oldguy Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Which of the common oxidizers produces the least smoke? Which of the reactive metals (Mg, Al, Mg/Al 50/50 or ?) produces the least smoke? Thanks for any help here.
NightHawkInLight Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Ammonium perchlorate produces the least visible smoke. All metals produce solid metal oxides when burned which take the form of visible smoke. I suppose I can't say for sure, but by what I have seen and understand to be true none of them will produce less smoke than another. If you want less smoke I would suggest cutting back the amount of metals in the composition and replacing as much as possible with charcoal or other fuels.
Mumbles Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Yes, AP produces the least smoke, but it has additional complications if you're considering using it in a confined space. The formulas much be carefully balanced to avoid smoke, yet also avoid the production of hydrogen and other noxious gases. It's quite an ordeal to go through even for commercial companies with experience doing this. As NH said, all metals produce smoke, and in general similar amounts. Keep in mind that Mg is incompatible with AP though, and requires a dichromate treating. You'd be putting this chromium into the air.
oldguy Posted May 3, 2011 Author Posted May 3, 2011 Perchlorate would be an issue, so thats out.This is a tough nut to crack.
Mumbles Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 If you keep the metal content low, you should probably be ok. Zero smoke is nearly impossible. The following patent may be of use. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070068610.pdf
oldguy Posted May 3, 2011 Author Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) If you keep the metal content low, you should probably be ok. Zero smoke is nearly impossible. The following patent may be of use. http://www.freepaten...20070068610.pdf Thank you sir, I ran across that very patent a short time ago.Will be burning some off shortly. Here is a near smokeless comp. That is easy to alter to suit.Smokeless - ashless - military blue flare comp U.S. Patent 326824 (1966) AP 74.2 Stearic acid 11.1 Paraffin 3.6 Copper dust 11.1 Trouble is the gross amount of AP. States & Fed’s will ban AP in pyro comps sooner than later Edited May 3, 2011 by oldguy
Mumbles Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Unless you're planning to sell them, why would you be worried about commercial component regulations? I would also be worried about the storage stability of such a composition above. The AP will attack copper in the presence of water.
oldguy Posted May 3, 2011 Author Posted May 3, 2011 Unless you're planning to sell them, why would you be worried about commercial component regulations? I am not worried about commercial component regulations. Perchlorates are just plain nasty to people, animals, water and the general environment. Nor do I want to poison my boys, anyone else or the environment. As for selling this type fusee, there is no commercial market to speak of. My boys said, “I wish I had” and I am trying to make that happen. Plus, I enjoy the challenge, it keeps this old guys mind working & hands busy.
Mumbles Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I wouldn't believe what the EPA says so much. Inorganic perchlorates are just like any other mineral salt. The human body uses what it uses, and you piss the rest out. If you eat too much salt one day (to an extent), you might feel a bit off, but in general it all passes out without any harm. The same is true of perchlorates. The harm that perchlorates have shown in lab tests is limited to long-term chronic exposure in animals other than humans. I liken it much to long term high sodium diets resulting in hypertension in middle aged to older individuals. Unless your boys are eating it on their cereal for decades, there will be no real issues. You may read reports that perchlorate levels rose 1000x over their natural levels after a fireworks show in such and such lake. That is all a matter of reference to the natural level. If naturally it exists at 1ppb, 1000x that is still only 1ppm. It was very hard to measure perchlorate levels until the late 90's due to their extremely low natural abundance. In pyrotechnic devices, the perchlorate is nearly to entirely burned up. There have been studies done on humans with perchlorates both short term and long term, that showed no impact what-so-ever on thyroid functionality, which is the primary organ of action. Here is the government report on it. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp162.pdf
oldguy Posted May 3, 2011 Author Posted May 3, 2011 After reading about them all morning, I tend to agree.I have a lot of PP & just ordered 10 lbs of AP.I will give AP & MCNC a whirl.
dagabu Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 After reading about them all morning, I tend to agree.I have a lot of PP & just ordered 10 lbs of AP.I will give AP & MCNC a whirl. PP, LOL!
NightHawkInLight Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 PP, LOL! This truly is a place of lofty scientific discussion
dagabu Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 This truly is a place of lofty scientific discussion Its NOT my fault, he said PP!! Sorry, SNORT, sorry, tee-hee, (PP).
oldguy Posted May 13, 2011 Author Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) I wouldn't believe what the EPA says so much. Inorganic perchlorates are just like any other mineral salt. The human body uses what it uses, and you piss the rest out. If you eat too much salt one day (to an extent), you might feel a bit off, but in general it all passes out without any harm. The same is true of perchlorates. The harm that perchlorates have shown in lab tests is limited to long-term chronic exposure in animals other than humans. I liken it much to long term high sodium diets resulting in hypertension in middle aged to older individuals. Unless your boys are eating it on their cereal for decades, there will be no real issues. You may read reports that perchlorate levels rose 1000x over their natural levels after a fireworks show in such and such lake. That is all a matter of reference to the natural level. If naturally it exists at 1ppb, 1000x that is still only 1ppm. It was very hard to measure perchlorate levels until the late 90's due to their extremely low natural abundance. In pyrotechnic devices, the perchlorate is nearly to entirely burned up. There have been studies done on humans with perchlorates both short term and long term, that showed no impact what-so-ever on thyroid functionality, which is the primary organ of action. Here is the government report on it. http://www.atsdr.cdc...files/tp162.pdf Well, after a lot of trial & error. I have about achieved an almost zero smoke effect. Comp is ammonium perchlorate, MCNC, stearine, nitro-celluloid, air float charcoal & a couple reactive metals. Now, I have a lot of fine tuning to do. Below is a previous attempt at zero smoke with a slightly differing comp Edited May 13, 2011 by oldguy
Bilbobaker Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 After reading about them all morning, I tend to agree.I have a lot of PP & just ordered 10 lbs of AP.I will give AP & MCNC a whirl. Too funny, that.
dagabu Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Well, after a lot of trial & error. I have about achieved an almost zero smoke effect. Comp is ammonium perchlorate, MCNC, stearine, nitro-celluloid, air float charcoal & a couple reactive metals. Now, I have a lot of fine tuning to do. Below is a previous attempt at zero smoke with a slightly differing comp That is great! Good job OG! -dag
oldguy Posted May 15, 2011 Author Posted May 15, 2011 I am finding out that MCNC has some really neat attributes over plain NC. NC by itself is not very dense. MCNC has a far higher density, thus burns much hotter than NC. With a high percent of MCNC in a comp.The comp will compress with minimal pressure into a hard durable dense plastic like mass without any binder.
Recommended Posts