I've killed my glitter spritzels

[stix]

Ok, time to post my conclusions.

 

But first up, I have to have a little bit of a bitch. Please don't take offense.

 

This is very important. I did ask if my testing method was a reasonable test, to test the burning characteristics of 1/4" stars.

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

 

I know it looks reckless and I'm thinking there was no response because of the safety factor, but it was wet. But fair enough, I wouldn't recommend that testing method either, which I also pointed out in that post.

 

Nevertheless, barring perceived safety issues, I think "flinging" the star into the air is a reasonable representation of the stars performance. Yes, it will not perform the same as a star gun under greater speed, but I think it's a reasonable indicator of initial performance?

 

It's not about if I'm wrong and misguided, but a response to whether the method is valid or not would be useful, ie. "best not to test it that way stix, and I'll point out the reasons why..." etc. etc.... or "yeah, I think your method has some merit".

 

Either way, I'm happy.

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

 

Getting back to the main point. I've now done 3 tests attempting to replicate Lloyd Sponenburghs Buttered Popcorn composition. My failure certainly has nothing to do with the composition but likely variables of my methods and chems.

 

#1 using sgrs as the binder

#2 using dextrin as the binder

#3 using paulownia meal powder (and dextrin as the binder)

 

#1 and #2 (sgrs/dextrin) behave similar - too many orange sparks over-powering the spritzels

#3 using paulownia meal - a HUGE difference.

 

Test #3: Using the paulownia meal (hot powder) as NJ suggested, certainly makes a BIG difference! The spritzels are many and spread further. In fact, I almost only see spritzels. It burns way way fast. Good thing I just did a small 1/8th" test. The thing took off on it's on accord! Yeah, fair enough considering that the compositon calls for around 73% of meal powder, but much better than test #1 & #2.

 

In a round-about way I guess I'm glad that I didn't test with a 1/4" star using the "stix flicka" method. But that's why you test small first. I apoligise if I've "butchered" Lloyds composition, and I'm not sure if I'll achieve that result - "big yellowish spritlzels".

 

I think I could use a combination of my charcoals to achieve something in between and perhaps up the sodium bicarbonate a bit as well.

 

I do love glitters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kaotch]

@stix,

It's nice to know that you made progress on the popcorn composition by using mealD. As a matter of interest did you use the standard BP formula(75.15.10) for the the mealD or did you use 55.11.7 as the igniter in the formula made from raw chemicals?

[pyrojig]

Just want to throw in a couple ideas w/o de-railing your questions .

I find that there are many factors and ways to manipulate giltters . water content , and time of drying , nitrate being old or freshly milled , charcoal reactiveness and absorbency, as well as the metal used and its mesh / type ( atomized or flake ) . I have made the exact same glitter with same formulation , but different conditions , and had varying results . I find that the best glitters seem to use fresh milled chems , and as little water as needed , as well as a effective drying method. The metal mesh is important but has lots of "fudge room " and many variations of AL will make superb glitters.

[NeighborJ]

I'm very happy to see that you've revived your glitters.

 

The star flicka you are using works fine for most practicle purposes, like you said, it won't make a good comparison to a hard break. Safety would be my concern, I've had many seemingly innocuous star comps simply explode as soon as the prime burnt off. It's not generally a thing I want happening while holding it. I have used welding gloves to toss a star or two but I don't make a habit of it, just one cracked star could explode to send burning bits of star into my face. The result might be an improvement but i still dont want to be burnt.

 

My son has a model trevochet sitting on his bookshelf, I eye it up for a star tester every time I walk past.

Edited February 28, 2018 by NeighborJ

[OldMarine]

I test everything by tossing with a welding glove before I bother getting the star gun out. My granddaughter loves it!

[stix]

. . . As a matter of interest did you use the standard BP formula(75.15.10) for the the mealD or did you use 55.11.7 as the igniter in the formula made from raw chemicals?

 

Thanks kaotch, I used the standard (75/15/10) ratios. It's the same milled powder I've used for lift.

 

The ratios in the formula of (55/11/7.3) when converted to percentages is exactly the same as 75/15/10. I made sure to check, and took a while thinking about it. It makes sense.

I simply substituted the totals (55+11+7.3) for 73.3 grams of Meal - ie. working on a 100 gram mix. I can't see an issue with that, but not saying there isn't, but I doubt it. My view is that the ratios of chemicals in the given composition, and my application of measuring them are correct. The charcoal type appears to be the main offender and over-whetting, a secondary factor - I think.

 

 

Just want to throw in a couple ideas w/o de-railing your questions .

I find that there are many factors and ways to manipulate giltters . water content , and time of drying , nitrate being old or freshly milled , charcoal reactiveness and absorbency, as well as the metal used and its mesh / type ( atomized or flake ) . I have made the exact same glitter with same formulation , but different conditions , and had varying results . I find that the best glitters seem to use fresh milled chems , and as little water as needed , as well as a effective drying method. The metal mesh is important but has lots of "fudge room " and many variations of AL will make superb glitters.

 

Thanks pyrojig. You're not de-railing anything. All relevant info is good info.

 

I never thought about the KNO3 being "freshly" milled as important. I used already milled from a big batch from about 1yr ago. I do keep it well sealed though. You're right about various chemicals & methods giving varying results. I've mostly been into sugar rockets and just getting backing into pyrotechnics. It's not that critical with charcoal stars, even the standard red/green nitrate rubber stars aren't too hard to stuff up. But Glitters... well, it's an entirely different thing. Maybe I was a bit naive, but that's fine - I enjoy learning.

 

One other thing is that I just use tap water. We have pretty good tap water where I live, but it wouldn't hurt to use demineralised all the time - it doesn't cost much, then I at least have that standard.

 

 

I'm very happy to see that you've revived your glitters.

 

The star flicka you are using works fine for most practicle purposes, like you said, it won't make a good comparison to a hard break. Safety would be my concern, I've had many seemingly innocuous star comps simply explode as soon as the prime burnt off. It's not generally a thing I want happening while holding it. I have used welding gloves to toss a star or two but I don't make a habit of it, just one cracked star could explode to send burning bits of star into my face. The result might be an improvement but i still dont want to be burnt.

 

My son has a model trevochet sitting on his bookshelf, I eye it up for a star tester every time I walk past.

 

Thanks for that NJ, that's what I wanted to hear, ie. the "flicka" method provides a reasonable test, but does have its dangers. Fortunately I do small preceding tests, and there is no way I would use the paulownia meal #3 test in the flicka. Too fast burning and unpredictable.

 

I've thought about something similar to the trevochet, but using a slingshot - but even that almost goes beyond my level of insanity

 

The reason I do the "flicka" tests is because it's too far to go, to do a proper star gun test. At least with the flicka method, I have a reasonable understanding of what will work. Then I plan to do a few tests using the made stars/comets in a safe location.

 

I test everything by tossing with a welding glove before I bother getting the star gun out. My granddaughter loves it!

 

Yep! thanks OM, That's the reason why I use the "flicka". It's a reasonable test, and an immediate "quick thrill" for granddaughters and men alike

 

-----

 

What I need to do now though, is to come up with a charcoal combination (or another more suitable charcoal), make meal powder and use that just for my glitter experiments. I note that you guys in the US use Pine. Surely not Radiata Pine? That stuff is very resinous and stinks when cooking. There might be another charcoal, I only make small amounts and enjoy making it, and a worthwhile effort having a different charcoal I think.

 

Cheers.

Edited March 2, 2018 by stix

[pyrojig]

Ya , I have been pleased with fresh milled materials for glitters . The nitrate in specific. The best thing one can do is take very precise notes and be able to replicate the results time and time again . Pyro is a very fun adventure and it sometimes is the " mistakes " that reveal new findings and change the course of the hobby , even commercially. Pyortechnicas articles ( i believe article 4) dont quote me. Glitters was the main focus of the writing . Great piece of literature for learning the science of glitter.

Even the slightest variation can make a huge change in the glitter performance/ .

Best of luck in your adventures .

[OldMarine]

It is Pyrotechnica II and Dr Winokur dives deep into glitters.

[stix]

It is Pyrotechnica II and Dr Winokur dives deep into glitters.

 

Thanks OM, I did have a look for that and not that easy to come by - will keep looking though.

---------

 

It's been around 2 weeks since I first posted, and some other things have come to light. I'll try to be brief.

 

Further 1/4" star tests have shown inconsistencies - especially the overwhetted sgrs version. Some produce spritzels, some are almost duds. This makes me conclude and come to a realization of why. Yes, I have been told that cutting glitters is a no no, but I'll come back to that later.

 

Like most cut stars containing charcoal, the moisture seems to propagate to the outside - it looks wet yet dry at the same time. But I reckon that's because the water sits on the outside, then when cut, those are the ones mostly affected - especially the ones around the outsides - if you get what I mean. They are the overwhetted duds.

 

What has thrown me is that Winokur #20 worked with 1/4" cut stars and so did Gold Twinkler, which were my first two glitter compositions - therefore giving me a "false sense" and resulting in "delusions of grandeur". Apart from that, It also depends on what you may view as a "glitter". The ones I like are the larger more sparse spritzels with less distractions in-between. Here's an example snap-shot of my version of Gold Twinkler:

 

 

Accounting for the "proximity effect" (approx. 15ft away) those spritzles would have been 4 to 6 inches in diameter - perhaps even bigger. I like it, I like it a lot .

 

That particular composition was tested properly as a 15mm(5/8th) comet in a star gun (2015 - almost 3yrs ago). I don't have video, but this is what I wrote in my notes:

 

21/3/2015 - 5/8" Comet (Gold Twinkler) launched in star gun (1.7g of lift)

 

Absolutely Brilliant!!

 

A Nice tail as it left the star gun which seemed to increase and become wider as it gained in altitude. The tail "twinkled" beautifully as the name suggests. The comet reached a height of approx. 25 meters (80ft) before apogee and was consumed about 1/4 of the way back down. Excellent!!!

 

So as suggested, yes, I cannot come to proper conclusions about this current composition until it's tested in a star gun. We are just past Summer now and heading into Autumn (Fall) so time to do some proper testing on this, and a few others.

 

- May the Pyro Gods show me safety, and give me wisdom and strength.

Edited March 5, 2018 by stix