Re: small black smoke/sound units

On Oct 20, 4:22 pm, "Don T" <-paint...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"John Reilly" <strb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:58df4850-3ccb-4391-852e-ea32449627d1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 18, 6:35 am, TONY S <kclo42...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Oct 17, 10:15 am, John Reilly <strb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I wonder if anyone has some ideas for a formulation for small black
smoke/report units? I've posted a short clip of a daylight shell fired
at the Katakai Festival in Nigata Prefecture,
Japan:http://pyrobin.com/files/hiru3.wmv

The clip isn't very good but instead of using a ball shell with rai
type small report/smoke components, I intend to start with siatenes in
a cylinder shell.
I was thinking in terms of a perchlorate (or chlorate)/naphthalene/
very fine flake magnesium/antimony. I guess the naphthalene content
would have to be fairly high to provide the smoke (at the expense of
the report intensity) but by using fine magnesium and perchlorate or
chlorate and possibly, a shot of antimony if necessary, the sound
might be adequate in a 10 or 12 gram siatene.
Perhaps something like:

Potassium Perchlorate 55%
Naphthalene 25
Fine flake Mg 20

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

John Reilly

why not use a bag of black chalk or printer toner and a flash
break,that toner stuff is like the finest pigments I've seen ,should
make great clouds of smoke .lampblack is just as messy but probably
more expensive,I would think,- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Tony.  I have used finely powdered pigments with a flash bag burst
for 5" ball shells and they work OK.  I was looking for a scatterered
"artillery" or "flak" effect using small reports which couldn't
scatter enough dye to do the job.  A standard aluminum flash charge
also generates competing white smoke in the dust cloud.  I don't know
if the naphthalene in the perecentage necessary to produce black smoke
would render a magnesium/perchlorate flash powder too weak to give a
good report in a siattene sized case.

John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Then just get yourself some gen-you-wine flake TNT.  It will be perfect for
your purpose, especially if you add 10% Naphthalene to the flakes to make
the negative oxygen balance of TNT more pronounced. There have been some who
say that H.E.'s have "no legitimate pyro uses" but in this case I believe an
exception can be made. The hassle of accounting for the necessary blasting
caps and TNT will make the shells a lot more expensive to make, store, and
handle but man- OH - man what a pure experience it will be. Small charges
like you are talking would be no more "destructive" than equivalent high
quality "flash" devices would be.

 Think it over and see if the hassle of obtaining the necessary explosives
is something you can tolerate on top of the already onerous hassle that
exists making your shells already. I think a test shell will make your mouth
water for more.

--

Don Thompson

Stolen from Dan:  "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once,
and that makes me an expert. "

There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
~Goethe

It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom;
it is another sight finer to fight for another man's.
~Mark Twain- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm sure that small, capped and presicely timed charges of TNT would
give a great effect for the noise and black smoke Don. I don't know
if we'll ever see a change made allowing for HE use in fireworks
displays. I've seen it used in staged demonstrations and of course,
movie special effects but if a permit is issued for a "fireworks
display" I suppose under current regulations that won't allow HE to be
used.
Certainly, TNT is less dangerous to use than flash powder.

John
.