Jump to content
APC Forum

Random Thread #1


Rooster

Recommended Posts

Well, we could amalgamate all of our savings, sell our property, and set up a commune on some deserted island somewhere. With all the assorted chemistry know-how around here, I'm sure we could whip something up. Of course, I don't think the cartels would take kindly to such competition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is what they did with all the old decommissioned powder mills! (Grenada Chocolate Co)

 

 

http://www.grenadachocolate.com/pictures/Marlon%20mixing%20sugar%20in.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, there's a million and one uses for a good mill. How great would it be to have one of those...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anyone in the US willing to buy some conductive carbospheres from firefox for me (can be found here) and post them to me ill pay for 5lb (and postage from firefox to you and from you to me) you can take one for your self and send me 4lb :)

 

 

EDIT: reason they wont send them is not because it is illegal but because the B@#%@ds wont sell to someone under 21 (or apparently answer emails)

Edited by Ralph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just stumbled across this:

 

http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Largest-Firework-Rocket/BLOG/2916868/7691.html

 

Surely someone here knows of a bigger rocket?

I know of much larger rockets outside of fireworks. I'm fairly certain there have been bigger multistage fireworks rockets as well, but I guess none that have contacted Guinness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Dagabu said, the philipines or taiwan make at least 4" ID rockets, possibly 6". The ones cplmac makes are routinely well over 40lbs, and probably get to maybe 500ft. I wonder what the record actually is. Height? weight? # of motors?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

98 meters is hardly impressive, though perhaps it was the best that could be expected from that Frankenrocket. 33 motors, sheesh. With all that tare weight it's a wonder it got off the ground at all.

 

Mumbles, if I put in the effort to make a 40 pounder I'd sure expect it to do better than 500 feet. I can put the same payload higher than that with a few ounces of lift and a mortar. Did you mean 5000 feet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ones cplmac makes are routinely well over 40lbs, and probably get to maybe 500ft.

 

That's what I was thinking... Someone should give the guys at guinness a ring and get it sorted. Could be some good PR for the amateur pyro community, as long as the maker is fully legal, that is... :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I really meant 500 feet. Like I said, these things routinely weigh 40lbs or more, and only maybe half of that is fuel. These aren't exactly optimized rockets. 6lb rockets can easily achieve 4-5000 feet. I'm sure if you put the same amount of engineering into tooling, high quality light weight tubes, aerodynamics, you could at least match that. Honestly, I think they're more impressive at 500 feet, the roar is tremendous for the entire flight. Plus, who wants 15lbs of tube and stick falling back to earth from a mile in the air?

 

It's actually a little odd. 1lb rocket tubes and sticks come flying back to earth nose down and bury themselves in the ground at our shoot site. cpl's rockets glide down rather gracefully sideways. It would hurt if you got hit by one, but probably not nearly as deadly as some of the smaller rockets. One good reason to always put a salute on top of the rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As the pyrotechnic officials administered the switch that electronically launched the rocket into the air, sparks flew and the rocket screeched fiercely before violently shooting into the air, reaching an altitude of 98.37 metres. After an incredibly loud bang the rocket exploded into a bright white flash, signalling its successful launch and a successful record attempt!"

 

Pfffft! I think that Dan T. can make a single engine rocket that would beat that one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Glanced briefly at the latest email from Harry regarding the Stinger kit. That tooling looks a lot like Ben Smith's. Anybody know if this is the case? If so, most certainly a step up from the Chinese knock-offs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice that the drill guide is different...

I did notice that. Assumed it was in the effort to keep costs down. I got a stinger set from Ben several yrs ago when he was first getting rolling with the tooling. I've knocked out a shit ton of the little beasties with it. Couldn't be happier with the quality of his work.

 

BTW, nice job with the girandola.

Edited by OneEyeCharlie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe some of you may know that I intend to learn and master star rolling for this year. I want to make good round stars with precise color changing effects.

I don't have a good star roller and I have planned to build the tire roller. But, I need money and now the times are poor.

So, just from curiosity I decided to try hand rolling, with a simple plastic round bowl with dimensions 24x10cm, using husked millet as cores and 50:50 alcohol/water solution to begin. The comp was simple green mix with metal powder in it.

 

In the beginning, the results were kind of frustrating. Cores sticking ot each other, uneven size of stars. But I followed on with confidence, unsticking cores and roling.

 

After about 5-10 minutes of working, I got the technique! And this is the results of hand rolled stars to 6mm. They look like BBs. They aren't screened at all.

 

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/1770/picture117q.th.jpg

 

I was very satisfied of the results and I quickly built two simple star screens.

Later I tried to roll my new favorite composition of organic blue with shellac.

It seemed more difficult to keep same star dimensions, so I worked a little bit with the screens.

 

I made two batches of different sizes. One that is 7mm and will be used for color changing stars, and the other batch is 10mm for simple blue peony.

 

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1554/picture120b.th.jpg http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4492/picture119c.th.jpg

 

 

I haven't read or watched any technique about hand rolling stars, but I figured out some tips:

 

Tip 1 - To make the stars more uniformly sized, pour the comp on the bottom of the bowl. This way, the smaller stars that stay on the bottom will pick it up first.

Tip 2 - You have to find out the optimal volume of stars from experience. Too little stars and the rolling will be difficult, too much and they will move with great difficulty, resulting in uneven sizes.

Tip 3 - Hand rolling is not like machine rolling. Beside moving the bowl in circular motion, you have to move it a little vertically in the same time, in order to make the stars jump.

Edited by 50AE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They look very nice! I'm struggling with my home made star roller, but I think I'm starting to learn the technique. Unfortunately I don't have any lead shots to roll with, would be easier with the added weight over mustard seeds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the composition of my own blue composition I recently created.

 

KClO3 67

Cu oxy 13

Shellac 5

PVC 8

Dextrin 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a problem though. My stars easily turn to dust when pressed between my fingers. It seems the binder wasn't activated enough, even when I used only water. The binder is SGRS.

The star seems hard outside, but inside it's just powder.

The small 6mm stars have been drying for 2 days and I think they have to be already dry. The same 8mm cut stars dried for about 32 hours.

 

I have no idea why this does happen to this composition. It didn't happen to the prime comp with 3% sgrs. These are rock hard.

Edited by 50AE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Do any members of APC fleuntly speak spanish or german?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...