It was recently brought to my attention that PETCO (and others?) sells hemp as bedding for small critters. LifeMate Hemp Bedding for Small Animals 800 cu. in. - Compressed To 500 cu. in. SKU: 922420.

It's not cheap, at ~ $8.99 for 3-½ pounds of dried/shredded hemp, but cheaper than what z-dog gets for a lid:D.

It's possible that there would be a fairly large loss of weight (more than normal) when made into coal, due to the finer consistency, but that remains to be seen.

True H3 is made from hemp coal, not balsa or Paulownia. I'm interested to see just what, if any, difference there is between them.

So I'm going to test them to see, as well as testing the difference between hemp and willow charcoal, when made into black powder.

Which brings me to the crux of the matter- What test(s) is/are most relevant as to the performance of H3?

It is used to burst shells, as well as lift, in some cases. So one test alone might not cover it all.

For BP, there's "pyro golf"; a golf ball is shot from a mortar with 2g or 4g charges. The time aloft is measured and compared.

Then there's burn time measurements, semi-confined (spoolette) and unconfined (trough test). And etc.

Are there any tests that are preferred?

I have done testing of various shell bursts by making 3" cylinder shells with a flash bag filled with a standard volume of the bursts coated on whatever core I am intending to use and no stars- just the flash bag attached to the time fuse. I fire them on the ground in a parking lot or similar open area and compare the fragment size of the shell's walls. This gives me a feel for how bursts compare, it is not by any means the only testing I do...

Remember, real H3 is ball milled. I've never had the guts... And where did you hear of it being used for LIFT?

Late 1980 there was scuttlebutt regarding an impending shortage of Goex, this was touted as a cheap replacement.

One user put it like this:
"I use granulated H3 exclusively for lifting my shells and bursting my cylindrical shells. Please keep in mind that I do not make round shells over 6" or cylinder shells over 5". I cannot vouch for this powder working or not working with larger shells. For lifting, I use it gram for gram the same as FFa.

"My conclusion is that if you are a hobbyist, it is stupid to buy any type of commercial powder and end up on the government’s watch list (not to mention paying a significant amount of money per pound of material). You should take the plunge and make H3 lift. Perhaps this will lower the demand for BP in the fireworks industry and force prices to come down on commercial powder, but I digress. I really don't care either way because I enjoy making the stuff. This is a hobby, after all."

In the American Pyrotechnist: A Monthly Fireworks Journal, Vol. 13, Number 9, September 1980, Issue No. 145 contained a similar article but used KClO4, instead.

I, and most everybody else, just make their own BP like always.

For lift, it's really more of a curiosity than anything, IMO.

Yes, a large amount of research and testing on chlorate based mixes as propellants was done in the 18th and 19th centuries, with the end results being the world's militaries mostly continued to use BP until the advent of nitrocellulose.

The pressure exponent that makes chlorate mixtures unsuitable for guns is what makes them desirable as burst in small devices with a minimum number of paste wraps.

Bert, check this out (excerpt from a post on making H3):

"Allow this material to almost complete dry and then break any lumps (pieces that dried together) through the same screen. When the material is completely dry, you can shake it through different sized screens for different things. For instance, I use a 1/16" screen to
drop it through. Whatever is retained on 1/16" will be used for lift and burst and what falls through will have the fines removed with another screen and be used for my black powder revolver:eek:. I use the very finest stuff for my star gun so there is absolutely no waste. My .44 revolver groups better than my Beretta 92 f/s or my Makarov. This stuff isn't rocket science, folks." (bold face is mine)

I hesitate to include it, because of the inherent safety issues, but anyway, there it is.

Oh, kiddies, don't try this at home, 'kay?