The Big Fallacy in using electric matches

[hegilliam]

Tom Handel just wrote a controversial post to the Crackerjacks Mailing List on the misperception of ematch safety, that I want to share with as many people as I can, and I hope that you will, too.

 

Tom gave me permission to post his comments on Skylighter's blog in order to allow this discussion to "jump" out of the relatively small audience on the club list.

 

Here's the link to Tom's post, with my comments. Please feel free to leave YOUR comments there, as well. All opinions welcome.

 

http://blog.skylight...ALLY-safer.html

 

There seems to be a subconscious equation of the word "ematch" with "safety" in the minds of many. This can be a dangerous fallacy.

 

Note that this is not an anti-ematch piece. Altho I know some will read it that way, it is neither pro or anti-ematch, nor pro or anti-fuse.

 

Tom wrote it to have us all consider and weigh the "hidden" dangers that come with the PROCESS of using ematches. This process is a vital part of fireworking that is often totally ignored in the name of safer firing of displays.

 

I've already been asked if it's okay to reprint the article in one club newsletter. You hereby have blanket permission to reuse or reprint as you see fit. But please include the link below with the article, in order to maximize the number of fireworks people who see it.

 

Tom gave me permission to post his comments on our blog in order to allow this discussion to "jump" out of the relatively small audience on the club list.

 

Please weigh in on the blog with your opinions on this… There are many views. Let's read yours.

 

http://blog.skylight...ALLY-safer.html

 

 

You can also join the conversation about it on Facebook at:

 

http://www.facebook....ighterfireworks

 

I urge you to share the Facebook conversation by Liking the Facebook post or better yet, Sharing it with any lists of Fireworks friends you have on Facebook.

 

This is about making us all think. About looking below the surface a bit. And staying alive.

 

Thanks.

 

Harry Gilliam

http://www.Skylighter.com

http://blog.Skylighter.com<BR clear=all>

[californiapyro]

couldnt agree more. thanks for the info

[dagabu]

It sounds more like an opinion piece and will only serve to polarize the two camps without actually solving anything. There is a place for both ways of lighting shells and rockets and don't wish to give the Feds any hints for regulation either way.

 

-dag

[californiapyro]

think of a world without visco... HORRIBLE

[NightHawkInLight]

It sounds more like an opinion piece and will only serve to polarize the two camps without actually solving anything. There is a place for both ways of lighting shells and rockets and don't wish to give the Feds any hints for regulation either way.

 

-dag

 

I take it you're on the other side? I really don't understand why there's even an issue among some of the clubs. Do you not make sure each person on the firing line knows how to safely light shells by hand as well as safely use ematch if they chose to use it? Is it really worth arguing against not ematching product until it's in the gun? It's a safety concern to some people, and therefore the people that believe otherwise should have the courtesy to allow everyone to feel safe on the firing line no matter if they believe there is a real risk or not.

[dagabu]

I take it you're on the other side? I really don't understand why there's even an issue among some of the clubs. Do you not make sure each person on the firing line knows how to safely light shells by hand as well as safely use ematch if they chose to use it? Is it really worth arguing against not ematching product until it's in the gun? It's a safety concern to some people, and therefore the people that believe otherwise should have the courtesy to allow everyone to feel safe on the firing line no matter if they believe there is a real risk or not.

 

Nope, not at all, there is a place for both. Please don't take it as an anti-E-match statement, it couldn't be further than the truth, I am firmly for E-matches, I make them, use them, fire about 10,000 shells and cakes a year using E-matches with our club. All the club shells are E-matched at a table then moved in boxes with the leader pointed up, shells are then perched and then dropped. No problems at all. I have never seen an E-matched shell in a ready box and I think it is a poor idea to do so due to the probability of an impact with another shell.

 

I just don't think that this (the attached link, not yours NHIL) is a productive statement as it didn't solve a problem or shed light on a new problem.

 

-dag

[nater]

As I have said recently on other boards, I agree with Tom for the most part. E-matches are great tools for us to have, but I feel they only transfer the risk from shooting to setting up the show when you use them. I don't think they are more or less safe than handlighting in the long run. I have never personally seen an unintended ignition of a match outside of a demonstration. I have seen a salute round trip and set off an entire rack, but we never found out if the concussion tripped some relays in the firing system or if the shock set off the match. I have had close calls when handlighting shells and when watching an e-fired show inside the fall out zone.

 

I think in an experimental setting, everyone in the firing line needs to be familiar with various methods of ignition.

[MediumRare]

It's not the fuse or the e-match- it's what at the end of it. With ematches, 2 things matter:

 

1) The resistance of the bridge wire

2) The pyrotechnic composition used for E-match

 

You can also use e-match to light the fuses at a distance. If your bridge is under 32 gauge, it won't light up if some stray current passes through it.

 

But fuses less or more dangerous either. It's the composition that they ignite that makes things safe or not safe.

[Arthur]

The ematch isn't dangerous if used correctly.

 

In the UK, best practise is that the meatch is inserted into the QM at the place of firing, SO a shell is pulled from the manufacturer's box and fused with an igniter then dropped down it's tube, SO the ig is in the QM for the minimum time, and NOT in transit and not in bulk packaging.

 

SO there is NO chance of ignition by vibration or impact in transit -because the igs are in their own box properly packed as 1.4s

 

There are many things that I wouldn't want to fire on visco especially experimental stuff. I remember firing an experimental 16" ball shell. available safety distance 600m so we ran some wire- The shell went in the tube then the ig was tested, then the ig was put in the QM. After that 600m of cable was run out and the shell fired.

 

IF we had used enough visco to walk away the 600m -say 10 minutes! once it was lit there would be no stopping it if someone went into the danger zone.

 

IF it's a big show then you get enough staff to insert all the igs on the firing site away from the stored fireworks.

 

STAGE (prox) pyro is diferent because the igniter is almost always included inside the rigid case of the item so no chance of it getting crushed.

[warthog]

I would agree that the e-match itself, when used properly, isn't any more or less safe than anything else used to ignite fireworks. USED PROPERLY mind you is the important part of the sentence. Personally though I find a nichrome type igniter works as well as I need it to work so I use those.

 

The problem that arises with the e-matches though is once they are affixed to the item, mishandling is a big deal. This is exacerbated by the stress a person feels during a shoot for a a group of folks not involved with the show except to watch it. You want the flow to continue so there can be times where you can work a little too fast and/r a little bit sloppy and then there is a chance of a major mishap which is NOT there when using a nichrome type igniter or hand lighting visco (of course there are other issues with these methods of ignition as well in the same setting).

 

In short, I am going to keep doing it the way I am doing it now, with nichrome type igniters and at times. hand lighting. I think as long as people are properly trained and the stress can be kept to a minimum by proper planning, e-match issues aren't any worse than any other methods.

 

edit: The whole what if someone enters the danger zone thing is a, non-issue IMO, what if they do so just as you press the button? There is no time to yell or anything BOOOM! Therefore the e-match isn't any safer than a piece of visco IMO.

Edited February 18, 2012 by warthog

[nater]

Warthog is right, securing your shoot site has nothing to do with your method of ignition. I know of one case where someone was killed (yes, killed as in dead) who was not supposed to be or known to be inside the safety zone for a shoot site when a shell failed. It really does not matter if you have lit a piece of visco or pushed a button when someone is not where they are supposed to be at the wrong time.

[Potassiumchlorate]

Warthog is right, securing your shoot site has nothing to do with your method of ignition. I know of one case where someone was killed (yes, killed as in dead) who was not supposed to be or known to be inside the safety zone for a shoot site when a shell failed. It really does not matter if you have lit a piece of visco or pushed a button when someone is not where they are supposed to be at the wrong time.

 

A few people in my country were killed by 4" back when they were license free, which was one of the main reasons they were licensed here. Those idiots lit the fuse, usually while drunk, went away, and, when the shell wasn't fired as soon as they had expected, went back, bent over the mortar and looked into the muzzle to see what was wrong...

 

Too bad with the restrictions that came. I'd say it was good they were cleaned out of the gene pool.

[nater]

A few people in my country were killed by 4" back when they were license free, which was one of the main reasons they were licensed here. Those idiots lit the fuse, usually while drunk, went away, and, when the shell wasn't fired as soon as they had expected, went back, bent over the mortar and looked into the muzzle to see what was wrong...

 

Too bad with the restrictions that came. I'd say it was good they were cleaned out of the gene pool.

 

Similar things happen every year here in the U.S. as well. Unlicensed people get bootlegged display shells, have no clue how to use them, and end up hurting themselves.

 

The case I mentioned was a proper public display, but someone in the public wanted to be closer to the action and was sitting behind the shoot site, inside the safety zone. None of the trained operators knew that person was there. That was my point about ignition choice. If you don't know someone is where they are not supposed to be, visco or an e-match won't matter if there is a malfunction.

[WSM]

think of a world without visco... HORRIBLE

 

I've always said, "(The use of) good quality Visco has saved many a young man from his folly."

 

Chiming in on the controversy, there are good and bad parts to both ways of doing things, and safe practices must be observed in either approach. Never let yourself be lulled into a false sense of security by thinking, "I'm doing (this or that method), so I'm safe". There is nothing totally safe about what we do and the best we can do to mitigate risk is think through all aspects of our activity and use every safety device at our disposal:

 

Our brain: Ask, what could happen; what can I do to prevent injury or harm to persons or property.

Minimize amounts of live material exposed at any one time in the work area.

Use safety devices available and never disable or circumvent them.

Keep a safe distance from others while working with live materials, particularly those not involved in the process.

Prepare and act on the premise of, "Not if but when something goes wrong, I will..."

Impatience is the enemy of safety, and prompts us to take shortcuts. DON'T!

 

 

This is a very short and incomplete list and must be continued by each person (all persons) involved.

 

WSM

Edited March 10, 2012 by WSM