Talk:Trauzl lead block test

The second paragraph currently states, "The result, given in cm3, is called the Trauzl number of the explosive." However, in the Examples section, there is a table with a column header reading, "Trauzl rating (cm³/g)." I'm pretty sure cm³ is different from cm³/g, right? So doesn't that mean that the Trauzl number is actually given in cm³/g? That makes more sense, too, because then the measure of the blasting power takes into account not only the change in volume but also the amount of explosive from which it results. In sum: I know nothing about explosives, but my physics/mathematics sense tells me there is currently a mistake in Paragraph 2. Guypersonson (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Guypersonson, the units are clearly different. However, they have implications which might bear on the question. The Trauzl test is very empirical-- measuring a cavity in a lead block of specific dimensions. The unit of cm³/g suggests a certain scaleability. Is it realistic to expect that using half the explosive would produce half the cavity volume? All or dimension of the experiment being kept constant, I double there is a linear relationship between cavity volume and mass of explosive. The denominator might be added by convention but the setup suggests that the results of the Trauzl test should be a dimensionless number. I liken it to "copper units of pressure" used in ballistics to assess chamber pressure in firearms. CUP is useful for comparing cartridges or loads of a particular cartridge but, like Trauzl, a given measurement has not "absolute" value, in the mathematical sense. Like Guypersonson, I have no specific knowledge of explosives and only an enthusiasts knowledge of ballistics, but I have some scientific training. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eesnyder80302 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)