Can gunpower be used as a rocket propellant?

Lookie here. Cannons are not rockets. There are lots of differences.

One set of differences are in how they work. Let’s skip over them.

The next set of differences are in their practical application. A rocket applies the motive force for the entire time the motor fires. A cannon (mortar, howitzer, whatever) applies the motive force only while the projectile is in the tube. That is why Jules’ cannon shot to the moon would not work. The people inside the capsule would be reduced to a jelly-like goo on the floor of the capsule when they are exposed to about eleventy-seven thousand Gs.

A cannon’s projectile follows a predicable ballistic course. A rocket can do some really remarkable loop-de-loops in flight. (Ever fire an RPG? Great fun!)

A cannon exerts lots of g-forces on the projectile, and an equal amount of force against the tube and firing platform. That is why cannon have all that recoil stuff. (COlonel Drufess, call your office!) The rocket expresses its ‘equal and opposite action’ with a really impressive back blast. You can make a rocket launcher rather light. But if the rocket is still burning when it flies out the pointy end, you will loose your eyebrows.

Not necessarily.

Remember Robert Goddard’s proposal for a rocket powered by cannons firing out the rear? This would have motive force being applied each time a cannon fired. And the rocket would also get lighter each time.

Not particularly practical, but interesting in theory.

Yes, but a cannon fired in this way would be a sort of pulse-rocket. One must determine if the action is the projectile going north or the countermass going south.

(Anyone get the Drefuss reference? I am overly-proud of that.)

That’s all a rocket is; it just happens that most practical applications of rocket motors use gaseous projectiles and intervals of zero between firings, but they still get lighter as they go.

What’s the difference between a low explosive and a material that burns quickly?

I’ve read of smokeless powder detonating in rifle cartridges. It is a rare phenomenon that seems to be associated with light loads in cartridges with lots of internal volume. I haven’t seen any explanations of why this can lead to detonation.

Not a lot, in a way, except that a low explosive contains its own source of oxygen and so it doesn’t need air to burn. Also, a low explosive will produce mostly gaseous reaction products. Loose magnesium powder burns energetically and fast in air, but it is not a low explosive because it won’t burn fast if compacted into a tight space, and the combustion product is a solid (magnesium oxide).

Truth is, however energetic the reaction, the speed of burning of any material is limited by its access to oxygen. Pyrotechnic mixtures (e.g. black powder) contain nitrates or perchlorates to provide oxygen, while molecular explosives (e.g. smokeless powder) have oxygen bound within them, usually as -NO[sub]2[/sub] groups.

I’ve read an explanation for this, where it was referred to as “S.E.E” - secondary explosion effect. The mechanism was described as an “almost hangfire”, where the powder fizzles for a fraction of a second due to the low density loading, producing gaseous partial combustion products. These partial combustion products then supposedly detonate. I have no verification of this proposed mechanism - it sounds plausible, but it may merely be a “just so” story.

First of all, there is a fundamental different between deflagration and detonation; in the former, propagation is limited by the speed of combusion along the exposed surface of the explosive cast or particles. (This is regardless of whether the explosive compound contains its own oxidizer, as with black powder, or uses air, like vaporized gasoline.) A compound that detonates–say, nitroglycerin, does so by propagating the energy required for detonation via a supersonic shock wave; technically, this doesn’t require any “flame” at all, and in fact these explosives are often used to put out well-head fires by detonating a shaped charge which drives away all combustable air from the base.

Note that just because something deflagrates instead of detonates doesn’t make it weak; fuel-air bombs are deflagration events, but because the fuel is dispersed and burning occurs through the cloud rapidly, the momentum of the shock front is continually accelerated, resulting in a massive explosion. However, deflagration doesn’t produce the explosive impulse (called brisance) which allows high explosives the capability of shearing metal and shattering concrete and therefore makes them appropriate for demolition and penetrating work. Low order explosives like black powder and the ANFO (ammonium nitrate-fuel oil) mixture used by the Oklahoma City and WTC-1993 bombers can do considerable damage in large amounts but it’s not what you’d select for cutting down a bridge or steel structure. You can actually get a pretty good blast from a paint-can of flour or charcoal powder on top of an explosive, espeically if it is confined, and if you want a big flaming explosion, you use gasoline or kerosene; that’s how the Hollywood people get those flowery explosions that impress the kids so much.

High explosives word best if they are compactified into a solid or gel without any voids or bubbles, so as to allow unobstructed propagation of the wavefront. Low order explosives that deflagrate require surface area and so are generally more energetic in powdered, uncompacted but confined (as in a pipe bomb) form. Bottle rockets and the like bind up the powder tightly–essentially solidly–in a thin path through a cardboard “case”. And indeed, larger solid rocket motors, like the Minuteman or Space Shuttle SRBs cast their propellent (which is a combination of combustible elastomer, an oxidizer like aluminum perchlorate, and a catalyst) as a solid with a star-shaped chamber (formed by a mandrel in the mold) running down the middle so as to control how fast the propellent burns. Voids or case delaminations which can cause unintended shock waves (possibly resulting in catastrophic grain fracture, case overpressure, or in extreme cases, detonation) are a big no-no.

There are two reasons why this can happen; one is that an underpacked case may not immediately ignite from the primer–this can happen with small pistol primers which generate less impulse–resulting in a delayed firing with higher than rated pressures, owing to the slower but higher ultimate impulse. The other, more significant issue is that many smokeless powders are what is called “double base”, i.e. comprised of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. Because of the latter, under certain peak pressure conditions (as described above) the powder can detonate rather than deflagrate. Hercules, Bullseye, 2400, and many other popular smokeless powders are double base. (Du Pont got out of the double base manufacturing business a few years ago and sold those powders to Alliant Technologies, now ATK–the same company that builds Minuteman motors and Shuttle SRBs. :eek: ) This is why it is not a good idea to deviate from reloading manuals when dealing with double base powders; a slight change in propellent weight can result in dispropotionately and potentially dangerous high pressures.

And from the “Don’t Try This At Home” department, I used to make a faux gunpowder from sugar, sulphur, and potassium nitrate; without going into details, you heat up the mixture in an open pan until the sugar carmelizes, then grinding it into a powder. Although I never had an accident, this is quite dangerous, and another would-be chemist from a nearby school managed to remove parts of a hand and some of his face making this. After that, I just stuck with the old nitrogen tri-iodide that my grandfather showed me as a wee lad, and was never tempted to make nitroglycerin or mercury-based primary explosives even when I learned the procedures. It’s just not worth losing vital parts of my anatomy.

Stranger

Excellent post as usual, Stranger! Just one little nitpick - ANFO is a high explosive, not a low explosive, see Detonation Velocities of the Non-Ideal Explosive Ammonium Nitrate in Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 15 pp. 58-61 (1990). Its brisance is mediocre so you still wouldn’t be using it for bridges by choice, but it does detonate.

I know ANFO appears to be a straight, coarse fuel-oxidiser mixture and so should be reluctant to detonate at best. However ammonium nitrate isn’t just an oxidiser - in very large amounts (hundreds or even thousands of tons) it can sustain a detonation all on its own (Oppau, 1921 being a major example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppau_explosion , also see http://www.safetynet.de/Seiten/2ndSymposium/kersten.pdf.)

Another source of confusion is that the DOT and other organisations catagorise explosives as “high explosives” or “blasting agents” on the basis of whether they can be initiated by a no. 8 detonator. Which means deflagrating explosives can be designated “high explosives” for transportation and storage purposes, and insensitive detonating explosives such as ANFO are designated “blasting agents”, a very unfortunate mangling of terminology!

One of my relatives used to use ANFO for blasting on his farm. According to him, it was cheap and effective. I believe he used a blasting cap and a stick of dynamite to set off the ANFO.

Erk, mea cupla. Yeah, ANFO detonates, albeit generally only with encouragement from another higher rate explosive as mks57 said. I’m not sure what I was thinking there.

DOT (based upon changes to UNO specs) has recently reclassified most of the solid rocket motor compounds from 1.3 to 1.1D, which is making transportation and S&H requirements a lot more complicated. It used to be we’d just roll a motor or a stackup in the back of a container/transporter and let her roll from Utah to Vandenberg or White Sands. Now you have to get all sorts of extra paperwork, certifications, and the whole circus.

Stranger