Cookieman Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Here are 3 shells we launched on NYE.I used something completely different as a booster and I would appreciate some advice.I used 5gr of KMNo4/Mg/al. I have been testing various flash powders and wanted to try it in an aerial shell. I used Granulated BP for the lift.I also used 1/3 of the shells weight instead of 1/10.As you can see in the vid,I got good altitude without blowing my mortar. My stars were D1 cut.I pushed my comp. onto a primed 8"x10" picture frame which was 1/4 deep, turned it upside down and primed the other side and cut the stars. 3_inch_ball_shells_on_New_Years_Eve.wmv
Gunzway Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Do my eyes deceive me? You're using a Potassium Permanganate based flash powder in an aerial shell? I always thought they were deemed to unsafe to use in practical pyrotechnics apart from just small tests of the composition being burned the ground. It sounds pretty dangerous to me anyway.
Ralph Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 clasic example of why we need proper education for pyrotechnics. and just a note here we see all these stupid and dangerous shells being made they are never in paper. end rant KMnO4 is dangerous on many levels and should never be used in pyrotechnics it makes for very sensitive compositions none to auto ignite not to mention upon contact with sulfur and sulfides it becomes markedly more unstable (this may be due to the production of traces of Manganese Heptoxide) you shouldn't show your face on video it helps the feds find you but it may be usefull for the mortician those stars didnt glitter this often is caused by over wetting the comp glitters are sensitive to being over wet especially ones containing carbonates good luck in the future
50AE Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 The burst are good, but seriously, I would never dare to put KMnO4 in a firework, especially in an aerial shell. For your own good, please don't do it.
Sarc0x12 Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 (edited) Nice break but i agree with the members above me permagate flash should be avoided Edited January 29, 2010 by Sarc0x12
Ralph Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 yep great idea lets say your doing good and you havent gotten hurt yet do you really think he is gona change if you say that
Cookieman Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 yep great idea lets say your doing good and you havent gotten hurt yet do you really think he is gona change if you say that Ok, thanks for the advice I will use a perchlorate based flash next time and that wasn't me in the video,I was behind the camera.I also used the wrong aluminum so I didn't get the glitter effect.I only had German flake, and if I'm not mistaken you need 300 mesh atomised.
Ralph Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 you need atomised of some kind 200-600 have all worked for me try using paper shells with no booster you can get beautiful results and you get far more satisfaction out of it
Cookieman Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 you need atomised of some kind 200-600 have all worked for me try using paper shells with no booster you can get beautiful results and you get far more satisfaction out of it Ok thanks.What is the difference between paper hemis and plastic ones besides the fuse holes in the plastic hemis?
Ralph Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 paper hemis are traditional they are generally cheaper. they are better for the environment due to being biodegradable and also not requiring nasty solvents not to mention the production of plastic hemis requires crude oil paper hemis do not. Paper hemis break alot more easily and therefore produce excellent results with out a booster (hence why they are used commercially(though cost is also a factor))
Arthur Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 The break system for paper shells is usually simpler and softer than the break needed in plastic shells. But plastic hemis can be ready to fire in an hour wheras paper hemis taped properly need a much longer time. Plastic hemis break into permanent sharp shards and are not popular when you have to clear a show site up. The debris from a show full of paper shells will rake up easily and what is left will get damp and just go into the ground as paper (vegetable!) fibre
firetech Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 Glitter sometimes can't be cut because it will destroy the effect. Try pumping it with 7-8% water. You don't need the flash, so ditch it. You have to be a complete moron to use KMnO4 based flash. You have perc, so make some ordinary 70/30 if you find it necessary. Or get some whistle fuels and make burst with that.What is the mesh size of you Al? that might make or break your glitter effect.
Cookieman Posted January 30, 2010 Author Posted January 30, 2010 Glitter sometimes can't be cut because it will destroy the effect. Try pumping it with 7-8% water. You don't need the flash, so ditch it. You have to be a complete moron to use KMnO4 based flash. You have perc, so make some ordinary 70/30 if you find it necessary. Or get some whistle fuels and make burst with that.What is the mesh size of you Al? that might make or break your glitter effect. With those shells in the vid.,I used the German 5413H flake. But I made another batch of stars with 300 mesh Atomised al.So the KP burst charge is enough to open those shells?
firetech Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 You'll be fine with just KP. 5413 flake is too fine for glitter. D1 really likes ~325 mesh spherical Al, or something similar. The particle shape is really what matters, I think..
Ralph Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) You'll be fine with just KP. 5413 flake is too fine for glitter. D1 really likes ~325 mesh spherical Al, or something similar. The particle shape is really what matters, I think..yes it must be spherical/atomised flake does not function correctly in glitters it turns a good glitter into a pearl Edited January 31, 2010 by Ralph
Mumbles Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 A "pearl" star is generally acknowledged to be a zinc streamer type of deal. There is the "pearl" and "better pearl" that Oglesby discusses, neither of which use flake Al. It is really a precursor to the modern glitter. It is a composition name, not an effect. Flake aluminums can be used to make glitters, but they are different in effect. In any case using such a fine aluminum as german blackhead is both a waste and inferior. Try bright flake if you want to make glitters. Check out the Winokur formulas for some examples.
Ralph Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) mmm ok a couple of us Assie pyros have incorrectly used the term than but thats what happens when you add flake al to a glitter comp (that is designed to be used with spherical) Edited January 31, 2010 by Ralph
Mumbles Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 Probably the same situation with the "willow diadem" formula floating around; confusing or making up their own terminology. It's not a diadem unless it changes to a color at the end. I don't doubt that the pearl streamer Oglesby discusses would look similar to a glitter with flake used instead of atomized. More of a short shimmering tail than anything.
Recommended Posts