Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

More Data on the Rock Blasting Technologies of the 19th and early 20th Centuries

9/28/2016

40 Comments

 
In continued pursuit of fleshing out and expanding the "Boulder Field Quarry" hypothesis, I've been compiling accounts related to the rock-blasting technologies and behaviors of the 19th and early 20th century. Below is information from four publications discussing blasting subsequent to the invention of dynamite in 1867. They discuss various methods of breaking up boulders, all remarking on the greater effectiveness of dynamite vs. gunpowder.

Some of the sources provide data estimating the charges required to break up rocks of particular sizes, noting that the greater power of dynamite allows one to either: (a) use less of it in a hole bored into the rock; or (b) demolish the rock without even drilling a hole (i.e., by "mudpacking" or "snakeholing"). The 1922 manual says that the charges listed should be doubled if "Red Cross Farm Powder" (which I'm guessing is some kind of non-dynamite blasting powder?)  is substituted for dynamite.

The 1916 publication estimates that a three-man crew (i.e., a "double jack" crew with one person holding the drill and the other two swinging sledgehammers) can produce a 12-inch hole in 15 minutes. I'm guessing that's appreciably faster than most of probably conceive of manually drilling holes into hard rock. If you want to see some really fast hole production, watch some YouTube videos of people competing in creating holes using mid-1800's technology: a stone drill, a 4-lb. hammer, and muscle. (Here is a short video of champion driller Emmit Hoyl talking about making holes in stone).

I'm still gathering information. My working hypothesis so far, however, is this:

Early Euro-American settlers of parts of Minnesota (moving into the area around the 1840's) would have encountered a landscape filled with glacial boulders of various sizes. Those boulders would have been a source of building stone as well as an impediment to cultivation. Some of the boulders would have movable as-is by horse and human power. Others, however, would have been impossible to move without first breaking them down in size. They could have accomplished that size reduction by explosive and non-explosive techniques, both of which would include the drilling of holes using stone drills (the straight bits of which, as we have seen, naturally produce triangular rather than perfectly round holes). Prior to 1867, gunpowder would have been the only available explosive. Holes would have been drilled into the tops of boulders to receive a charge of gunpowder. Depending on the size of the rock (and the experience of the person performing the work), blasting attempts may have regularly failed. I'm guessing that some of the intact stone holes may represent those failed attempts to blast using gunpowder. Some early (i.e., pre-1867) attempts to clear fields using explosives may have been largely unsuccessful, especially if the large boulders were mostly buried. Some of those fields may have been re-visited when more powerful explosives became available, while some apparently were not. New immigrants to the area in the late 1800's would not have had any direct memories of the earliest attempts to clear the land. Their choices of which fields to clear may have been influenced by slightly different economic conditions than confronted the earliest Euro-American settlers, and they would have been armed with a better blasting technology (i.e., dynamite).

Picture
Transactions of the Essex Agricultural Society (1876:129)

". . . The explosive I now use is Rendrock, an admixture of gunpowder while in a pasty state with nitro-gylcerine. This powerful explosive, though well known and very generally in use by contractors on public works, is yet so little known by farmers in general that I think it will be worth while for me to give them an introduction to it, as its use enters so largely into the economy of handling boulders.
" . . . As will be seen, it is over twice as costly as common blasting powder, but, as every farmer knows, the great cost in blasting is the drilling, and this is where the saving comes, as it will do as much execution as gunpowder in a hole of one-third capacity. . . . The extra power becomes of value in enabling one to do in a single blast what gunpowder would require two to accomplish."

Picture
The New International Encylopaedia (1905:163)

"The first attempt to blast rock by the use of an explosive is commonly credited to Martin Weigel, a mine boss at Freiberg, Saxony, and is said to have occurred in the year 1613. . . . it is certain that by 1634 to 1644 the use of gunpowder in mining operations was quite generally known in Germany. From that country the process was taken by German minders to England in 1670, and to Sweden in 1724. Until 1685 the drill-holes were stopped with wooden plugs, but in that year clay-tamping was employed in Saxony. In 1791 sand-tamping was first used. Hand-drilling with cone and crown drills was used until 1759, when the modern chisel-edge drill was introduced. . . . In 1863 nitroglycerin, and in 1867 dynamite, were first used as explosives in blasting operations. . . .
​    "Modern blasting operations may be divided into three classes: (1) small-shot blasting, in which comparatively small volumes of rock are moved at a single blast; (2) blasting by mines, in which large masses of rock are broken up by a single heavy blast; and (3) surface-blasting, in which the explosive is placed on or against, or simply near to the rock to be broken up, and which is possible only with very high explosives.  Small-shot blasting is employed in the great majority of quarrying, mining, and engineering operations. It consists in piercing the rock with a comparatively small number of drill-holes from 1 1/4 inches to 3 inches in diameter and from 18 inches to several feet in depth; charging these holes with explosives, generally blasting powder or dynamite, with the proper fuse or electric-wire connections; tamping the space above the explosive with earth, sand, clay, or water, and finally firing these charges by means of a time-fuse or wires from an electric battery or magneto-machine. The relative location of the drill-holes, their size and depth, and the amount of explosive used vary according to the object which it is sought to accomplish by the blast. Where the purpose is merely to break up the rock in the most efficient manner for its removal, as in excavating a foundation, the holes will be placed quite close together and heavily charged, so as to shatter the rock thoroughly. In quarrying, where the object is to loosen the rock in large and regularly shaped masses, the holes are arranged in rows and lightly charged, so that the explosion will split the rock along approximately definite lines without shattering it."
​​

Picture
​Handbook of Rock Excavation (1916:636-637)

"There are three ways of breaking up a boulder with explosives: (1) block-holing; (2) mud-capping; and (3) undermining.
    Block-holing consists in drilling a shallow hole in the boulder and exploding a small charge of high power explosive in the hole.
     Mud-capping, or "bulldozing," or "adobe (or dobe) shooting" consists simply in firing some dynamite on top of the boulder, after covering it with a shovelful of earth, preferably wet clay.
     Undermining or "snake holing" consists in boring a hole in the earth and firing a charge of dynamite in the hole directly beneath the boulder.
     Block-holing is obviously the most effective way of using the explosive. It is surprising how small a charge of 75% dynamite in a block hole will break a huge granite boulder. The cost of drilling is greatly reduced wherever pneumatic hammer drills are used. . . .
     A Du Pont catalog contains Table LLX giving chages of 40 to 60% dynamite for boulder blasting."
Picture
"Figs. 146, 147 and 148, illustrate the proper methods of mudcapping, snakeholing and blockholing.
     The tests described below, carried on by the Bureau of Mines, were made to determine the comparative energy expended by explosives under water and in the air, and by various methods of shooting. The test showed very conclusively that the block-hole method of breaking boulders and large fragments of rocks is very much superior to and more economical than the mud-cap or "adobe shot" method of breaking, which is so commonly practiced."
Picture
"Block Hole Drilling. Comparative methods and costs as stated by Mr. Charles C. Phelps in Engineering and Contracting, April 7, 1915."
Picture

Picture
Farmer's Handbook of Explosives (1922:54)
Picture
40 Comments
Only Me
9/28/2016 10:59:50 am

I think the most important information that can be applied to the boulder field quarry hypothesis comes from The New International Encyclopaedia:

"Where the purpose is merely to break up the rock in the most efficient manner for its removal, as in excavating a foundation, the holes will be placed quite close together and heavily charged, so as to shatter the rock thoroughly. In quarrying, where the object is to loosen the rock in large and regularly shaped masses, the holes are arranged in rows and lightly charged, so that the explosion will split the rock along approximately definite lines without shattering it."​

This might explain some of the patterns seen in stone hole groups. Not all of them, of course.

Reply
Andy White
9/28/2016 11:20:57 am

Yeah, it's possible that some of the multiple hole groupings (on single rocks) represent attempts to get more bang. It could be that when a gunpowder charge in one was not effective a second hole was added. Some of the rock that protrude only slightly from the ground (so-called "hard heads") would have been very difficult if not impossible to bust using gunpowder in bore holes. I wonder if the multiple holes on the so-called "altar rock" don't represent an attempt to break it up using explosives.

Reply
Only Me
9/28/2016 11:33:26 am

It might also explain why so many boulders with holes still exist. It may have just been a matter of cost vs. reward, since it took double the "load" of gunpowder or Red Cross Farm Powder to yield the same results as dynamite.

For Altar Rock, maybe Gunn could compare the pattern he's found against what's described in the Encyclopaedia.

Gunn
9/28/2016 11:47:22 am

Andy, if you'll just do some provided background reading like your students, you'll see how foolish it is of you to propose "modern" rock-breaking thoughts or attempts for the Sauk Lake Altar Rock.

This huge multi-stonehole rock used to have a "fine spring" by it until all the trees were cut down. I think medieval Scandinavian visitors followed the spring up from Sauk Lake for the best drinking water and discovered the rock, which they then possibly used as an altar, as hypothesized by H. Holand. He was right about a lot of things, though distracted badly by others...like Wolter, I suppose.

This Altar Rock is marking the Sauk Lake headwater of the Sauk River leading to the Mississippi River above the St. Anthony's Falls, by St. Cloud. Most everything in medieval times was related to water travel and lakes and rivers, even to the American Indians, and this rock was marked as relating to the existing waterways at the time, for particular reasons we don't yet fully understand.

Andy, the Altar Rock has very unique credentials which cannot be confused in any way with pioneer/immigrant/land-clearing. The holes were seen by many locals well before any clearing took place, and the area had many dozens of wagon-loads of rocks removed later, showing that there was no need to attack this rock, 27' X 17' and several feet high.

Andy White
9/28/2016 11:55:09 am

What's the earliest dated description of the Sauk Lake Altar Rock?

How deep are the holes?

Gunn
9/28/2016 12:24:17 pm

"What's the earliest dated description of the Sauk Lake Altar Rock?"

According to Holand's gathered letters concerning ownership, the first owner of the land was a man named Spriesterfauch, who lived about ten miles from Sauk Centre.

Please read from page 168, the letter from Everton B. Harder, from Eagle Bend, Minn., April 30, 1944. He talks about the rock in the early 1880's. The letter is from a man who first saw the rock at age 13 in 1883, and wrote about it in his 75th year, in 1944. He talks about being left sitting in the mud on a trial the first time he (and apparently his horse, too) saw the rock, which does look like two eyes of something fairly huge and unexpected looking at you.

How deep are the holes?

From the same Holand book, published in 1946:

"Four holes have been drilled into the stone in different directions.... The depth and diameters of these holes are not the same. The two horizontal holes are six and nine inches deep, and their diameter is about one and three-eighths inches. The third hole is sixteen inches deep and one inch in diameter. The fourth hole is five inches deep and also one inch in diameter."

Andy, I can't right now personally vouch for the accuracy of Holand's measurements, but they sound about right from what I've seen after visiting the rock several times, the latest about a month ago.

I can arrange a personal tour of the Sauk Lake Altar Rock sometime in the future, if you'd like.

Andy White
9/28/2016 12:31:24 pm

Thank you for reproducing that information.

So the earliest known account of the rock is from (memory) 1883? That's perhaps 40 years (i.e., multiple generations) after Euro-Americans first moved into the area in large numbers, is it not?

And how are the holes, based on their diameters, depths, and placement, inconsistent with holes made for blasting?

Gunn
9/28/2016 12:52:05 pm

Andy, "multiple generations, after Euro-Americans first moved into the area in large numbers...."

Hardly. Some of these areas were first cleared and settled much later, such as with Olof Ohman. The area around the rock didn't get settled until closer to Ohman's experience. Here, again from Holand's book is what the old man went on to say, which might help in this discussion: Mr. Harder later sent a map showing every quarter section in an area of twelve square miles around the rock. In this he shows the location of the five first settlers, including his father, whose farm was nearest to the rock."

The holes were seen well before (about ten years) anyone attempted to clear the land (of stumps and rocks), according to someone who was there to know.

I have never seen horizontal holes used for blasting, though maybe it was done on occasion for reasons unknown. Maybe you'll come across it in your research. To me, none of the holes resemble holes which would have been used for blasting. There is also the issue that two sizes of stoneholes are represented. Holand thought the two horizontal holes were used for brackets to hold an altar shelf, and that the other two holes helped to support a wind-guard of sorts overhead. I have never heard of a sixteen-inch deep, small-diameter stonehole being used for blasting or breaking apart rock, either. This Altar Rock, to me, shows no characteristics of being an intended subject of being intentionally broken apart.

On the other hand, it has many features that make it appear to be a medieval rock artifact with medieval Norse stoneholes chiseled into it...and it happens to also be in an important waterway marking spot.

Andy White
9/28/2016 01:00:42 pm

One of the sources I quote in this post describes "piercing the rock with a comparatively small number of drill-holes from 1 1/4 inches to 3 inches in diameter and from 18 inches to several feet in depth." Others (such as one I quoted yesterday) describe holes 12" deep. Stone drills come in all sizes. I would think a 1" hole is not so different from a 1 1/4 hole. And keep in mind these holes would have been associated with unsuccessful blast attempts.

Here's an image of a man using the single jack technique on a vertical rock face:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/publications/fs_publications/84232602/fig05.jpg

Gunn
9/28/2016 01:23:25 pm

Andy, here is a photo I took near a quarry a few years ago, showing at least three very small-diameter stoneholes in a row, like you're talking about. You can see in a closeup that the holes are also extremely round. This line of small stoneholes was used to crack off a slab. No blasting needed, either.

I probably should mention that I think Holand is wrong about one of the four stoneholes, because, actually, three are about the same size in diameter and only one is very small and very deep. I've taken plenty of photos to show this, I'm sure.

Anyway, Andy none of the stoneholes in the altar rock are extremely round, but rather they are all oddly triangular-shaped and very craggy-edged, as though very aged.

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id43.html

You may compare nice, round, modern, small-diameter quarrying stoneholes to proposed medieval small-diameter stoneholes at the above site, including some small-diameter stoneholes related to my hypothesized encoding on the ridgeline near Appleton, MN.

John (the other one)
9/28/2016 04:05:44 pm

Gunn - is your source information for all of this one person / book. Holand? What if they are wrong?

While working in grad school colleagues and I discovered a new class of material behavior and it nullified whole parts of accepted books/theory. It simply had to be rewritten, and these books were only 20 years old. You are talking about something 100 years old. Science changes.

You need to rely on more sources it looks like. Also, newer sources.

Gunn
9/28/2016 05:26:18 pm

John, I'm looking through your comment to see where you might have added anything, but all I see is profound skepticism.

Much of what I've learned is through reading source material such as books. I have many books, on the Sagas and the various medieval Scandinavian countries. I'm familiar with Wolter's books, Mann's books, Sora's books, and many others. One of my favorites is Alice Beck Kehoe's little anthropological treatise on the KRS.

Holand wrote quite a few books, and he is readily known for his work cataloguing early Scandinavian culture in this region. He talked to people in their native Norwegian language, and I think Andy might appreciate that he dealt heavily in ethnographic data, of both pre-Columbian Norse culture, but also of 1800's Scandinavian immigrant culture.

He has been much stigmatized because of a few of his theories, but can you understand the hassles he went through to gather data, often traveling in a rough countryside? I will stand up for Holand as being a Norwegian-America hero for his relentless pursuit of trying to defend the KRS and prove its authenticity.

Sources and new sources are hard to come by, John. What have you done, personally, to add to the bank of knowledge about the KRS and stoneholes and things possibly medieval in this region? Or do you mostly like to throw stones and offer crass, distant advice?

Besides doing extensive research online, I read whole books on the subject. I also go out into the field to make discoveries of my own, and I'm quick and eager to give God glory whenever something special seems to have been discovered or learned along the way.

I characterize the Norse Code-stone find as a "miracle of discovery," probably brought about because of my unusual interest in medieval stoneholes, and God's wish to bless me.

John, I wish you weren't so critical. I don't find it constructive or helpful at all...but maybe that wasn't your intention. Actually, I wish you were a different John, a different other one. I'd prefer to not see your repugnant comments here.

John (the other one)
9/28/2016 06:33:28 pm

Gunn - thanks your comment made me laugh. I'm glad god blessed you, that's crucial to research.

It's funny you comment on my posting, I decided to take a break and then read everything at once. Your stream of commenting is like watching a house slowly burn down, it's tragic.

If you don't like what I say don't read it, I made a constructively critical comment about how you constantly refer to Holand as where your information comes from. One source is not enough. Maybe you should include a sources cited section on your website or something so this part becomes more obvious?



Gunn
9/28/2016 08:57:15 pm

John, you're doing the same thing again, giving unwanted advice and making rude comments, but without adding anything to the conversation. Maybe you didn't catch it before when I mentioned that one can always tell a blog troll because they don't add anything to the conversation. I hope you can see how this applies to you.

I use Holand's material when it's pertinent to the conversation, which it is very much so in any discussion of the Sauk Lake Altar Rock.

To you, a house is slowly burning down. To me, a house is slowly being built...and a tramp keeps passing by, peeing on the front lawn like an unneutered dog.

Casting pearls before swine comes to mind.

Gunn
9/28/2016 11:30:30 am

Andy, I'm starting to lose my initial confidence in you as being an unbiased Professor. You're side-hobby seemed innocent enough until you said this:

"New immigrants to the area in the late 1800's would not have had any direct memories of the earliest attempts to clear the land."

I'm sorry to need to correct you on this. Please attempt to read Hjalmar R. Holand's take on this matter, which involved him gathering together letters from the area's earliest immigrants and farmers and landowners.

This is almost as bad as Trow and Calavito intimating that the same poor, dumb immigrants had bad memories related to "unblasted" stoneholes. Do you not think the immigrants were capable of knowing, understanding and writing down their personally-known histories?

Again, here is the good stuff related to a few proposed medieval stoneholes, while you're looking at the history of rock-breaking....

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id49.html

Reply
Andy White
9/28/2016 11:36:52 am

I'll glad read Holand and learn what I can about the earliest settlers of the area. My point is that I'm not satisfied when people simply say "we don't know who did this" or "this area would have never been settled." As an archaeologist I've spent plenty of time tromping through the woods finding remains of farms, houses, and outbuildings where no-one lives now. The "my relatives don't know who made that hole therefore the medieval Norse did" doesn't cut it. Not for me, anyway.

Reply
Gunn
9/28/2016 12:02:41 pm

Andy, the issue is over whether these earliest settlers and farmers saw the stoneholes in the Altar Rock before land-clearing took place or not. The area had many large trees which were cut down years before the land was finally cleared of stumps and rocks for planting, and many eyewitnesses from the very earliest of times--initial ownership of land, even, saw the holes and provided clear histories of the rock, including exact dates.

If this rock weren't so heavy, it might make an excellent albatross around an overly skeptical person's neck...perhaps a miniature, then?

Andy, I sometimes question the local savviness of regional Scandinavians, myself, when I see what they've done and not done at Runestone Park, and also at the Runestone Museum, where a pagan Viking is overshadowing the Christian KRS. Big Ole trinkets are hot with the impressionable you'ts.

Andy White
9/28/2016 12:17:29 pm

Okay, but you didn't answer my question. I asked the date of the earliest description of the Sauk Lake Altar Rock. You said:

"many eyewitnesses from the very earliest of times--initial ownership of land, even, saw the holes and provided clear histories of the rock, including exact dates."

So where can I read those accounts and see to when they date?

Gunn
9/28/2016 12:31:41 pm

Wow, I haven't had to type this fast since I took Typing II back in high school. I think I was the only male in typing class back then.

I was working on your answer, above.

D
9/28/2016 12:40:31 pm

Gunn,

I have not read Holand's book so I don't know what evidence he had or why he claims what is being claimed.

So just wanted to ask what is the evidence that this stone is an altar? Do holes in the stone somehow make it an altar?

In other words why do you and others believe this is a Christian/Norse altar?

D
9/28/2016 12:41:40 pm

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere.

Gunn
9/28/2016 01:07:51 pm

No problem, D. I took photos of Holand's 1946 chapter (12 pages) about the Altar Rock and uploaded them to my meager website. You will have to look closely to read the small writing, but every one of your questions--and then some--will be answered about why some folks, including me, think this rock may in the future be considered as "America's first Christian altar."

This is very Catholic, so I don't know how it would fare with Wolter's anti-Catholic Templar notions. But, this altar rock could possibly date back a few hundred years before the date of the KRS, being 1362, when the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Templars was better...like during the Crusades, for instance.

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id49.html

Jim
9/28/2016 03:41:37 pm

Gunn, I'm sure you must agree that Hollands theory of the rock being an alter is speculation. You will notice he states all French exploration parties had one or more priests with them.
He then goes on to speculate that Norse parties must have had a priest as well, saying the KRS supports this.It really is quite a nebulous statement considering the KRS says no such thing.
If one were to believe the rock was indeed an alter (which I don't buy) wouldn't it be much more likely to have been made by the French. I mean all the evidence would point you that way, no?

Gunn
9/28/2016 09:29:14 pm

Jim, these are fair questions.

There is some evidence in the Norse Sagas to support the notion that Scandinavian priests probably accompanied some medieval expeditions to North America, such as a priest being mentioned as having visited Vinland a few hundred years before the carving of the KRS. You can find out about this online via google, etc.

Many folks accept the idea that the KRS was carved by a priest, who would have been educated to read and write. There are indications in the inscription message that the carver was a Christian. You can also research to your heart's content online about this. AVM!

Yes, the French explorers and land-claimers came with missionaries, or priests, too. Why should it be surprising if the early Norse did the same thing? The KRS is thought to possibly be a monk-written stone document, and the Sauk Lake Altar Rock is only about a half-hour or so drive from the Kensington area.

On the surface of things, I'd have to agree with Holand in saying it looks like medieval Scandinavian Christians were involved with early American history in Minnesota and hereabouts. He was generally very astute, except when getting hung-up on "mooring" holes and a non-historical search party. Holand believed in God and seemed to honor God at times in his writings. He was very self-driven and courageous, always willing to "Go Like a Pro." He was a great man for a tough job.

Jim
9/29/2016 08:25:18 am

Gunn, this is not mean spirited but I must say that you are completely devoid of objectivity.
You choose to accept speculation, what ifs, and maybe could haves over historical fact. You accept only that which agrees with your own theories and casually disregard all else no matter how factual and compelling this evidence is.
I get that you truly believe your theories, but if you want people to take you seriously, you have to be objective.

Jim
9/28/2016 01:18:18 pm

Really interesting read Andy. I like your hypothesis so far.
One small thing for you to ponder :
Certainly most holes would accommodate the use of black powder.
Some of the holes may have been too small to accommodate a "stick" of dynamite. However, the casing could be cut open and the actual explosive gel could be packed in a hole. Weather this practice was done or used, I have no idea. Something to watch for in your further research.

Reply
Jim
9/28/2016 01:56:22 pm

P.S. In your Handbook of Rock Excavation, I note the size of a Du Pont charge being 11/4 x 8 inch.

Reply
Andy White
9/28/2016 04:04:30 pm

That's a good catch --thanks. What page is that on?

I'm wondering if the diameter of dynamite cartridges was standardized. The need to shove a round cartridge into a hole (rather than pouring in a powder) would seem to select for producing a round hole, favoring the use of star bits over the straight-bitted stone drills that produce triangular holes.

Reply
Jim
9/28/2016 04:26:42 pm

It's at the top of the table on the page you illustrated.
Also a point in favor of using powder rather than dynamite is the "best before date". Dynamite is only stable for a year or so, before the nitro starts leaching out, making it very dangerous. So use it or lose it, the powder although having less pop might be deemed more practical without the danger and the shelf life of dynamite.

Only Me
9/28/2016 04:53:46 pm

Jim, as long as the powder stays dry, it should be good for a long while. The other danger with dynamite that begins "sweating" is how nitro can be absorbed through the skin. Once in the bloodstream, it gets absorbed by the brain and liver. I was once accidentally exposed to some sweating dynamite and it was not an enjoyable experience. I felt like I suffered from one of the worst hangovers imaginable.

I wonder if the smaller holes could have been made for powder blasting, while larger ones are indicative of dynamite operations.

Andy White
9/28/2016 05:02:56 pm

That was my thought also, with triangular holes.being smaller diameter (because they could be under 1.25 inches and work just fine with a powder). There's a benefit to drilling smaller holes if possible: they're easier to drill. And the straight-bitted drill would be speedier than a star bit, I believe.

Reply
Clint Knapp
9/29/2016 08:45:48 pm

Day late and a dollar short, but I'm just getting caught up on all these posts.

The narrower bore would also be favorable if a powder were used because it'd provide the necessary compression for that powder to actually have an explosive reaction while still being cost-effective. A larger hole would require more powder to be more densely packed, while a narrow hole could save money (certainly farmers of any time period aren't awash in gunpowder to waste on rocks). Only a small charge would be necessary to crack the rock anyway and you'll have better results with a smaller space for the energetic reaction to expand in.

Jim
9/28/2016 05:12:19 pm

Only Me, Yeah, I am not familiar with historical sizes of dynamite but I suspect anything less than one inch might have not been practical, both in production and usefulness. Smallest I have used is 1/8 Kg. which was about 3/4 x 6 inch, give or take. And bear in mind that comes in a plain brown wrapper. :) What I mean is that it was encased in thin wax paper which is not very robust and probably not used back then. I think a thicker cardboard would have been used.
To avoid the headaches I generally used gloves. But I usually had fairly new product, so there was very little leaching.

Reply
Only me
9/28/2016 06:51:03 pm

Oh yeah, most dynamite is made from cardboard cylinders, at least today.

Another factor to consider is if dynamite operations used standard weight strengths (20-60%), or, if they might have used ammonium dynamite. For our fellow readers, ammonium dynamite was invented by chemist Russell S. Penniman in 1885.

Reply
Andy White
9/28/2016 06:55:48 pm

It's been a lot easier to find data on dynamite than gunpowder, even though people were using gunpowder exclusively for over 200 years. There's little question dynamite was much more effective at blasting, which is perhaps why there seem to be so many unbroken rocks with the triangular holes. Note that one of the tables gives the charge necessary for breaking a 1.5 foot diameter rock, so I may have to rethink my definition of "small."

Jim
9/28/2016 07:14:04 pm

Only me, I tend to think they would have just sold standard mining explosives for rock breaking, stumping etc. probably 40-60%. I don't see them formulating a new type for this.
If someone would have been on the ball, they would have invented PETN much earlier. What a boon (or boom) that would have been!

Only Me
9/28/2016 07:45:21 pm

Andy, Jim, just think how things would have been different if Franz Xaver von Baader's advocacy for placing a conical space at the forward end of a blasting charge to increase the explosive's effect hadn't been limited to gunpowder. Yep, the idea of hollow charges, which led to shaped charges, began in 1792.

Jim
9/28/2016 07:45:49 pm

Andy, I'm not so sure about changing small in relation to break-ability. I'm thinking more move ability.
I guess it depends on what is being discussed.

Jim
9/28/2016 08:19:43 pm

Only Me, If only those silly chiselers would have known to make a small opening and widen or cone it out as they went deeper, they could have saved a lot of sweat and powder.

Reply
Bruce Blommel
3/12/2023 01:56:21 pm

Just in terms of dating European settlement of the Sauk Lake area, this territory was part of the Long Prairie Reservation (Winnebago/Ho-Chunk) until 1855, and previously unsettled, so the notion that in the 1880s generations of Europeans had settled in the area is incorrect.

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly