If the OP saw it in an old Hodgdon manual then I suggest he search EBAY as there are numerous ones up for sale. Perhaps he will find the one that sank. Also, try approaching a powder manufacturer and request the data so you can build that super duper silencer. Maybe they'll cough it up. We tried to be helpful to a new member but got bitch slapped.

Or maybe you just picked the wrong forum to troll. This is the gunsmithing forum of Accurate Reloading. It is not the weapons design forum. You will likely find better pickings in an engineering forum.

Now lets discuss your disparaging remarks on the imperial system. Granted, the metric system is easier to use, but somehow the USA and Great Britain managed to pull off some of the greatest tech/engineering feats in history using this horrendously inefficient form of measurement. The inventions of aviation, mass production manufacturing, jet engines (shared with Germany), space programs/exploration,
the automobile, and enough weapons to kick the living shit out of Germany - twice and bring the Soviet Union down!

We don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter as our government has never mandated the change-over as promised in the 1960's, but we manage fine. In fact we have to learn and use both systems. What has your country contributed?