DavidF Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 Thanks Bobosan. I asked Steve to make the tooling before I discovered the waxing. He said it was a bad idea, wouldn't work, and he wouldn't waste my money making it. After he tried the tube waxing, I asked him again. He softened up and made it!http://fireworking.com/sites/default/files/u83/new%20tooling%20003%20%28480x640%29.jpgI sent the brass rod stock and had this set made. One has to be very careful to keep the spindle centred in the tube on such a long set. This is easily achieved by making up a small insert that goes up inside the first drift. I hope it is not bad form here to insert a picture directly in a post. I feel it is important to explore the outer limits to what can be done with pyrotechnic rockets so we can work comfortably well within those margins. Anybody that waxes their tubes is able to explore new ideas never before thought possible with rockets. Suddenly, 'dialing in' fuel formulas to avoid catoes becomes basically a non-issue. Yeah, that's some pretty big talk. And it's true;) 1
VikingPyrotechnics Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) Yep it´s true ! Today i recieved my new little tool and i waxed some tubes for it. Lets see how much i can get out of this little rockets Thank you Dave for bringing up this great method ! Greets from Germany ps: can be done with out any fancy tooling.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3vSHaJlgUM Edited August 14, 2014 by VikingPyrotechnics
Bobosan Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Thanks Bobosan. I asked Steve to make the tooling before I discovered the waxing. He said it was a bad idea, wouldn't work, and he wouldn't waste my money making it. After he tried the tube waxing, I asked him again. He softened up and made it! Did you try out a rocket on the tooling before waxing? Results? Tooling looks very well done and ya, that is a mighty long spindle for sure!
DavidF Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 You know what Bobosan? I never did. I never really thought about it until you mentioned it. Now that I can get practically guaranteed results with anything I decide to do with a waxed rocket tube, I just do it. I am also respectful of the fact that rockets have been made for hundreds of years without waxing the tubes. I love wax for some strange reason and I have used it one way or another in my rockets for a while now. If someone asked me today to make a rocket that would be fired 20 years from now, I would use a waxed tube, wax in the fuel, and wax in the nozzle mix too. And be happy to live to see the result
TSO Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 There's no problem with nozzles blowing out in a waxed tube? It just seems that a nozzle might have problems getting a good bite on a tube that has a layer of wax between it and the tube.That being said, It sounds like a no brainer to try for a whistle rocket with a higher press pressure, or a nozzleless rocket with a hotter fuel for that matter.
a_bab Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 David, Would it be too difficult to press a nozzleless with the same spindle and "ACME" it? I would really like to see the chart.
DavidF Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) I have not had a problem with a nozzle blowing out yet. The wax must be hot enough to leave only a thin coating. 220-240 degrees Fahrenheit works well. And I use the dauber method, not the pouring method. I have never tried the pouring method but it seems to me to be more likely to give too thick or uneven a coating. I could be completely wrong. Too thick a coating is a PITA. I have made the coating too thick by failing to heat the wax enough. Lesson learned. TSO, I don't understand your suggestion. I have done a fair number of experiments. I have pressed hundreds of rockets in waxed tubes now, including nozzled and nozzleless BP, whistle, and strobe. Most of them, I fly. I've only put BP motors on the Acme. a_bab, here is an interesting chart for you to compare to run 52. http://fireworking.com/sites/default/files/u83/run%2046%2C%204%2B4hr%20balsa%20BP%20on%20long%20spindle%20no%20nozzle%20reduced.jpgThis one is hot balsa BP with no binder and no nozzle, granulated with alcohol. It is not the same as the sumac BP example above, but in my testing these 2 charcoals are quite close in performance. Edited August 15, 2014 by DavidF
TSO Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Now I'm confused??? No suggestion or inferences intended. I was just curious as to how well a nozzle stayed in place in a waxed tube. I was already sold on the idea for a nozzleless motor, be it whistle or another hot fuel.On an entirely different note..sumac charcoal? I never even thought to cook that for charcoal...nice to know there's an actually use for that junk wood. It's certainly cheaper than balsa wood.
Nessalco Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Now I'm confused??? No suggestion or inferences intended. I was just curious as to how well a nozzle stayed in place in a waxed tube. I was already sold on the idea for a nozzleless motor, be it whistle or another hot fuel.On an entirely different note..sumac charcoal? I never even thought to cook that for charcoal...nice to know there's an actually use for that junk wood. It's certainly cheaper than balsa wood.If you cook sumac in a TLUD cooker, beware. The smoke from local (staghorn) sumac is very irritating, and some species are toxic. But it cooks great, and makes some very, very hot charcoal. Kevin
DavidF Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 "That being said, It sounds like a no brainer to try for a whistle rocket with a higher press pressure, or a nozzleless rocket with a hotter fuel for that matter." Sed TSO. I didn't know what you meant by a whistle rocket with a higher pressure because I press my whistles at the same pressure. Also, it may seem hard to believe, but the nozzled BP rocket motor in Run 52 is some of the hottest BP I can make. So I was just trying to understand the question (if there was one) so I could answer it No worries. I have been praising staghorn sumac for some time now. I use a retort though (so far). So I ignite the smoke as it is being produced, as I do with other charcoals. Some people get irritated skin from handling the flowering tops, but I don't. The great thing for me about the sumac (besides being abundant and free) is the ease of skinning it. I run a sharp knife down the stick, and force my fingernails under the skin to peel the bark off in one piece. The wood does exude an annoying chicle-like sap from the freshly cut ends.
Nessalco Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Dave, I've made tea from the dried flower heads. Pretty refreshing, and no hint of yuck. When you are peeling sumac sticks, are they fresh or dried? I've only peeled and cooked one batch, and I peeled the sticks green. They were indeed sticky. I have no real need for charcoal that reactive, but as it's been said - it's free and abundant. I'll find a use Kevin
DavidF Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 I have made the tea as well. It is best on a dry year. It tastes almost like lemonade. I peel the sticks fresh. I have peeled 3" diameter pieces this way, but that size is pretty hard to find. Larger diameters are used for fancy woodwork because the rings are so striking. 2 years ago a local farmer mowed down a huge hill over-grown with sumac. Now I have a 'garden' of single stems that I cut with loppers to cooker length. I think one advantage to using the most reactive charcoals is that the milling time of BP (and the associated danger) can be reduced. Obviously this does not always apply- as in star primes or traditional BP rockets.
Recommended Posts