FIREFLY ON COCAINE

[asdercks]

HI GUYS, I AM NEW TO THIS FORUM SO LET ME START BY INTRODUCING MYSELF, I'M ASDERCKS FROM SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA AND I'VE BEEN MAKING FIREWORKS FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS, I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND TIME IN THIS HOBBY, ALTHOUGH IT HASN'T BEEN AN EASY ROAD, IT HAS BEEN WORTH THE EFFORT SPECIALY AFTER I GET TO SEE THE SMILES OF MY FRIENDS DURING MY FIREWORK DISPLAYS,ANYWAY THE OTHER DAY I CAME ACROSS A FORMULA NAMED FIREFLY ON COCAINE OR FLAMING SH**T FALLS ON YOU WHERE ALL PARTS ARE PARTS BY WEIGHT...

KNO3.................46 PARTS

CHARCOAL.......44 PARTS

SULFUR...............6 PARTS

MG/AL.................10 PARTS

BARIUM CARBONATE....6 PARTS

DEXTRIN............5 PARTS

 

SO MY QUESTION IS HOW CAN I FIGURE HOW MANY GRAMS OF EACH CHEMICAL I NEED TO MAKE LETS SAY 100 GRAMS OF COMPOSITION

[kilnj69]

KNO3.................46 PARTS

CHARCOAL.......44 PARTS

SULFUR...............6 PARTS

MG/AL.................10 PARTS

BARIUM CARBONATE....6 PARTS

DEXTRIN............5 PARTS

 

Total 117Grams

 

divide 117 by 100 = 1.17 now divide all parts by 1.17 eg 46/1.17=39.3162ect

 

So

KNO3.................39.32Grams

CHARCOAL.......37.60Grams

SULFUR...............5.13Grams

MG/AL.................8.54Grams

BARIUM CARBONATE....5.13Grams

DEXTRIN............4.27Grams

 

Total 99.99Grams

[asdercks]

HEY KILNJ69,

THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPLY, NO WONDER I COULD NOT GET THIS FORMULA RIGHT I WAS USING THE PYROTECHNIC COMPOSITION MATH FROM PYROGUIDE WHERE YOU ADD ALL THE INGREDIENTS BY WEIGHT TO GET A GRAND TOTAL AND THEN YOU DIVIDE 100 BY THE GRAND TOTAL, THEN YOU MULTIPLY EACH INGREDIENT BY THE SESULT OF THE EQUATION AND THATS HOW I WOULD GET THE PERCENTAGE OF THE INGREDIENTS

[pyrowinner]

Here is a useful online Percentage Calculators.

http://www.calculate...m/percent.html

http://www.percentagecalculator.net/

 

pw

Edited June 10, 2013 by pyrowinner

[psyco_1322]

HEY KILNJ69,

THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPLY, NO WONDER I COULD NOT GET THIS FORMULA RIGHT I WAS USING THE PYROTECHNIC COMPOSITION MATH FROM PYROGUIDE WHERE YOU ADD ALL THE INGREDIENTS BY WEIGHT TO GET A GRAND TOTAL AND THEN YOU DIVIDE 100 BY THE GRAND TOTAL, THEN YOU MULTIPLY EACH INGREDIENT BY THE SESULT OF THE EQUATION AND THATS HOW I WOULD GET THE PERCENTAGE OF THE INGREDIENTS

 

That is basically the same exact thing, you will get the same numbers either way you do the math.

 

And please do stop typing in all caps.

[asdercks]

@ pyrowinner thanks for the links

[asdercks]

That is basically the same exact thing, you will get the same numbers either way you do the math.

 

And please do stop typing in all caps.

sorry but is not the same thing... 100 divided by 112(grand total)= 0.8928 x 46=41.06

[Mumbles]

That's because the grand total is 117, not 112.

 

100/117 = .8547

 

.8547 x 46 = 39.31

 

In any case, I find either of the above methods a clumsy way to do this calculation. For me, there are two options. Make a batch size in a convenient multiple of the given formula, or convert to percent. To convert to percent, you divide the parts by the grand total. It just so happens that using a batch size of 100g is going to give the same results as converting to percent, with percents adding to 100% and all.

 

The calculation then simply becomes:

 

46/117 = 39.31%

 

When you have a percent, you can convert to any batch size you want as opposed to doing a special calculation for every different amount you want to make. To me it's more intuitive to do it this way. The math is exactly the same either way, it's just a matter of order in which it's done.

[asdercks]

That's because the grand total is 117, not 112.

 

100/117 = .8547

 

.8547 x 46 = 39.31

 

In any case, I find either of the above methods a clumsy way to do this calculation. For me, there are two options. Make a batch size in a convenient multiple of the given formula, or convert to percent. To convert to percent, you divide the parts by the grand total. It just so happens that using a batch size of 100g is going to give the same results as converting to percent, with percents adding to 100% and all.

 

The calculation then simply becomes:

 

46/117 = 39.31%

 

When you have a percent, you can convert to any batch size you want as opposed to doing a special calculation for every different amount you want to make. To me it's more intuitive to do it this way. The math is exactly the same either way, it's just a matter of order in which it's done.

ohhh cr**p grand total was 117 not 112 hahahaha sorry and thanks for your help it is definitely easier the way you do the math

[FlaMtnBkr]

Or you could not do any math and use 1 gram for a part and make 117 g batches.

 

Or if you made a lot of stars at a time you could make 1 ounce a part and make a 117 ounce batch.

 

Or any weight can be a part like 10g is 1 part so that you multiply 10 g by the number of parts for each component. This would give you a 1170 g batch.

 

Not as much math but may not be as easy to make a specific batch size.

[Zingy]

The firefly formula seems overly dominate on fuel, particularly charcoal, even for firefly. I would increase the KNO3, or decrease the charcoal, if the current formula fails, to sustain ignition, in the air. Edited June 13, 2013 by Zingy

[FrankRizzo]

The firefly formula seems overly dominate on fuel, particularly charcoal, even for firefly. I would increase the KNO3, or decrease the charcoal, if the current formula fails, to sustain ignition, in the air.

 

If you note the name ("flaming shit falls on your head"), you'll understand, that's the intended effect. A long-lived charcoal spark trail, followed by flashes from the burning mangnalium It's a beautiful effect if you use properly sized stars.

 

Here's a video of the effect...15 rockets with 5" shells with Flaming Shit stars. It was a sight to behold.

 

http://youtu.be/z0SSDQ7qlSo

Edited June 15, 2013 by FrankRizzo

[asdercks]

Or you could not do any math and use 1 gram for a part and make 117 g batches.

 

Or if you made a lot of stars at a time you could make 1 ounce a part and make a 117 ounce batch.

 

Or any weight can be a part like 10g is 1 part so that you multiply 10 g by the number of parts for each component. This would give you a 1170 g batch.

 

Not as much math but may not be as easy to make a specific batch size.

the only reason why i wanted to convert the formula to grams is so that I could make really small batches for testing purpposes besides I am more familiar with grams than ounces, but is good to know another way to make the comp

[asdercks]

If you note the name ("flaming shit falls on your head"), you'll understand, that's the intended effect. A long-lived charcoal spark trail, followed by flashes from the burning mangnalium It's a beautiful effect if you use properly sized stars.

 

Here's a video of the effect...15 rockets with 5" shells with Flaming Shit stars. It was a sight to behold.

 

http://youtu.be/z0SSDQ7qlSo

Hey really nice video, do you think that 5/8 inch stars is a good size star for 2.5 shell

[Bonny]

5/8" starts are pretty big for a 2.5 shell. They don't go that high, so you might have problems with burning fallout. I've never made the comp so I don't know for sure, but for 2.5 I'd probably start with around 1/4" stars.

[Xtreme Pyro]

Hey really nice video, do you think that 5/8 inch stars is a good size star for 2.5 shell

 

5/8 is WAY too big for a 2.5" shell, more like 5/16 - 3/8".

Edited June 17, 2013 by Xtreme Pyro

[californiapyro]

I'd go for 1/4", Tom. That comp is one of the slowest I've ever worked with.

[psyco_1322]

Those stars have always giving me a bunch of fall out, which is not really something I wanted. I had talked to Rob at PGI and he said it helps to drop some of the Barium Carbonate, and mill the bp portion of the comp.

 

I'll add that the formula calls for about 30mesh magnalium, the effect will not be right with fine magnalium. You might be able to get away with something up to ~40mesh.

 

When you get the formula dialed in, it's a very nice effect.

[Psycodelic]

Hey, not trying to jack the thread but I've also got a question about normal firefly stars. This comp is from skylighter. Do you think I'd really need to prime these stars? I've made D1 glitter from them and they worked fine without prime. I just want to no if it would be smart to do so. Also the instructions on skylighter are for cut starts, I don't see any reason why I couldn't do pumped stars am I right?

 

Chemical Parts 450 Grams

Potassium nitrate 202.5 g

Charcoal, airfloat 121.5 g

Charcoal, 80-mesh 45 g

Sulfur 36 g

Firefly aluminum 22.5 g

Dextrin 22.5 g

Water +162 g

 

[Eaglefireworks]

Stars that light easy naturally doesn't need a prime however it wouldn't go bad either if you prime them with BP prime to aid ignition.

The instruction on skylighter are for cut star because they used coarse firefly aluminium.

[Seymour]

Hell yes you should prime them.

 

With many glitter stars and charcoal stars it is true that unprimed they often light. However often they light on one side on some stars, all over on other stars, and in the end perfectly sized stars have greatly differing burn times, and they don't fly straight.

 

If you ramp the lift or burst up, you can easily get many, most or all the stars blowing blind.

 

EVERYTHING should have a final coat of a BP like mix at a minimum if you want reliability.