BP with KClO4

[Eyegasm]

Has anyone here ever tried substituting KClO4 for KNO3 in a BP composition. Since I moved, I have to produce many of my own ingredients or pay extremely high prices for the components. Saltpeter costs about $50-$80 for 200g. Unless you are a millionaire who can buy a couple acres and build a modern pyrotechnic factory, and hire a chemist with a doctorate to run it for you. Otherwise you are stuck with Mac Guyver procurement methods. I have a little background in the field so I know what not to do or attempt. And I don't operate a secret laboratory. Usually just a few pieces made from scratch on new years. I was just wondering if anyone here has ever tried a moderate perchlorate BP substitute before and if the results are worth it? To those in the US, enjoy the freedom that being free allows. For an amateur pyrotechnician Europe is hell unless you are stinking rich. Edited March 5, 2016 by Eyegasm

[Fulmen]

Do a search for bezo-lift, it's a BP/whistle mix that might fit your needs.

[felixthecat]

kclo4,c,s in various ratios is called kp and is used as a burst charge for medium sized shells,while it may burn sluggishly in the open when confined it produces large pressure spikes which makes it good at breaking things but unsuitable for use as a propellant unlike bp which even under confinement burns with a relatively slow and predicable pressure rise.if your in the eu then kclo4 is unobtainable to private individuals without an explosive precursor licence.the prices you quote for kno3 must shurely be for reagent grade from laboratory suppliers this level of purity is not required for bp compositions and kno3 sold as hydroponic fertilizer or tree stump remover can be used successfully

[Seymour]

I'm quite surprised that you are considering KClO4 to be something that you could use instead of KNO3 because you cannot get saltpetre. Most places KNO3 is easily available in 25kg bags for under $100 in the fertiliser grade product that almost everyone, including some commercial operators use, while KClO4 is a specialty item bought from firework chemical shops when they exist (mostly but not only the US) or through "the networks of the community".

Are you sure you can't get it from a fertiliser place? You might not feel like you need 25kg, but you probably do. you go through heaps of the stuff making fireworks, and even if you don't need 25kg, it will cost the same as 400g at the price you are paying.

 

Then you can save your KClO4 for things that you really have to use it for. For many of us it is the precious and hard to get oxidiser.

 

 

I'm repeating Felix a bit, but to directly answer your question, KClO4 based propellants typically have much more energy than KNO3. A propellant with about twice the power is achievable. They can also have a tendency to react to pressure and confinement more severely than Black Powder, which for some applications may be good, but overall the factor that is most useful about BP is that it propels things effectively with a quite gentle push (for an explosive effect)

 

Add to that the fact that at atmospheric pressure they usually burn slower.

 

And perhaps most importantly replacing the KNO3 with KClO4 in the black powder formula will make it quite a lot more sensitive to shock and friction. I'm not saying it will go off if you knock a bag of it off a table, but I certainly would not feel safe "live milling" it, and treating it as black powder when making it.

 

Ultimately yes you can make a product with KClO4 that will replicate BP for lift powder, and burst powder (this already is widely done though it is an improvement rather than substitute) and many of the other multitude of uses BP has in Fireworks. It's not straightforward though and there are many reasons why getting it to work well and reliably are difficult.

 

You will want to change the formula. KClO4 has more oxygen than KNO3. Ideally you'll drop the sulfur too, because the combination is much more sensitive than most KClO4 mixes without.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Seymour

[MrB]

KNO3 is a bit more of a hassle to make your self, so i guess there is that. Not to mention that making the amounts of KNO3 that wee need, means you need to get a lot more pee then you would produce alone. Entirely possible, but perhaps not the way most of us see us spending our pyro time.

B!

[Eyegasm]

I thank you all for your input. I knew about the unpredictability of KP and the increased burn rate. That's why I haven't tried it in anything that has to work. I was just wondering if anyone had ever tried it with a moderator such as sodium bicarbonate as a moderator. It may be worth a few tests. Here in the EU you get looked at as a terrorist if you fart without 10 different licenses and permits that cost thousands each. I have been debating on just doing the course and getting the license, but it costs in upwards of $2,500, takes 5 days, and before you can touch 1 gram of Pyro you have to get a $1200 class A Pyro vault and have a building outside of any city limits. In Germany that means being a farmer who inherited land (no mortal can afford to buy land here).

[Arthur]

As Seymour said, Pot Nitrate is a product used in agriculture, horticulture and meat curing -(and cannabis grows!) It should be a lot more readily available that pot perc which has one use -pyrotechnics.

 

If you want land possibly the best method is to talk to farmers and find a small bit of land that they will rent to you. Usually a farm has somewhere that doesn't suit the machines used in modern farming. You need a plot say 10m by 10m not a whole field!

[Eyegasm]

That is true Arthur, but here all of the Ag products are homogenized with inert calcium or chemically modified so that they cannot be used as an oxidizer without extensive lab processing. Still possible, but definitely not worth the effort. KClO3 or KClO4 are pretty simple and straight forward to produce. KNO3 is too, but not without nitric acid. Although I could build a reactor and produce it, safely. It really isn't worth it. I thought I would just see if anyone else had tried an alternative to BP. One of the things that I enjoy in Pyrotechnics is trying to formulate new mixtures and alternative compositions. True nothing does the job of BP better than BP. That point I will not argue.

As far as working out a deal with a local farmer, that would be optimum, but a barn doesn't meet the legal requirements for weatherproofing or security. Unless an alarm and surveillance equipment is installed. And then it is forbidden anyways because chemicals are not allowed on agricultural land. At least not unless they are fertilizers or roundup. The more I think about it, the more it might just be worth it to do the course.

[schroedinger]

Eye maybe you just think the wrong way. I know of atleast three suppliers that ship inside the whole EU. E.g. talk to elixir garden in the U.K.

But that may be expensive with the shipping.

An other way would be to buy pool ph- (50% Sulfuric acid), and normal fertilizer (look for high nitrate nitrogen content). You can distill nitric acid from them and make nitrate by neutralizing with the right carbonate/hydroxide.

Also pottasium nitrate is easly made by using calcium nitrate and pottasium carbonate.

[schroedinger]

@MrB there are two easy things to solve the problems of pee shortage, 1.st have anymals like pigs or chicken, they produce enough or add urea to y8ur niter bed.

[lloyd]

Eye,

I don't discourage your curiosity, because I, too, am an experimenter, and have tried many things "just to see how they worked".

 

But the fact of the matter is that conventional black powder is still (after these centuries) the best lift for shells.

 

I worked some with the Disney folks, not on but with (or maybe 'around' would be the better term) their air-lift system. It turns out to be noisier than lifting with BP! <G>

 

LLoyd

[schroedinger]

Lloyd did they try to use compressed air to lift the shells?

 

Well one time someony recommended to me using potato guns for lifting.... well he was using it to handfire shell from, i just wait for the Darwin award.

[lloyd]

"Lloyd did they try to use compressed air to lift the shells?"

-----------------------

 

Schroe, they did not "try", they succeeded quite well. The problem it was intended to solve was the smoke. It did so, and they still use it in 'tight' venues with a lot of people around.

 

The problems it created were noise, cost, and complexity. It is monumentally loud, costs a butt-bucket full of specialty components and air compressors, and requires the use of 'self igniting shells' that have expensive electronic lift-to-burst timers and setback arming, much like military mortar rounds do (so they can't go off in the gun, if the lift fails).

 

Lloyd

[MrB]

Lloyd, not doubting your sources, or questioning the viability. But. I cant wrap my head around how it can be louder then regular lift. I mean, it should be reproducing the same amount of gas expansion, in, pretty much, the same amount of time. It "should" sound pretty much the same. Do you have any insight in the methods they used? Pure speculation, but BP lifting is a relatively slow process, the BP deflagrates (spelling?) over time, if they are using some hefty pipes, and fast valves, they could be creating a higher spike in pressure "at first" which could account for the increased sound-level? If this purely speculative thinking holds true it should be a shorter, snappier sound. Again, if it holds true, the "solution" would be a slower valve, or a choke to slow the inrush of compressed air down, but anyone dabling with that sort of stuff isn't stupid, they would have thought of that, so i somehow doubt that is it.

 

Anyway, thanks for sharing, your a freaking fountain of weird and esoteric information that just is interesting.

B!

[lloyd]

They used "cascade valves"... valves which, when they are actuated, begin to force themselves open by the incoming air stream even more rapidly than a mechanical actuator could. Sort of an 'over-center' device, in mechanical terms.

 

I don't know the details of why it's louder, but your speculations seem right. It just _was_ loud... VERY. They solved that with more cost -- erecting tall baffles that pointed most of the noise from the muzzles upward.

 

Lloyd

[lloyd]

I might just add that I was a VERY lucky fellow. I rather "fell backwards" into the business, but had some great experiences.

 

In addition to being associated with and working for (now) two of the premier close-proximity manufacturers in the USA, I got an almost giggly-fun lot of experience with the theme parks folks (not only Disney) -- and even some major touring rock bands, and NASA.

 

It was truly a hoot... something I'd have paid money to do, and I got paid to do it! <G>

 

Lloyd

[Arthur]

One simple fact is that the experimentation and development of the last 300 years has at cost of money and lives settled on some standards. Conventional BP is one of them, traditional firework construction is another.

 

Before you just define a new system do please think through all the changes and incompatibilities. Remember things like mortars are built for modern (Chinese) shells and may not stand harder lifts from other mixtures.

 

Air lift very definitely works, but you must get the air pressure and the valve flow rate right by experiment and the shells are very different -no spollette, no time fuse for a start. Don't start on that path unless you can do all the tests safely.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Arthur

[schroedinger]

Lloyd, ok i can see how that reduces the ammout of smoke generated. But still wondering why they use electric ignition device, wouldn't have been a lot cheaper to just connect a pull ring ignitor to the timefuse and connect that with a wire to the mortar/a pole next to it?

[Eyegasm]

I heard about that, but I thought it was an urban legend. An EOD guy I used to work with told me a story about Disney attempting a similar process as the Lindon gun, but with supercritical air. Even for Disney that sounded nuts.

[Eyegasm]

I'm a native Florida myself Lloyd, so I guess we have a few things in common. If you worked with Nasa, we could know one or two of the same people. It was always a dream of mine, but by the time I had a viable resume to show, funding was disappearing.

[Sparx88]

On the issue of air pressure being louder it's like this, shoot a .22 short with a rifle, then shoot a 22 cal pellet gun with similar ballistics, pellet gun is quite a bit louder.

 

And if it matters to the OP, perc does make hot bp but is not needed. It costs more and the gains aren't enough to warrant continued use as such. You can make black powder analogs with a lot of different oxidizers but you have to consider that if any were better (enough) than KNO3, that the industry would have been using them already.

[MrB]

They used "cascade valves"... valves which, when they are actuated, begin to force themselves open by the incoming air stream even more rapidly than a mechanical actuator could. Sort of an 'over-center' device, in mechanical terms.

 

It's closed, it's closed, it's clo -Bang- open. Yeah, i know the kind. Near instant, full pressure, and full flow. Rarely cheap, mostly used in high pressure, high flow systems, and yes, they are a noisy bunch in their own right. I think they call them trigger valves or something over here.

 

Well, as i said, speculation at it's best. It's interesting, so i had to ask about it. Thanks for taking the time to share.

 

 

On the issue of air pressure being louder it's like this, shoot a .22 short with a rifle, then shoot a 22 cal pellet gun with similar ballistics, pellet gun is quite a bit louder.

 

Well, that's for a number of reasons. To get the bullet up to speed in the shorter pipe, it needs higher pressure. So your making a bigger bang to start with. But then the pressure when the bullet leaves the pipe is higher to, making for a larger shock-wave. Anyway, i assumed the mortars were if not identical, at least of similar length, which "should" mean the same shock-wave when the shell leaves the tube. I doubt we'll figure out exactly whats going on, i was just curious anyway.

 

 

You can make black powder analogs with a lot of different oxidizers but you have to consider that if any were better (enough) than KNO3, that the industry would have been using them already.

 

Things can be better in many ways. Cheaper, faster, stronger, lighter, safer, and so on.

I intentionally put "safer" last on the list. Honestly, we don't want safer, we want safe enough, at a low price, and seam to prioritize weight, and strength. The last 2 sort of blends together for us. Stronger means we use less, making the over all weight go down. But also, using a lighter charcoal means it takes up more space. Since light charcoal "always" means faster BP, we hardly separate the two from one and other. Anyway. The industry might very well have a "uber BP" using a different oxidizer, that we don't know of, or just don't use due to weight, or more likely, cost restrictions. And they don't sell it, or use it, depending on what industry your looking at, for the same reason. In reality, i'm sure there are candidates, i mean, we could use KP a lot more. Anyway, i'll head over to a corner on my own, and keep rambling for my self. Take care ;- )

B!

[Sparx88]

Anyway, i'll head over to a corner on my own, and keep rambling for my self. Take care ;- )

B!

 

Aw comon it's not like that is it. Well you do live in a pretty cool corner of the world, a big corner at that. So you'll have a lot of room, though I would prefer that you stay within the fold. ( I know, pfft, smileys, can't resist.)

 

I agree that having a faster, hotter bp is usually a major plus.

On the barrel length vs sound your dead on. A shorter barrel/mortar will always be louder with a higher pitch because there is almost no dampening of the pressure wave. Longer barrels have a lot more room to absorb more like a muffler vs straight pipe. It also depends on the amount of gases produced and the volume of the barrel. So we can expect much higher altitudes with longer mortars and less lift. Like with 22 stingers vs reg 40 grain round nose rounds. The stingers have more propellant but it's a slower burning charge so the bullet is pushed more gradually utilizing more of the barrel to generate more speed. This way can be useful in pyro where a fast burning lift in a longer tube runs a higher risk of flowerpot or tube bursting. Slower for long, faster for short.

If I'm wrong please tell me so I don't spread that around any more

[FlaMtnBkr]

I'm fairly sure when Sparx said pellet gun he was also referring to a long gun. Not many, if any, air pistols will get going fast enough to match a short in a rifle barrel. And both are louder than a 22 short anyways, at least in my experience.

 

I think there is a lot going on to assume anything about the sound produced by a pneumatic system for lifting a shell. Which apparently is the case since it is indeed louder than a BP lift. And I would bet that's also with the use of much longer guns and lower pressures with the pneumatic system as it just wouldn't make sense to try and do it with a short gun similar to what we use with BP. Short guns would require really high air pressure, similar to BP, that likely aren't very feasible when lower pressures and a longer push would be easier. And there is no telling what the noise will be like with lots of air going thru restrictions/valves and likely some turns and around obstructions. Plus the noise of the compressors.

 

Sounds like Disney should have taken some field trips to various pumpkin chunkin contests to get an idea of what would be required and what others had to overcome.

 

I would be curious if they could have increased the gun length enough to drastically reduce the amount of lift required and possibly use a smokeless charge (or less smoke) to get the smoke down to an acceptable level. Sounds like it would have been a lot easier or at least a lot cheaper. Or some type of trench or tunnel to contain the guns with big fans to divert the smoke away or thru a big scrubber to be cleaned like some smoke stacks. Disney likes tunnels and it doesn't seem much more crazy than blowing up a bunch of electronics with each break.

 

Or, model a long gun like a paintball barrel with rifled ports that somehow put a spin on the ball, but more importantly, that would exhaust a good amount of smoke. Or something like a gun muzzle break that directs a good amount of exhaust backwards. And then have a longer outer sleeve that connects to a manifold that pulls air, and the smoke, into it to be dealt with. Probably in combination with the longer guns and smaller charge.

 

Anyways. This is the rambling thread, right? Better hit post before I keep going.