Crazy Swede Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 ...i might be wrong here, if i am dont kill me......anyone knows ANY cool burning composition besides Sulfur?...Since urea will not decompose into ammonium etc. at normal temperatures, it should be safe to handle with chlorates! I will not kill you! About the cool burning fuel, why not trying paraffin or stearic acid as I mentioned above! Just pass a candle through a food grater and grind the proper amount (1-3%) into all ingredients EXCEPT the chlorate which is added last. The paraffin could also be dissolved in a suitable solvent and kneaded into the composition.
hashashan Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Wont parafin really really slow down the composition?or the hexamine will compensate it?if the parafin is ok so what ratio of it should be in the composition, comparing to the hexamine?
Crazy Swede Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Yes, waxes, stearic acid etc will definitely slow down the combustion if too much is added. I have already mentioned that the effective amount is low, seldom above 5 %. Do not forget that working formulas often look quite pale and bluish white when seen at close range on the ground. A star formula can only be judged correctly by shooting it from a star gun or loading it in a shell. Many deep blue flames I have seen from experimental compositions turned out too dim or did not stay lit when used in a shell or candle. The only practical application I have seen for really slow burning and deep blue compositions have been as micro stars in small matrix fountains of class C type.
hashashan Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 The problem is that i created very deep blue stars but the composition is very very unsafe due to content of Sulfur and KBrO3/KClO3 ...and i dont want to risk.
Mumbles Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Logic would indicate a slower burn would create a lower temperature, though I am sure there are more factors. Relatively same amount of energy being released slower will result in less energy being released per time period. Temperature is just average kinetic energy afterall.
Crazy Swede Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 ...The problem is that i created very deep blue stars but the composition is very very unsafe due to content of Sulfur and KBrO3/KClO3 ...Well, if you use the right kind of sulphur (not "Flowers of Sulphur" which is distilled/sublimated and can contain acidic impurities) and add some basic buffer to the composition, like basic copper carbonate, that kind of pyrtechnic composition IS possible to handle with proper knowledge and experience.
hashashan Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 listen ... its very not advisable to use chlorate/Sulfur compositions .. though i never had problems with them ... my sulfur is from a chem store but the chlorate is homemade. however the bromate is considered even more dangerous then chlorate with sulfur and it is also home synthesised so i kinda worry about making such mixture. thats why i am looking for a cooler burning mixture(not slower ... cooler). CuCl is destroyed in fairly low temperatures and it is the deep blue glowing part, so i need a mixture that will burn like at 800 celcius and not 3000 like shellac or about 2000 like sugar.ill try the parafin but i still think itll be too hot and slow PS. pure sulfur can be recristalysed from toluene.
Mumbles Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Blue compositions are entirely possible with shellac or sugar. Lactose is generally the sugar of choice, but it seems you are refering to sucrose. I have to seriously wonder if you have even looked at tried and tested blue formulas. Addition of chlorine donors very much help. I don't think you'll be getting anything decent with just chlorate or perchlorate. I think you will find that cooler often means slower. Hexamine makes a larger flame thus reducing the temperature. The small percentages of urea, parafin, stearin, etc will not make a huge difference. You're 3/8" stars won't have to be changed to 1/8" or anything. I think you are making too big of a deal out of this. We can sit here and discuss the pros and cons of additives all day, or you can actually go and try something. You'll never find out what really is best fot you if you don't.
hashashan Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Listen ive tried a lot of formulae, i just insist using CuCl as the color agent because it gives the best results, ive tried the following : CuCl/Chlorate/(shellac+hex,sugar+hex,metal,PVC+hex) Zerox's comp with CuCl instead of his agents. and Chlorate/CuCl/Sulfur wich gave me the most beautiful color but is considered dangerous. The two reasons i dont want chlorine donors in a cool burning composition is that : 1) there is no need in chlorine donors if you are using CuCl 2) i wish to make KBrO3/CuBr composition the results were the following : Shellac+hex : gave a completely yellow flame with no signs of blue.Sugar+hex : A more sky like blue ... washed outmetal : very bright somewhat bluishPVC+hex : also sky-like the sulfur proved to be a success though PS. lactose is problematic, i couldnt find any here
DeAdFX Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 You are going to need a lot more chlorine than that Cl from CuCl. The only way your going to get a good looking blue is if you have lots of Cl. Why do you think your Chlorate/CuCl shellac + hexamine comp failed? A chlorine donor is a must if you want some safe descent looking colors. I also recommend using Copper (II) carbonate(with your CuCl) like Zero did as the carbonate ion will help lower the combustion temperature a bit.
hashashan Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 CuCl is the blue glowing component, no chlorine donor is needed for it. the chlorine donors are used in blues only to create CuCl in the sky. thats why you use a donor with CuO or CuCO3 comps. so the chlorine is not a problem here. (Just to make sure i once tried it ... still nothing) about the addition of CuCO3 ill try it out. but it wont work with bromate because i dont know any bromine donors (anybody does?)
Crazy Swede Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 CuCl is the blue glowing component, no chlorine donor is needed for it.That statement is only true in theory. In practice you need an excess of chlorine to get a working composition. Now I think you are the one who should start to listen to all good advice from Mumbles and DeAdFX! Besides, why messing with bromates? The burning temperature is not only dependent on the fuel. Varying the fuel to oxidator ratio, addition of gas generating compounds and increasing the level of non pyrotechnic active ingredients are all measures that will have an influence on the burning temperature. Have you tried to simply increase the amount of CuCl in your composition to get a lower temperature?
hashashan Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 I am listening, i just did a really big resaerch before asking these questions. the thing that i know that at low temperatures CuCl + the chlorine from the chlorate is enough and there is no need for another chlorine donor. and no i didnt try to increase the CuCl .. ill try that . but what is the theory behind it? .. im just interested not only in getting a blue color but also understanding why is it blue and why is everything acting like it is. so why will the increase of CuCl lower the temperature? because of the energy that is wasted on vaporising the CuCl? or is there another reason?
Crazy Swede Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 ...so why will the increase of CuCl lower the temperature? because of the energy that is wasted on vaporising the CuCl?... Yes, that is one big factor. Another one is that you, so to speak, dilute your energic mixture with an additive that doesn't contribute to the release of heat and thus the average temperature in the combustion zone and flame envelope will decrease.
Mumbles Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Perhaps CrazySwede could comment on this, but I was always under the impression that CuCl(+1) was the primary blue color emmitter. The ion, not the Cu(I) salt. It would at least make more sense to me that copper (II) salts would more easily form this radical. I supppose in the high energy reactions it would be easy for the CuCl to give up an electron though.
Crazy Swede Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 ...I was always under the impression that CuCl(+1) was the primary blue color emmitter. The ion, not the Cu(I) salt... I'm afraid you are wrong there Mumbles! The blue emitting species is not an ion but the excited but neutral CuCl molecule. Check out Journal of Pyrotechnics #19 from 2004. Here's an abstract: Metal Monochloride Emitters in Pyrotechnic Flames - Ions or Neutrals? Barry Sturman 6 Corowa Court, Mount Waverley, Victoria 3149, Australia Abstract: Twelve English-language books on pyrotechnics were surveyed for the authors' views on the nature of the metal monochlorides that are associated with the emission of colored light in pyrotechnic flames. Three of the ten authors stated that the emitters were metal chloride ions (MCl+), five that they were neutral metal chloride molecules (MCl), and two took no clear position. A study of the references cited in these books establishes that the emitters are neutral monochlorides. The idea that they are MCl+ ions is traced to a book published in 1965, which cited only one reference (published in 1949), and that reference clearly stated that the emitters are neutral molecules.
Recommended Posts