Poll: Gun or Bra

[invalidd]

You've shuffled off this mortal coil and arrived at the Pearly Gates (or
the equivalent for your religion).

Saint Petra says to you, "During your life on earth, you were good in
some parts and bad in others. I can't make up my mind whether to let you
in or not because it's such a close call. So I'm going to set you a
challenge. Given the contents of a hardware store and a haberdashery,
you have to make either a gun or a bra from scratch. And I'll be testing
out whichever you make to ensure it performs satisfactorily."

Which would you try to make?

I'd go for the bra.

[Chris Zakes]

The contents of a hardware store could be used to build a simple gun
fairly easily: a piece of 2x4 or 2x6 to make the stock, black iron
pipe to make a barrel, clamp the two together in some fashion, drill a
small hole near the base of the pipe for a touch hole.

Lead for bullets might be a little harder to find--few stores carry
plain lead any more. And I'm not sure they would have the chemicals
needed to make the gunpowder.

Making a bra? I'm fairly competent with a sewing machine, but I'd
probably want a pattern. I *could* do it free-form, but the results
might be... "interesting."

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

A properly balanced sword is the most versatile weapon for close quarters ever
devised... A sword never jams, never has to be reloaded, it is always ready.

-Oscar Gordon in "Glory Road" by Robert Heinlein

[Jim Hetley]

I'd want a definition of "satisfactorily" first.

Jim

[invalidd]

Jim Hetley wrote:

> I'd want a definition of "satisfactorily" first.
>
> Jim
>

You've got me there. How can you objectively rate a gun against a bra
for performance?

[JimP.]

Neither. I can sew I've made a shirt, but that is it.

JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009

[Jim Hetley]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:29:20 PM UTC-4, invalidd wrote:
>
>
> You've got me there. How can you objectively rate a gun against a bra
>
> for performance?

Ask Ursula Andress . . .

(1960s movie, The 10th Victim.)

Jim

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:43:42 +0100, invalidd
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

given those choices, and the cosmology I'm familiar with, having been
raised Catholic, being neither gunsmith nor tailor, I'll take the
third option, time in purgatory.

Note: Being an agnostic Celtic pagan, if I'm meeting St. Peter, I
made a wrong choice.

[Tim Merrigan]

test them for how well they perform their respective jobs.

[Kay Shapero]

In article <knavfd$lnh$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, inva...@invalidd.invalidd
says...

I suppose it might be more amusing to watch him test it at that... :)

Sigh... for some reason I'm sitting here imagining the testee making up
a zip gun, pointing it at Saint Peter and holding him up, on the
principle that if you're probably going the other way anyhow, may as
well have a good story to take along. :)
--

Kay Shapero
Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.

[invalidd]

Kay Shapero wrote:

> In article <knavfd$lnh$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, inva...@invalidd.invalidd
> says...
>
>>You've shuffled off this mortal coil and arrived at the Pearly Gates (or
>>the equivalent for your religion).
>>
>>Saint Petra says to you, "During your life on earth, you were good in
>>some parts and bad in others. I can't make up my mind whether to let you
>>in or not because it's such a close call. So I'm going to set you a
>>challenge. Given the contents of a hardware store and a haberdashery,
>>you have to make either a gun or a bra from scratch. And I'll be testing
>>out whichever you make to ensure it performs satisfactorily."
>>
>>Which would you try to make?
>>
>>I'd go for the bra.
>
>
>
> I suppose it might be more amusing to watch him test it at that... :)

Her - Saint Petra!

> Sigh... for some reason I'm sitting here imagining the testee making up
> a zip gun, pointing it at Saint Peter and holding him up, on the
> principle that if you're probably going the other way anyhow, may as
> well have a good story to take along. :)

:)

[Chris Zakes]

Guns and bras aside, how can one be both agnostic and a pagan?

[Frank McCoy]

I'd go for the gun.

Still, your challenge, as stated, leaves out something VERY important:
What sort of TOOLS would you have in either endeavor.
Also, what sort of raw-materials?

Quite obviously, if not allowed bar-stock, a lathe, and a mill in
making a gun, while the person making a bra has a sewing-machine and
the contents of a *fabric shop* (like "Joanne Fabric") then the person
making the bra has an ENORMOUS advantage.

OTOH, if the guy making a gun has the contents of a standard
machine-shop, while the person building a bra only had (like you
suggest) the contents of a haberdashery, with only the materials
he/she could rip out of existing clothes; and not even a
needle-and-thread except for same; then again the advantage swings WAY
in the favor of the fellow making the gun.

Without proper fabrics, the poor person making a bra is almost as
handicapped as the guy who has to make bar-stock by building a forge,
melting down nails, and hammering THEM into something suitable. Maybe
even worse-off.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[Frank McCoy]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:43:42 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> to write:
>
>>You've shuffled off this mortal coil and arrived at the Pearly Gates (or
>>the equivalent for your religion).
>>
>>Saint Petra says to you, "During your life on earth, you were good in
>>some parts and bad in others. I can't make up my mind whether to let you
>>in or not because it's such a close call. So I'm going to set you a
>>challenge. Given the contents of a hardware store and a haberdashery,
>>you have to make either a gun or a bra from scratch. And I'll be testing
>>out whichever you make to ensure it performs satisfactorily."
>>
>>Which would you try to make?
>>
>>I'd go for the bra.
>
>The contents of a hardware store could be used to build a simple gun
>fairly easily: a piece of 2x4 or 2x6 to make the stock, black iron
>pipe to make a barrel, clamp the two together in some fashion, drill a
>small hole near the base of the pipe for a touch hole.
>
>Lead for bullets might be a little harder to find--few stores carry
>plain lead any more. And I'm not sure they would have the chemicals
>needed to make the gunpowder.
>

Use plumbing solder.

>Making a bra? I'm fairly competent with a sewing machine, but I'd
>probably want a pattern. I *could* do it free-form, but the results
>might be... "interesting."
>

The specialized fabrics for making a decent bra would be harder to get
than the stuff for a gun. And then you'd need a pattern, as you say.

[Frank McCoy]

Jim Hetley <jhe...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'd want a definition of "satisfactorily" first.
>

Point!

[Frank McCoy]

JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:43:42 +0100, invalidd
><inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>You've shuffled off this mortal coil and arrived at the Pearly Gates (or
>>the equivalent for your religion).
>>
>>Saint Petra says to you, "During your life on earth, you were good in
>>some parts and bad in others. I can't make up my mind whether to let you
>>in or not because it's such a close call. So I'm going to set you a
>>challenge. Given the contents of a hardware store and a haberdashery,
>>you have to make either a gun or a bra from scratch. And I'll be testing
>>out whichever you make to ensure it performs satisfactorily."
>>
>>Which would you try to make?
>>
>>I'd go for the bra.
>
>Neither. I can sew I've made a shirt, but that is it.
>

I've made several dresses for my wife (then GF); but without
specialized tools and materials, wouldn't want to even attempt either
one. The results would likely be ... less than satisfactory.

[Frank McCoy]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The contents of a hardware store could be used to build a simple gun
>fairly easily: a piece of 2x4 or 2x6 to make the stock, black iron
>pipe to make a barrel, clamp the two together in some fashion, drill a
>small hole near the base of the pipe for a touch hole.

Begs the question others have asked, "What is 'satisfactorily'?"
I was thinking of a gun you could chamber "standard cartridges" in; of
the sort you might find in a hardware-store.

(Of course, most hardware-stores THESE days carry working guns as part
of their stock; so ....)

How much of said stock (lingerie in the case of a bra, and gun-parts
in the case of a gun) are you allowed to appropriate?

The challenge would be MUCH more interesting if the gun-maker had a
well-equipped machine-shop instead of a hardware-store (with all the
usual metal stock); and the bra-maker had the contents of a
fabric-shop, including the various types of sewing-machines that many
carry.

Then we get to the testing and ....
Things fall apart.
For a good test of the gun, the maker SHOULD be allowed several
thousand rounds of specified ammunition to make his weapon fit.
For a good test of the bra, the maker SHOULD have (at the very least)
a mannikin adjusted or made to the exact same fit as the final model
would be ... or better-yet, the model herself ... which might be a bit
distracting.

Now: Again we ask, "What is satisfactory performance?"
Easier for the gun, I think.
If it can chamber and fire six rounds in a row without misfire,
blowups, or other disasters, while getting a reasonably (specified)
small grouping on a target while held in a vice ....
For a bra ... Methinks that's a LOT more subjective on the part of the
woman trying it on.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:33:06 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:06:40 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:43:42 +0100, invalidd
>><inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>
>>>You've shuffled off this mortal coil and arrived at the Pearly Gates (or
>>>the equivalent for your religion).
>>>
>>>Saint Petra says to you, "During your life on earth, you were good in
>>>some parts and bad in others. I can't make up my mind whether to let you
>>>in or not because it's such a close call. So I'm going to set you a
>>>challenge. Given the contents of a hardware store and a haberdashery,
>>>you have to make either a gun or a bra from scratch. And I'll be testing
>>>out whichever you make to ensure it performs satisfactorily."
>>>
>>>Which would you try to make?
>>>
>>>I'd go for the bra.
>>
>>
>>given those choices, and the cosmology I'm familiar with, having been
>>raised Catholic, being neither gunsmith nor tailor, I'll take the
>>third option, time in purgatory.
>>
>>Note: Being an agnostic Celtic pagan, if I'm meeting St. Peter, I
>>made a wrong choice.
>
>Guns and bras aside, how can one be both agnostic and a pagan?
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

Far more easily then being agnostic and Christian. When I expressed
my belief as "I neither believe, nor disbelieve," Christians would say
"that's not possible, go away." When I say that amongst Pagan they
say "There's no wrong path."

[Frank McCoy]

MY feeling, is that there's no RIGHT path.
A "path" assumes there really is a destination.
There's doing-the-right-thing, and NOT doing it.
But assuming that either one takes you someplace is a HUGE leap of
logic that I just can't follow.
It sounds MUCH more like wishful-thinking on the order of, "Well,
he'll be punished in Hell," or, "His misery here, will be rewarded in
Heaven," because the bad often prosper during life, while the good and
generous ... don't. It gives us a warm fuzzy feeling to know,
"They'll get theirs!" in the "next life"; when in-fact there's not the
slightest bit of evidence there actually IS a next-life at all.

Also, SOME people just need incentive to do good things and avoid
doing bad ones, other than the private satisfaction of making the
world run better, or the (often silent) appreciation of those being
helped. So, for them the carrot-and-stick approach is needed.

Me? I believe in the old adage, "What goes around, comes around."
Just my opinion, of course. YMMVW.

The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:05:48 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

>Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The contents of a hardware store could be used to build a simple gun
>>fairly easily: a piece of 2x4 or 2x6 to make the stock, black iron
>>pipe to make a barrel, clamp the two together in some fashion, drill a
>>small hole near the base of the pipe for a touch hole.
>
>Begs the question others have asked, "What is 'satisfactorily'?"
>I was thinking of a gun you could chamber "standard cartridges" in; of
>the sort you might find in a hardware-store.
>
>(Of course, most hardware-stores THESE days carry working guns as part
>of their stock; so ....)
>
>How much of said stock (lingerie in the case of a bra, and gun-parts
>in the case of a gun) are you allowed to appropriate?
>
>The challenge would be MUCH more interesting if the gun-maker had a
>well-equipped machine-shop instead of a hardware-store (with all the
>usual metal stock); and the bra-maker had the contents of a
>fabric-shop, including the various types of sewing-machines that many
>carry.

To make it even the bra maker should at least be in a tailor's shop if
the gun maker is in a machine shop.

>
>Then we get to the testing and ....
>Things fall apart.
>For a good test of the gun, the maker SHOULD be allowed several
>thousand rounds of specified ammunition to make his weapon fit.
>For a good test of the bra, the maker SHOULD have (at the very least)
>a mannikin adjusted or made to the exact same fit as the final model
>would be ... or better-yet, the model herself ... which might be a bit
>distracting.

Not necessarily, even if the model is of the attractive gender, after
not very long she's just a model, for the duration of the project.

[Frank McCoy]

Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:05:48 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The contents of a hardware store could be used to build a simple gun
>>>fairly easily: a piece of 2x4 or 2x6 to make the stock, black iron
>>>pipe to make a barrel, clamp the two together in some fashion, drill a
>>>small hole near the base of the pipe for a touch hole.
>>
>>Begs the question others have asked, "What is 'satisfactorily'?"
>>I was thinking of a gun you could chamber "standard cartridges" in; of
>>the sort you might find in a hardware-store.
>>
>>(Of course, most hardware-stores THESE days carry working guns as part
>>of their stock; so ....)
>>
>>How much of said stock (lingerie in the case of a bra, and gun-parts
>>in the case of a gun) are you allowed to appropriate?
>>
>>The challenge would be MUCH more interesting if the gun-maker had a
>>well-equipped machine-shop instead of a hardware-store (with all the
>>usual metal stock); and the bra-maker had the contents of a
>>fabric-shop, including the various types of sewing-machines that many
>>carry.
>
>To make it even the bra maker should at least be in a tailor's shop if
>the gun maker is in a machine shop.
>

Um ... Not really.
Most tailor-shops are equipped for making one specific type of
garment; while some so-called "fabric stores" have hundreds of times
the variation in fabrics available; and a dozen or more types of
sewing-machines.

A lingerie "shop" where such garments are made, perhaps; but without
the plans or even samples ... just like the machine-shop for the
gun-maker being without either one.

On the other hand, I think THAT would be a bit unfair as well; unless
the gun-maker is allowed access not to just a "machine-shop", but a
gun-shop with all the specialized tools THERE!

No, I think a fabric-store (of the kind that DOES carry many types of
sewing machines and other devices) would be a better TEST, just like a
machine-shop would be for the gun-maker. Neither one should have
perfect tools designed for the job; just the sort of thing an average
handyman might BUY if he/she had a rather large budget.

So: lathe, mill, drill-press, brake and such tools for the gun-maker.
Add in standard mill-stock metals.

For the bra-maker, three or four different types of sewing-machine
(straight, overlock, pattern-stitching, etc.) but nothing specifically
designed for lingerie.
AND, a whole store with thousands of types of fabric.

In either case you have to do it from "scratch" without a working
model to copy; only (perhaps) the mannikin or model for the bra-maker
and sample ammunition for the gun-maker.

>>
>>Then we get to the testing and ....
>>Things fall apart.
>>For a good test of the gun, the maker SHOULD be allowed several
>>thousand rounds of specified ammunition to make his weapon fit.
>>For a good test of the bra, the maker SHOULD have (at the very least)
>>a mannikin adjusted or made to the exact same fit as the final model
>>would be ... or better-yet, the model herself ... which might be a bit
>>distracting.
>
>Not necessarily, even if the model is of the attractive gender, after
>not very long she's just a model, for the duration of the project.
>
>>
>>Now: Again we ask, "What is satisfactory performance?"
>>Easier for the gun, I think.
>>If it can chamber and fire six rounds in a row without misfire,
>>blowups, or other disasters, while getting a reasonably (specified)
>>small grouping on a target while held in a vice ....
>>For a bra ... Methinks that's a LOT more subjective on the part of the
>>woman trying it on.

[Barry Gold]

On 5/19/2013 10:21 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:

> Lead for bullets might be a little harder to find--few stores carry
> plain lead any more. And I'm not sure they would have the chemicals
> needed to make the gunpowder.

Fishing weights?

[invalidd]

Yes, it's almost impossible to compare the two on a like-for-like basis.

Another factor is the bra cup size. Above a certain size, extra
engineering (eg wires) is required to provide a decent amount of support.

[invalidd]

In the UK, lead shot has been banned for anglers.

Too much was ending up on river or lake beds and being hoovered up by
waterfowl etc.

[Chris Zakes]

More likely at a sporting goods store, not a hardware store.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:31 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:

>invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>>You've shuffled off this mortal coil and arrived at the Pearly Gates (or
>>the equivalent for your religion).
>>
>>Saint Petra says to you, "During your life on earth, you were good in
>>some parts and bad in others. I can't make up my mind whether to let you
>>in or not because it's such a close call. So I'm going to set you a
>>challenge. Given the contents of a hardware store and a haberdashery,
>>you have to make either a gun or a bra from scratch. And I'll be testing
>>out whichever you make to ensure it performs satisfactorily."
>>
>>Which would you try to make?
>>
>>I'd go for the bra.
>
>I'd go for the gun.
>
>Still, your challenge, as stated, leaves out something VERY important:
>What sort of TOOLS would you have in either endeavor.
>Also, what sort of raw-materials?

I'm assuming it'd be a Home Depot, or something similar. Bar stock,
steel pipe and a fair number of power tools would be available.

>Quite obviously, if not allowed bar-stock, a lathe, and a mill in
>making a gun, while the person making a bra has a sewing-machine and
>the contents of a *fabric shop* (like "Joanne Fabric") then the person
>making the bra has an ENORMOUS advantage.

Note that the original question was posted by invalidd, who is, if I'm
not mistaken, in England. A haberdashery there is pretty much what
we'd call a fabric store here. (Whereas on *this* side of The Water, a
haberdasher sells men's clothing.)

[Fred Brown]

"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:s81jp89b26o6nkkvl...@4ax.com...

> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The contents of a hardware store could be used to build a simple gun
>>fairly easily: a piece of 2x4 or 2x6 to make the stock, black iron
>>pipe to make a barrel, clamp the two together in some fashion, drill a
>>small hole near the base of the pipe for a touch hole.
>
> Begs the question others have asked, "What is 'satisfactorily'?"
> I was thinking of a gun you could chamber "standard cartridges" in; of
> the sort you might find in a hardware-store.

You can still purchase auto telescoping radio antennas. I believe it's
the base section that will chamber a .22 cartridge. Kids used to break
them off car fenders to make zip guns. It became such a problem auto
manufacturers switched to the solid wire antenna.

> (Of course, most hardware-stores THESE days carry working guns as part
> of their stock; so ....)
>
> How much of said stock (lingerie in the case of a bra, and gun-parts
> in the case of a gun) are you allowed to appropriate?
>
> The challenge would be MUCH more interesting if the gun-maker had a
> well-equipped machine-shop instead of a hardware-store (with all the
> usual metal stock); and the bra-maker had the contents of a
> fabric-shop, including the various types of sewing-machines that many
> carry.

That fellow who devised a way to "print" a gun sure got the gubbermint's
attention. The technology to do that has been around since the '80's.
Many companies used it to make prototype parts that would be expensive
to make the convential way.
All it took was someone to write the software to produce a gun.

[invalidd]

Chris Zakes wrote:

>
> Note that the original question was posted by invalidd, who is, if I'm
> not mistaken, in England. A haberdashery there is pretty much what
> we'd call a fabric store here. (Whereas on *this* side of The Water, a
> haberdasher sells men's clothing.)

Thank you for the clarification.

I was very much thinking of a shop not far from me. They sell all sorts
of fabrics, including for dresses and curtains, all sorts of bits and
bobs like buttons, needles, hooks and eyes, elastics, laces, cords and
even a small range of sewing machines. It's not a large shop but the
people there are very friendly and if there's anything you want that
they don't stock, they'll try to get it for you.

[invalidd]

Fred Brown wrote:

> That fellow who devised a way to "print" a gun sure got the gubbermint's
> attention. The technology to do that has been around since the '80's.
> Many companies used it to make prototype parts that would be expensive
> to make the convential way.
> All it took was someone to write the software to produce a gun.

Veering off-topic somewhat, it seems to me that with 3D plastic
printers, we've made a significant step along the way to Star Trek
transporter technology.

Disassemble me, Scotty, and print a copy of me at my required destination.

[Frank McCoy]

"Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>That fellow who devised a way to "print" a gun sure got the gubbermint's
>attention. The technology to do that has been around since the '80's.
>Many companies used it to make prototype parts that would be expensive
>to make the convential way.
>All it took was someone to write the software to produce a gun.

http://farleftside.com/2013/5-8-13-3D-printer.html
;-}

BTW, You'd need a *VERY* expensive printer to actually "print a gun"
... A "printer" that can actually print solid metal parts.
Yes, they *DO* exist; but you could probably buy several thousand guns
at retail prices for the cost of one.
AND, I'm not sure how much I'd actually trust the barrel of such a gun
when firing a high-powered round.
Methinks the old method of drilling and tapping a blank is *much* more
trustworthy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLndYWw5_y8

[Jette Goldie]

Didn't anyone notice that the Gatekeeper was Saint PETRA? Feminine form.


--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com

Living in the Future!

[Jette Goldie]

On 20/05/2013 02:58, Frank McCoy wrote:
> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:43:42 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> to write:
>>
>>> You've shuffled off this mortal coil and arrived at the Pearly Gates (or
>>> the equivalent for your religion).
>>>
>>> Saint Petra says to you, "During your life on earth, you were good in
>>> some parts and bad in others. I can't make up my mind whether to let you
>>> in or not because it's such a close call. So I'm going to set you a
>>> challenge. Given the contents of a hardware store and a haberdashery,
>>> you have to make either a gun or a bra from scratch. And I'll be testing
>>> out whichever you make to ensure it performs satisfactorily."
>>>
>>> Which would you try to make?
>>>
>>> I'd go for the bra.
>>
>> The contents of a hardware store could be used to build a simple gun
>> fairly easily: a piece of 2x4 or 2x6 to make the stock, black iron
>> pipe to make a barrel, clamp the two together in some fashion, drill a
>> small hole near the base of the pipe for a touch hole.
>>
>> Lead for bullets might be a little harder to find--few stores carry
>> plain lead any more. And I'm not sure they would have the chemicals
>> needed to make the gunpowder.

gunpowder is easier to make than you might think - the ingredients
aren't that hard to find, or make. :-)

[Mike Duffy]

Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:kndkmr$icd$2...@dont-email.me:

> gunpowder is easier to make than you might think - the ingredients
> aren't that hard to find, or make. :-)

Human excrement does not have the nitrate concentration of avian guano.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[Jette Goldie]

are no longer made of lead, at least here in the UK, because of the
danger to wild fowl who can end up swallowing them.

[Jette Goldie]

technically that's a "drapers and haberdashery". they're getting harder
and harder to find these days.

A fabric store here sells fabric. Usually just fabric, though they might
also have some threads to match the fabric and a limited range of zips.
If they're really well stocked they might have some buttons.

[Frank McCoy]

That's ALL?
Around here, "Joanne's Fabric" has a simply amazing stock of
everything needed to make just about any article of clothing, from a
simple girl's dress to a wedding-gown. AND, they also sell the
various types of sewing-machines along with considerable other gadgets
to make the job easier.

Well ... at least the local one does.

[Don Bruder]

In article <omkkp8d3v556lupvm...@4ax.com>,

Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:

> "Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >That fellow who devised a way to "print" a gun sure got the gubbermint's
> >attention. The technology to do that has been around since the '80's.
> >Many companies used it to make prototype parts that would be expensive
> >to make the convential way.
> >All it took was someone to write the software to produce a gun.
>
> http://farleftside.com/2013/5-8-13-3D-printer.html
> ;-}
>
> BTW, You'd need a *VERY* expensive printer to actually "print a gun"
> ... A "printer" that can actually print solid metal parts.

No, Frank, you won't/don't. If you've paid any attention to the news in
the last few weeks, you're aware that a gun produced by a 3D printer has
been produced and fired. Unless I've misread things badly, the only
metal in the entire gun (unless one counts the brass in the cartridge
that was loaded into it) was a nail, used as the firing pin. INCLUDING
the springs. The rest of the unit is 100% plastic. Speculation says that
the right type of plastic could easily replace the nail.

A printer capable of using the control files and the same plastic that
was used for the demonstration gun is, likewise based on what I've read
but haven't personally confirmed, commercially available *RIGHT NOW* for
a price variously quoted as being somewhere between 3 and 15 grand.
(Exact price seems to vary depending on who wrote the article being
cited - It seems to me that there's a strong bias toward the cheap end
in articles written by/on behalf of "Oh no! Disaster! It's now possible
to print a gun!" interests, while prices cited by those in the "so
what?" or "yeah, that's great!" camps seem to run toward the higher end
of the scale. Big surprise there, huh?)

> Yes, they *DO* exist; but you could probably buy several thousand guns
> at retail prices for the cost of one.

If your interest isn't "how much does it cost to make it" but "How can I
get a gun in my hands (or a bunch of guns into a bunch of hands) without
anybody knowing I'm doing it", the cost might well be considered totally
irrelevant. Depends on who you are and why and how badly you want it.

> AND, I'm not sure how much I'd actually trust the barrel of such a gun
> when firing a high-powered round.

Depends... First define "high-powered round"?

The demo gun was chambered for a standard .380 round - a *VERY* common
"pocket pistol" load. If you say "9mm", you'll be close enough for
discussion. A *COMPARATIVELY* small round. If you want to shoot bigger
than that, you'd obviously have to fiddle with the plans a bit to both
beef it up, and allow said larger load to be loaded in the first place.

The first report of its firing that I read said something real close to
"the barrel wasn't damaged significantly" by the test firing. Precisely
what that means is open to debate, I'm sure, but without going "over the
top", I think it's safe to say that the folks involved figured it would
survive at least one more shot.

Since it's designed and intended to be a one-shot gun (The idea being
that you use it one time - to shoot somebody else who has a "more real"
gun so that you can take it away from him and use it yourself - google
up the WWII "Liberator" pistol, which this one is named in honor of) the
fact that it survived a test firing and seemed to come through unscathed
means that it worked as designed, and then some.

--
If the door is baroque don't be Haydn. Come around Bach and jiggle the Handel.

[Jette Goldie]

You want fabric you go to a fabric store. You want the findings and
fittings to make a dress, you go to a haberdashers. You want a sewing
machine, you go to a store that sells sewing machines.

Some department stores sell all three - but fewer and fewer.

[Tim Merrigan]

And for the price or the printers to come down.

[David Simpson]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:26:42 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
<Use.web.form@website_in_sig.com> wrote:

>Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote in
>news:kndkmr$icd$2...@dont-email.me:
>
>> gunpowder is easier to make than you might think - the ingredients
>> aren't that hard to find, or make. :-)
>
>Human excrement does not have the nitrate concentration of avian guano.

Doves and pigeons are everywhere.
--
David
No email replies please.
21/05/2013

%

[Tim Merrigan]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:54:11 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

The printed gun that's been in the news recently is plastic. one
story I heard said the only metal part is the firing pin, and that
wasn't printed.

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/andygreenberg/files/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-05-at-12.20.07-AM.png

[Tim Merrigan]

I noticed, but thought Slavic form.

[Frank McCoy]

And, there is this one:
http://www.webpronews.com/this-3d-printed-gun-can-fire-nine-shots-2013-05

[Kay Shapero]

In article <kndkj1$icd$1...@dont-email.me>, jgold...@btinternet.com
says...

>

>
> Didn't anyone notice that the Gatekeeper was Saint PETRA? Feminine form.

Whoops, I certainly didn't.

--

Kay Shapero
Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:37:52 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> to write:

>On 20/05/2013 07:00, Barry Gold wrote:
>> On 5/19/2013 10:21 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>>> Lead for bullets might be a little harder to find--few stores carry
>>> plain lead any more. And I'm not sure they would have the chemicals
>>> needed to make the gunpowder.
>>
>> Fishing weights?
>
>
>are no longer made of lead, at least here in the UK, because of the
>danger to wild fowl who can end up swallowing them.

At one time you could buy ingots of "plumber's lead" at hardware or
plumbing supply stores (it was melted and used to seal joints in cast
iron drain pipes.) Nowadays, with the concerns about lead poisoning
and the fact that just about all plumbing pipe is made of PVC plastic,
it's *much* more difficult to find.

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:02:05 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> to write:

Sulfur saltpeter and charcoal, if memory serves. I don't know about
your side of The Water, but I don't think either sulfur or saltpeter
are commonly sold in US hardware stores.

On the other hand, I've heard that some nailguns use a .22 blank
cartridge, rather than the more common compressed air or
electromagnets, so that might be a source for hardware store
gunpowder. Alternatively, I wonder how difficult it would be to modify
a nailgun to get decent range and accuracy with it?

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:53 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:

And the ones around here also sell a lot of arts-and-crafts stuff. I'd
guess about 40% of the store is arts-and-crafts, along with the fabric
and associated materials like buttons or zippers.

They also sell clothing patterns. I'm not sure if they specifically
carry patterns for bras, but I expect they *do* have patterns for
swimsuits, and a bikini top would make a reasonable substitute.

[Frank McCoy]

Saltpeter can be leached from most fertilizer.
Sulfur is a bit harder to find ... in a store.
Well ... OK ... With a bit of chemistry, it can be extracted from
sulfuric-acid ... used to clean drains.
Or, go poking around a volcano.

>On the other hand, I've heard that some nailguns use a .22 blank
>cartridge, rather than the more common compressed air or
>electromagnets, so that might be a source for hardware store
>gunpowder. Alternatively, I wonder how difficult it would be to modify
>a nailgun to get decent range and accuracy with it?
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

--

[Frank McCoy]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:37:52 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> to write:
>
>>On 20/05/2013 07:00, Barry Gold wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2013 10:21 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lead for bullets might be a little harder to find--few stores carry
>>>> plain lead any more. And I'm not sure they would have the chemicals
>>>> needed to make the gunpowder.
>>>
>>> Fishing weights?
>>
>>
>>are no longer made of lead, at least here in the UK, because of the
>>danger to wild fowl who can end up swallowing them.
>
>At one time you could buy ingots of "plumber's lead" at hardware or
>plumbing supply stores (it was melted and used to seal joints in cast
>iron drain pipes.) Nowadays, with the concerns about lead poisoning
>and the fact that just about all plumbing pipe is made of PVC plastic,
>it's *much* more difficult to find.
>

NOT so hard, actually.
Get plumber's solder. Used to repair copper pipes.
Any hardware-store has it.
Doesn't have LEAD in it; but it melts fairly easily; and is dense
enough to make a decent bullet.
http://www.plumbingsupply.com/solder.html

[Frank McCoy]

Yeah, I thought of that; but I don't think the TEST should allow using
a pattern (or a blueprint, if making a gun).

[Tesseract]

I haven' tried recently, but we had no problem getting those things when
I was in high school. Sulphur is used in gardening so many garden shops
should have it. Potassium nitrate (salt peter) is also used in gardening
and we used to find it in drug stores. And we'd get charcoal from the
barbecue. A friend was a hunter and he had some commercial black powder.
Ours wasn't quite as good. Maybe if we ground it a bit (or a lot) longer
it would have been better but it did go bang.

--
Tesseract

[Tesseract]

>>> / ' / �

>>> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
>>> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Here is a "free" self-replicating 3D printer.
http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page

A list of available printers:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/29/3d-printer-guide/

And then there is this:
http://xkcd.com/924/

--
Tesseract

[Frank McCoy]

Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:

>I haven' tried recently, but we had no problem getting those things when
>I was in high school. Sulphur is used in gardening so many garden shops
>should have it. Potassium nitrate (salt peter) is also used in gardening
>and we used to find it in drug stores. And we'd get charcoal from the
>barbecue. A friend was a hunter and he had some commercial black powder.
>Ours wasn't quite as good. Maybe if we ground it a bit (or a lot) longer
>it would have been better but it did go bang.

Did you mix it fine, in the proper proportions, wet it, make it in a
cake, let the cake dry, and then grate ("corn") the cake into proper
slivers?

[Frank McCoy]

Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:

>Here is a "free" self-replicating 3D printer.
>http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page

Well ... Actually NOT.
Probably well over half of the parts needed for the printer cannot be
made BY the printer; from the metal rods, wiring-harness, and
most-especially the PC-board and electronics components on the board.
Oh yeah, and also the feed-tubes, motors, and other miscellaneous
parts.
Probably only about 1/4 of the actual printer parts are or even can-be
made by the printer itself.
FAR from self-replicating.

But, yeah: It DOES produce SOME of the parts needed to duplicate.

--
_____
/ ' / ™

[Tim Merrigan]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:00:40 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>

Well, saltpeter is easy enough to make, given time, that leaves the
sulphur, and I think there may still be some in match heads. The
trouble is getting the proportions right.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:36:37 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>

or urine

[Frank McCoy]

invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

>You've shuffled off this mortal coil and arrived at the Pearly Gates (or
>the equivalent for your religion).
>
>Saint Petra says to you, "During your life on earth, you were good in
>some parts and bad in others. I can't make up my mind whether to let you
>in or not because it's such a close call. So I'm going to set you a
>challenge. Given the contents of a hardware store and a haberdashery,
>you have to make either a gun or a bra from scratch. And I'll be testing
>out whichever you make to ensure it performs satisfactorily."
>
>Which would you try to make?
>
>I'd go for the bra.

I've been following and adding to this thread since it started.
Lately a comment about using a pattern for a bikini-top for a "bra"
made me think.

Looking at the incredibly simple designs for the bikini-tops for most
of the women in my SI daily-desk-calendar then thinking of the truly
complicated designs of the bras my wife wears or those in most
catalogs, makes me realize:
Bikini-tops are NOT bras.
Bikini-tops are designed merely to COVER the tits of well-proportioned
YOUNG women; most of whom don't really need such support at all.
It's main purpose is decency, not usefulness for the wearer.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/2012_swimsuit/images/fronts/alyssa-miller.jpg
A BRA, on the other hand, is designed to SUPPORT the bosom of a
full-figured WOMAN, not just provide cover for "decency" sake.
A bra is also designed to be worn *underneath* clothing and not seen.
http://www.theplace2.ru/archive/alyssa_miller/img/Alyssa_Miller_212.jpg
(Same woman, bikini-top versus bra)

A bikini-top is simple.
A BRA, on the other hand, is quite complicated.
Anybody could string together a bikini.
Making a *comfortable* bra that supports a woman's bosom AND that is
still pretty enough that a woman would wear it however ....
You might say that it IS "rocket science" in complexity.

[Jim Hetley]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:06:43 AM UTC-4, Tesseract wrote:
>
>
> I haven' tried recently, but we had no problem getting those things when
>
> I was in high school. Sulphur is used in gardening so many garden shops
>
> should have it. Potassium nitrate (salt peter) is also used in gardening
>
> and we used to find it in drug stores. And we'd get charcoal from the
>
> barbecue. A friend was a hunter and he had some commercial black powder.
>
> Ours wasn't quite as good. Maybe if we ground it a bit (or a lot) longer
>
> it would have been better but it did go bang.
>
>

Yeah, we used to be able to buy both powdered sulfur and potassium nitrate off the shelf in a drug store. As kids. This was longer ago than I care to admit, but we did mix up passable bangs. And survived, with all fingers and eyes still functional.

Jim

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:36:37 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:

Yes, but the original condition was "the contents of a hardware store"
not a volcano. And I'm afraid I don't have the chemistry knowledge to
extract either sulfur or saltpeter.

[Jim Hetley]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:59:32 AM UTC-4, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, but the original condition was "the contents of a hardware store"
>
> not a volcano. And I'm afraid I don't have the chemistry knowledge to
>
> extract either sulfur or saltpeter.
>
>

As already noted several times in this thread, a lot of hardware stores (at least in Maine) sell manufactured ammunition.

Jim

[Tesseract]

I think we got the proportions right. As for the rest? Nope. Just used a
mortar and pestle.

--
Tesseract

[Don Bruder]

In article <knfuts$pir$1...@dont-email.me>,

The trick for good gunpowder is, as frank mentioned, corning it. Right
from the start, you want to work it wet - get your ingredients together,
then splash in some water to make a thick "mud" as you're doing the
mortar & pestle work. Once you're done grinding and mixing, dry well in
the sun. (Or, if you're an idiot with a death wish, you could toss it in
the oven for a while...) Now take the resulting "clump" and rub it on a
chunk of window screen to bring it to a sand-ish consistency. Presto -
gunpowder that works *MUCH* better than if you simply powder the
ingredients and stir them together - You get a more even, predictable,
and reliable burn because it doesn't separate the way un-corned powder
tends to.

[Fred Brown]

"Don Bruder" <D...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:kne0h2$bnu$1...@dont-email.me...
> In article <omkkp8d3v556lupvm...@4ax.com>,

> Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>
>> "Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>

>> >That fellow who devised a way to "print" a gun sure got the gubbermint's
>> >attention. The technology to do that has been around since the '80's.
>> >Many companies used it to make prototype parts that would be expensive
>> >to make the convential way.
>> >All it took was someone to write the software to produce a gun.
>>

>> http://farleftside.com/2013/5-8-13-3D-printer.html
>> ;-}
>>
>> BTW, You'd need a *VERY* expensive printer to actually "print a gun"
>> ... A "printer" that can actually print solid metal parts.
>

> No, Frank, you won't/don't. If you've paid any attention to the news in
> the last few weeks, you're aware that a gun produced by a 3D printer has
> been produced and fired. Unless I've misread things badly, the only
> metal in the entire gun (unless one counts the brass in the cartridge
> that was loaded into it) was a nail, used as the firing pin. INCLUDING
> the springs. The rest of the unit is 100% plastic. Speculation says that
> the right type of plastic could easily replace the nail.
>
> A printer capable of using the control files and the same plastic that
> was used for the demonstration gun is, likewise based on what I've read
> but haven't personally confirmed, commercially available *RIGHT NOW* for
> a price variously quoted as being somewhere between 3 and 15 grand.
> (Exact price seems to vary depending on who wrote the article being
> cited - It seems to me that there's a strong bias toward the cheap end
> in articles written by/on behalf of "Oh no! Disaster! It's now possible
> to print a gun!" interests, while prices cited by those in the "so
> what?" or "yeah, that's great!" camps seem to run toward the higher end
> of the scale. Big surprise there, huh?)

>
>
>> Yes, they *DO* exist; but you could probably buy several thousand guns
>> at retail prices for the cost of one.
>

> If your interest isn't "how much does it cost to make it" but "How can I
> get a gun in my hands (or a bunch of guns into a bunch of hands) without
> anybody knowing I'm doing it", the cost might well be considered totally
> irrelevant. Depends on who you are and why and how badly you want it.

>
>> AND, I'm not sure how much I'd actually trust the barrel of such a gun
>> when firing a high-powered round.
>

> Depends... First define "high-powered round"?
>
> The demo gun was chambered for a standard .380 round - a *VERY* common
> "pocket pistol" load. If you say "9mm", you'll be close enough for
> discussion. A *COMPARATIVELY* small round. If you want to shoot bigger
> than that, you'd obviously have to fiddle with the plans a bit to both
> beef it up, and allow said larger load to be loaded in the first place.
>
> The first report of its firing that I read said something real close to
> "the barrel wasn't damaged significantly" by the test firing. Precisely
> what that means is open to debate, I'm sure, but without going "over the
> top", I think it's safe to say that the folks involved figured it would
> survive at least one more shot.
>
> Since it's designed and intended to be a one-shot gun (The idea being
> that you use it one time - to shoot somebody else who has a "more real"
> gun so that you can take it away from him and use it yourself - google
> up the WWII "Liberator" pistol, which this one is named in honor of) the
> fact that it survived a test firing and seemed to come through unscathed
> means that it worked as designed, and then some.

The cost of the printer, way more that $3K, and the resins would be beyond
the average person. The gun would have limited accuracy because the barrel
would not be rifled, about 3m to 9m. The FP45-Liberator stamped steel
pistol manufactured by GM during WW2 was .45 caliber and the effective
range was 21 feet before the bullet began to tumble due to the lack of
rifling.
It would be easier and cheaper to make a frame from sheet metal and bore
a hole in a piece of drill rod for the barrel than to procure a 3D printer.

[Barry Gold]

On 5/20/2013 8:36 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>
> Saltpeter can be leached from most fertilizer.
> Sulfur is a bit harder to find ... in a store.
> Well ... OK ... With a bit of chemistry, it can be extracted from
> sulfuric-acid ... used to clean drains.
> Or, go poking around a volcano.

Google "student chemical supply" without the quotes. I found Home
Science Tools at http://www.hometrainingtools.com/chemistry/c/3/

Sulfur (precipitated powder) 30g, $3.75.

Used to be you could buy stuff like that in the LA area, we had a store
called "Student Science Service" in Burbank. But that seems to have
disappeared. At least Google Maps doesn't have it, and they don't have a
webpage.

Charcoal is easy, of course, the biggest problem is grinding it.

But black powder is touchy stuff. I might prefer to buy nitric and
sulfuric acid and make my own guncotton. More propulsion power per gm
and it's also stabler. The one problem is you usually need a primer to
set it off, and some primers are worse than black powder.
Still... guncotton is highly flammable, so you _should_ be able to set
it off with a flame -- matchlock or flintlock, just not as convenient or
reliable as a modern cartridge.

[Mike Duffy]

Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote in news:kngcsr$cnp$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 5/20/2013 8:36 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:

>> Sulfur is a bit harder to find ... in a store.

>> Well ... OK ... With a bit of chemistry, it can be extracted

> Google "student chemical supply" without the quotes. I found

> ... http://www.hometrainingtools.com/chemistry/c/3/

> Sulfur (precipitated powder) 30g, $3.75.

I've seen it at garden supply stores. (Soil "acidifier"). It is much
cheaper than the quote above because it is not reagent grade.

> But black powder is touchy stuff. I might prefer to buy nitric and
> sulfuric acid and make my own guncotton.

The concentration you need makes for extrememly dangerous accidents. I
would not advise anyone to attempt this anywhere else than a proper fume
hood, full face and hand protection, and an emergency shower nearby. In
short, a chem lab.

> The one problem is you usually need a primer to
> set it off, and some primers are worse than black powder.

Offhand, I cannot think of any percussion primers safer than BP itself.
Do not make any more at a time than you need to make one charge. If you
make a bunch, store them *very* separately. These should be nowhere near
the BP, which should be stored in an OPEN container with non-flammable
material above it. Use a metal barrel, cover with aluminum foil grounded
to the barrel. If you ever feel the need to look inside the barrel, use a
mirror with a long handle.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[Barry Gold]

On 5/21/2013 12:45 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> Offhand, I cannot think of any percussion primers safer than BP itself.
> Do not make any more at a time than you need to make one charge. If you
> make a bunch, store them *very* separately.

I'm reminded of a Tommy Hambledon novel, _Green Flash_. Set during
WWII, Tommy gets mistaken for a "Professor Ulsen"(*) and kidnapped by
the Nazis to develop his wonderful new explosive. So he and a Dutch
assistant putter around this huge chem lab(+) that the Nazis provide for
his work. He sets up "demos" -- rigged, with hidden charges of
nitroglycerin plus a chemical to make the flames green.

British Intelligence provides him with the formula for a real explosive
that is very powerful but *much* too unstable to use. He leaves it
lying around the lab for the Nazi spies to find. They do, and give it
to one of their existing explosive companies. The company sets about
trying to perfect "ulsenite" in the same plant where they've been making
-- and storing -- more conventional explosives. Huge amounts of them,
stored right next to the lab where they're playing around with
"ulsenite". The results are everything you might have wished for.
Well, nearly everything: unfortunately, Goebbels wasn't around that day.

(*) The real "Ulsen" is a con-man, getting people to invest money in an
explosive that doesn't exist.

(+) Tommy knows nothing about chemistry. He's a spy who accidentally
gets mixed up in this. The assistant is the real chemist, somebody that
British intelligence found who has a serious grudge against Germany for
Rotterdam.

[Tesseract]

On 21-May-13 8:55 AM, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <knfuts$pir$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20-May-13 9:55 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven' tried recently, but we had no problem getting those things when
>>>> I was in high school. Sulphur is used in gardening so many garden shops
>>>> should have it. Potassium nitrate (salt peter) is also used in gardening
>>>> and we used to find it in drug stores. And we'd get charcoal from the
>>>> barbecue. A friend was a hunter and he had some commercial black powder.
>>>> Ours wasn't quite as good. Maybe if we ground it a bit (or a lot) longer
>>>> it would have been better but it did go bang.
>>>
>>> Did you mix it fine, in the proper proportions, wet it, make it in a
>>> cake, let the cake dry, and then grate ("corn") the cake into proper
>>> slivers?
>>>
>>> --
>>> _____

>>> / ' / �

>>> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
>>> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>>>
>>
>> I think we got the proportions right. As for the rest? Nope. Just used a
>> mortar and pestle.
>
> The trick for good gunpowder is, as frank mentioned, corning it. Right
> from the start, you want to work it wet - get your ingredients together,
> then splash in some water to make a thick "mud" as you're doing the
> mortar & pestle work. Once you're done grinding and mixing, dry well in
> the sun. (Or, if you're an idiot with a death wish, you could toss it in
> the oven for a while...) Now take the resulting "clump" and rub it on a
> chunk of window screen to bring it to a sand-ish consistency. Presto -
> gunpowder that works *MUCH* better than if you simply powder the
> ingredients and stir them together - You get a more even, predictable,
> and reliable burn because it doesn't separate the way un-corned powder
> tends to.
>

We were high school kids. It was pre-internet. We didn't feel like doing
the library research. Besides, Captain Kirk didn't make a wet mash.

--
Tesseract

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 02:46:02 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>

to write:

>On 21-May-13 8:55 AM, Don Bruder wrote:
>> In article <knfuts$pir$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20-May-13 9:55 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I haven' tried recently, but we had no problem getting those things when
>>>>> I was in high school. Sulphur is used in gardening so many garden shops
>>>>> should have it. Potassium nitrate (salt peter) is also used in gardening
>>>>> and we used to find it in drug stores. And we'd get charcoal from the
>>>>> barbecue. A friend was a hunter and he had some commercial black powder.
>>>>> Ours wasn't quite as good. Maybe if we ground it a bit (or a lot) longer
>>>>> it would have been better but it did go bang.
>>>>
>>>> Did you mix it fine, in the proper proportions, wet it, make it in a
>>>> cake, let the cake dry, and then grate ("corn") the cake into proper
>>>> slivers?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _____

>>>> / ' / �

>>>> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
>>>> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think we got the proportions right. As for the rest? Nope. Just used a
>>> mortar and pestle.
>>
>> The trick for good gunpowder is, as frank mentioned, corning it. Right
>> from the start, you want to work it wet - get your ingredients together,
>> then splash in some water to make a thick "mud" as you're doing the
>> mortar & pestle work. Once you're done grinding and mixing, dry well in
>> the sun. (Or, if you're an idiot with a death wish, you could toss it in
>> the oven for a while...) Now take the resulting "clump" and rub it on a
>> chunk of window screen to bring it to a sand-ish consistency. Presto -
>> gunpowder that works *MUCH* better than if you simply powder the
>> ingredients and stir them together - You get a more even, predictable,
>> and reliable burn because it doesn't separate the way un-corned powder
>> tends to.
>>
>
>We were high school kids. It was pre-internet. We didn't feel like doing
>the library research. Besides, Captain Kirk didn't make a wet mash.

Have you ever seen the Mythbusters investigation of that episode?
Their replication of the powder Kirk made wouldn't even launch a
projectile. Using commercial gunpowder, the bamboo cannon was much
more likely to explode in his face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5DVWEvdQwQ

[Don Bruder]

In article <kni3tj$kau$1...@dont-email.me>,

Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:

> On 21-May-13 8:55 AM, Don Bruder wrote:
> > In article <knfuts$pir$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20-May-13 9:55 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
> >>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I haven' tried recently, but we had no problem getting those things when
> >>>> I was in high school. Sulphur is used in gardening so many garden shops
> >>>> should have it. Potassium nitrate (salt peter) is also used in gardening
> >>>> and we used to find it in drug stores. And we'd get charcoal from the
> >>>> barbecue. A friend was a hunter and he had some commercial black powder.
> >>>> Ours wasn't quite as good. Maybe if we ground it a bit (or a lot) longer
> >>>> it would have been better but it did go bang.
> >>>
> >>> Did you mix it fine, in the proper proportions, wet it, make it in a
> >>> cake, let the cake dry, and then grate ("corn") the cake into proper
> >>> slivers?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> _____

> >>> / ' / ™

> >>> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> >>> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think we got the proportions right. As for the rest? Nope. Just used a
> >> mortar and pestle.
> >
> > The trick for good gunpowder is, as frank mentioned, corning it. Right
> > from the start, you want to work it wet - get your ingredients together,
> > then splash in some water to make a thick "mud" as you're doing the
> > mortar & pestle work. Once you're done grinding and mixing, dry well in
> > the sun. (Or, if you're an idiot with a death wish, you could toss it in
> > the oven for a while...) Now take the resulting "clump" and rub it on a
> > chunk of window screen to bring it to a sand-ish consistency. Presto -
> > gunpowder that works *MUCH* better than if you simply powder the
> > ingredients and stir them together - You get a more even, predictable,
> > and reliable burn because it doesn't separate the way un-corned powder
> > tends to.
> >
>
> We were high school kids. It was pre-internet. We didn't feel like doing
> the library research. Besides, Captain Kirk didn't make a wet mash.

Oh, he did, no question - it's just that they put that part of the
process in the commercial breaks :)

Dry-mix gunpowder *WILL* function - no question. I wasn't trying to say
otherwise. Only noting that corned gunpowder is better.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 02:46:02 -0700, Tesseract
<hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:

>On 21-May-13 8:55 AM, Don Bruder wrote:
>> In article <knfuts$pir$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20-May-13 9:55 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I haven' tried recently, but we had no problem getting those things when
>>>>> I was in high school. Sulphur is used in gardening so many garden shops
>>>>> should have it. Potassium nitrate (salt peter) is also used in gardening
>>>>> and we used to find it in drug stores. And we'd get charcoal from the
>>>>> barbecue. A friend was a hunter and he had some commercial black powder.
>>>>> Ours wasn't quite as good. Maybe if we ground it a bit (or a lot) longer
>>>>> it would have been better but it did go bang.
>>>>
>>>> Did you mix it fine, in the proper proportions, wet it, make it in a
>>>> cake, let the cake dry, and then grate ("corn") the cake into proper
>>>> slivers?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _____

>>>> / ' / �

>>>> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
>>>> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think we got the proportions right. As for the rest? Nope. Just used a
>>> mortar and pestle.
>>
>> The trick for good gunpowder is, as frank mentioned, corning it. Right
>> from the start, you want to work it wet - get your ingredients together,
>> then splash in some water to make a thick "mud" as you're doing the
>> mortar & pestle work. Once you're done grinding and mixing, dry well in
>> the sun. (Or, if you're an idiot with a death wish, you could toss it in
>> the oven for a while...) Now take the resulting "clump" and rub it on a
>> chunk of window screen to bring it to a sand-ish consistency. Presto -
>> gunpowder that works *MUCH* better than if you simply powder the
>> ingredients and stir them together - You get a more even, predictable,
>> and reliable burn because it doesn't separate the way un-corned powder
>> tends to.
>>
>
>We were high school kids. It was pre-internet. We didn't feel like doing
>the library research. Besides, Captain Kirk didn't make a wet mash.

Captain Kirk also used diamonds for his carbon.

[Frank McCoy]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Have you ever seen the Mythbusters investigation of that episode?
>Their replication of the powder Kirk made wouldn't even launch a
>projectile. Using commercial gunpowder, the bamboo cannon was much
>more likely to explode in his face.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5DVWEvdQwQ

What shocked *ME* about the show, was that nobody on the show seemed
to have the basic knowledge of the proper ratios of the three
ingredients: 25:3:2 S:C:S ... Something most kids learn in high-school
chemistry; and that Kirk *should* have been well aware of, or he
wouldn't even have attempted to make it.

In the Mythbusters idiocy, they had their "Kirk" experiment with
various ratios; essentially producing a dud.

Non-corned powder, made the way they did, SHOULD go "BANG!" not "Poof"
in an enclosed container. Just not nearly as well as corned powder.
Lord knows it was centuries that people used non-corned powder quite
successfully. It just had a tendency to settle out. So ... you just
remixed old powder.

So ... In the episode, WHY didn't they use the proper formula instead
of trying to re-invent it on the spot?

[Frank McCoy]

Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 May 2013 02:46:02 -0700, Tesseract
><hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>
>>On 21-May-13 8:55 AM, Don Bruder wrote:
>>> In article <knfuts$pir$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20-May-13 9:55 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>>> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven' tried recently, but we had no problem getting those things when
>>>>>> I was in high school. Sulphur is used in gardening so many garden shops
>>>>>> should have it. Potassium nitrate (salt peter) is also used in gardening
>>>>>> and we used to find it in drug stores. And we'd get charcoal from the
>>>>>> barbecue. A friend was a hunter and he had some commercial black powder.
>>>>>> Ours wasn't quite as good. Maybe if we ground it a bit (or a lot) longer
>>>>>> it would have been better but it did go bang.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you mix it fine, in the proper proportions, wet it, make it in a
>>>>> cake, let the cake dry, and then grate ("corn") the cake into proper
>>>>> slivers?
>>>>>

>>>> I think we got the proportions right. As for the rest? Nope. Just used a
>>>> mortar and pestle.
>>>
>>> The trick for good gunpowder is, as frank mentioned, corning it. Right
>>> from the start, you want to work it wet - get your ingredients together,
>>> then splash in some water to make a thick "mud" as you're doing the
>>> mortar & pestle work. Once you're done grinding and mixing, dry well in
>>> the sun. (Or, if you're an idiot with a death wish, you could toss it in
>>> the oven for a while...) Now take the resulting "clump" and rub it on a
>>> chunk of window screen to bring it to a sand-ish consistency. Presto -
>>> gunpowder that works *MUCH* better than if you simply powder the
>>> ingredients and stir them together - You get a more even, predictable,
>>> and reliable burn because it doesn't separate the way un-corned powder
>>> tends to.
>>>
>>
>>We were high school kids. It was pre-internet. We didn't feel like doing
>>the library research. Besides, Captain Kirk didn't make a wet mash.
>
>Captain Kirk also used diamonds for his carbon.

Um ... not that I hear.
He used diamonds as his projectiles.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:01:10 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

in the novelization the only carbon available was various sizes of
diamonds, in the powder he used diamond dust. I'm assuming that Blish
had some information from the episode producers and writers.

[Jake Jones]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:00:22 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

My guess...the ATF.

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:00:22 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:

>Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Have you ever seen the Mythbusters investigation of that episode?
>>Their replication of the powder Kirk made wouldn't even launch a
>>projectile. Using commercial gunpowder, the bamboo cannon was much
>>more likely to explode in his face.
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5DVWEvdQwQ
>
>What shocked *ME* about the show, was that nobody on the show seemed
>to have the basic knowledge of the proper ratios of the three
>ingredients: 25:3:2 S:C:S ... Something most kids learn in high-school
>chemistry; and that Kirk *should* have been well aware of, or he
>wouldn't even have attempted to make it.

"Most kids"? Maybe where you come from; it certainly wasn't taught in
my high school chemistry class in Houston in the early '70s.

>In the Mythbusters idiocy, they had their "Kirk" experiment with
>various ratios; essentially producing a dud.
>
>Non-corned powder, made the way they did, SHOULD go "BANG!" not "Poof"
>in an enclosed container. Just not nearly as well as corned powder.

I expect part of the problem was that it wasn't really an enclosed
container: a bamboo tube with a couple of handfuls of black powder and
a handful of rocks simulating the diamonds in the show. That leaves a
lot of room around the rocks for the expanding gases to escape
*without* propelling the rocks out of the tube. How well would a .50
caliber black powder rifle shoot if it was loaded with a .22 caliber
ball? (Especially if there wasn't any kind of patch used?)

As you can see in the video, using their homemade powder in a proper
cannon, they shot the cannonball a couple of feet. Using proper black
powder with the rocks caused the bamboo to explode. It took proper
black powder, a reinforced bamboo tube and moving the cannon much
closer to the target to get anything like an acceptable result.

[Frank McCoy]

While diamond WILL burn, at high enough temperatures, I doube VERY
much if diamond-dust would make a satisfactory substitute for the
carbon usually used in gunpowder.

Now THAT would make a very interesting Mythbusters episode!
(Probably an expensive one though.)
It would be a shock indeed, if it made a BETTER gunpowder.

[Barry Gold]

On 5/22/2013 2:00 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
> What shocked *ME* about the show, was that nobody on the show seemed
> to have the basic knowledge of the proper ratios of the three
> ingredients: 25:3:2 S:C:S ... Something most kids learn in high-school
> chemistry; and that Kirk *should* have been well aware of, or he
> wouldn't even have attempted to make it.

I remember the ratio as 76:14:10, I think that's the stoichiometric mix.

[Frank McCoy]

OK ... Usually simplified to 75:15:10.
Much easier to measure accurately.
3/4 S.
Of the remaining quarter:
3/5 C.
2/5 S.

So, Simplified recipe:
Mix 3 parts C with 2 parts S.
Mix one part of above-mix with three times as much S.
Close-enough. Not perfect; but darned good.
Most early gunpowder was made using that simplified recipe.
The better mix you describe is a bit less fouling ....
But a lot harder for amateurs to make.

[Tesseract]

On 22-May-13 4:00 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:00:22 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:
>
>> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Have you ever seen the Mythbusters investigation of that episode?
>>> Their replication of the powder Kirk made wouldn't even launch a
>>> projectile. Using commercial gunpowder, the bamboo cannon was much
>>> more likely to explode in his face.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5DVWEvdQwQ
>>
>> What shocked *ME* about the show, was that nobody on the show seemed
>> to have the basic knowledge of the proper ratios of the three
>> ingredients: 25:3:2 S:C:S ... Something most kids learn in high-school
>> chemistry; and that Kirk *should* have been well aware of, or he
>> wouldn't even have attempted to make it.
>
> "Most kids"? Maybe where you come from; it certainly wasn't taught in
> my high school chemistry class in Houston in the early '70s.

Not in my high school, either.


--
Tesseract

[Jim Hetley]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:00:14 PM UTC-4, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
> "Most kids"? Maybe where you come from; it certainly wasn't taught in
>
> my high school chemistry class in Houston in the early '70s.
>

<snip>

> I expect part of the problem was that it wasn't really an enclosed
>
> container: a bamboo tube with a couple of handfuls of black powder and
>
> a handful of rocks simulating the diamonds in the show.

Formula wasn't taught in school, no, but you could look it up in any encyclopedia in the 1960s.

As far as the "bang" factor goes, black powder will explode with considerably less confinement than smokeless powder. It is classified as an "explosive" rather than a "propellant" in the Federal lexicon.

Jim

[Mike Duffy]

Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in
news:ul5rp8tuls412mcut...@4ax.com:

> It would be a shock indeed, if it made a BETTER gunpowder.

Black carbon (amorphous) has an extrememly high ratio of surface to mass.
In some sense, it is close to "atomic" grains. I know that this is a
stretch, but with an essentially fractal crystal structure the overall
dissociation energy to free the atoms during combustion is quite small.

It would indeed be surprising if diamonds (with their compact crystal
structure) reacted more vigourously. The energy to break those short bonds
needs to come from somewhere.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[John W. Vinson]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 23:15:02 -0700, Tesseract
<hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:

>>> What shocked *ME* about the show, was that nobody on the show seemed
>>> to have the basic knowledge of the proper ratios of the three
>>> ingredients: 25:3:2 S:C:S ... Something most kids learn in high-school
>>> chemistry; and that Kirk *should* have been well aware of, or he
>>> wouldn't even have attempted to make it.
>>
>> "Most kids"? Maybe where you come from; it certainly wasn't taught in
>> my high school chemistry class in Houston in the early '70s.
>
>Not in my high school, either.

Well... Mrs. Riddle certainly didn't TEACH it, but all of us who worked as lab
assistants certainly LEARNED it.

More than a little bit of nitroglycerin and guncotton got made too, after
hours.
--

John the Wysard JVinson *at* Wysard Of Info *dot* com

[Jette Goldie]

huh, my high school chemistry teacher taught us how to make black
powder. In class. With demos. (and he got his decimal point in the
wrong place so it was a bit more spectacular than he intended <g>)



--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com

Living in the Future!

[Tim Merrigan]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 23:23:38 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

Please stop using the same abbreviation for the Sulphur and the
Saltpeter. How about S for sulphur, and KNO3 for saltpeter?

[Don Bruder]

In article <ul5rp8tuls412mcut...@4ax.com>,

Have you forgotten that a diamond is nothing more or less than a chunk
of crystalline carbon?

Diamonds burn just like coal, only cleaner, since, plus or minus the
impurities that give some of them color, they're almost perfectly pure
carbon.

Like coal, when in "chunk" form, it takes a bit of effort to get them
going. Also like coal, if you reduce them to dust, the resulting powder
will burn almost explosively.

[Frank McCoy]

The double-usage of 'S' was deliberate.
See if you can figure out why.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:46:03 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>

Because sulphur and potassium nitrate are interchangeable? (I think
not)

[Frank McCoy]

Hint: Think political.

[Frank McCoy]

Cite please.
I'm fairly sure it's the amorphous nature of most carbon that makes it
such a good combiner with sulfur and nitrogen in gunpowder.

But, I'll admit I could easily be completely wrong; never having heard
of anybody making the comparison.

[Frank McCoy]

The few things I could look up always showed diamonds being burned in
liquid (or at least pure) oxygen, and NOT in open air or even in a
pile of coal. IOW: It seems to be combustible, but NOT flammable.

[Don Bruder]

In article <digtp8lj0e40b065r...@4ax.com>,

In-class lecture/demonstration given/performed by my 10th grade science
teacher, Mr. Bronson.

I've always assumed that the "not quite glass" looking splinters that he
said were diamond, and used a bunsen burner to light, were probably bits
of industrial grade diamond from someplace like Edmund Scientific or
similar. I don't even want to IMAGINE what running such a demo with even
scraps of "gem grade" diamond might cost! Anyway, they took a while to
catch, but once he got them going and moved the bunsen burner aside,
they burned with a flame that looked almost exactly like an
oxy-acetylene torch that hasn't had the oxy turned on yet, except
without the little floaty blobs of soot a pure acetylene flame gives off.

The little spoonful of diamond dust (out of a can with a label that
included the text "diamond abrasive - 6X grit") that he sprinkled into
the flame of the bunsen burner went with a fairly impressive flash and
"whoosh!", almost instantly gone, without a visible trace anything had
happened.