Tiger Tail

[Almostparadise]

I'm wondering what makes my Tiger Tail look different coming out of a 3-in shell as opposed to being launched out of a 1 inch tube as a small comet? The comp was well milled (8+ hrs) to get the nice full bushy tail that looks like an orange streak across the sky. That same composition pressed into 1 inch comets leaves a bright orange but very thick and Sparky Trail as it comes out of the tube. Is this because the stars made for the shell were cut using more moisture than it takes to press comets? 

[All10Fingers]

Could it be that your pressed comets are denser than your cut stars? I did the exact same thing with my last batch of tt. Pressed a few 1 inch comets and the rest cut stars. And my pressed stars are always significantly more dense than any other. More mass means more material to burn off as it flies. 

[Almostparadise]

Not sure about that one. I was thinking that using more water to cut the stars would make the kno3 soak into the charcoal more than the 8-10% used for pressing. The cut stars were very vibrant, bright orange and solid tails. I was thinking maybe it might have something to do also with the distance they were viewed from.

[All10Fingers]

You use more than 10% water? Are you making mud? Usually with tiger tails you want some of the nitrate to partially dissolve into the charcoal. 

I think I'm lost. You did their different but didn't really describe how. You know everyone is gunna ask if your sure their really dry. 

Sometimes my charcoal stars loaded in a shell don't survive the break so instead of streamers with orange tails, its more like fire dust

[Zumber]

pumped star have more surface area and hence it produces more dence tail.

If you observe tiger tail comet used as a rising tail on shell it gives out nice thicker tail, also if there is hole at center of comet ,it again gives more dence tail....hole also aid drying star at center faster in case of large comets.

for brightness you may also add finer mesh titanium in it.

[Almostparadise]

19 hours ago, All10Fingers said:

You use more than 10% water? Are you making mud? Usually with tiger tails you want some of the nitrate to partially dissolve into the charcoal. 

I think I'm lost. You did their different but didn't really describe how. You know everyone is gunna ask if your sure their really dry. 

Sometimes my charcoal stars loaded in a shell don't survive the break so instead of streamers with orange tails, its more like fire 

You know what it was kind of a stupid question. There's nothing wrong with the Stars either way they're great I'm very happy with them. I use more water to make cut Stars then it takes to pump them yes more than 10%.

Edited August 11 by Almostparadise

[Zumber]

there is a difference between pumped and pressed.

pressed need less water pumped star can also be formed with just using comet pump without pressing it much , in this case it needs a bit more moisture than pressed.

One of the most highlighted thing is that all shimizu Charcoal stars uses SGRS not dextrin.

These two binder are very different, SGRS gives rubber like consistency to cut stars while dextrin dont.

SGRS has ability to hold non soluble materials like sulphur and charcoal in wet state.

dextrin can also works for shimizu formulations and you have to adjust star processing. 

[All10Fingers]

I simply add a few drops at a time while stirring. I dont actually measure how much water I really use.  It's definitely far less than 10% I bet your stars are great. But mine hold together very well and with much less water. And I do add a little extra moisture for tiger tails than non charcoal dextrin comps

I can crank out stupid questions all day... If stupid questions was an Olympic events, you'd all see me on TV. 

[Zumber]

🤑

[Almostparadise]

 What Ive been trying to say is, in general, would pumped tt stars  look and perform the same as cut ones  because of the differing amounts of water used to process each? All else being equal of course. 

[Zumber]

4 hours ago, Almostparadise said:

 What Ive been trying to say is, in general, would pumped tt stars  look and perform the same as cut ones  because of the differing amounts of water used to process each? All else being equal of course. 

amount of water dont affect TT, glitters stars are prone to be water sensitive and destroys batch.

type of star may perform a bit different in sky, pumped stars have more burning surface area and hence gives thick tail. 

[All10Fingers]

How does a pumped star have more surface area than a cut star? Wouldn't it be whichever one you made bigger? 

[Zumber]

Statement 1: Both the height of the cylinder and the diameter of its bases are equal to the length of one edge of the cube.

Explanation:

The surface area of a cylinder, given height h and radius of the bases r, is given by the formula

A=2πr(r+h)

The surface area of a cube, given the length s of each edge, is given by the formula

A′=6s2.

Assume Statement 1 alone. Then h=s and, since the diameter of a base is s, the radius is half this, or r=12s. The surface area of the cylinder is, in terms of s, equal to 

A=2πs(s+12s)=2πs⋅32s=3πs2.

Since 3π>6, the cylinder has the greater area.

[All10Fingers]

That's actually very helpful. And even more impressive considering it was in a different language than you speak at home. Honestly got lost for a second in all that. But making pictures in my head as I'm reading I can tell a circle or sphere have more surface area than a cube or square.

But what if instead of comparing two individual stars, you compared total surface area of all the stars in a shell.  Wouldn't the cut stars be greater because they can fit together better with less space between each star compared to a shell full of round stars?... Is that even relevant when designing a shell? 

[Zumber]

2 hours ago, All10Fingers said:

That's actually very helpful. And even more impressive considering it was in a different language than you speak at home. Honestly got lost for a second in all that. But making pictures in my head as I'm reading I can tell a circle or sphere have more surface area than a cube or square.

But what if instead of comparing two individual stars, you compared total surface area of all the stars in a shell.  Wouldn't the cut stars be greater because they can fit together better with less space between each star compared to a shell full of round stars?... Is that even relevant when designing a shell? 

its not about fittig stars in shell its about burning surface area and if star ignites all way suddenly it gives denser tail.

eg if there are two pumped stars of same dimention, and if one of it has hole at center core if it ignites it gives thicker and dense tail than same pumped star without having hole.