Charcoal comparision tests

[AdmiralDonSnider]

The time has come to realize the charcoal comparision tests I planned. The aim is to compare different charcoals in terms of their spark production and beauty.

 

While there is some info around about whether a charcoal is good for BP or not, the only source known - but unavailable - to me that compares charcoals in terms of their spark production is an article in the last of the Pyrotechnicas (XVII I think).I wanted to open this thread to discuss the best means of testing with you, as well as to collect existing results/experiences.

 

The way I wanna do this is by pressing several comets identical in dimension, using the same streamer composition and the same mesh size for all the ingredients, only varying the type of charcoal used. Comets can be quickly pressed without having to make huge batches of comp for each variation. I plan to single-shoot them from small mortars (7/8" comets) one by one and note as well as tape the results. This would be viewed from close distance and will probably not give an adaquate impression of how a charcoal looks in a shell, but should suffice for a rough evaluation.

 

A thing I wanted to discuss is the right test comp. I want something that makes a single line of fire dust with the comet of my size, doesn´t come back to earth and keeps things easy composition-wise (i.e. only uses airfloat, no other granulation of charcoal, no gunpowder which would alter the results etc.). A good comet comp I have used with success is

 

Hardt Charcoal Streamer #4

 

Potassium nitrate 57

Charcoal airfloat 16

Charcoal 36 mesh 12

Sulphur 10

Dextrin 5

 

I intend to replace the coarse charcoal with airfloat (I will use screened -200 mesh instead of airfloat to avoid ballmilling) and thus use 28 parts -200 mesh charcoal, with the other ingredients being fine (same fineness each time) but not ballmilled either, to keep things managable.

 

Do you think that would be a good approach? What do I have to look out for when conducting these tests?

 

Charcoals I have at hand currently (with others coming up), I will list the exact species in the tests:

Commercial BBQ hardwood

Beech

Oak

Pine

Grapevine

Willow white

Alder black

Alder buckthorn

Paulownia

 

Candidate suggestions appreciated!

[warthog]

Pinecone charcoal is a really nice spark producer and is easily made if you have pinecones available.

 

Cook the cones whole, leave room in the retort for them to open up as they cook or you'll be sorry.

 

Once cooked, gently strip off the petals and discard the cores.

 

Crush these up a bit by hand then ball mill (or whatever you plan to do) and they are ready to use.

 

 

I am anxious to see the results of your tests, especially if you do include pinecone charcoal.

 

You want to use only airfloat? I don't understand how. Getting good, showy firedust from airfloat alone isn't going to be easy but I haven't ha enough experience to say.

Edited May 24, 2012 by warthog

[dagabu]

The time has come to realize the charcoal comparision tests I planned. The aim is to compare different charcoals in terms of their spark production and beauty.

 

While there is some info around about whether a charcoal is good for BP or not, the only source known - but unavailable - to me that compares charcoals in terms of their spark production is an article in the last of the Pyrotechnicas (XVII I think).I wanted to open this thread to discuss the best means of testing with you, as well as to collect existing results/experiences.

 

The way I wanna do this is by pressing several comets identical in dimension, using the same streamer composition and the same mesh size for all the ingredients, only varying the type of charcoal used. Comets can be quickly pressed without having to make huge batches of comp for each variation. I plan to single-shoot them from small mortars (7/8" comets) one by one and note as well as tape the results. This would be viewed from close distance and will probably not give an adaquate impression of how a charcoal looks in a shell, but should suffice for a rough evaluation.

 

A thing I wanted to discuss is the right test comp. I want something that makes a single line of fire dust with the comet of my size, doesn´t come back to earth and keeps things easy composition-wise (i.e. only uses airfloat, no other granulation of charcoal, no gunpowder which would alter the results etc.). A good comet comp I have used with success is

 

Hardt Charcoal Streamer #4

 

Potassium nitrate 57

Charcoal airfloat 16

Charcoal 36 mesh 12

Sulphur 10

Dextrin 5

 

I intend to replace the coarse charcoal with airfloat (I will use screened -200 mesh instead of airfloat to avoid ballmilling) and thus use 28 parts -200 mesh charcoal, with the other ingredients being fine (same fineness each time) but not ballmilled either, to keep things managable.

 

Do you think that would be a good approach? What do I have to look out for when conducting these tests?

 

Charcoals I have at hand currently (with others coming up), I will list the exact species in the tests:

Commercial BBQ hardwood

Beech

Oak

Pine

Grapevine

Willow white

Alder black

Alder buckthorn

Paulownia

 

Candidate suggestions appreciated!

 

Sounds like a lot of fun Don! A question for you, why go with a low charcoal containing streamer like Hardt #4? I would think that if you were really looking for the spark effect, you would use a C rich comp like Chrysanthemum #6 or a Kamuro type star.

 

-dag

[gregkdc1]

Why am I thinking that charcoal from crushed walnut hulls would be good for sparks? Did I read this somewhere?

 

 

[AdmiralDonSnider]

Thanks a lot for your comments.

 

Pinecone charcoal is a really nice spark producer and is easily made if you have pinecones available.

 

 

 

I read this in another thread and will definitely give it a try given I get a hold of these cones, maybe in Italy.

 

You want to use only airfloat? I don't understand how. Getting good, showy firedust from airfloat alone isn't going to be easy but I haven't ha enough experience to say.

 

 

I now chose to use what passes a 120 mesh screen. This is what I used in the past and should give some longer burning sparks also. The idea is to avoid having to screen two divisions for each type of charcoal. This would take some extra time I don´t have right now.

 

 

Sounds like a lot of fun Don! A question for you, why go with a low charcoal containing streamer like Hardt #4? I would think that if you were really looking for the spark effect, you would use a C rich comp like Chrysanthemum #6 or a Kamuro type star.

 

-dag

 

 

It will be fun, dag. I´m still unsure how to test it best, though. Shooting side by side would be good, but that´s hard. I will press two comets for each batch.

 

The reason why I chose/suggested Hardt #4 is that I know the mix (at least with coarse C in it) and its burn duration. I don´t want the comets to come back at me, TT or willow type comps would probably do that when shooting these kinda comets. Heavy C mixes also seem to benefit from ballmilling, which I don´t have the time for.

 

I considered C6 and C8, too. In fact with the coarse charcoal replaced with the fine grade, Hardt #4 now has 28 percent charcoal, with 57% nitrate (C6 has 33% C, 55 niter), so it should be a fast burning charcoal effect with a good show of sparks, also.

 

We´ll see. I just took the time to screen ten different kinds of charcoal (Commercial hardwood, commercial pine, commercial grapevine, commercial beech, olive mixed, black alder, alder buckthorn, oak, paulownia, lampblack) and made up a pound batch of Hardt #4 without the charcoal. That should give me two comets each, with some comp extra for ground tests.

 

 

Still looking for suggestions how to compare these the best way!

[warthog]

Well, I was going to suggest using Shimizu's Ascending Tiger Tail, which I have seen made into a comet and is what I had proposed to use in a similar experiment this summer until my situation changed. As for methods of comparison, I had thought to e-fire my comets and use a stationary cam era on a tripod so that the placement distance and angle of viewing never changed. I wold have made a few extras so I could set up the filming properly so that as much of the comet's flight could be captured with such an arrangement. Once I was all set I would have then fire each of the comets and videoed them, then spliced them together so that folks could see them fired one after another.

 

I also was able to secure some 100, 1.5 foot lengths of HDPE that I then secured hardwood plugs into so I could use them as a reloadable cake. It occurred to me then, prior to assembling the cake, that these could be used to fire ten comets of the size I was about to use for my firedust testing (same size as yourself, 7/8"). I would have then simply followed up my previous one at a time shooting with a simultaneous, side by side shooting of a second set of the comets, relatively widely spaced out so that they would not interfere too much with each other's performance.

 

This was how I had and eventually hope to be able to do what you are about to do yourself Admiral.

[dagabu]

Still looking for suggestions how to compare these the best way!

 

Gotcha, you should stick with what you are comfortable, I was just thinking about really broad spark trails.

 

If I may, perhaps you can fire a volley all at once from mortars equally spaced, e-matched and take video for fine review.... Just my thoughts. I use the RFRemotech system with 12 individual modules for spaced firing, it is very affordable and works to 1600m (1 mile) line of sight.

 

-dag

[bob]

I use spruce for my TT stars and IMO I think that it is just as good as pine (I used that in my first stars but do to not having much of it I swiched to spruce)

bob

[Potassiumchlorate]

The pennywise thing to do would be to find a good BBQ charcoal for the purpose. When I was new to pyro I bought BBQ charcoal and milled it myself. I used 40 mesh BBQ charcoal in Weingart's zinc spreader stars, for instance. Worked very well.

[AdmiralDonSnider]

I though about burning heaps of comp on the ground one after another to use the surplus comp.

 

Your ideas sound good. I will probably fire the first comet one after another, and then the second series connected with tapematch for a fan-shaped front to compare. I could also attach a set of comets waterfall-like to watch the sparks falling - would this make any sense?

 

Only thing is I have to assemble a "rack" from found tubes, as I still lack a reloadable system of the right diameter. I plan pressing the comets tomorrow. It can take a week or two, probably even longer, till this really takes place. Most of the time I´m not based at where I can enjoy my hobby, sadly.

[bob]

The pennywise thing to do would be to find a good BBQ charcoal for the purpose. When I was new to pyro I bought BBQ charcoal and milled it myself. I used 40 mesh BBQ charcoal in Weingart's zinc spreader stars, for instance. Worked very well.

may I ask why you think this is pennywise I mean you can make your one for a lot cheaper

let me see I spend $0.00 for how ever much charcoal I want

but it does take time

bob

[NightHawkInLight]

The only real way to accurately compare will be to fire comets or mines of each type simultaneously, evenly spaced and the same distance from the camera. It's just about impossible to replicate circumstances precisely for individual firings over any period of time, let alone be sure the camera picks up the test in exactly the same way. At a minimum you should test two types at a time, then select the best preforming and use it as one of the two types in the next test until you're left with the winner.

 

I do think that you should only use airfloat, or at least very accurately screened larger meshes for consistency purposes. If you use anything that passes a 120 mesh screen the dispersion of granule size will vary wildly from batch to batch. Airfloat may not make the prettiest stars but it will be the most consistent and allow your results to actually be accurate.

[Potassiumchlorate]

may I ask why you think this is pennywise I mean you can make your one for a lot cheaper

let me see I spend $0.00 for how ever much charcoal I want

but it does take time

bob

 

Well, it's more pennywise than buying from a pyro shop, for instance.

[Mumbles]

I'm not sure if you're on passfire, but there was some discussion on "potassium nitrating" charcoal. It's in a thread in the rocketry section entitled "Which Charcoal is best suited for a awesome tailed rocket?" Essentially, the charcoal is soaked with nitrate. It may be interesting to see the difference, if any.

[AdmiralDonSnider]

The only real way to accurately compare will be to fire comets or mines of each type simultaneously, evenly spaced and the same distance from the camera. (...) At a minimum you should test two types at a time, then select the best preforming and use it as one of the two types in the next test until you're left with the winner.

 

I appreciate your comment. As stated I plan shooting a fan of ten (or at least five) comets simultaneously. This will probably be hard to catch on camera, as filming the whole front will make the individual differences difficult to notice on screen.

 

 

I do think that you should only use airfloat, or at least very accurately screened larger meshes for consistency purposes. If you use anything that passes a 120 mesh screen the dispersion of granule size will vary wildly from batch to batch.

 

 

This is something I realized, too. In the end it´s a matter of how scientific I can go in these first tests without having to invest days to conduct them. I hope that a combination of proximity ground and aerial test will give a rough evaluation and input for futher research, narrowing the candidates, as rough BP burn tests - even if barely scientific - can give a rough impression what is a good BP charcoal.

 

It´s too much to hope that I will be able to tape these tests in sufficient quality. My camera experience is limited, as are my test comets. Things can go wrong etc. In the end it will break down to getting a subjective impression of good candidates, which can be objectified by further testing.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if you're on passfire, but there was some discussion on "potassium nitrating" charcoal.

 

This definitely is interesting for later research, too.

 

 

 

What I will give for now is a short description of the candidates (mesh size used is -120 mesh unless stated otherwise):

Commercial hardwood, commercial pine, commercial grapevine, commercial beech, olive mixed, black alder, alder buckthorn, oak, paulownia, lampblack

 

Hardwood - this is BBQ charcoal available in central Europe, a blend of hardwoods

Pine - commercial pine charcoal sold by Nitroparis Spain, I fear this will perform nowhere near Jap charcoals

Grapevine - commercial grapevine charcoal sold by Nitroparis Spain

Beech - BBQ charcoal only made from beech

Olive mixed - this is a holiday souvernier from Greece, I hope it will perform badly as I can´t get a hold of that stuff again

Black Alder - homemade charcoal from alnus glutinosa

Alder buckthorn - homemade charcoal from rhamnus frangula

Oak - homemade charcoal from oak (quercus...) - here I only had 15min ballmilled at hand

Paulownia - homemade charcoal from paulownia imperialis, said to give few sparks (Shimizu) - here I only had -200 mesh grade at hand

Lampblack - for reference only

 

The bulkyness award goes to Lampblack (quite expectedly), followed by Paulownia and Alder buckthorn. Black alder, beech and grapevine are somewhere in the middle, while especially pine, hardwood and oak are on the least weight per volume side of things. As with BP comp color changes with the volume of the ingredients, even if the mixing is always the same.

[Potassiumchlorate]

I'm not sure if you're on passfire, but there was some discussion on "potassium nitrating" charcoal. It's in a thread in the rocketry section entitled "Which Charcoal is best suited for a awesome tailed rocket?" Essentially, the charcoal is soaked with nitrate. It may be interesting to see the difference, if any.

 

I made up TT star composition last year. Before wetting it, it would hardly burn. After wetting it, it was like a different composition. Too bad I had problems with the SGRS. My TT stars simply wouldn't adhere.

[bob]

Well, it's more pennywise than buying from a pyro shop, for instance.

 

under stood it would be a lot cheaper then buying from a shop

bob

[Mumbles]

Potassiumchlorate, that is not what I am talking about. That is very normal with charcoal streamers. Even spider star mix burns like crap as a powder, but shoots sparks everywhere once bound. This is one of the many reasons why testing star compositions as powders is foolish. Doing an actual soak of the charcoal particles in potassium nitrate solution is supposed to give an interesting tail enhancement over what one normally may achieve by simply wetting the mix to bind into stars or comets.