Nozzless vs Nozzled Coreburner BP Rockets

[gizmothegecko]

Hello everyone. I'm looking to buy some 3lb rocket tooling from Woody's Rocks and I seem to be irresolute on whether to get a nozzle coreburner or a nozzless corburner BP rocket. I assume a nozzle would be better for thrust, but after checking some posts it seems like there are many conflicting opinions. For context, the main goal I'm trying to achieve is to be able to lift some heavy payloads such as 4" and 5" shell headers to a height around the same as when lifted via a mortar tube. I assume there is not a big difference in smaller rockets such as 2oz, 4oz, and 8oz, but I'm trying to maximize my payload capacity using BP. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Edited November 28 by gizmothegecko

[DavidF]

I'd get the nozzled coreburner set. You can use it to make nozzleless rockets too. The nozzleless set won't form a proper nozzle though, so it's not as versatile. You would easily lift 4 and 5" ball shells with that tooling, nozzled or nozzleless. With Hot BP or even whistle-boosted BP in a nozzleless configuration you can lift up to a 6" ball shell. 6" is pushing it though, tbh.

[DavidF]

Also, I see he's got the super BP rocket sets with a longer spindle for $8.50 more. That will do a 6" ball shell no sweat as a nozzleless rocket. I wonder how much longer the spindle is though, and how long a tube you would need. A normal 3# BP rocket motor is 10-10 1/2" long. My extra long-spindled (custom) set makes motors 12" long, so Caleb's super BP set might use a tube somewhere in between. I'd strongly suggest the spindle puller tool for a 3# BP set. Those long spindles can be hard to get out sometimes.

[gizmothegecko]

Thanks so much for the help. I was wondering what the main difference between the Super BP and nozzled cored was, so that answers my question. I’m pretty sure he sells a combo package that comes with the tooling, tube support, tubes ect. So I think I’ll get that and will be good to go. 

[mx5kevin]

For nozzleless rockets, you can make homemade tooling for cents. This is the method used in large factory rockets with larger festival ball shell heading. The pressed BP has a completely straight hollow core all the way through. The end of the pressed BP block is sealed with a thin layer few 3-5mm of clay. The Viso fuse is glued into this with BP with some BP (glue), like BP+dextrin. This can be done with any cheap straight tool, a wooden cylinder must be drilled out for the tooling using a drill. There is no need for hundreds of dollars of turned tooling. The advantage is that there is no noozle to clog, metal powder+PB. You can make a nice long silvery tail for the rocket. A 100mmX ID 20mm rocket are using a 5-6mm completely straight tooling for 75mm ball shell heading. I consider these overpriced turned tooling to be a rip-off.

[cmjlab]

4 hours ago, mx5kevin said:

"For nozzleless rockets, you can make homemade tooling for cents. This is the method used in large factory rockets"

"... I consider these overpriced turned tooling to be a rip-off."

 I definitely disagree that manafactured pyro tools aren't worth it.  Sometimes people want to pick up a tool and know that it will work, and do it consistently.  If you are new to pyro, tooling helps eliminate the tools as an issue when trying to figure our why something didn't work.  

Can you grab a chunk of aluminum rod or something similar and use wood dowels to make a rocket?  Yes, I've done it..... it sucks.  The tooling does not produce powerful rockets on the first attempts, then you have to start from scratch to figure out the problem, make new tools, and hope it works in a reasonable time.  Unless your a machinist, homemade tools dont last long and begin to fall apart.

I assume the OP is referring to Calebs tooling here in the U.S.  If so, then based on the success of his business and the satisfied/ repeat customers, there's a lot of people who disagree that manafactured pyro tools are a "rip off". 

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.  You shared yours and now I've shared mine.

 

[DavidF]

I'd like to see pictures of the tooling mx5kevin is describing and pictures of the motors made with it. I agree that people make simple homemade nozzleless rocket tooling. DJ, the originator of nozzleless rockets, used a coat hanger-sized wire for a 'spindle'. I tried his method. I have no idea how he got the spindle out, but I couldn't. Rocket tooling is expensive, yes. But a rip-off? There may be some tooling on the market that is a rip-off, but Caleb's tooling is not it. 

If somebody wants to discourage others from going a certain way, it's helpful to demonstrate an effective alternative, for those that want to DIY. None of my attempts at imitating a toolmaker have been successful. That's not to say that somebody else can't do better. I'm very satisfied with my tooling and the rocket motors it makes.

[mx5kevin]

1 hour ago, cmjlab said:

 I definitely disagree that manafactured pyro tools aren't worth it.  Sometimes people want to pick up a tool and know that it will work, and do it consistently.  If you are new to pyro, tooling helps eliminate the tools as an issue when trying to figure our why something didn't work.  

Can you grab a chunk of aluminum rod or something similar and use wood dowels to make a rocket?  Yes, I've done it..... it sucks.  The tooling does not produce powerful rockets on the first attempts, then you have to start from scratch to figure out the problem, make new tools, and hope it works in a reasonable time.  Unless your a machinist, homemade tools dont last long and begin to fall apart.

I assume the OP is referring to Calebs tooling here in the U.S.  If so, then based on the success of his business and the satisfied/ repeat customers, there's a lot of people who disagree that manafactured pyro tools are a "rip off". 

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.  You shared yours and now I've shared mine.

 

This is true, you have to experiment the tooling for a given size and type of rocket.  But once the parameters are recorded, it will always work. Afterwards, the tooling can be reproduced cheaply.  236,50 USD - 278,50 USD for a pro tooling? A homemade tooling set less than 10 USD, and it's good for a variety of sizes rocket,nozzleless  BP, WM. In factory fireworks where there is mass production, much cheaper tooling is often used. I think the price difference is worth a little experimentation.

[DavidF]

Please show us the pictures of the 10 USD tooling that can replace 236.50 USD - 278.50 USD tooling.

[mx5kevin]

12 minutes ago, DavidF said:

I'd like to see pictures of the tooling mx5kevin is describing and pictures of the motors made with it. I agree that people make simple homemade nozzleless rocket tooling. DJ, the originator of nozzleless rockets, used a coat hanger-sized wire for a 'spindle'. I tried his method. I have no idea how he got the spindle out, but I couldn't. Rocket tooling is expensive, yes. But a rip-off? There may be some tooling on the market that is a rip-off, but Caleb's tooling is not it. 

If somebody wants to discourage others from going a certain way, it's helpful to demonstrate an effective alternative, for those that want to DIY. None of my attempts at imitating a toolmaker have been successful. That's not to say that somebody else can't do better. I'm very satisfied with my tooling and the rocket motors it makes.

Link1

or

Link2

There is a blueprint and factory parameters are noted. I think nozzleless rockets are one of the best for a beginner, and one of my personal favorites.

[DecimusMaximus]

2 minutes ago, mx5kevin said:

Link1

or

Link2

There is a blueprint and factory parameters are noted. I think nozzleless rockets are one of the best for a beginner, and one of my personal favorites.

Whoa your blog has tons of information. Im going to have to use Google translate and check it all out! 

[mx5kevin]

9 minutes ago, DecimusMaximus said:

Whoa your blog has tons of information. Im going to have to use Google translate and check it all out! 

The language are Hungarian, always compare the original description with the translation. The translator does something like translate magnalium into magnesium. And magnesium to magnesium too. Ask ChatGPT too, when translate.

[DavidF]

Yes there is a LOT of good information! You can just click 'English' at the top right of the page to translate it. That's what I did.

The rocket tooling in the pictures is just like the tooling made in the USA. There are no pictures of homemade tooling that costs 10 USD. There are no prices listed for the tooling shown. If Caleb's tooling is a "rip-off", I want to see the tooling that isn't a rip-off. Let's see a picture of the tooling you use. Also, let's see the prices for the tooling shown in the blog, so we can compare.

[mx5kevin]

Commercial rocket: 75mm festival ball shell heading, 20mm ID, 100mm long, 5-6mm completely straight tooling, 3-5mm clay (this disappears in no time when the rocket is launched), 160cm stick, fuel classic 75/15/10 BP (with some minimal coarser charcoal for the effect, minimal additive which helps to make the block even more solid), the BP block is very hard. The Visco fuse is glued into this with BP with some BP (glue), like BP+dextrin. The gluing and clay are a little worn off.

The tooling was made with a completely straight metal rod without any extra. High-flying factory-type firework rocket. This tooling does not narrow towards the top, it is a completely straight metal rod.

Edited November 30 by mx5kevin

[DavidF]

Are you suggesting that because this commercial item apparently has a straight core, that we amateur rocket makers don't need our spindles to be tapered? We are talking about 3 pound rocket motors with a long (BP) spindle. I do not believe a motor of this type made with a straight spindle would allow us to remove the spindle. I understand that a factory made motor might have a short, thin, straight spindle that can be removed by the manufacturing equipment in the factory. That does not mean we can do it at home, and it does not mean that the tooling we buy is a rip-off. 

When you make rocket motors with a straight spindle, how do you remove your spindle from the finished motor? Do you have any pictures of your tooling?

[mx5kevin]

9 hours ago, DavidF said:

Are you suggesting that because this commercial item apparently has a straight core, that we amateur rocket makers don't need our spindles to be tapered? We are talking about 3 pound rocket motors with a long (BP) spindle. I do not believe a motor of this type made with a straight spindle would allow us to remove the spindle. I understand that a factory made motor might have a short, thin, straight spindle that can be removed by the manufacturing equipment in the factory. That does not mean we can do it at home, and it does not mean that the tooling we buy is a rip-off. 

When you make rocket motors with a straight spindle, how do you remove your spindle from the finished motor? Do you have any pictures of your tooling?

The point is that this simple solution is suitable for a factory that produces several pallets of fireworks rockets per day. It's worth experimenting with cheaper tools, and if it doesn't work for the user, buy professional tooling, but the price will be many times higher. In Vietnam for bigger whistle rockets working similar simple tooling in the homemade setup. A rocketry book also stated that such expensive tooling is not needed for whistle rockets. Nozzleless BP rockets are more simple. It's a misconception for beginners that these rockets can only be made with these expensive turned tooling. I've seen it for bigger BP, WM rockets these homemade toolings, and they work perfectly. For large  BP, WM rockets, for example, in Vietnam, this simple long straight rod tooling is using the homemade setup, only the tooling thickness is different in WM rockets. And not just where a small part of the fuel block is cored, but where the entire fuel block is cored in the case of WM rocket. There is nothing extra in it, just a straight metal rod that does not taper anywhere upwards.

[cmjlab]

In reference to the straight rods that you've seen factories using - how can you be sure there was zero taper, especially when they are using "gang plates"? 

Ive seen tooling that appeaars almost perfectly cylindrical with zero taper, but at closer look, actually has a few degrees taper.  That few degrees greatly assists in removing rocket motors from the spindle.

Also - I'm not sure that comparing smaller commercial rockets (intended for consumer use/sale, and therefore typically smaller in size TO larger 1lb and up rockets) to ameteur rockets is an accurate representation anyways. Perhaps, 4 oz and 8 oz motors are comparable to motors marketed in some European countries, but nothing that large is sold to consumers here in the U.S.

Lastly, I'd appreciate seeing you're tooling as well.  I'm not saying you can't use homemade tools, I just don't think that the average person (with no metal working skills or machines) can make homemade tooling that will last.  I obviously don't know everything though, so I'd love to see how you are doing it.  Thanks!

Chuck

 

[CountZero]

I was going to say how everyone is using tapered shaft so it must be better. I mean just look at it, it intuitively must be better. 

But is it really? It does give a larger area of contact between spindle and comp, and at least for any practical taper on long spindles it will fall under the class of self locking taper. Compare to something like a morse taper. I bet it will at least harder to break free by twisting it. 

Now at least I would like a guaranteed "monotonically increasing diameter" towards the base, but a very light taper might more benifical. For example 0.5deg is perhaps better than 3 degrees. 

Something to experiment with for those with extra free time(i. e. not me anytime soon😀) 

[cmjlab]

The taper of any degree ensures that once the spindle releases you no longer have any contact Vs. without a taper, or a spindle with any part not being tapered, you would have to fight the surface friction of the whole spindle to get the motor off. 

As for if there is an ideal taper, I'm sure there is, but I don't have enough experience in rockets to tell you what that is. I'd bet Dave. F. knows, or some other experienced pyro.

[DavidF]

I don't know what the 'ideal' taper is, but I do know it's more than none

IF somebody wanted to make their own tooling and for some reason insisted on having zero taper on the spindle, removal might be made possible by using Dagabu's acme thread spindle setup. It's brilliantly simple in design, and would help keep the propellant from being pulled out during spindle removal. I would imagine that if there were any manufacturers that used zero taper long spindles, they would also be using something similar to Dagabu's setup. I just have a hard time to believe such a thing would be done commercially, tbh. I have a photocopy of a rocket making manual from 1696 by Robert Anderson from London England. Even then, they employed a taper on the 'needle' (spindle). Even my end burner spindle has a taper on it. 

The tooling I mentioned is shown in this thread I found:

For anyone interested, here's the manual I mentioned above:

https://ia601808.us.archive.org/32/items/model-rocketry-documents/The Making of Rockets (1696) By Robert Anderson.pdf

Edited December 2 by DavidF
Additional content

[mx5kevin]

In Vietnam, fuses are made from black powder wrapped in cling film. They definitely don't have professional tooling. They make everything from BP to scream rockets at home. Bottle rockets what you have at home: rivets, screws, iron nails, can used for tooling. The users can also experiment with larger ones. Someone with more experience will tell you what it should look like. I saw a Vietnamese video from a bigger homemade WM tooling. Worked there with a completely straight tool. The point is that I saw that it works and it's worth experimenting.

My experience: In homemade whistle bottle rocket with a rivet tooling, used a KClO4/sodium salicylate/Copper Oxychloride 76/23/1 fuel and worked perfectly. This was changed to KClO4/sodium benzoate/Copper Oxychloride/petroleum jelly 76/23/1/3 and the rockets are explod. Nozzleless rockets are more easier to tool than WM. A hole in the middle, minimal few mm clay at the end of the rocket and it works. Nozzleless BP rockets are guaranteed success for a beginner without any pro tooling. Nozzled Coreburner, Endburners are much more problematic. For a beginner, other types of rockets either explode or don't take off.

There are people who build rockets so big that you can't even buy a tooling for them.

[DavidF]

mx5kevin, I admire your passion

[a_bab]

The sole function of the spindle tapper is to easily release the spindle. While a "tapperless" spindle surely works, it becomes next to impossible to extract the spindle if long.

DJ, the inventor of the nozzleless BP rocket used a very thin spindle (3mm ID for 1# motors) without any tapper because it was easy to make and being thin meant a small surface therefore it allowed for easy removal as he mentioned. It was made from welding electrodes.

Yes, the tapper complicates the tooling. We need different drifts with different hole diameters. And some would even calculate the pressing forces so they are even along the additions.

But I can hardly imagine how one can extract the spindle even using Dagabu's idea (which I reinvented myself only to see it's been here for years).

I can tell you that on a nozzless rocket, when using a long spindle like 100mm, 6mm diam, and no tapper (on a 1# rocket), this will extract the fuel pellet along with the spindle. This is using Dagabu's extractor. Any attempt on twisting the spindle makes you realize that it's basically stuck.

One note: I always wax the tubes (thank you DavidF) and this surely helps the pellet extraction 😄 

So tapper for me, it is.

Edited December 3 by a_bab

[DavidF]

a_bab, Thanks. Yes, waxing the tube can help extract the propellant grain, lol.

I admit that I have not used Dagabu's setup, but I do not think it works the same way you do. The way I see it, the extractor pulls the tapered portion of the spindle down through the spindle base that goes up inside the end of the tube, so the base part is still pressing against the bottom of the propellant grain (or nozzle) when the spindle itself is withdrawn. No?

Here's a different picture of his spindle setup:

Edited December 2 by DavidF
Additional content

[a_bab]

DavidF, the system I use is similar to the one pictured here. It basically yanks the spindle out of the motor without any rotation.