Author Topic: Fusing a charge  (Read 1983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline thelionspaw

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Gender: Male
  • "HALLOWED GROUND" by RRC
Fusing a charge
« on: May 29, 2009, 08:14:08 AM »
is there any difference between fusing the breech end, middle or muzzle end of the charge?  This is a Friday pop quiz (boom quiz?). We just sort of finished a post with alot of fractions so let me see if this stirs things up like tossing CN in a crack house. I'm rolling Fg in 9 ply HD foil with a 1.75 O.D. and approximate lengths of 1.0", 1.5", 2.0", 2.5".

Richard the Hair Splitter ::)

Protect Freedom of Speech; to identify IDIOTS!

Offline GGaskill

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5668
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2009, 08:46:38 AM »
I read in some period document (maybe Gibbon) that fusing at the rear gave greatest velocity.  This was the result of experiment, not speculation.
GG
“If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”
--Winston Churchill

Offline thelionspaw

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Gender: Male
  • "HALLOWED GROUND" by RRC
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2009, 10:49:02 AM »
O.K.. I can see that rear fusing would give thrust to the charge as in a rocket.

As the powder burns foward, pressure would build in the space confined by an immoveable charge that is blocked by a projectile. Pressure would be building to the rear. The report would naturally be loud. 

What if there were no blocking projectile as in a blank?

Would the report be greater with a middle fuse that ignited an equal amount of powder in 2 directions? 

What about maximum combustion in the shortest amount of time?

Which blank would be louder?

With fire crackers: ash cans are fused differently than 2 inchers. Why?

I'm drilling a vent and began wondering.
Protect Freedom of Speech; to identify IDIOTS!

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2009, 12:27:32 PM »
When the French converted their old swivel guns to livesaving guns, they wanted slower burns and lower pressures for the heavier line-carrying projectiles.  They plugged the original vents which led to the rear of the chamber and drilled a new vent which ignited the charge in the middle or forward part of the powder.  Their logic may contribute to this discussion, or may not.

Far's I know, all the US muzzle-loading cannons in the 19th. C. had the vent connect with the rearmost part of the chamber.   They always wanted the most bang for the buck. 

Offline KABAR2

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2009, 01:37:51 PM »
Here is a great experiment for you thelionspaw , since your cannon is a breech loader with separate breeches

if you created one that fired from the rear, one the middle & one towards the front of the chamber,

you could report observations on this matter,  some scientific research to further the hobby. 
Mr president I do not cling to either my gun or my Bible.... my gun is holstered on my side so I may carry my Bible and quote from it!

Sed tamen sal petrae LURO VOPO CAN UTRIET sulphuris; et sic facies tonituum et coruscationem si scias artficium

Offline GGaskill

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5668
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2009, 01:58:12 PM »
My explanation of the observation is that by igniting the rear, you are blasting the fire into the remaining charge which causes it to ignite more quickly in a smaller volume, thus increasing the pressure.  Igniting the front causes half of the pressure to push the shot out which increases the volume which reduces the pressure.

It would be nice to have enough instrumentation to see what the real explanation is.
GG
“If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”
--Winston Churchill

Offline thelionspaw

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Gender: Male
  • "HALLOWED GROUND" by RRC
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2009, 02:59:24 PM »
O.K.. The collective answers make sense. Right! I get the picture and reasoning. Thanks! 

I don't want to have to make any additional breechblocks Allen. Alot of work. I suppose three 12" lengths of threaded pipe with end caps and differently spaced vent holes should do the trick. Velocity can be judged by shooting a marble into a thick Brooklyn telephone directory and then count the pages for penetration.

Now we need a patsy. I'll have to cogitate. :-\

Richard "The Late Husband and Devoted Father etc., etc."
Protect Freedom of Speech; to identify IDIOTS!

Offline MikeR C

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 178
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2009, 05:55:19 PM »
If you look in here:  The Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London‎ - Page 100
by Royal Society (Great Britain), Charles Hutton, George Shaw, Richard Pearson  published in 1809

Which can be found here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1FkAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA102&dq=vent+top+charge+chamber#PPA100,M1

The last paragraph of page 100, you will find experiments on  "The effect of placing the vent in different parts of the charge"

I didn't read it all, but, it seemed pertinent to the discussion...

Offline Victor3

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2009, 10:46:57 PM »
I read in some period document (maybe Gibbon) that fusing at the rear gave greatest velocity.  This was the result of experiment, not speculation.

 I've always thought (aside from all that frivolous science and real-world experience stuff :)) that the most logical point to place the vent would be at the very base of the chamber concentric with the bore, straight out through the rear of the breech.

 Although not always practical for various reasons, I think this placement should give the most efficient burn, assuming that unburned powder isn't blown out ahead of the initial ignition at the rear.

 I suppose a lot has to do with how fast the entire charge burns along with the time it takes for the projectile to start to move.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Sherlock Holmes

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2009, 12:56:08 AM »
A
MILITARY DICTIONARY,
OR,
EXPLANATION OF THE SEVERAL SYSTEMS OF DISCIPLINE OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF TROOPS,
INFANTRY, ARTILLERY, AND CAVALRY;
THE PRINCIPLES OF FORTIFICATION,
AND
ALL THE MODERN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
SCIENCE OF TACTICS:
COMPRISING
THE POCKET GUNNER, OR LITTLE BOMBARDIER:

PHILADELPHIA:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED By WILLIAM DUANE,
NO. 98, MARKET STREET. 1810

"As the placing of the vents in mortars, howitzers, and guns in the best manner, is so very delicate a point, and about which both authors and practitioners differ, we will advance what the result of experiments has demonstrated. The most common method is to place the vent about a quarter of an inch from the bottom of the chamber or bore; though we have seen many half an inch, and some an inch from the bottom. It has always been imagined, that if the vent was to come out in the middle of the charge, the powder would be inflamed in less time than in any other case, and consequently produce the greatest range; because, if a tube be filled with powder, and lighted in the centre, the powder will be burnt in half the time it would be, were it lighted at one end. This gave a grounded supposition that the greater the quantity of powder which burnt before the shot or shell was sensibly moved from its place, the greater force it would receive. To determine this, the King of Prussia, in 1765, ordered that a light three pounder should be cast with three shifting vents, one at the centre of the charge, one at the bottom, and the other at an equal distance from the bottom and centre one; so that when one was used, the others were effectually stopped. The gun weighed 2 cwt. 1 qr. 20 Ib.; its length was 3 feet 3 inches, and the bottom of the bore quite flat. It was loaded each time with one fourth of the shot's weight; and it was found, that when the lowest or bottom vent was used, the shot went farthest, and the ranges of the others diminished in proportion as they were distant from the bottom. The piece was elevated to 1 degree 30 minutes.
In 1766 the same monarch caused several experiments to be tried with three small mortars of equal size and dimensions, but of different forms in their chambers; each of which held seven ounces and a half of powder. From these experiments it appeared, that the concave chamber produced the greatest ranges, and that the bottom of the chamber is the best place for vents, having in that place the greatest effect."
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2009, 11:35:57 AM »
TREATISE
ON THE
CONSTRUCTION AND MANUFACTURE
OF
ORDNANCE IN THE BRITISH SERVICE.
PREPARED IN THE ROYAL GUN FACTORY.
PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR.
APRIL 1877.

pp. 51-54       
Click On ---->     VENT PLACEMENT    

 The position of the vent in the gun may either be what is usually called axial or central, i.e., when the vent channel runs through the axis of the breech and strikes the cartridge in the centre, at the bottom of the bore, as with our R.B.L. guns; or it may be such as to strike the chamber at an angle, or perpendicularly to the axis near the bottom or elsewhere, as is done in our S.B. and R.M.L. ordnance.
For convenience the vent generally opens at the top of the gun; but in 10-inch guns and upwards, where the size of the gun renders this position awkward, the bush is placed at an angle of 45° with the perpendicular, and the vent hole will therefore be at the top right side in such guns for broadside and garrison service, while in turret guns it is sometimes placed on the left side and sometimes on the right as convenient.
When powders of comparatively small grain are employed, the rate of ignition of the charge, and so the maximum pressure on the shot and  gun, is influenced considerably by the point at which ignition first takes place, i.e., by the position of the vent.
This is more particularly the case when large charges of considerable length are employed.
From experiments made in 1863 †  with large charges of R.L.G., the powder then employed with heavy guns, it appeared that when the cartridge was ignited at a distance of 4/10ths of its length from the bottom of the bore that the best results were obtained as to velocity imparted to the projectiles; it was therefore settled that heavy guns were to be vented so that the bush should strike the bore at that distance from the bottom.                                       
                                                                                                                                                         
† In 1863 General (then Colonel) Lefroy submitted that "the time had come when it was desirable to consider whether the habitual practice of igniting the charge at the back end is favourable for developing the greatest force of the charge with the least strain on the gun, the elongated charges coming into use with the heavy shot and powder of larger grain than formerly having altered the old conditions." 
  Experiments were then sanctioned to be carried out in a bronze gun of 6".5 calibre bored up to 6".9. It was vented in six different positions, viz.:—
No.1. Came out exactly at the base of the charge.
 "  2. Half-way between that and the service vent.
 "  3. Service vent
 "  4, 5, and 6, respectively, 1’’.38, 2’’.76, and 4’’.25 in front of the true vent.
With 14 Ibs. charge R.L.G. powder and 42-lb. shot, the following mean initial velocities were obtained from the above-mentioned vents:                                         
                                      1st Experiment.              2nd Experiment.     
                                             Feet.                             Feet.                           
No.  1    vent        -        -       1,773              -         -    —
“     2      “           -        -       1,782              -         -    —
“     3      “           -        -       1,789              -         -    1,794
“     4      “           -        -       1,816              -         -    1,836
“     5      “           -        -       1,861              -         -    1,895
“     6      “           -        -       1,811              -         -    1,860         
 
 “It is observed that the velocity increased as far as the 5th vent, the greatest increase being from the 4th to the 5th, at which point the mean initial velocity was increased 72 feet per second above what had been obtained when using the service or No. 3 vent. In proceeding to No. 6 vent, the velocity was suddenly diminished 51 feet per second." These experiments were repeated, but the difference between Nos. 3 and 5 was still greater, being now 100 feet per second. " Taking the mean between the two results, viz., an increase of 86.5, it is equivalent to an increase of the charge from 14 Ibs. to 15 1/2 Ibs., and in the opinion of the committee proves conclusively that the vents of guns using heavy charges should be bored to as to strike the cartridge in the position of No. 5 vent, that is to say, at about 4/10ths of its length from the end of the gun, or slightly behind the centre of the cartridge. The committee recommend that the position of the vent in all future wrought iron M.L. guns, be such as to fulfill this condition, and that the vent be drilled vertically as already adopted by Sir W. Armstrong in all his larger guns.”
Both of these recommendations were approved 14/4/64, as the experiments had proved that the ignition of the cartridge at the point above-named "realizes the greatest projectile force which can be produced by a given charge."
No account was taken in these experiments of the pressure in the bore, which has since been proved to be much greater when charges of R.L.G. powder are fired with the forward vent.
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline Artilleryman

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2009, 05:28:29 AM »
All this time I figured that the best reason for putting the vent at the rear of the breech was so you could use light powder charges if you wanted and still have the gun go off.
Norm Gibson, 1st SC Vol., ACWSA

Offline Double D

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12609
  • SAMCC cannon by Brooks-USA
    • South African Miniature Cannon Club
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2009, 05:59:23 AM »
All this time I figured that the best reason for putting the vent at the rear of the breech was so you could use light powder charges if you wanted and still have the gun go off.

Norm,

No it's a mixture of science and alchemy, and just a shade of magic.   ;D

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2009, 12:13:56 PM »
All this time I figured that the best reason for putting the vent at the rear of the breech was so you could use light powder charges if you wanted and still have the gun go off.
Norm,No it's a mixture of science and alchemy, and just a shade of magic.   ;D

Leave it to Richard, to ponder a "different angle." ;)
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline dynomike

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2009, 01:50:29 PM »
Lionspaw where did you find any ash cans? I want some

Offline thelionspaw

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Gender: Male
  • "HALLOWED GROUND" by RRC
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2009, 02:03:00 PM »
http://www.i-hacked.com/content/view/13/48/
The last time I saw an "ash can" a.k.a. M80, I was in the U.S. Infantry, looooong ago.

rc
Protect Freedom of Speech; to identify IDIOTS!

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2009, 12:58:00 AM »
Lionspaw where did you find any ash cans? I want some
http://www.i-hacked.com/content/view/13/48/
The last time I saw an "ash can" a.k.a. M80, I was in the U.S. Infantry, looooong ago. rc

I knew that M-80's were originally developed and used by the military to simulate battle sounds in training troops, but I never heard them called "ash cans" before; live and learn.
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline thelionspaw

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Gender: Male
  • "HALLOWED GROUND" by RRC
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2009, 03:14:40 AM »
Aaaaay!  In BROOKLYN U.S.A. we calls dem "Ash Cans".  Duh army was on its own.  Brooklyn is duh safest country in duh woyilld.  Youse seen pichiz of duh cannons wats in Fort Hamilton. Fuhgedaboudit! 8)

Sha-na-na



Protect Freedom of Speech; to identify IDIOTS!

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #18 on: June 03, 2009, 05:06:25 AM »
Dynomike, it is illegal to manufacture, sell, or own M-80's in the U.S., and this has been the case for many moons now.


Richard, I always find it interesting to note how different regions of our Country come up with differing popular names for the same item. In Chicago we called "ash cans" by an ethnic slur (BLANK bombs) I will not repeat here, because it would not be nice to do so. There was no animosity involved, and I have no idea how it historically came to pass, but that's the name that we as kids used, when referring to M-80's.

RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline thelionspaw

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Gender: Male
  • "HALLOWED GROUND" by RRC
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #19 on: June 03, 2009, 06:44:12 AM »
I believe civilian possession was made illegal in the mid 60s. One reason I believe is because they are made with "flash powder".  Olde-tyme photographers used flash powder for instant illumination. Magicians use it and Book Makers use flash paper for their records. It can be touched off with a cigarette.  BINDAIR DUNDAT

Personally, I see no need to create things like this. We are primarily artillerists.  At least I and alot of others are.  But then again, that's why they make Vanilla and Chocolate.  It's the Rocky Road that gets you in trouble.  I like Vanilla.

I began this thread because the position designated on my barrel blank, if drilled at a 90<, would have the vent  a half inch from the chamber base.  If I am making 1.25 oz. Fg charges for a 1.75, then I'll have some fancy foot-work to do. Right?  The charge isn't very deep.

Now, I could simply put the crimped end of the 9 ply HD foil charge, loaded first. That would distance the charge from the base (enough?).  A little hairy?  I think it's the answer.  Perhaps I shouldn't concern myself with the issue?  If the charge fuses foward or mid, what's the diff'?  Matters little?

Anyway; it has been an informative thread.

Thanks for the interest and responses folks.

Richard

Protect Freedom of Speech; to identify IDIOTS!

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #20 on: June 03, 2009, 09:55:20 AM »
I believe civilian possession was made illegal in the mid 60s. One reason I believe is because they are made with "flash powder".  Olde-tyme photographers used flash powder for instant illumination. Magicians use it and Book Makers use flash paper for their records. It can be touched off with a cigarette.  BINDAIR DUNDAT

My youthful cohorts and I had been involved in many ill-conceived "experiments" utelizing real M-80s in the mid 70's, I'm not going to go into details here, let it suffice to say that we were very lucky that none of us were ever seriously injured. These salute devices were "banned" by the "Child Protection Act of 1966", but this didn't have any teeth because as I said we were buying these salutes, and cherry bombs in the 70s. The ATF did finally get a federal law put in effect that made it illegal to make, sell or own M-80s, silver salutes, and cherry bombs sometime in the mid seventies, and this is when it became nearly impossible to get these "salutes," also, it wasn't the type of powder used in these devices, it was the ammount that was regulated. In any event, I'm not usually one to sing the praises of government regulations, but in this instance I agree with this law, because of the easy access kids had to obtaining these dangerous explosives, and the historical record that exists of the number of deaths and maimings that were caused by them. 
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline GGaskill

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5668
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #21 on: June 03, 2009, 01:55:18 PM »
My father used to bring M-80's home from Army Reserve summer camps and we would use them for various entertainments but he was always in charge, either firing them himself or exercising extreme supervision.  Natural selection in action, just as the other way would be.
GG
“If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”
--Winston Churchill

Offline Victor3

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2009, 01:10:08 AM »
Dynomike, it is illegal to manufacture, sell, or own M-80's in the U.S., and this has been the case for many moons now.

 Okay fine. Howsabout an M-79 then? That's 1 less than an M-80, right?  ;D

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Sherlock Holmes

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2009, 06:16:00 AM »
Okay fine. Howsabout an M-79 then? That's 1 less than an M-80, right?  ;D

I've wanted one of these M79 "THUMPERS", since the first time I saw one used in a Vietnam War flick.
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline Cat Whisperer

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7493
  • Gender: Male
  • Pulaski Coehorn Works
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #24 on: June 04, 2009, 12:46:26 PM »
Dynomike, it is illegal to manufacture, sell, or own M-80's in the U.S., and this has been the case for many moons now.

 Okay fine. Howsabout an M-79 then? That's 1 less than an M-80, right?  ;D



I've always wanted to try skeet shooting with one since I first put my hands on one in FA OCS. 
(This IS a bit out of range of pre 1898 cannons.)
M203's were ok, but there is something classic about the M-79.


Tim K                 www.GBOCANNONS.COM
Cat Whisperer
Chief of Smoke, Pulaski Coehorn Works & Winery
U.S.Army Retired
N 37.05224  W 80.78133 (front door +/- 15 feet)

Offline Double D

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12609
  • SAMCC cannon by Brooks-USA
    • South African Miniature Cannon Club
Re: Fusing a charge
« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2009, 04:49:26 PM »
Can't be off topic Tim, you said pre 1899 Cannons in your post...