Is excess powder really blown out?

[zimmerstutzen]

Your description is a little more detailed.
Now, I'd be more impressed if he blew on a lead ball in the palm of his hand about a foot away and got it to move at all. At least that would be a more accurate test but still wildly inadequate because a human lung could not generate the pressure/velocity needed nor is the pressure contained or especially directional. Another consideration would be density - the density of the heated gas is far less than that of the air and should rapidly slow upon exiting the barrel.

Again wrong. The lead ball weighs much more than the balloon, perhaps 150 times more But pressure enough to rate 5,000 CUP is more than 20,000 times the pressure you create by blowing at the balloon. One need only look at a night time shot of a muzzle loader going off to see that the blast is directional.

 

[Carbon 6]

But there is affect. I said only during that little distance that the pressure is still moving faster than the ball.

I agree, I said the same thing here,
https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/...r-really-blown-out.112256/page-8#post-1529859
However once the ball exits the barrel it expands and encounters the same air resistance as the ball. as it expands it slows and cools.
The problem is, I can't see or measure the affect other than deflection. So, if I cant observe it, then it is negligible because I cannot change it.

I have a idea of how I might be able to test for velocity difference but, I need to think on it some more. Still I'm pretty sure it's not going to amount to anything of significance.

 

[Stumpkiller]

When I was in college . . . some years back . . . in our Chemical Engineering group we had to record "STP" in the lab books to designate "Standard Temperature and Pressure" 22 degrees C and one atmosphere (sea level) as I recall.

Now, inside a somewhat sealed steel chamber (say a barrel with tight ball) the temperature and pressure no longer stays standard once the powder is lit.

At one company I worked we had little, tiny Acrylic beads (PMMA Beads). Added to film emulsion so it would flow better. Something like 200 microns. Now, Acrylic is hardly scary stuff. But in 1985 we had to build a $6M building that was "Explosion Proof" (not deflagration proof) to contain these little plastic beads because, if airborne, they had the mistaken belief they could explode violently with just a spark or static discharge and no amount of stating "deflagration" to them in a firm voice would convince them not to tear your ears, arms and legs off in a super-sonic blast and lift the roof off the emulsion building.

 

[Carbon 6]

Sounds like a fart in a windstorm to me.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Sounds like a fart in a windstorm to me.

What, this entire thread or what Stumpkiller said?

 

[Black Hand]

Shakespeare best describes the latter part of this thread for me:
...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing....

 

[Black Hand]

Sounds like a fart in a windstorm to me.

What, this entire thread or what Stumpkiller said?

I suspect the point was we are discussing a small, relatively insignificant phenomenon in light of a larger and more overwhelming effect. Perhaps "a drop in the ocean"...

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Blackhand, you made eminently clear that you don't give a manure about the fine points of precision target accuracy. What doesn't matter to a person who only cares about killing an animal may matter to a person who aspires to a higher technical degree of skill and knowledge. You said that there is no effect by escaping gases and pressure on the ball as soon as it leaves the muzzle, which is quite obviously false. You indicated that the test I suggested would only be relevant if you could blow a lead ball some distance, when the pressure following that ball out the muzzle is over 20,000 times higher than some people's hot air. When shown to be in error, you simply deflect and say it is a drop in the ocean. Whether excess powder is ejected from the barrel, is a matter of some debate, although certainly if there is, as my experiment showed many years ago, it is a very small amount. And most of the matter ejected is ash and other detritus. This may not matter to you, just as whether the world is round or flat does not matter to a turnip farmer in Indiana. Why not leave the matter to those who do care instead of interjecting totally irrelevant remarks about whether it matters to you. Be happy with your turnips and don't interfere with those who want to know if the world is round.

 

[Black Hand]

Blackhand, you made eminently clear that you don't give a manure about the fine points of precision target accuracy. What doesn't matter to a person who only cares about killing an animal may matter to a person who aspires to a higher technical degree of skill and knowledge. You said that there is no effect by escaping gases and pressure on the ball as soon as it leaves the muzzle, which is quite obviously false. You indicated that the test I suggested would only be relevant if you could blow a lead ball some distance, when the pressure following that ball out the muzzle is over 20,000 times higher than some people's hot air. When shown to be in error, you simply deflect and say it is a drop in the ocean. Whether excess powder is ejected from the barrel, is a matter of some debate, although certainly if there is, as my experiment showed many years ago, it is a very small amount. And most of the matter ejected is ash and other detritus. This may not matter to you, just as whether the world is round or flat does not matter to a turnip farmer in Indiana. Why not leave the matter to those who do care instead of interjecting totally irrelevant remarks about whether it matters to you. Be happy with your turnips and don't interfere with those who want to know if the world is round.

Please go back and read the posts again. I have no idea what your issue is or why you have decided to make me your target and it doesn't really matter what you think or believe about me. My remarks have to do with the topic, just that you seem to wish to dismiss them. Frankly, your responses have a lesser weight, as you haven't been able to convincingly demonstrate your point. But you are correct in one aspect, I DON'T CARE about this quibbling over small and relatively insignificant matters.

I do care whether the "world is round" and would willingly discuss this with someone who could show me the math & evidence. However, this discussion with you is much like listening to the turnip farmer...

 

[Carbon 6]

I'm still not convinced that there is an affect, because it is not measurable or observable.
all I can do is theorize.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

"I DON'T CARE about this quibbling over small and relatively insignificant matters."

Then why do you keep up with the irrelevant posts?" "you have made no point except that you don't care and occasionally interject false conclusions. When statements are made demonstrating that you are wrong, you don't rebut those statements, but constantly return to your mantra that you do not care.

Here is apparently a revolutionary thought: Why not leave the thread to those who do care.

 

[Hawgeye]

This wet leg exercise is getting boring.
Take it to the sand box.

 

[Black Hand]

"I DON'T CARE about this quibbling over small and relatively insignificant matters."

Then why do you keep up with the irrelevant posts?" "you have made no point except that you don't care and occasionally interject false conclusions. When statements are made demonstrating that you are wrong, you don't rebut those statements, but constantly return to your mantra that you do not care.

Here is apparently a revolutionary thought: Why not leave the thread to those who do care.

Ok - you're right and I'm wrong. As a matter of fact - You're ALWAYS right and everyone else is a turnip farmer...
Happy?

You want to resolve this issue? PROVE anything you have claimed - show me the science. No, not this mental cud-chewing we've seen thus far.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I'm still not convinced that there is an affect, because it is not measurable or observable.
all I can do is theorize.

1. Have you seen a night shot of firing a muzzle loader?
2. Did the escaping gas immediately go equally in every possible 360 degree direction as it exited the muzzle, or was there some general direction to the burning gases?
3. As the ball exits the muzzle and reaches a point one inch out, do the escaping gases and flame pass the ball?
4.Would those gases and pressure that pass the ball have the effect of continuing to push the ball, even though it has exited the muzzle and traveled one inch?
5. If the gases and pressure pass that ball one inch from the muzzle, can air resistance begin to slow the ball that one inch from the muzzle?
6. would there be a point at which that ball, along its flight, passes those slowing gases and pressure of the muzzle flash and then begins to experience air resistance to slow it down?

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Couldn't find the picture of the gasses passing the ball of a muzzle loader, but I found a picture of gasses and flame passing a bullet from a centerfire pistol. http://www.firearmsid.com/a_distancegsr.htm

 

[Black Hand]

1. Have you seen a night shot of firing a muzzle loader?

Yes. So what?

2. Did the escaping gas immediately go equally in every possible 360 degree direction as it exited the muzzle, or was there some general direction to the burning gases?

Can't say BECAUSE you have used the flame as a proxy for the pressure. We can't see the pressure and saying the flame is the same thing would be wrong.

3. As the ball exits the muzzle and reaches a point one inch out, do the escaping gases and flame pass the ball?

You have demonstrated the greater mass of the ball is slowed upon contact with the denser air. The pressure also moves laterally at this point.

4.Would those gases and pressure that pass the ball have the effect of continuing to push the ball, even though it has exited the muzzle and traveled one inch?

No necessarily, the gas may be in a state of slowing from contacting the denser air and dispersed out from its original contained path by exiting the muzzle much like a stream of water hitting a wall. You also cannot show the pressure (maybe observe it indirectly

5. If the gases and pressure pass that ball one inch from the muzzle, can air resistance begin to slow the ball that one inch from the muzzle?

Yes. The ball and gas are each subject to slowing independent of each other.

6. would there be a point at which that ball, along its flight, passes those slowing gases and pressure of the muzzle flash and then begins to experience air resistance to slow it down?

Air resistance is always present. A combination of air resistance/friction and gravity slow the projectile.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Those gasses are lighter than air - so they are clearing the way for the ball by briefly offering a path of less resistance. ;-)

This is fun! Not sure it will make any of us tighter target shooters but who knows?

 

[azmntman]

I'm certainly taking notes, May be why I missed that three point at the pond a few years back (still trying to determine why/how, couldn't have been me?)

 

[George]

Well, this has devolved to something very like tea time among the Laputans.

My apologies to the board for starting this thread. I'm quickly learning not to do that.

Spence

 

[Black Hand]

Well, this has devolved to something very like tea time among the Laputans.

My apologies to the board for starting this thread. I'm quickly learning not to do that.

Spence

Spence,
The question was valid and addressed early on. It then (d)evolved into a discussion of hypotheticals and ultimately into name-calling.