Miech Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 It's Dutch, so it's good (but I'm probably very, very subjective here ). Personally I like shorter burning and bushier farfalles, but that's just my taste.
yellowcard Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Like this ? http://www.youtube.com/user/yellowcard299#p/u/4/z8ejPkRbfX4 Man i'm proud on that shell. Should make a 4'' or 6'' one this year with a blue star core.
dagabu Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Like this ? http://www.youtube.com/user/yellowcard299#p/u/4/z8ejPkRbfX4 Man i'm proud on that shell. Should make a 4'' or 6'' one this year with a blue star core. I'm not worthy! Beautiful shells, both of them. D
firetech Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 I've made some pretty good spinners with 1/4" ID tubes. I think I might be able to pull off a farfalle with my little shells. Whats the standard number of tourbillions?
Mumbles Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 There isn't one, just however many conveniently fit in a ring in your shell. There are calculators for that kind of thing. A somewhat common size seems to be .5" ID, 3/4" OD this corresponds to 7 in a 3" shell, and 11 in a 4" shell. Any less than 7 in a ring always seems sparse to me.
firetech Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 Well then 7 is ideally the minimum I will put in. Thats the number I was looking for.
scarbelly Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 I'm in the process of making my second ball shell right now, and I had a question: Is it a big deal if you can hear the shell rattle when you shake it? How can I keep this from happening? I'm trying as hard as I can to pack everything in tightly... Should I hot glue in the individual stars?
Mumbles Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 It depends how big the shells is. 3" or less, no problem unless they're chlorate stars. 4" or larger, I would take it apart. Don't worry about gluing the individual stars in. If your stars aren't tight, your burst wont be tight either. Are you using a tissue paper liner between you burst and the stars? If not, you should. Over fill the shell with burst. When you slam the two halves together, they should not go together willingly. Tap them until they bow to your will and close.
scarbelly Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 Yes I am using a tissue paper between the stars and the burst. It is a 3 inch shell using D1 glitter stars. Alright, I guess I'll experiment on my next shell. I probably could have fit a few more stars in there and a bit more burst. It wasn't much of a struggle to get the hemis together.
firetech Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 You really can't prevent a bit of rattling because powder just comes loose whether you like it or not. However compression is essential.
vladou Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 I've just tested my tourbillon insert for my farfalle shell. It worked pretty fine. I've used 10g of meal with 1,5g of Mg (but I will use spherical Al or Fe) and 3g of flash as a report. They are 19 x 80mm. Here's a video (sorry for the poor quality, I recorded with my cell phone) Do I need to put like 1-2g of green mix as a delay mix between the meal and the flash powder ? insert.mov
Mumbles Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 If you have tourbillions, you can't make a farfalle shell. Farfalle shells use farfalle inserts, which are not toubillions. There is a difference between rattling, and crumbs trickling around. The crumbs you can't really prevent unless you pack your shells wet. Actual rattling is a defect in manufacture. With large shells, or chlorate/flitter/strobe stars, it's a flowerpot or muzzlebreak waiting to happen.
firetech Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 I always thought the inserts were tourbillions...Whats the difference?
dagabu Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 I am sure you have all seen this before but for all the noobs, here is the best slo-mo shell video I have ever seen. My Christmas present to you all! D http://www.pyrobin.com/files/fireworks-slomo-german.wmv
Mumbles Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 There is some tricky nomenclature here. Lots of names for essentially the same device, especially with regard to tourbillions. You won't find anyone in the know calling farfalle inserts tourbillions though. The key distinction is that tourbillions spin, where as farfalle inserts do not, at least not intentionally or excessively. Tourbillions are traditionally 4 tubed devices that are pretty rare to see anymore. Alan Yates has a quick write-up on them, and the Westech firework manual also has good coverage. There is a good passfire article as well. More frequently, tourbillion has come to refer to two different devices: As a ground device, they have begun to refer to helicopters. 2 vent holes on opposite ends of the tube, 180 degrees apart. Then two vent holes pointing straight down. Some will angle the vent holes on the end to make the vents pointing straight down unnecessary. See the link at the bottom of my post for an image. In shell inserts, the term is often used to refer to "whirly-birds" or "whirl-winds" or "spinners" or whatever you want to call them. They can either be made with 1 hole in the end, or the same two hole pattern as the ground devices. The two holed version spins faster, and has a shorter duration. Farfalle, while related, differ in a very important aspect. They are not supposed to spin very much. They contain two holes 180 degrees from one another, opposite sides of the tube. The holes can be placed on the end, or in the center of the tube. Again, it allows you to control the burn duration. There is also a three holed version, where the holes are 120 degrees apart all on the same end or in the center of the tube presumably. I believe Mike Swisher called it a pigeon, or probably the italian equivalent. This further adds to nomenclature issues, as pigeons are also sometime used to describe line rockets. http://www.vk2zay.net/article/16
pyrogeorge Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 3" Tiger Tail to blue stars but the colours didn't showing as it's real..
FREAKYDUTCHMEN Posted December 28, 2009 Posted December 28, 2009 Very nice shell pyroman, Dave buell's Slowgold I suppose?
PyroMan LTU Posted December 28, 2009 Posted December 28, 2009 Uh.. I guess, I know only one name for it: Dave Buell Brocade
psyco_1322 Posted December 28, 2009 Posted December 28, 2009 That was quite an amazing looking shell. Good work!
Bonny Posted January 4, 2010 Posted January 4, 2010 Here are 2 5" ball shells I fired NYE. Both were burst using BP coated rice crispies with a spoonful of whistle powder as a booster.They were hand pasted with 55 and 65lb paper, salvaged from bags etc...1st shell is a TT to blue. I rolled TT over Shimizu B-70 cores (with CuO...so not really B-70). Stars were ~3/8". Pasted with (IIRC) 16 layers of paper. The blue is not that visible but looked better in person.2nd shell was an attempt at 3 rings. I used ~1/4" rolled Veline stars for the green and cut 3/8"+ Veline stars for red and blue. The green ring worked well, but the red and blue looked pretty messy, also with too few stars in the rings due to the larger size. IIRC this shell was pasted with 12 layers of paper.
Bonny Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Double posting... I was hoping to get some comments/critiques on my shells...but anyway,On the TT to blue the break looked a bit sparse, but the stars burned for about the right amount of time as it was not intended to be a willow shell. Should I have used (slightly) smaller stars and a softer break? Or, maybe 2 layers of stars?
swervedriver Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Those were great, both of em. The ring shells color comps burned at exactly the same speed and brightness, very nice.
Chris Posted January 6, 2010 Author Posted January 6, 2010 (edited) I'm sure those shells looked good IRL. If you want to make adjustments, you can consider the following. You can see that some of the stars have a small delay between burst and fully burning. This refers to slow ignition, which is a common problem with round stars in larger shells. Priming might solve the issue but sometimes a fire block or uneven pasting might cause this problem. Seeing that your break is round and the fact that you are using a pretty much incompressible burst carrier would suggest that priming might be your answer. I have never primed charcoal streamers myself but I know some guys stand for it. Smallers stars will naturally give a denser break, assuming they ignite at the same time. My personal opinion is that a shorter burn time (of smaller stars) and denser break would improve the outcome. However, smaller stars won't help if they don't ignite at the same time. Hope this helps! Double posting... I was hoping to get some comments/critiques on my shells...but anyway,On the TT to blue the break looked a bit sparse, but the stars burned for about the right amount of time as it was not intended to be a willow shell. Should I have used (slightly) smaller stars and a softer break? Or, maybe 2 layers of stars? Edited January 6, 2010 by Chris
Recommended Posts