I've killed my glitter spritzels

[stix]

I don't know how, but they were much better before, and now dead.

 

A mix that was slightly wet, produced nice globular glitter spritzels, but after a few days of drying then the spritzels are gone!!!!!

 

Wow! I can't explain it. I did three tests to be sure, but the spritzels are gone.!!!... dead...

 

The comp is "Buttered Popcorn" but NO WAY is the comp the issue. My fault for complicating things. I used my home made sgrs and then cut 1/4" stars. They are now hard as a rock (who cares). After 4 days the stars sucked in. I mean that my 1/4" stars sucked into like a negative pillow, ie,. all surfaces became concave. So maybe too much water?

 

[Mumbles]

How are you testing them? Glitters specifically really need to be tested in the air to accurately judge their performance.

[rogeryermaw]

i have known static testing to be flawed for a long time but it was a more recent experience that really drove the point home. mum's been saying it forever but it's one of those things...like learning to appreciate that a stove is hot. you can be told but it is usually the first burn the sets the lesson in.

[stix]

Mumbles, I have tested via my own methods. (stix ficka) I "KNOW" there is something happening beyond my control. There is NO WAY that I can envisage that the composition becomes worse (or less reactive over time).

 

Insane and interesting at the same time.

[stix]

i have known static testing to be flawed for a long time but it was a more recent experience that really drove the point home. mum's been saying it forever but it's one of those things...like learning to appreciate that a stove is hot. you can be told but it is usually the first burn the sets the lesson in.

 

My static testing is good. I try my best to ensure it.

[stix]

Can we please consider what I've said is what I've seen and witnessed.

[kleberrios]

The Antimony trisulfide deteriorates over time but not so fast .. a friend of mine lost a 20 kg can.

[NeighborJ]

It sure sounds like it was made with too much moisture. Glitters don't like too much moisture, I've had the same thing happen to me but I've never had it happen when pressing comets with low water content, it was always over wet for cutting. SGRS can be tricky.

 

I think excess water causes the aluminum to oxidize more, and even though it was dried quickly and never showed signs of unwanted reactions, the spritzels were gone.

 

Are you using the boric acid?

[Crazy Swede]

The Antimony trisulfide deteriorates over time but not so fast .. a friend of mine lost a 20 kg can.

How could that happen?

 

Natural stibnite is litterally millions of years old and functions great in glitters (I had stibnite samples as fist-sized rocks from Greenland that I ground down and used with success).

 

At work we have barrels of antimony trisulfide from the 70s that still gives us the expected function in military formulations.

[Mumbles]

It doesn't happen. It's a perfectly stable compound. I agree with you 100%.

 

I'll think about your glitter issue Stix. Nothing immediately comes to mind at the moment.

[kleberrios]

Yes, I thought as well as you did.This material was 20 years old stocked, it was imported and it was in factory cans, maybe in stones or mixed in the compositions it does not spoil, but that can has spoiled, and was thrown in the trash. Along with this trisulfide had other cans of exotic materials like Barium Peroxide (100kg) (I will send photo) and Magnesium atomized 200 mesh, and these are ok until today.

How could that happen?

 

Natural stibnite is litterally millions of years old and functions great in glitters (I had stibnite samples as fist-sized rocks from Greenland that I ground down and used with success).

 

At work we have barrels of antimony trisulfide from the 70s that still gives us the expected function in military formulations.

[Mumbles]

How do you mean spoiled?

[kleberrios]

Damaged. I talked to him now and he said that the bottom part of the can still worked fine, but the top of the powder did not work. The composition that it did not work was not in glitters or tremalons, but in an infamous composition called "Puff" or "ninja bomb" do you know?

[kingkama]

The problem was the longer dry time, alluminium was rendered inactive by the reaction with nitrate in meal, that's the major factor in in making glitter star, no sun drying no long dry time I make my batch in a oven 60-50 Celsius 3 - 4 hours

[stix]

Firstly, I'll explain my testing method which I've used successfully many times before with various compositions. That way we can rule my testing method in or out.

 

I use a long piece of aluminium which has a small cup at one end. I insert the 1/4" star in the cup, light it and fling it into the air. Not ideal, but it seems to work fine. Here's some recent tests:

https://www.amateurpyro.com/forums/topic/12819-australia-day-2018-small-star-tests/

 

I did do some reading first:

https://www.amateurpyro.com/forums/topic/12836-sgrs-questions/?hl=sgrs

Here, Mumbles mentions to take care not to overwet because sgrs takes longer to activate than dextrin. I thought I was careful but likely not careful enough.

 

My mix was 40grams, a small mix is easier to overwet than a larger one. After dry mixing the comp, the whole procedure took around 1.5 hours.

After spritzing with water and screening 5-6 times, I left it for around 30mins covered in cling wrap. looked/felt too dry to pump, spritzed and screened again, left it for another 20-30 minutes. Screened a few times. The comp just held together if squeezed so I ram pressed 2 x17mm comets.

 

There was no way the comp would form a dough, so a couple more spritzes with water, screened, cling wrap and left for 20 or so minutes. Screened again, this time I could form a dough ball. It wasn't a hard dough but the same sort of consistency a bread dough and much like other comps I've made in the past. I rolled it out and cut 1/4" stars.

 

Being sure not to force dry, I placed them on a drying rack and used a pedestal fan to gently blow cool air (about 12 hrs) then left them in an airy position to fully dry. I used one of the comets to measure the weight. At this point the 8gm comet weighs around 7gm and hasn't changed much over the last day or so.

 

One other thing that may be important is that after the comets were pressed, and then more water added to form a dough, after each screening I used the back of my plastic mix spoon to squash the mix, ie. incorporated it more. So perhaps I've not only over-wetted, but also over-worked it?

 

Neverthless, I did get good results which have deteriorated over the drying period.

 

The first test was using a few small crumbs left over from the initial cutting. Still a bit wet but produced some small spritzels. 24hrs later I cut one of the stars in quarters and did a test. I was surprised it worked considering still damp. Really nice - large spritels which popped with a nice soft sound. Things could only improve (I thought). So after another 2 days, the stars were very hard, I tested again and noticed more sparks (charcoal) and smaller spritzels. Perhaps an anomaly, so I decided to leave for 2 more days, and now fully dry.

 

As per my original post, I tested using the "star flicka" and no spritzels - although probably just small ones that are mixed in with the charcoal sparks. Did 3 tests, and the same thing and that's where I am at the moment. Killed Spritzels.

 

I also mentioned that the fully dry cut stars are all "pinched" on all 6 surfaces. Weird, because I thought I did read on this forum somewhere, that if SGRS is over-wetted then the stars could "swell" and crack? I seem to have the opposite. The pressed comets are perfect with no distortion.

 

So where too from here?

 

I don't think it's my home made SGRS, because it works in the sense of drying to a very high strength - but there could be some other phenomenon that I'm unaware of. Perhaps a chemical reaction.

 

What I can do as a test is to break up one of the comets - which were created quicker and with less water - and see what happens. So, is there any danger using a metal hammer to break up a hard comet of this composition?

 

Sorry about the long post, but I would like to know where I went wrong.

 

Cheers.

Edited February 17, 2018 by stix

[kingkama]

Take no offense but I think your making process too much laborious, try simply pumping the comet wetting the composition with no more than 6-8% of distilled water and acetone or alcool, mix it well with your gloved hands breaking all clumps. GlitterS must never made in cutting way, never rendered in dought or the reaction between nitrate and alluminium will destroy glitter effect. Read Oglesby Scott "glitter chemistry and techniques" I found it wery usefull.

[stix]

No offense taken, I'm interested in learning what went wrong.

 

I have made 2 other glitters, Gold Twinkler and Winokur #20 using dough and cut stars - these worked well.

 

I broke up one of the comets and tested, this works fine.

 

So I guess I did over-work the comp and/or left it too long. I did read that somewhere re. glitters, not to add more water than the weight of charcoal. In my case that would have been 4.4gm (11%) and I don't believe I added this much.

 

[EDIT]

 

Made another mix of the same composition. This time I've gone back to using Dextrin as the binder and also used a boric acid solution + 10% alcohol to wet the composition.

 

I also took a lot more notice of how much I wet it. The composition didn't come together to the stage where I considered it could be hand pumped until approx. 10% water - which is around the limit. No doubt if I had a proper press, less water would be needed.

 

The pressed comets were very delicate. Delicate in the sense that I was afraid to fart in the wrong direction in case they crumbled. Making the dough was a nightmare. Very crumbly. There was no way a dough could be formed without adding more water. In the end I guesstimate around 15-16%.

 

It remains to be seen if this comp performs better than the previous version. If it does, then I may do one more test using sgrs again and use the same boric acid solution.

Edited February 18, 2018 by stix

[kingkama]

Try to make comet instead of cut stars, you can use a 5ml syringe so you can use just the 6-8 % of moisture, cut opened the top part of syringe were is the needle an use it like a comet pump. It's not the top solution but works fine.

[NeighborJ]

Stix, are you using spherical Al or flake? I've used both but have found the flake to be somewhat less spectacular and it was compounded buy the necessity to add more water, making it much less reactive.

 

Next question; Are you making this with The raw chems or are you using the meal formula? I like the meal because it seems to throw the spritzels farther and works better for me on slow breaks.

[stix]

Try to make comet instead of cut stars, you can use a 5ml syringe so you can use just the 6-8 % of moisture, cut opened the top part of syringe were is the needle an use it like a comet pump. It's not the top solution but works fine.

 

Thanks Kingkama. I guess it was my fault for the long winded post above, but 3 lines up from your post I say "The pressed comets were very delicate". I also mentioned a few other times above that I've made comets. I appreciate your input, but please try to read the post before commenting. I normally do around 40 grams for a test mix. I hand ram/press 2 x 17mm (5/8th) ID x 20mmL comets. I use a copper tube and a wooden dowel as the rammer. I use a hammer to consolidate the slug. With the rest of the mix I cut 1/4" stars.

 

Stix, are you using spherical Al or flake? I've used both but have found the flake to be somewhat less spectacular and it was compounded buy the necessity to add more water, making it much less reactive.

 

Next question; Are you making this with The raw chems or are you using the meal formula? I like the meal because it seems to throw the spritzels farther and works better for me on slow breaks.

 

Thanks NJ. My Al is around 200 mesh spherical. You said "Are you making this with the raw chems - or are you using the meal formula?". Well, maybe you've hit on something there.

 

I'm making this from raw ingredients. However, the KNO3 is pre-milled, the Charcoal is AF and the Sulfur is already a fine powder. I did however do a "light mill/mix" where I put the ingredients (sans metals) in a smaller container with a few ceramic balls, then insert that into my larger mill jar (I have a polystyrene insert) then run it for about 1hr. This gets rid of any clumps in the sulfur and bi-carb and ensures everything is mixed evenly. Then I add the metals and screen.

 

Doing such small mixes makes things more difficult.

 

The composition is Lloyds Popcorn Glitter: http://www.amateurpyro.com/forums/topic/7018-buttered-popcorn-glitter/

It calls for Meal-D, but at the end of that post the formula broken down into its parts - that's what I used.

 

Therein lies some confusion. I thought "Meal-D" was just milled bp in the standard 75/15/10 ratios, but looking again, Meal-D(Dust) is the fine powder left over from the corning process. So I guess that if I used Meal-D, then that would make sense for the composition to burn quicker. But surely when adding water to Meal-D, the powder would dissolve and resemble a finely milled powder anyway?

 

So does basic "Meal" mean milled and "Meal-D" means dust?

 

In any case, I can see the value in what NJ has put forward, in that faster burning will throw the spritzels further out.

 

Also, I reckon this is a big contributing factor: the charcoal I'm using is a bbq cooking charcoal that I've used with charcoal star comps. It's worked well with those. This may explain why the initial tests looked good, but over time, as the composition dried, the sparks got too overwhelming and the spritzels also became seemingly smaller and are now obscured by all the golden sparks. Looks nice though, big thick gold, but not what I was after - maybe I'll call this comp "Stix's Rush Of Gold".

 

The new Dextrin version (#2) as posted above is exhibiting the same characteristics. In some way that's good. It means that using my home-made sgrs in the initial comp wasn't the problem. Now I simply must do another test (#3) using my paulownia meal/milled powder, I think I'll use Dextrin as the binder.

 

Thanks NJ, what you have said made has me look closer at what might be the problem.

 

It's all about the journey

 

Oh dear - another long post

Edited February 22, 2018 by stix

[kingkama]

May the aluminum be too big for the work, the recipe generally spoke about the 325 mesh spherical can be also the reason for the delicate comet, in my experience also using a syringe and a rubber hammer I can make comet that are delicate but can be manipulated. Excuse me for the comment but not being an English spoker sometimes make me difficult to Remember and understand fully. I tryed to use tube and dovel in past and the results in comet making are very bad I found the syringe solution more useful, wood dovel absorbed water from the composition making the comet crumble.

[NeighborJ]

I'd tend to agree with you kingkama, I'd expect the Al is a bit coarse compared to the 325mesh spec in Lloyds formula. The problem could be compounded by the use of lump wood charcoal.

 

I've had good luck with 200 mesh in the past but I was using the hot meal. If I recall, that batch was less reactive and had many aluminum flitters but not so many spritzels. It was still nice but not worth repeating.

[stix]

Thanks Kingkama & NJ.

 

Interesting about the mesh size. I have used this Al in one other glitter and that was Gold Twinkler. That comp uses lampblack instead of charcoal and the results were brilliant. Tested in a star gun - simply superb!!. I can get hold of 400mesh, so that may be in the future.

 

I'll have to wait for the new test (paulownia meal) to dry - hopefully an improvement. Did a bit of a dumb thing though - I added the 5.5% dextrin as usual and forgot that the meal powder already has 3% dextrin... Duh hopefully it's still ok.

 

Oh well, there's always test #4.

[NeighborJ]

I don't want to go out on a limb and say that the 200 mesh is too coarse, after all not all products are created equal. After noticing the flitters in the stars, I took some of the 200 mesh spherical Al and tried a screen classification test and found that a fair amount did not pass a 100 mesh screen and of that amount, even a 60 mesh screen caught a fair amount.

 

I've performed the same test on other so called " -325 mesh" aluminum with similar results. I suppose the point I'm trying to make here is that it's difficult to take the stated mesh size for face value and by using a coarser mesh, it may or may not effect your results.

 

After finding this coarse metal contamination, I adopted the use of hot charcoal when making any glitter. My reasoning being that it would have a better chance of igniting any poorly classified metals.

 

For what it's worth, the addition of the meal dextrin to the comp binder was never a concern for me. I pretend the meal powder doesn't have any binder. My logic for doing this revolves around the fact that the meal binder doesn't really play a factor in binding the star, it's too busy holding the meal grains together😁. I suppose the meal formula varies from the raw chems formula in this one small area.

Edited February 23, 2018 by NeighborJ

[stix]

Thanks for that NJ.

 

My Al powder is light grey. I don't have any fine enough screens to do any tests. What I did do was smear some between my fingers and I could feel only the tiniest amount of grit.