ok well we all know about the PRRT (pyro related random thread) where basically everyone addresses random questions and spouts off about their (mis)adventures in the pyro world. My idea is to start off this thread to intise the bright minds here and expand our current knowledge into more creative & better ways to make fireworks. And once these theorized firework ideas are tested to come back with results and get up documentation to spread the enjoyment (and noise).

Well for my first idea i plan to make an 8" shell that will have whistle mix stars (in or not in tubes) with neon blue and red stars and also containing 4 smaller 1 3/4" shells filled up with flash that go off slightly after the stars.

The second idea is what i mentioned B4 in my "classic" bomb thread but it didn't even get payed much attention to. but it will be tested very soon. http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum19/HTML/003710.html



The third idea is quite a simple (and common sense) improvement on the launched rocket idea except that you have a homae seemingly normal cardboard tube rocket, then there is a toilet paper roll attached to the top/midsection of your rocket via spring and string fit. (so when the rocket hits anything with the front the cylinder is pushed down. anmd containing a full payload of your favorite (with electric igniter) goodie inside a cylinder (or in a cob) inside of your toilet paper roll. with a tiny internal 9V battery hooked up in a classic flashlight switch. so that when the rocket hits and pushes the cylinder in the circuit is thus completed and your payload explodes on impact. (some cobs could also have their bottoms filled with bb's for a maximum effect) this rocket should obviously be fired out of a suitable tube with proper face and self pretection precautions. Obviously a C or D engine should be used. and a relatively loose spring that will not complete the circuit during flight.

Fire shell: basically you use some very flammable liquids gas/that green flame mixture containing boric acid (i forgot it

) I think a shell with a very weak break would be need as well as a brittle but somewhat sturdy case (paintballs is all i can think of for now) that wont break that easy. This one is very complex and require homework but i have a feeling its possible. Its "coolness" aspect would be cool as watching fireballs raindown would be a neat affect (but very very BAD if not tested well FOR OBVIOUS REASONS!!!)

- A rocket with a cake mounted below it that shoots a trail of bright stars so people can watch as they can track it though the night sky (D estes engine preferred)

- A blue or green ground fireball

- a ground fireball that shoots out a flame and glow in the dark stuff in glowsticks.

- A sort of large roman candle that delivers smaller firball charges up into the air in succession.

- after seeing some of those class C fireworks that shoot out the parachutes i think they should make one where the big rocket goes up then the payload breaks and the plastic army guys parachute down and then light flares (fircracker sized in their hands) by time they hit the ground.

-red white and blue smoke bombs in one smoke bomb.

- I've seen too many of those crappy plane fireworks that never go off id like one with a harrier design that has 2 to 3 small motors in it that is guided by and ordinary thin metal rod (the cardboard plane has a hole in the middle) and then hovers up (low powered propellent or around that) and shoots off stars out of its "guns" (like 6 stars in roman candle config) then a flash charge goes off and blows up the plane.

well thats it kinda for now, alot of these would be homemade as firework laws are to say the least "ghey" i'd like to hear lots of other ideas on improvements of fireworks or ideas that you think people could make this is all about creativity. And getting some real unique things.



[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-11-2003).]

You're just full of ideas, man....

the beauty of which will be captured on the good old camcorder and posted soon enough (makes me giddie as a school girl just thinkin bout it )

opp just got another idea why not a big shell that goes up but then has a VERY powerful sparkler/rocket composition so you get a spinning shell creating a pinwheel effect with sparks and then as it begins to lose momentum then it explodes to release either more pinwheel stars or jst plain stars. I think this one would be quitye pleasing to the eyes with only slight planning and calculations necessary.

I'm not sure this adresses the bright minds here, but ill tell your gonna have one fuck of a time making neon blue stars...

~H

with the 9 V battery only some brands work, the only one that i have found is duracell

quote:Originally posted by Halifax:

I'm not sure this adresses the bright minds here, but ill tell your gonna have one fuck of a time making neon blue stars...

~H

UN has a formula on their website and i figured since its UN it must work. though i could have misread "exactly" what the title was. BTW it was "double neon blue" the composition is as follows:

Potassium Perchlorate

63.8 %



Copper Carbonate

12.9 %

Parlon

13.8 %



Red Gum

9.5 %



Dextrin

4.3 %



However i think this composition would work better with copper chloride instead of copper carbonate for a blue star because i saw one CuCl star comp that was just fuckin BEAUTIFUL on the E&W forum, too bad i forgot where iot was and he didn't list the ratios for the chems . I guess ill just have to figure it out myself then....

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-11-2003).]

Yeah blue is a fuckin awsome color, but its among the hardest to make, even for the top makers and experts. Its not commonly seen really, i havent seen any in a long time, but its by far my favoite color in fireworks...

There is no dought it can be done but its just a lot more work and money...

~H

for another kind of firework you could use the waterfall fountian idea from UN except that it would release dark black (or white) smoke on top and the sparks shooting down. If lit off during twilight it will be a little thunder strom complete with flash charges in the middle of the smoke (clouds) and maybe use blue or red sparks or whatever for rain. If done correctly it wouldnt even be called pyro, it'll be called pure art...

- this is what im also leaning torwards with this thread, sure we can always just "blow" something up, but i'd much rather watch something unique done with pyro then just the same old crap.



[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-12-2003).]

jesus christ this is stupid i post a damn good thread with ideas and im double outposted by a newb talking about whats inside sparklers in his thread. sometimes i wonder why i even try .....

yeah... bad mood cause i dont have any flash...

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-12-2003).]

A double-effect waterfall, in theory, shouldn't be too awful hard to make. For the lightning in the smoke cloud, here are a few ideas:

Crackle balls

Stars, similar to crosettes, except the outer star comp. puts off as little light as possible, and the inner core is flash.

Simple - Ladyfingers or similar salutes.

Pure, unadulterated art. Once I get more knowledge and experience, I am SO going to try to make this one, along with instructions and a video of the completed effect. ^_^

get it on tape i love my ideas coming to life!

- ok as of late i (along with MANY others)have discovered a recent KEWL breakout in the BB forum due to the lack of mod presence... they are running amuck and drowning out good topics... a state of martial law has been declared... that is all

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-12-2003).]

Also id just like to say ive recently got some amazing performance with some 55% kno3/ 35% sugar/ 10% sulfur/ 1% iron propellant. (rocket went 150 feet b4 crashing into neighbors house) for the first second or two it was hovering creating a HELLA lots of badass noise then is just went FHOOSH and took to the sky (kinda sideways (tugs at collar)).

Ok this next idea was dicusssed in other thread and others shruged it off as an imposssibility and others simply stole my idea (warweed12) and didnt give me credit. But i think it is dueable. Ok what we're trying to do here is write in the sky with pyrotechnics yes you freaking heard me write in the sky. lets start with the basics though. 1. how to deliver this payload... well 2 ways i can think of are rocket delivery or shell delivery. So logic with this design would be rocket delievery. (and we're talking one big fucking rocket)

ok now the payload will be a rolled up banner with a composition that ignites easily and burns very fast and bright, (perhaps a kind of flash sticky match???).... (payload will make the nose bigger) so basically when the rocket reaches maximum altitude it ejects our banner (with some stars maybe) which is propelled by either 2 smaller rockets which are on a roller with a small and perfectly calculated lead weight. (the rockets timed to get off the banner when itis fully unrolled and when the banner is fully unrolled to ignite. the one thing i need to think of more is how to get it to face everyone which wont be too hard. but as you can see the bright burning composition would light up the sky enough for everyone to see it (in a vertical lettering of course) DOES this take planning and ingeniuty YES!!! Is it worth it?... yes

there ya go

(steal my concept and make money off with no due credit to creator and i will kill you.... hehehehe....)

this would be very expensive but think about how much ppl would pay to get HAPPY NEW YEAR written in the sky in red white in blue flashes in 3 different colors using 3 of my devices (ok maybe not blue.... )

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-12-2003).]

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-12-2003).]

Great Glavin you are a newb. You cant do any of that shit. Now this guy geschrey i hear about is one thousand folds better than you.

quote:Originally posted by PhTom:

Great Glavin you are a newb. You cant do any of that shit. Now this guy geschrey i hear about is one thousand folds better than you.

J00 wanna fight me bitch i will cut jo ass i know where you live... you come to the sears tower on SUNDAY 12:00 AM and we'll fight. I know you live there so lets go. you choose the weapons, you've been gettin on my nerves for along time.... you dead... you dead...

Glavin, your rocket sounded interesting but your 1% iron propellant was that iron oxide? (I presume so) Also, the reason it might have gone sideways might be how the fuel was mixed. Uneven mixtures might result in uneven burns. Beware of air pockets in the fuel too. Did you melt the fuel and pour it in, mix it whith alcohol or just pack it in the tube?

PHTom stfu, I've seen galvin post some pretty damn good shit that has helped alot of people out. And obviously I haven't seen shit from you so please...do us a favor...and go away.

quote:Originally posted by RabidGeneral:

PHTom stfu, I've seen galvin post some pretty damn good shit that has helped alot of people out. And obviously I haven't seen shit from you so please...do us a favor...and go away.

phtom was a friend who i personally know hence my rather kewlish internet reply. we both found it quite funny. o and thnx for the compliment

quote:Originally posted by themagmasher:

Glavin, your rocket sounded interesting but your 1% iron propellant was that iron oxide? (I presume so) Also, the reason it might have gone sideways might be how the fuel was mixed. Uneven mixtures might result in uneven burns. Beware of air pockets in the fuel too. Did you melt the fuel and pour it in, mix it whith alcohol or just pack it in the tube?

the fuel was dissolved in alchohol and allowed to dry for about 3 days. yes it was iron oxide sorry for any confusion. the reason it went sideways is cause it was at an angle to begin with, and the way i put it in the tube had a good impact on its flight. I actually just packed the fuel into the tube so there were TONS of airpockets lol. this explains why it exploded but it did so in favor of propulsion lol. This mixture will give you VERY hard granules of fuel that will have to be powdered for ultimate effect (rockets that dont propel themselves by exploding) This mix is also very hydroscopic.This fuel is a pretty damn intimidating rocket cause it sounds very badass comapred to crappy estes engine. for added effect add in 5 to 10% BP afterwards. I've just made about 20 grams more (prepared dry mixed) and have binded it with dextrin in the tube with 15% BP added in. There is also about 1% silicone II in this propellent from an experiment gone wrong... however the silicone II makes it burn ALOT longer then just straight mix. I think that adding about 2% silicone and finding a good way to mix it would make an interesting longer living smoke bomb, but its just a theory.

I've got a feeling of another great idea coming on... i should have it by tommorow... please keep this thread alive too guys, if i see one more common sense thread ill shoot myself thru the head with .30-06 round fired from a thompson center contender...

another idea

ignitionless m-80's, yup you heard me. Dangerously unstable components, no...

ok the wonderful thing that makes this possible is "negative X"

http://www.unitednuclear.com/negx.htm

now you put this above the flash which has a sealed side (by the endplug) with a fuse of 1cm or less. then you add a layer of negative X and tape it off or whatever. find a bucket or water toss it in and watch the water fly. Hell of alot better then using a lighter and has the throwing effect to it all. Use very quickly after manufacture! Ok so its not totally ignitionless, but i dont think most ppl would think of setting off an m-80 with water...

another idea, i wonder if i'd be possible to create foam barrier in shells to create a resilent enough layer to use flashpowder as the break charge with no, or alot less ricehulls. this would give even the lamest red shell a HOLY SHIT THAT WAS LOUD touch... there would be holes drilled in the foam filled with BP. This ones so good im gonna try to test this one personally... A problem is how flashpowders power gets much greater in proportion with amount. perhaps setting the flash off in a specific direction to break the shell at a certain point where there are no stars. The problem is that Flash powder doesnt act like BP would in this case, but it has to affect it AT LEAST A BIT!!! lol.

Another idea (idk even know how i got this one) ok a shell with stars and some powerful compact fountains on very loose sliding-like pointers (the metal ones that extend when ya want to point to something) with lift chrages behind each cardboard tube filled 1/4 of the way with rocket fuel with a fast buring composition thin core surrounded with high bright output fountain composition. when the shell detonates the stars are released and the rockets light off quickly and all the sliders extend, if timed perfectly you get a circular star effect spread effect with an X or + in the center and even for an added effect having the sparklers shooting out stars up in the air seemingly out of thin air roman candle style. this would blow peoples minds... or any other shape you want if correct physics and planning are applied.

I seriously dont know why i havent bothered getting a job in fireworks... oh thats right im only 16 .

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-13-2003).]

Fuse ideas:

BP binded with dextrin in a line. grab a cotton ball and stretch it out as far and thinly as possible then start rolling the cotton using the BP as the center (untested)

use paper mache and premixed dextrin/BP with NO WATER ADDED YET. then grab wetish/dampish paper mache and mix quite evenly with BP in perhaps a 1:1 or 2:1 or 3:1 ratio (ajust for burn rate obviously). mix well and this should make pretty easy, stiff, and dependable homemade fuse. (will experiment soon)

Another idea: create a disco ball firework. start guling paper tubes around a shell ball and create a shperical cake. fill some tubes with foutain mix, some with crackling stars, and some with more stars or even some naptha/gas/cremora FIREBALLS. arrange it so that when the cake is done it will simply blow up (by putting flash inthe center prior to fusing. mount it with wire up really high.

Another idea: this is more common sense fun but what the hell. Ok good old RC cars, get some and rig them up with alot of the stuff on the disco ball. (including the fireballs filled with gas and alot of fountains and some smokebombs) and finally a 20-50 gram flashcharge with a delayed fuse (use a bobcat or even cigarette) and duke it out lol.

Ap cap idea: pop off the pop off side of a AA battery and drill out the top and empty ALL the stuff out of the battery and wash with baking soda solution (after all there is some acid in there) then add the AP in and seal with epoxy. Alot more powerful then a pencap but no as dangerous or stupid as a putting it in a cob this could also be used as an improvised cob when working with bad powder. There are alot of dangers here though...

This one is pretty stupid but is more comedy then anything else. ok get some dog shit (no this isnt a KEWL recipe to make 1337 BOMBZ lol) put it in a plasitc bag. let it sit outside or until you get 10 or so flies, lotsa flies) then get the shit out of the bag without letting the flies out. then put the bag full of flies sealed in the fridge for about 30 mins (not freezer). this will knock them out. then very quickly glue them to a T of balsa wood or paper, also glue your flash cracker to the wood to (make sure its relatively small). then put back in the fridge until glue is pretty dry. and take it all out. after awhile all the flies will wake and will want to fly away so they will actually make a plane out of the wood and IT WILL FLY!!! (seen it meself) then when your done laughing at it end it all by lighting the firecracker. yeah i know i know stupid and you'd have to be pretty bored/demented to do this. but i still think its funny, at least on a day with nothin to do...

TO make up for the stupid idea above: extending fountain. using metal or wood sliders which are slightly rocket propelled you can create a 6 or even 7 stage sparkler. the thing is to get a bunch of card board rings that fit inside one another and attach tubes with sparkler composition to the sides of these. it will extend up a layer after each compositon has finshed burning and will be made so the joints lock when the sparkler level slides up. when done at night it will appear as if the sparkler is getting narrower and narrow within itself and allows for multiple compsotions to be used. or all at once to get a 7 color layer sparkler with even a cake center. if you still dont get what im saying think of a multi-layered wedding cake, this is what it will look like fully deployed. add roman candles or crackling balls on the side for added effect or even mount it on a wire and add other engines to make it a spinner and fountain!

ALL of my ideas mentioned here are in fact mine, ive thought them all up on my own. if any have already been done almost exactly please inform me so i dont go claiming the idea is soley mine.

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-13-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by great glavin:

Also id just like to say ive recently got some amazing performance with some 55% kno3/ 35% sugar/ 10% sulfur/ 1% iron propellant. (rocket went 150 feet b4 crashing into neighbors house) for the first second or two it was hovering creating a HELLA lots of badass noise then is just went FHOOSH and took to the sky (kinda sideways (tugs at collar)).

Ok this next idea was dicusssed in other thread and others shruged it off as an imposssibility and others simply stole my idea (warweed12) and didnt give me credit. But i think it is dueable. Ok what we're trying to do here is write in the sky with pyrotechnics yes you freaking heard me write in the sky. lets start with the basics though. 1. how to deliver this payload... well 2 ways i can think of are rocket delivery or shell delivery. So logic with this design would be rocket delievery. (and we're talking one big fucking rocket)

ok now the payload will be a rolled up banner with a composition that ignites easily and burns very fast and bright, (perhaps a kind of flash sticky match???).... (payload will make the nose bigger) so basically when the rocket reaches maximum altitude it ejects our banner (with some stars maybe) which is propelled by either 2 smaller rockets which are on a roller with a small and perfectly calculated lead weight. (the rockets timed to get off the banner when itis fully unrolled and when the banner is fully unrolled to ignite. the one thing i need to think of more is how to get it to face everyone which wont be too hard. but as you can see the bright burning composition would light up the sky enough for everyone to see it (in a vertical lettering of course) DOES this take planning and ingeniuty YES!!! Is it worth it?... yes

there ya go

(steal my concept and make money off with no due credit to creator and i will kill you.... hehehehe....)

this would be very expensive but think about how much ppl would pay to get HAPPY NEW YEAR written in the sky in red white in blue flashes in 3 different colors using 3 of my devices (ok maybe not blue.... )

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-12-2003).]

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-12-2003).]

Very intresting that sounds quite the challenge..... I think you could wrap it around a shell so when it explodes it lites the letters (flash or whatever you make them out of) then you have 4 weights one for each corner that makes it fall with the letters facing downwards so you just look straight up well it is getting closer and closer to you. Then when it is about 20 feet away in the sky a D rocket is at the end of the letters(say it was an L it would be at the bottom right with a 3inch delay of sparkler powder) The rocket then sends it shooting away and never to be seen again.

Is the reason that it is harder to make good blue stars.etc the same as the reason that it is hard to make blue LED's and the like, because blue is the light with the highest frequency/highest energy? just curious.

quote:Originally posted by It burns:

Is the reason that it is harder to make good blue stars.etc the same as the reason that it is hard to make blue LED's and the like, because blue is the light with the highest frequency/highest energy? just curious.

yeah i think it is, thats why the sky is blue hehe thank god someone anwsered this thread i thought i'd fall to the N00b's. more ideas very soon...

quote:Originally posted by warren1:

Very intresting that sounds quite the challenge..... I think you could wrap it around a shell so when it explodes it lites the letters (flash or whatever you make them out of) then you have 4 weights one for each corner that makes it fall with the letters facing downwards so you just look straight up well it is getting closer and closer to you. Then when it is about 20 feet away in the sky a D rocket is at the end of the letters(say it was an L it would be at the bottom right with a 3inch delay of sparkler powder) The rocket then sends it shooting away and never to be seen again.

ooo that sounds good, thanks for the reply and idea.

Those letters would end up being crooked like H PP

A Y

or somthing like that due to the weight of the composition, you would have to use the exact same amount for each letter... I think.

hmm i wonder how much better 1000 mesh magnalium would be then 600 mesh german dark in salutes. Or if id be a good idea to mix some p. pechlorate with AP to create a more powerful or larger explosion.

-yeah i decided to bring this thread out of the dust because barely anybody saw it b4 it was rubbed out.-

and i decided to put in my old 2 cents in on the random thread escapade

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 08-18-2003).]

hey great glavin the AA idea works better with AAA's as i have done this with MF caps that I made very nice. I still like to use cheap Bic pens th because I can get 20 pens for 2 bucks and make 40 caps out of them and if I want I can use HMTD or AP or MF or any primary I want.

It won't really be worth the extra cost and danger (Mg is more reactive and thus hazardous) to use 1000 mesh Mg over 600 mesh Al.

i meant magnalium (a 50/50 alloy of aluminum and magnesium in flash) instead of the classic 600 mesh german dark Al. i suggest this because 1000 mesh magnalium would be ridiculously easy to obtain in a good ball mill.

If you are planning on making your own magnalium, good luck. It is very hard, I've tried it my self. Everything seems to be going fine when you have the aluminum in, but as soon as you add the magnesium, it starts going off. You have to make sure you have a lid that doesn't leak air, and to have good temperature control. There is a fine line between when magnalium melts, and when it ignites, so finding that inbetween area is hard. When I tried pouring mine out, it ignited and I got almost no yeild, although it did produce one hell of a show. The little that I did get was indeed very brittle so that was good, but not really worth all the materials I put in. Maybe you can have better luck. It did work in a salute and I could tell that the flash is much brighter than aluminum, but because the mesh wasn't as high it wasn't quite as powerful.

good ideas glavin! and here is some links about stars http://huizen.dds.nl/~wfvisser/compoDB.html#chapter3

http://66.127.232.42/discus/messages/14/433.html?1061163825

and now the some questions: is not NanO3 the same thing as KN03?

and i going to make as simple stars tomorrow is there anything special i should think about?

quote:Originally posted by great glavin:

another idea



another idea, i wonder if i'd be possible to create foam barrier in shells to create a resilent enough layer to use flashpowder as the break charge with no, or alot less ricehulls. this would give even the lamest red shell a HOLY SHIT THAT WAS LOUD touch... there would be holes drilled in the foam filled with BP. This ones so good im gonna try to test this one personally... A problem is how flashpowders power gets much greater in proportion with amount. perhaps setting the flash off in a specific direction to break the shell at a certain point where there are no stars. The problem is that Flash powder doesnt act like BP would in this case, but it has to affect it AT LEAST A BIT!!! lol.

Another idea (idk even know how i got this one) ok a shell with stars and some powerful compact fountains on very loose sliding-like pointers (the metal ones that extend when ya want to point to something) with lift chrages behind each cardboard tube filled 1/4 of the way with rocket fuel with a fast buring composition thin core surrounded with high bright output fountain composition. when the shell detonates the stars are released and the rockets light off quickly and all the sliders extend, if timed perfectly you get a circular star effect spread effect with an X or + in the center and even for an added effect having the sparklers shooting out stars up in the air seemingly out of thin air roman candle style. this would blow peoples minds... or any other shape you want if correct physics and planning are applied.

I seriously dont know why i havent bothered getting a job in fireworks... oh thats right im only 16 .

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-13-2003).]



I was reading through this thread, and quite a lot of things you mentioned are already in use in pyrotechnics.

David Bleser's book entitled "Round Stars & Shells" states:

"The flash powder burst shown above is somewhat more energetic thane the whistle composition. It can be used in the same way as whistle composition system described above.

Some shell builders place the flash in a tiny bag attached to the end of the time fuse.

The remaining space is filled with meal coated rice hulls....

Coating rice hulls with flash powder has been tried and will work well for quite small shells, but often it produces too hard a burst in shells 5-inches or larger.

As usual, it will take some experimentation to find the correct quantity of flash appropriate for the shell size and type you are using."

excerpt from "Traditional Cylindrical Shell building Part II" from Pyrotechnica XI:

"One method among many alternatives to black powder as a burst charge seems to have been widely adopted by manufacturers- the so-called "flash bag" burst....

The flash powder is contained in a small paper tube or bag tied to the shell fuse....

the shell casing is then filled with stars, put in random around the flash bag.

The case should be patted or its contents tamped to settle them in the most compact configuration.

A little rough powder(granulated BP or granulated BP-based star mix) may be sprinkled in to fill the interstices.

The use of flash bags appears to have originated as a method of procuring an especially hard and symmetrical burst with special, easily-ignitable stars."

Quoted from Table 19 in Pyrotechnica XI:

Table 19: Charges for flash bags.

Shell size/Amount of flash

3" : 1/8 oz.

4" : 1/4 oz.

5" : 3/8 oz.

6" : 1/2 oz.

If you're familiar at all with shell construction, you'll already know that a Warimono(Crysanthemum) shell uses the strong break that flash gives to propel long charcoal-based stars in willows and tiger-tails.

If you were to use flash, I would start out with BP-based stars before trying to use perchlorate-based stars, because you will most likely run into a 'blowout' problem where the stars are traveling at too high a velocity and they will be extinguished.

About the fountains and the rockets, and from what I understand about your explanation, most of what you proposed has already been done, or would not produce the desired effects.

Go-Getters are essentially a magnesium-based star mixture pressed into tubes that act similar to flying fish fuse, igniting and wiggling in random directions with a bright colored light.

With the fountains idea, the fountains would be blown away from the shell if you used any type of burst charge to propel the stars.

I don't know if you've seen shell fragments from even weak-bursting Poka shells, but there aren't any large fragments left that would support fountains.

I have a distorted idea about what you wanted to do with the fountains, so correct me if I'm wrong.

My suggestion would be to make a 4-pointed lance piece and place it in the shell, if you wanted an X in the sky..

The fuse idea you proposed is already in use for making homemade quickmatch/blackmatch, using 100g BP/10g dextrin made into a slurry and special cotton drawn through and dried.

I have a 12.5 oz roll of special cotton line used for making blackmatch I picked up from the PGI convention for 7 dollars.

About the extending fountain, I remember seeing a lot of 1.4G consumer fireworks made with the same idea in mind.

I remember a paper pagoda that spinned and threw off sparks while popping up to show 5 layers fully extended.

It burns: You got it exactly right.

People have a hard time producing blue stars because it has to burn at a (relatively speaking) low temperature to produce blue light.

If a metal powder is used(magnesium, aluminum, etc) the blue color is drowned out by the white.

Copper is the colorant for blue stars, and it's even harder to find a great blue star formula without Paris Green in it (copper acetoarsenite)

Chlorine donors are used in star formulas to create a deeper hue of color.

From what I understand, Cl- ions combine with different metals to create the salts that provide color (NaCl, SrCl, CuCl2, etc)

Common chlorine donors include PVC(yep, polyvinylchloride), Parlon, dechlorane, and many others.

Taking out my book "Fireworks: the art, science, and technique", it has a whole section dealing with parachutes and banners.

Shimizu's picture uses a sandbag weight on a string to open the flag/banner, using small weights sewn into the bottom of the flag/banner to fully open it.

I have no idea how you would make a banner with burning composition that would be lightweight enough to be propelled into the sky with a rocket, able to extend to fill a space in the sky for readable text, and burn without literally burning the canvas apart.

It's hard enough to spell things with lances on the GROUND.

Hate to burst your bubble, but shellmakers/rocketeers have a hard enough time as it is to make RING shells burst in the right configuration in the sky; the velocity of the shell coming out of the tube spins the shell, making the ring break at different angles relative to the crowd.

Even rockets would be hard to control to break perfectly in a letter shape.

Some master shellmakers at the PGI were able to create red heart-shaped breaks and modified ring shells to form happy/sad faces according to the music, but the quality was hard to get consistent..

quote:Originally posted by troy:

good ideas glavin! and here is some links about stars http://huizen.dds.nl/~wfvisser/compoDB.html#chapter3

http://66.127.232.42/discus/messages/14/433.html?1061163825

and now the some questions: is not NanO3 the same thing as KN03?

and i going to make as simple stars tomorrow is there anything special i should think about?



NaNO3 is sodium nitrate, a hygroscopic chemical used to create an intense yellow light.

I'm not sure about substituting it for KNO3, potassium nitrate.

If you're making simple stars, I'm assuming you're making cut stars. You should read up on cut star construction before attempting to create them, otherwise you'll either end up with a crumbly mess or a messy paste that never dries.

I suggest getting literature/videos on cut/rolled star making, or the advice of somebody familiar with the aspects of starmaking.

quote:Originally posted by great glavin:

UN has a formula on their website and i figured since its UN it must work. though i could have misread "exactly" what the title was. BTW it was "double neon blue" the composition is as follows:

Potassium Perchlorate

63.8 %



Copper Carbonate

12.9 %

Parlon

13.8 %



Red Gum

9.5 %



Dextrin

4.3 %



However i think this composition would work better with copper chloride instead of copper carbonate for a blue star because i saw one CuCl star comp that was just fuckin BEAUTIFUL on the E&W forum, too bad i forgot where iot was and he didn't list the ratios for the chems . I guess ill just have to figure it out myself then....

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 07-11-2003).]



And about the star formulas listed at UN, I want to stress something: "don't believe everything you read".

A lot of sources of information are used and reused without personal experience. (remember how everyone thought banana peels could get you high? it all started as a joke).

I only used that as a poor example, but it goes with what I'm saying.

If enough people keep quoting the same untested thing, then people start believing it works and suggest it to people.

I'm not saying that the blue star formula is totally wrong, but a LOT more goes into mixing, priming, and creating those stars than just a formula.

I used to believe all the star formulas listed in KP's archives were correct, but a lot of them are untested and yield poor colors/are dangerous to manufacture.

Now if you're serious about making stars, you might as well use a star composition tested by people searching for the deepest blue, instead of using requoted formulas.

This was (stolen) from Skylighter.com's archives:



"I REALLY BLUE IT THIS TIME!

By Mark Wilbur



We surely had a great Spring Shoot! Many thanks go to the Fuller family for their hospitality and the many hard working officers and others who put the whole event together for all to enjoy. I wasn’t able to spend more time than on Saturday, but it was quite a full weekend.



Thanks go to Lin, Carl and Jim for the help with the canister shell seminar. It went off well and I heard only compliments and gratitude from the participants. I had a lot of fun doing the seminar. I hope we can do it again soon because there was great interest in shell building. We enjoyed shooting the shells that evening.



My evening shooting included seven blue star compositions for the blue star competition. I was quite surprised and greatly pleased to win 1st place with a blue star shell I shot. Thanks go to Harry for putting up the prizes. All the blues looked pretty much the same to me, with the exception of Veline's Magnalium Blue. It was a brighter star, but it looked washed out compared to the other blues. In my pursuit for a deep blue star I searched the pyro literature for the many published formulae and wrote the formulae down side by side for comparison. I grouped them by oxidizer first and by coloring agent second. The many formulae were relatively close in ingredients and percentages. I narrowed the selection to two potassium chlorate (KClO3) mixes, five potassium perchlorate (KClO4) mixes, and two ammonium perchlorate (AP) mixes. I wasn’t able to make the AP mixes in time, so I still have that on my list of “Try These” formulae. The blues I tried used copper oxide, copper carbonate, or copper oxychloride as the coloring agents.



Some of the published formulae used copper metal, but I decided against trying them. It seemed that the KClO4 mixes produced the deepest blue. It was one of them these that won 1st place in the competition. All of my KClO4 mixtures outscored my KClO3 mixes. All of the stars were cut stars. I primed the KClO4 mixes first with Bleser's #22 Igniter and second with ball-milled pulverone prime. The KClO3 mixes were lightly primed with ball-milled pulverone prime. Ignition of each star mix seemed very good with these preparations. Priming of AP stars is more involved, and that helped to postpone making these star compositions.



I enjoyed exploring and experimenting with these mixes. I find the chemistry of this hobby deeply fascinating. In my pyro reading I learned that the copper chloride (CuCl) molecular species is most desired in the flame envelope to emit the deep blue spectra. In order to achieve this, a good chlorine donor is needed. I have been using dechlorane with good success. Blue must also keep a lower flame temperature than other colors. So a hot fuel like magnalium is not preferred. Some other factors peculiar to blue stars figured in my choices for mixes. As promised I will share the winning blue star formula. It consists of KClO4 65%, red gum 7%, copper oxide 14%, parlon 5%, dechlorane 4%, and dextrin 5%. The mix was moistened with water/alcohol 75/25% and cut into stars that should have been put in a six inch shell instead of a four inch shell, since they burned all of the way to the ground. (It was a neat effect. It sort of looked like an airport taxiway with all the blue lights on the ground. Maybe a few white strobe pots could help land some planes.) I suspect that 3/8 inch cut stars are large enough for a four-inch shell. The KClO4 stars were easy to light with the two-step prime and did not seem to burn fiercely. A satisfyingly deep blue star was achieved.



I anticipate launching these stars from six-pound rockets now that I also have worked out a strong fuel formula. It was such a rush to watch these monster rockets lift toward the sky. I am so excited to be part of this Guild because folks have shared their knowledge with me–knowledge of success and failure. A year ago I couldn’t imagine building such large rockets, and now I enjoy shooting lumberyards into the sky! I am glad to give a portion to others as I have been given. I enjoy watching the growth of other pyros in our great Guild. Let's gather in Geneva soon and fire some wheels!"

In conclusion, mention must be made of ammonium perchlorate. NH4ClO4 is unique among oxidizers in that it combusts to produce HCl gas, and is superior as a chlorine donor in this respect. Most of today’s “award winning” color compositions are made with ammonium perchlorate.



In the following table, percentages of chlorine are given from either the calculated maximum by molecular weight or from the manufacturer’s own data when the molecular structure is irregular (such as Parlon).



Ammonium chloride

66



Chlorowax

30-70



Dechlorane

78



HCB

75



HCE

90



Lead chloride

25



Lindane

73



Mercurous chloride

15



Parlon

64-68



PVC

57



PVDC (Saran)

73

The Blues, Part 3

A couple of years ago, I helped instigate a blue-star color contest at one of the Florida Pyrotechnic Arts Guild's spring shoots. The judges were looking for the color that most closely approximated a blue we described as "cop light blue." That is, a blue deep enough to be a good blue color, yet bright enough to be visible from normal viewing distances. The results of that contest as well as other blue-related information are described in a single issue of the Florida club's newsletter, The First Fire, entirely devoted to the topic of "Blue." We are reproducing the articles that appeared in that issue a series of these Bulletins with some small editing on my part. I hope you will find them useful in trying to create this elusive color. Thanks to FPAG, Lin Collins, Mark Wilbur, Rich Ogden, Lee Partin and the authors for the use of this excellent material. Here is the final, Part 3, of the series.

-Harry Gilliam



"ee-roh ah-OH-ee"

Japanese for the Color Blue



In the endless pursuit for the very best blue color available, we consumed a large quantity of time and chemicals. I have seen what I perceived to be very good blue color stars. But trying to make them is not easy. I will share the results with you. In addition, if you came to the spring shoot you may have seen these nice colors. After hearing a great deal about Paris Green as a blue colorant, we decided to test this opinion.



#1,2 Davis Page 85

Potassium chlorate 48

Barium nitrate 16

Paris green 18

Shellac 10

Dextrin 3



#3 Weingart

Potassium chlorate 50

Paris green 25

Stearin (or stearic acid) 8

Dextrin 5



#4 Lancaster Page 92

Potassium chlorate 70

Paris green 20

Shellac. 10

Alcohol only



#5 Paris Green and Copper Blue

Potassium chlorate 50

Paris green 30

Cupric chloride 10

Shellac 10

Dextrin 5



#6 Box Star

Potassium chlorate 4

Barium nitrate 4

Barium chlorate 8

Paris green 5

Stearin 1

Shellac 1

Dextrin 1



#7 Allen Page 11

Potassium chlorate 24

Paris green 16

Red gum 16

Dextrin 3



# 8 Allen

Potassium chlorate 24

Paris green 16

Red gum 16

Dextrin 3



#9 Greg Dixon (Call Greg)

Potassium chlorate ?

Copper oxychloride ?

Parlon ?

Red gum ?

Dextrin ?



#10 Paris Green Blue

Potassium chlorate 68

Paris green 22

Shellac. 6

Dextrin 4



#11 AP Blue

Ammonium perchlorate 82

Copper benzoate 18



Results:

#1 Light blue, medium bum speed, slight residue.

#2 Was Weingart's pg. 132, same as #1.

#3 Would not light, think the stearin is too high.

#4 Very nice blue, fast bum, no residue.

#5 Nice blue, red at flame edge, light carbon residue.

#6 Very nice turquoise, medium speed parlon residue.

#7 Red flame no good, heavy carbon residue.

#8 Same as above.

#9 Nice blue, medium speed, light residue, parlon?

#10 Very nice blue clean burning.

# 11 Very good blue, medium speed. Clean burning.



Note: #6 burned too hot and went into green but it could be cooled down with lactose.



Keep in mind if you choose to use these chemicals; work in small quantities; start with 10 gram batches; always wear a respirator and gloves; keep all tools clean; and never add finely divided aluminum to chlorate. Copper Acetoarsenite (Paris Green) was used in [all?] of the tests. It does contain Arsenic. Also you must see two blues together to judge the best color. Side by side, there is no better blue than Paris Green in my opinion.





Doc Barr's Blue Rocket



Doc posted a recent message to the PML concerning a good blue rocket formula:



Copper Gluconate 40

Potassium Perchlorate 55

Parlon 5



Doc s quoted source: Craig Villenueva (sp?)





PYROESOTERICA

“Rhapsody in Blue”

Observations of Some Published Blue Formulae



Producing a viable blue star with good depth of color has always been challenging for the fireworker and many formulae have been published over the years. To compare the relative effectiveness of some of these recipes (as well as a few unpublished ones), 16 different, 500-gram samples were worked up and tested at recent FPAG shoots. Data from these experiments along with subjective comments and source information follow herein, but the reader is asked to bear in mind that the focus was on producing stars for aerial shell use only and consequently some of the mixtures regarded here as failures might still find useful application in other firework articles.



B1

Potassium perchlorate 55

Black copper oxide 15

Parlon 15

Red gum 9

Magnalium 50/50, 200 mesh 6

Dextrin +4



From R. Veline in J. Baechle s “Pyrocolor Harmony.” Good ignition, a whitish, “washed out” blue characteristic of most metal fuel blues. Useable, but clearly inferior in saturation to other formulae.



B2

Potassium perchlorate 60.8

Parlon 13.0

Copper carbonate 12.0

Red gum 9.0

Dextrin 4.8



“Morning Glory Blue”, from R. Pimentel in J. Finckbone s “Green Notes”, Vol. 1, Issue #3



Good ignition, another Perchlorate-based composition with better color than B1. Probably cheaper also. Useable.



B3

A “sugar” blue containing potassium chlorate, copper oxychloride, and lactose, plus some small amounts of chlorine-donor, resin fuel, and dextrin. This proprietary formula was given to the author with the request that it remain unpublished so exact component percentages cannot be listed here. Readers can nevertheless glean enough information from the description for design evaluation.



Good ignition. A chlorate composition using the classic low-temperature carbohydrate fuel system. Superior in color saturation to both B1 and B2 and one of the three-best tested non-ammonium perchlorate compositions.



B4

Potassium perchlorate 67

Copper oxychloride 12

Stearin 12

Chlorowax 5

Dextrin 4



“Cyan Blue” From J. Baechle's “Pyrocolor Harmony”. Poor ignition. Color saturation was mediocre at best. A substandard formula.



B5

Potassium chlorate 64

Copper oxychloride 18

Stearin 8

HCB (hexachlorobenzene) 6

Dextrin 4



From A. Anzalone and modified by J. Finckbone in “Green Notes” Vol. 1, Issue #2. Good ignition. A chlorate-based comp. Taking advantage of HCB's higher fuel value and superior flame deoxidizing capacity. Color saturation was as good as B3...perhaps slightly better. One of three-best tested non-ammonium perchlorate compositions. Substitution of the now difficult-to-obtain HCB is possible but should be carefully done in order to avoid adversely affecting ignition and burn rate.



B6

A chlorate-based blue containing black copper oxide, Parlon, red gum, and dextrin. Another proprietary formula “on loan” to the author that must remain unpublished. Good ignition. Somewhat brighter than the other non-metal blues. Color saturation was acceptable, but inferior to either B3 or B5.



B7

Potassium chlorate 68

Copper oxychloride 12

HCB 10

Rosin 6

Dextrin 4



A blue candle star modified by J. Baechle in the old “American Pyrotechnist” publication. Originally from Lancaster. Good ignition. This chlorate composition equaled or surpassed both B3 and B5 in color saturation and may have been the best non-ammonium perchlorate formula tested. Again, HCB can possibly be substituted for with a watchful eye toward ignition and burn rate.



B8

Potassium chlorate 60.0

Copper carbonate 13.0

Lactose 17.5

HCB 5.0

Stearin 0.5

Dextrin 4.0



Another “sugar” blue. This one from Dave Mayotte in PGI bulletin #47. Good ignition; color saturation from this chlorate/carbonate/carbohydrate mix was almost identical to B1 although it contained no metal fuels. An inferior color formula.



B9

Potassium perchlorate 66.1

Black copper oxide 13.4

Parlon 10.7

Red Gum 9.8

Dextrin 5.0



T. Shimizu s B48 from Pyrotechnica #6. (With dextrin substituted for rice starch.) Good ignition. A perchlorate composition with a long burn time in relation to other blues tested. Color saturation was inferior and deemed unacceptable.



B10

Potassium perchlorate 38

Ammonium perchlorate 29

Copper carbonate 14

Red gum 14

Dextrin 5



From “Chemistry of the Elements” and reprinted in D. Haarmann's “Pyrotechnic Formulary” and the Aug. 1993 1st Fire. Good ignition. This potassium-perchlorate augmented ammonium perchlorate composition was in the minority of tested AP formulae in regards to ignition. Color saturation was very good and bum rate was acceptable. A good formula.



B11

Ammonium perchlorate 48

Hexamine 14

Copper oxychloride 12

Copper sulfate 6

Dextrin 6

Gum arabic 1



“Winokur Blue” from R. Winokur in APFN pg. 506 and reprinted in D. Haarmann's “Pyrotechnic Formulary.” Poor ignition. This ammonium perchlorate-only/hexamine composition was unique among tested AP formulae in that its color saturation was poor. Bad ignition and bad color make this composition fairly useless.



B12

Ammonium perchlorate 74.2

Copper dust 11.1

Stearin 11.1

Chlorowax 3.7

Dextrin +5.0



H. Ellern's “Ashless Blue” #79 reprinted in Haarmann's “Pyrotechnic Formulary” and modified by the author by substituting chlorowax for paraffin and adding dextrin. Good ignition and bum rate. This ammonium perchlorate-only composition was also the only formula tested using elemental copper. Color saturation was good.



B13

Potassium perchlorate 40

Ammonium perchlorate 30

Copper carbonate 14

Red gum 7

Hexamine 6

Dextrin 4



From J. Baechle's “Pyrocolor Harmony” pg. 31. Poor ignition. This ammonium perchlorate-potassium perchlorate combination yielded good color saturation and OK burn rate, but its inability to take fire with standard priming techniques makes it an unacceptable choice.



B14

Ammonium perchlorate 68

Hexamine 17

Copper carbonate 11

Dextrin 4



From D. Bleser's “Round Stars and Shells.” Poor ignition. Again, a formula with good color and OK burn rate that was unable to take fire from normal priming. An impractical formula.



B15

Ammonium perchlorate 40.0

Potassium perchlorate) 20.0

Copper oxychloride 16.0

Red gum 8.0

Potassium benzoate 6.0

Hexamine 5.0

Parlon 2.5

Saran 2.5

Dextrin +4.0



From S. Majdali in the Aug. 1993 1st Fire. Poor ignition. This complicated mix generated ammonia gas upon dampening but did not heat up. Burn rate was OK and color saturation was very good but as with most other AP formulae its inability to take fire from ordinary priming renders it impractical.



B16

Ammonium perchlorate) 82

Copper benzoate 18

Dextrin +5



D. Bleser's blue from AFN #64, Jan. 1987 modified with dextrin binder. Good ignition. A simple, but effective, composition employing a single entity fuel/color donor. Color saturation was very good, as was burn rate. One of only three useable ammonium perchlorate compositions tested, its primary disadvantage may be the limited availability of copper(II) benzoate.



Since the goal of the experiment was to gain ground in the search for a better, practical blue star, all compositions were dampened with water, cut, and tumbled in prime. No special solvents or multistage priming techniques were employed. All potassium chlorate and potassium perchlorate were formed into 1/2" cubes and primed with mealed polverone while ammonium perchlorate compositions were formed into 3/8” cubes and primed with a potassium perchlorate-based meal to avoid chemical incompatibilities with the dampened ammonium salt. Copper acetoarsenite (Paris Green) was omitted from testing due to its cost and limited availability.



When designing or selecting a blue formula, careful consideration should be given to flame temperature and fuel/oxidizer primary systems. It is well known that reds, greens, and yellows benefit in both brilliance and saturation from hotter flames since SrCl(g), BaCl(g), and ionic Na (the respective spectral emitters) are stable at metal-fueled temperatures (while most of the interfering ions are not!). CuCl(g), however, the preferred ionic blue emitter, is destroyed by such high temperatures and the flame is whitened.



Saturation is always sacrificed for brilliance and vice-versa when creating the pyrotechnic blue flame. Choosing a cooler burning fuel/oxidizer primary system will generally yield better color saturation, all other factors being equal. Below is a list of the most commonly used fuels and their relative temperature groupings:



COOLEST

Sulfur

Stearin

Charcoal

Gilsonite

All carbohydrates (i.e. lactose, sucrose)



HOTTER

Hexamine

All organic gums (i.e. red gum, rosin colophony, shellac, vinsol)



HOTTEST

The metals (i.e. magnesium, aluminum, magnalium, titanium, antimony, antimony salts)



The primary system must not be cooled (slowed) so far that the burn rate becomes inadequate, however.



These tests also showed that hexamine, while enlarging flame size with no apparent spectral interference, clearly inhibited ignition in ammonium perchlorate compositions. Of seven such formulae tested, all four containing hexamine exhibited very poor ignition while the three without it ignited well. No tests using hexamine with potassium chlorate or potassium perchlorate compositions were done, but future experiments are planned.



Only distilled water was used during this experiment, as should be the case with all aqueous processing systems. This avoids potential pH problems and undesirable ionic contamination. Copper and copper salts are prone to strange reactions in the wet state, and these reactions may be accelerated in the presence of metal fuels and extreme pH. It must be remembered that copper, a component in many batteries, is multi-valent and capable of electrolytic reactions. Lancaster opined in the early 1970 s that copper salts should never be dampened in the presence of metal fuels. Experimental results and a recent accident with such a mix support this position. The author feels that metal fuels have no place in blue illumination formulae since they invariably degrade color saturation while increasing the rise of composition heat-up and premature ignition. An exception might be where thrust is desired (as in the case of go-getters) but in this situation, a waterless system of organic solvents is used. Even here, however, unpleasant reactions have occurred and caution is advised.



One possible avenue of experimentation toward improving the safety of aqueous system blue compositions might be to choose copper salts with the lowest relative solubility. The author knows of no such data currently available with respect to this concept, but a partial list of solubility of the most commonly used copper salts is presented here for the readers evaluation. Available copper expressed as molecular percentage is also included.



Salt Solubility %Cu

Copper Metal Insoluble 100.00

Copper Oxide Insoluble 79.88

Copper Oxychloride Insoluble 59.51

Copper Carbonate Insoluble 57.47

Copper Acetoarsenite Insoluble 25.07

Copper(I) Chloride Very Slightly Sol. 64.18

Copper(II) Fluoride Slightly Soluble 62.58

Copper(II) Benzoate Dihydrate Slightly Soluble 20.78

Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate Very Soluble 39.81



The blue star designer is cautioned that lower solubility may make a composition safer but not safe as surface electrolytic activity can occur with any copper entity in the wet state. Empirical research will surely continue in the never-ending quest for a better blue and it is hoped the experimental data and theories presented here will assist future color designers.

–Lin Collins



Recommended Readings.



1. Shimizu, T. 1980. Studies on Blues and Purple Flame Compositions made with Potassium Perchlorate. Issue VI, Pyrotechnica: Occasional Papers in Pyrotechnics, Austin, Texas.



2. Baechle, J. 1989. Pyrocolor Harmony, A Designer s Guide. Jamestown, North Dakota.



3. Kosanke, K.L. 1981. The Physics, Chemistry, and Perception of Colored Flames. Issue VII, Pyrotechnica: Occasional Papers in Pyrotechnics, Austin, Texas.





I only wish I was at that shoot of the Florida Pyro Arts Guild.. even though I live in Washington state, I'm thinking of getting a membership to the FPAG





[This message has been edited by orangejuice (edited 08-18-2003).]

WOW!!! thanks for the responses that was a whole lot of info. I figured alot or some of my ideas or similiar ones had been thought up and i think i mentioned it somewhere. thanks alot for the responses im gonna see what else i can come up with.