Overview
At a certain point, whether for fireworks aerial-shells, mines, roman candles, or rocket headings (or all of these), you’re going to need stars, and lots of them. In addition to spark-producing charcoal and glitter stars, you are going to want to be able to produce brightly colored stars to enhance and add variety to your pyrotechnic palette.
In this article, I’m going to get you started down this path by showing you a simple, easy-to-master technique to make brilliant red stars without any special or expensive equipment. These stars are ready to test in minutes, and dry and ready to use in just a few hours.
This is a breakthrough method of making stars. And I don’t say that lightly.
Why? What makes the screen-slicing method so special?
- Simple equipment: All you need is a screen. Forget about expensive star rolling machines, loaf boxes for making cut stars, and tricky-to-use star pumps, and plates.
- Cheap: A framed screen can be had for $30 or less.
- Fast: You can test your stars as soon as they are made, before they are dry. And star drying time is a couple of hours, max.
- Easy: Absolutely no special skills are needed. If you can play pattycake, you can make these stars. And they are almost impossible to screw up.
- Water Resistant: These stars are water resistant. You can store them longer.
Whether these are the first stars you ever make, or even if you are a seasoned fireworks veteran, screen sliced stars are faster and easier than any other star you can make.
Brilliant Red Rubber Stars in a Rocket Heading
–Harry Gilliam
Introduction
There are an almost infinite number of colored-star formulas out there using a wide array of different, sometimes difficult to find chemicals. In this project though, we’re going to focus on a simple, four-chemical formula which uses commonly available materials. The red formula we’ll start with here, called “brilliant red,” is about as eye-catching a star formula as there is, showing up well even if it is shot during the daylight. When folks call this star “brilliant,” they mean brilliant. I won a best-red-star competition at a large regional fireworks-club event one year with this star.
Among all the different methods that can be used to make fireworks stars-cutting, rolling, pumping, pressing the composition in tubes for box-stars, layering composition between sheets of paper for falling-leaves stars-each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and is appropriate in certain situations. The method I will show you here, screen-slicing, may be the fastest, simplest, and easiest way to produce a finished batch of color stars ever invented.
In this particular project, stars will be sliced through a 3-mesh screen which has three openings per inch (nine openings per square inch). The individual openings in such a screen are about 5/16-inch square. A 3/16-inch thick patty of star composition will be pushed through that screen to cut the patty into cubic stars. Since the composition extrudes through the screen openings as it is forced around the relatively large screen wires, the stars end up being about 5/16-inch thick.
Once these stars are primed using the process described below, they end up being almost spherical and about 3/8-inch in diameter. This size is nice for rocket headings, mines, and aerial shells in the 1.75-inch to 4-inch range.
Using a larger 2-mesh screen (four openings per square inch) and a thicker patty (say 5/16-inch thick), and using more composition per patty (say 24 ounces) will produce finished stars in the 5/8-inch diameter range. These stars would work in 5- to 8-inch shells and devices.
Some advantages of this rubber-bound formula and manufacturing process include:
- Even before drying, these stars can be test-fired out of a star gun immediately after production to check their color. After 2-3 hours of drying in a warm breezy location or in a drying chamber, these stars are ready to be used in devices.
- These stars are relatively water resistant, with no water used in their manufacture. They are rubber-bound, which inhibits water absorption by otherwise hygroscopic chemical ingredients such as strontium nitrate.
- Rising tails for rockets or shells which exactly match the color of these stars can be manufactured at the same time the stars are made.
- Different varieties of colors and effects are possible using this method. More colors and effects will be presented in a follow-on project.
- Particles of metals such as titanium or ferro-titanium may be added to the color composition to create a silver-spark trail behind the burning colored star.
- You can produce just the right quantity and size of these stars for a particular size shell or other device, so you’ll have no leftover stars requiring magazine storage.
All of these attributes make these stars ideal for on-site manufacture at fireworks events where devices are made from scratch in a limited amount of time, and where no excess stars requiring transport and storage are desired.
Acknowledgements: Troy Fish, in Pyrotechnica VII, authored a detailed article on rubber-bound stars, “Green and Other Colored Flame Metal Fuel Compositions Using Parlon.” This article has inspired many explorations into this rubber-star-binding process, and recently Gary Smith has shared his experiences with one variation on this process, the screen-slicing method of cutting these stars. Without these two sources of inspiration, this current project would not have been possible.
Continue Reading: How to Make Screen-Sliced, Brilliant-Red Rubber Stars…
So Ned or Harry,
Have you got a parlon blue formula? Red and Green are nice but the 4th is coming up fast. The other colors you mention would be nice to have.
Jimbo
Jim,
in the project released last week, the one listed above this one on the blog homepage, “Rainbow of Color Stars”, are formulas for all the colors you could wish for.
ned
seems preety solid, i just cant seem to find the recipe on this page. What is it?
James,
if you click on that “Continue Reading…..” line at the bottom of the portion that is on this site, it’ll take you to the complete instructional, which has heaps more info.
Enjoy,
ned
thanks bunches ned.
Yeah I’ve seen that fountain. It’s been rewrapped and is now under several names. Jakes has something similar called America’s Fountain and contains some of the best reds I’ve ever seen. They call it they’re “new” red. The blues lean toward a sea blue. I saw Bigs Fireworks neon canister shells demoed this past weekend. I really didn’t see the neon colors. They were a bit washed out. However they also carry a #300 neon tube and the colors were a lot better in these. Nitelites carries a Peach & Lemon crossette cake that has really great color as well. But this year the colors are more like Lime and Grape.
I’ve been seeing a lot of neon colors in consumer fireworks. Some of them seem to be washed out, but other makers are getting it right and the colors are brilliant. So what’s the scoop on these new neon colors and can they be reproduced even better for our own uses?
Hey, Johnny,
Those really sharp, bright colors are usually the result of some metal powder in the star comp, augmented by a solid dose of chlorine. And often, that’s magnalium. And that is exactly why Ned’s Rubber Stars look so damned good–magnalium and parlon (the chlorine donor)!
Harry
I have only been making stars for a couple of years, but it seems metal powder (MgAl in my case) is just magic. I tried a number of “organic” green and red formulas, and the colors were kind of pastel. Now I’m using formulas with MgAl and parlon, and they are much brighter and more saturated.
Yo Johnny,
I’ve seen these colors myself in a fountain called “gum ball machine” the colors where so vivid that I searched for it the next year. I also seen the same unmistakable vivid neon almost liquid color, in a motor shell at Disneyland. Funny thing was the shells with these stars were broke very gently with a very small spread compared to the rest of the shells. Hard to light or blown blind easily who knows? But they are deffinately in a class of their own
Harry, Ned
Phenomenal Article!!!!
The hot prime info alone is worth it!!!!
I’ll be buying a kit.
Nick
To the hot prime – I have been using Veline prime and while it works on most everything, it has a lot of ingriedients, including potassium dichromate (not nice stuff). I tried your hot prime and BP primes this weekend, and they lit all test stars, including some 1/8″ pumped green, which have not been lit by the veline mix. For the first coat, just drop the freshly squezed stars in a big pan o’ the hot prime. For subsequent layer build-up, I spray dampen with a weak solution of soluable gluteneous rice starch (SGRS), then roll ‘em in the dry powder. I added 5% dextrin to both mixes to help with stickiness.
The primer burns with a soft sizzle (due to the Mg Al) which is also cool.
With the dex in the mixes, these become “universal” primers, since you can use water or alcohol as solvent.
Thanks again,
Rod
Hey Ned,
About the mg/al in the primes, could silicon be substituted? I have both it’s just alot of star formulas call for it but not too many call for silicon. By the way I tried the screen slicing and it not only works great it’s pretty darn easy and alot of fun for someone as lazy as myself. Thanks
I’m glad that hot prime is working so well for you, Lightnin’.
I think one of the benefits of the screen-slicing process is that the hot prime really gets incorporated into the surface of the stars during the slicing process, and then the rest of the priming is done in a step-priming fashion. So, there is a good stepped transition all the way from the BP prime through the hot prime down to the star composition. This all really works together for surefire star ignition.
Lonny, I know silicon is used in lots of the hot primes, so it’d be worth a try replacing the MgAl in the hot prime with it. You never know for sure unless you try. If it works well, it’d be a way for you to use up some of the silicon, and save that MgAl for other things.
I’m glad the screen-slicing is working so well for you. Once I started playing with it, I really got sold quickly on its speed and ease, and the quick-drying results. It’s pretty darn hard to beat for these brilliant colors, and for a way to quickly produce batches of these ‘sticky’ stars.
Have fun,
ned
Hi
. The MgAl actually burns as fuel, and adds a lot of heat to the process. Hey Ned the hot ptime is good on everything but toast. It’s great on time fuses for shells as well. I’ve just started using MgAl in stars, and now in prime – this stuff is just great. I’m using a 50/50 alloy, at about 200 mesh.
The silicon doesn’t burn does it? I thought it was used as a liquid (hot!) heat transfer medium. Very few comps will stand up to molten glass
Harry & Ned – thanks again for helping us all, both in terms of knowledge and safety, and in giving us ideas and techniques to explore and improve our ancient art.
Hey, guys,
There is silicon metal powder and there is silicon dioxide (glass, sand, quartz, etc.).
Have any of you done any comparative tests of the performance of the two in primes?
Harry
Harry
Mine is silicon metal powder, I’ve never used it before so yep i have no idea about it’s performance. I did mix up a batch of both primes using it as a substitute for the mg/al. They light just fine on the ground but in a shell well will see.
Thanks Ned,
Come to think of it I’ve only seen it in hot primes, I used it in both so we’ll see. This screen method looks like a great way to make color cores for one of my favorite stars, willow to a color finish. I’ll keep y’all posted
Yeah, Lonny,
Shimizu talks a lot about starting with small cut stars as the cores for color-changing rolled stars.
I’ve not tried the screen-cut stars for that purpose yet, but they do end up practically sphercal after priming, so it seems promising that with some sizing, and then rolling on a charcoal comp or something, a nice color changing rolled star could be started easily that way.
I’ll have to give ‘er a go sometime soon.
Good luck with your experimenting along those lines.
ned
Small cut stars have worked out well for me as the cores of color changers. You can get many comps to round out a bit by simply dropping them after cutting in a shallow empty pan and rollin’ them around, or you cold use one o’ them fancy rolling machines. Once you get a bit of the next layer on them, they get pretty round. It seems the hard part (one hard part, anyway) is getting a rolled star started. Small cut or pumped stars are a good way. You also avoid an inert core, so nothing drops back to the ground.
“Peace through superior fireworks”
Rod
Thanks for sharing those experiences, Rod.. Good to know..
Love the “motto”..
ned
Now, THAT is a blog post, “jim”…
Sounds like you’ve done a Huge amount of interesting and productive experimenting.
I think that’s what keeps so many of us so passionately interested in this hobby/art:
the endless opportunities for creativity, experimentation, and ‘reinventing the wheel’.
Your parlon/metal projects sound right on the money.
I’ve not played with nozzleless motors much, or recently, but they are on the drawing board for more R&D.
Quite a few guys on the Passfire Forum Have experimented with them, with good success, sort of led by Dan T, who modeled his work on that of DJ and others on the RBP list. Dan really carries the nozzleless banner high and proud.
I’ve never tried newsprint charcoal, or any made from paper like that.
If it works great, it’ll sure be a shame to see the traditional newspapers and phone books fading from their heyday. I don’t imagine these ‘digital pages’ will produce nearly as nice a BP charcoal..
Take care and thanks for all the great anecdotes.
ned
Well Thanks Ned!
But no one addressed Garey’s input from the 25th. He is absolutely correct. Both the chemicals and solvents used are both potentially lethal and dangerous by nature. No one in this hobby should misunderstand this concept or they should find a new pastime. The correct prophylactic and protective measures, cleanliness, and cation are absolutely mandatory.
The products of combustion contain may many toxic gases, no mater how much we may all like the smell of burnt sulfur. Various monoxides of several gasses and several toxic compounds may well be produced (bi-products) in these high temp reactions. Chloro-floro-carbon being a prime one to consider. Especially when using chlorinated materials such as the epoxy based synthetic rubber compounds such as Parlon. He is correct that this should be a concern to us all. But that said, consider the small amounts used ( When compared to say the tons of it used by Goodyear every day to make tires.) or created compared to many other industry’s as well as the dispersal area produced by most fireworks. IT doesn’t amount to one hell of a lot. Everything in life is a trade off. Still the aim should be to do as little harm a possible. Caution and cognizance are paramount to the environment and the hobby itself.
In Aviation 20 years ago, we used to mop the floor with pure 1-1-1 Tri-chlorethanie. We washed or hand in MEK several times a day, and I hate to think of the entire plethora of other carcinogens we used every day, working in a hanger built in WW2 and insulated with asbestos. I also drank water from a garden hose when I was a kid.
While I understand the need for cation, trade-offs are part of the game of life. Be as safe and sane as possible, be responsible, and yes, realize that some of the bi-products are not good for the environment and in certain cases their use should be limited. Most of this is no worse than heating your house or driving your car etc. But it is something worth of consideration in certain environs. My press will build great BP 4oz rockets sing yellow stripe CPVC tubes. But I use paper cases and Goldenrod stems for guide sticks because they are both natural occurring and biodegradable. CPVC is much easier and cheaper though.
But enough about that, try the newsprint charcoal Ned, you will be amazed. When you think about it is a form of recycling in itself, and I seriously doubt we will run short of newsprint or phone books anytime too soon.
Navionjim
Hey, Jimbo,
Thanks for your comments. I’m pasting Gary’s note below to reply specifically.
“After reading this article, It appears to me that these chemicals have a toxic by product.”
Fireworks produce smoke–most smoke is bad for us. Different compositions produce a virtually endless array of byproducts. Since many fireworks chemicals are considered toxic, some smoke byproducts are by nature toxic, as well.
First, the obvious: If these byproducts from fireworks, burning and located often hundreds of feet above and/or away from humans, were considered by us and all the regulatory agencies to be a hazard to humans, I can assure you that there would be no fireworks displays in this country.
“This appears to be a irresponsible business practice that could cause unessary harm.”
Skylighter is in the business of providing the materials needed for making explosives and inherently dangerous products. While this might seem irresponsible to you, there are many types of companies which provide dangerous materials, including your nearest gas station. We are one of them. When society and the government consider a material to be so toxic, that society does not want it in its midst, they ban it.
“There is no way I would ever consider making anything like this. I spent twenty years in the cleaning industry and would never let anyone I know use such chemicals. I would suggest finding alternate chemicals that do not make a toxic by product.”
I assume you mean the fumes from acetone. As pointed out in our article, and for the reasons you pointed out, you should ONLY use acetone in an extremely well ventilated area. I only use it outdoors. If I am concerned about the fumes, I wear a gas mask. There are numerous alternatives to using these star formulas, many of which use water as the binding solvent.
I hate to generalize, but in my experience, all pyrotechnic formulas come fully equipped with dangerous possibilities, not the least of which is accidental ignition or explosion. There are clear, and not so obvious tradeoffs to using one composition over the other. This particular approach, acetone/parlon, has numerous safety advantages. The most significant one, as I see it, is that each batch can be made and incorporated into a finished firework faster than with most/any other star-making methods.
Once finished stars are enclosed in a finished shell, they are significantly less dangerous than if they are lying around drying, being stored, handled again, etc.
If a firework maker is to survive his craft, he needs to be informed. And he needs to CHOSE what he does, and how he does it. What tradeoffs does he want to make: nominal exposure to toxic materials, handling and storage of large quantities of explosive materials, etc. etc.? All need to be considered. In the final analysis, it comes down to taking responsibility for clearly understood risk.
Harry, Garry, and Ned,
Whoa there guys! Hold on, if you reread my post you’ll see that I couldn’t agree with you more. Your points were salient and right to the mark, which I thought mine had been too. But I’ve been wrong before. All I wanted to get across is that caution, safety, and responsibility are paramount to the hobby. All points you mentioned as well. I only meant that one should exercise caution when handling and using certain compounds, due to possible toxicity of some of these chemicals, and those produced when they are burned.
Other than that if someone is crazy enough to want to play with Armstrong’s Death Mixture, or indulge in some other similar lunacy, then they can be my guest. That’s just some extra chlorine in the gene pool if you ask me. But I’d sure appreciate if they gave me enough warning so I could leave the area before they messed with it first
By the way, concerning fast built stars, have you tried perc based stars, even 100% perc, or with 5% FE-TI and 1.5% FEO2 bonded with “Gorilla Glue’ to make a thick yet mold-able “dough”. It’s something much like parlon to use that way but even stickier. Gloves area a must. It pumps well though and can be cut easily and if processed fairly quickly, it takes a prime with no extra ,( well maybe a small spritz of water) solvent, and it and burns really bright white, it sparkles too if you add some Al flitters or a fine mesh FE-Ti powder. I’ve wanted to try a 30% barium and also a 30% strontium nitrate mix to check that color. But I haven’t tried that as yet. Still this method using an easily available “off the shelf” glue works pretty well too. Although the “Gorilla Glue” is a bit expensive, stars made with it can be tested in about two or three hours. It certainly swells up a bit when drying, almost twice the size you started with, using water misted as an activator for the glue when you mix it
Just something to try if you haven’t already, for last minute fast build items that is. It’s sort of like the Sculpy / perc mixes for rockets in AFN, that one works great, only with this mix you don’t need to be terrified by a 160 degree toaster oven full of paper tubes full of PVC and perc on a 100 ft power chord stuck in the pasture behind your house.
Navionjim
‘
Hey, Jimbo,
No prob’s, man. I completely understood you. I was just rolling my reply to Gary into a reply to you–sorry for any confusion. And thanks for your notes on Ape Stars, too! There are a buncha these kinda things around–the more we all hear about the merrier.
Harry
Harry,
Thank you!! I love my hobby, and your company, along with alot of understanding and respect for the materials and handeling of them make this one of the best hobbies/art form in the world.
I dont like it when people try to impose their will on me(I would never let anyone i know use such chemicals). Fortunately I don’t know this person, but to each his own.
I respect your reply and very glad you adressed it. I served my country in the air force from 90 to 94 because I beleive we live in the best country in the world. Our freedom to choose for ourselves makes it that way.
If you know the fire is hot and you stick your hand in it anyway, the fire is not at fault for you getting burned, you are!!!! Dealing with chemicals is no different. If you dont know what you’re doing, dont do it untill you know how to properly and safely carry on.
Harry, Ned, the two of you are icons in the pyro world as far as I’m concerend. You both are more than generous with formulae, but the newsletters and tutorials show how important safety and the correct way to do things are to you both. You guys rock!!! and I hope to make one of the PGI events someday so I can thank you both in person.
Keep up the good work guys we all appreciate it!!!!!!!
Lonny,
The founders of these here Newnited States spoke about the natural right of man to pursue his own happiness. Making fireworks involves a personal choice for a dangerous pursuit of happiness–like scuba diving, tickling the noses of great whites, sky diving, etc. But unlike all those solo activities, this one brings joy to millions who see what we make. I think it’s a fair tradeoff. Sure, we risk something, but we deliver magic and joy.
Harry
PS: Join PGI at pgi.org and come see me and Ned in August in Appleton, Wisconsin.
Thanks Ned,
And howdy from TX, I’m really from Oregon, I’m just forced to live here because of my job. It’s great to hear from you, there aren’t too many pyros like me here in Kingwood TX. Other then Dr. Kimbourogh that is, who lives just down the street from me. By the way, that was a fantastic video you sent me, I have the utmost respect for your dedication to the science and your contribution to the continuation of a hobby which is quickly becoming more difficult to pursue due to governmental interdiction via the CPSD and the BATFE. The new restrictions for 2010 may even make it imposable to even purchase visco, supposedly because Richard Reed used 3 inches of that in his shoe 12 years ago. A totally ridiculous, and 12 year too late knee jerk reaction in my opinion. Considering how many millions of people have had to remove their shoes just to board an aircraft, and for all of that nothing has ever been found as a result.
Sorry to pontificate here, the soapbox does slip under my feet at times. I’m a former pilot and engineer and a mechanic and I couldn’t believe it when the TSA wouldn’t allow me to carry a Bic lighter past security, while I was required by FAR to insure I had a properly operating flare gun in the cockpit. One hell of a way to light a cigarette eh?. Besides, what was I going to do, skyjack myself? But I digress.
Personally I have been playing with Parlon mixes coupled with various finely divided metals for some time now, mostly for use as rocket propellants. I have perfected a few mixes that can even be rolled or extruded into 1/8 diameter and used for waterproof fusing once the “working end” has been properly primed.
No doubt that either strontium or barium nitrate coupled with parlon or any other other associated chlorinated rubber compound dissolved in acetone and a sintered metal can produce a color which is is brilliant! My homemade Mag/Al melted in a flower pot with charcoal and a leaf blower even works well, but admittedly not as well as the commercial Mg itself does. That said, I have had several ignition problems using straight Mg, but those were cured by using my favorite pyrogen which includes 4% powered glass rendered from thin crushed light bulb glass, i.e. florescent light tubes smashed and then passed through a hand held blade type “coffee mill”, then screened.
I believe the rendered molten dross from the pyrogen coupled with the duration of the resulting residual heat that the silicon conveys can provide all the heat one would ever require to ignite almost any mixture capable of combustion. In testing it even works well with thermite formulations using spherical 12,000um paint grade aluminum and masonry grade FeO2 as the oxidizer which is notoriously difficult to light, as you most likely already know. But apart from that.
I have greatly enjoyed your tutorials. Mostly those you have scripted on rockets because those comprise my greatest interest in the hobby. Anyone can build a mortar shell to my mind, and while they may be safer to fire, mortars are just guns, and while shell building is an art in itself, it doesn’t come comes close to the expertize required to build a good quality rocket.
So I wanted to ask you why you build yours the way you do? I used to use the same construction methods you do, well actually I started out with throttling glue soaked newspaper by the Chinese method, and caramel candy fuel back when I was 12 years old. But while being mostly successful with BP fueled clay nozzle rockets, I still suffered the occasional “CATO” and even worse, the dreaded and totally unpredictable “ground shark”, causing a bit of scampering if you know what I mean,
So several years ago I started experimenting with the nozzle-less designs, turning my attention to producing the best grade of BP I could first, then building the first rocket with an expected CATO. From there it was simply a matter of toning the fuel down using my favorite, “degrading ingredient”, which is WD-40. About 3-4% by weight seems to work extremely well, and the resulting fuel can be used in everything from a 4oz to a 4lb rocket with no possibility of a CATO due to a blocked nozzle. Even better, the fuel is not dusty once the WD-40 has been added.
After running many static test burns on my load cell test apparatus, I can fairly say that there is no significant degradation in propulsive power using the nozzle-less design. Granted the thrust curve is not as sharp at ignition, the total of the thrust output over time may be even better than a De Lavell nozzle rocket overall!
And I am sure that the rocket flight is much safer, other than the first or second rockets built strictly for fuel testing aside, there can be no possibility of a CATO to worry about, and no land sharks either. If anything the added energy imparted by the burning WD-40 makes up for any losses incurred by not using a clay nozzle. Plus it leaves a great oil tail when it flies, which is a nice effect very much like using lampblack in the fuel. Oh and just as aside note, when the WD-40 plant blew up here in Houston five years ago it rocked my house, and I live some 18 miles away! There is defiantly some energy stored in that stuff.
Lastly I’d like to ask you if you might have had this idea yourself. I make my own charcoal, and have also tried all the commercially available variety’s. Both those used for BBQ, some various homemade types, and that which Harry sells at Skylighter as well. All of them can be used to make BP if milled properly. But some have proved to be much better than others. I’ve tried them all in various forms, sometimes sieved, or corned etc. but that’s rarely necessary for rockets anyway, and is a true pain in the butt to do all that additional work.
I do make a corned powder with my hydraulic press and dry it in a vacuum chamber for my BP guns and long rifles though, and while it looks good, just between us, it really isn’t necessary. But to make a long story shorter, I have been using “newsprint charcoal” for several years now, and there is nothing better!
That is to say newspaper wrapped around a piece of .5″ all-thread, then cooked inside a one gallon paint can with a nut placed on each end of the length of all-thread to secure the lid in place. The paint can is placed at the smoke exit end of my BBQ smoker overnight with a hot fire made of wood scrap. The resulting charcoal must be allowed to cool (24 hours) before opening the can or it will ignite on it’s own from residual heat. Nevertheless, the resulting charcoal used in the standard Waltham Abby 75-15-10 mix, well actually I add 2% red gum and 1.5% home made dextrin from roasted corn starch and reduce the C component proportionally, then use standard rubbing 70% isopropal alcohol as a solvent and granulate it through a window screen, makes the best BP I have ever produced. Even without pressing or corning, 1/2 gram of this “mill powder”, (ball milled with 3/4″ lead ball for 12 hours, and wet sieved) once dried will produce a very loud “bang” when simply rolled up in a piece of paper Chinese style.
From numerous test I know there is no way that can be done with GOEX or any other commercial BP that I know of, (unless your stupid or brave enough to add about 15% K chlorate to it) and that’s using fertilizer grade K(no3) and dusting sulfur in the mix and mill.
So I was wondering if a professional like yourself had ever tried this method for making charcoal. Simple newspapers or old phonebooks work great, and the remaining ink is mostly lampblack anyway. I’ve been meaning to try this again with both white paper towels and also cheap toilet paper to see if I could get it even better, although I don’t see how it can be. I haven’t done that as yet, when I do, I’ll let you know how it works if your interested in the outcome.
Sorry Ned, I didn’t mean to write so much, it just happens once I start. Sure was nice to hear from you anyway. Write me anytime. I’m attaching a shot of my 4oz rocket press. This has a sliding plate powder thrower and produces six rockets at a time using dental pick handles as the spindles. The nozzle forms are simple AN-4 hydraulic fittings with 60% tapered ends. The press has a 20 to one mechanical advantage and is driven with a standard ft/lb TQ wrench to ensure even loading. lt also a three layer blast shield in polycarbonate. All the tooling is Teflon coated brass. I spent too much time building this item but it works quite well for the nozzle-less concept described above.
Engineering At Your Call
2706 Lakeville Ct.
Kingwood TX, 77339
PH (281) 358-0851
Member of PAT and PGI
printing it out right now
trying it tommorow
WOW, what a tutorial! Yinz guys (Pittsburgheze) are extremely generous with your knowledge and experience. Thanks much!
QUESTION: Can straight 5413H Al be directly substituted for the 19% Mg-Al in thid particular composition?
Aluminum typically washes colors out, whereas MgAl doesn’t have that problem, but avoids the compatibility/moisture issues inherent with straight Mg, Ed.
I’m not a chemist, but right off hand it wouldn’t seem like there would be any compatibility issues involved with using straight Al.
Troy Fish does have some formulas in his Parlon Star article in Pyrotechnica VII, and he uses a pyro aluminum.
So, with a small experimental batch, and all the precautions that go with changing a formula and experinenting, it might be interesting to see how your stars turn out made with your al.
ned
Thanks Ned – appreciate it!
Hi gang!
Here’s another interesting side-trip. After reading the article, I tried using acetone as a solvent for what is called Buell red..
Perc 35%
Strontium Carbonate 25%
MgAl 14%
Parlon 13%
Red gum 7%
Dextrin 6%
The mix is a bit sticky and much like modeling clay to work with, but it dries very hard, almost like plastic. I rolled out a few sticks of this and about 3/26 diameter, and used them like a lance. They seem rugged enough to take light handling, and burn nicely. I’ve always had problems with lance tubes “chimneying” and blocking the flame. This tubeless lance may be a good alternative. I’m working on an extruder which will let me squeeze out 6″ long sticks of the stuff. Being a water free mix, I’m also going to try adding some sparkler iron, to see if it makes a good sparkler mix as well.
Thanks again Ned and co.- this shows how one good idea can lead to other interesting places…
Rod
Cool ‘speriments, Rod.
If you’re gonna bind that comp with the parlon, you could probably eliminate the dex. Most of its function is as the binder, with little fuel value from what I know.
ned
I’d thought I invented this method myself! Not really but it smacks of a standard go-getter mixture. I would caution that lighting one of these stars on the ground may amaze you by taking of and flying on it’s own power to sites unforeseen! Additionaly because of the use of mag or al-mag, the heat of the burning star id intense to say the least. I have used a very similar mix in 1.5 x 9/16 tubes and while they were difficult to ignite without a good prime, I was amazed when they started to spin at first, (ground bloom flower like) then suddenly took a Straight flight like a stinger missile climbing to several hundred feet and as bright red as hell on the back porch! That wold have been OK except that we were lakeside and the device looked exactly like a distress flare rocket. So I would advise caution when working with this mixture, it is incredibly bright red though, and can even be used as end burner rocket fuel. Just beware of miss fires due to the incendiary effect of the Mg componant.
Ice Bait and Cold Beer,
Jimbo
I’ll sure grant you the “Bright”, Jim..
Here’s a video of an 8″ shell with the stars (sliced through a 2×2 screen) that I recently fired.
http://pyrobin.com/files/8%20inch%20gold%20and%20red.wmv
I have on occasion seen these stars self-propel, and some of the compositions do swim a bit in the sky. The stars in this shell did not do so, though.
The parlon, go-getter formulas can be very similar to these rubber-star formulas, typically with slightly different proporitions,,and different manufacturing methods.
ned
Nice!
I like the plart about Mise en place. very important in the food or pyro “kitchen”.
Acetone rocks as a fast solvent. I make whistle powder using it, and the whole process is only about half an hour. It’s about time pyro caught up to the trend of instant gratification.
Peace!
The rubber stars are very interesting, I’ll definitely be using this method. I’m not sold on screen cutting though. Seems like a fairly minimal improvement, if any, over standard cutting unless I’m missing something.
Helter,
standard cutting of the parlon-bound comp can be a pain. The comp gets pretty sticky when it is dampened with the acetone, and I never was able to find a quick, easy, and painless way to cut them.
Since the acetone-binding in this process makes having dry stars so quick, going back to dex/water binding with these comps would defeat that purpose.
And, adding water to strontium nitrate comp has other complications, since that oxidizer is so hygroscopic and affected by water.
So……the parlon-acetone binding,,along with the screen-slicing, is what works so well together in this process.
But,,,for every 10 pyros,,there are 11 methods for making something, and the creativity and experimentation of it all is a lot of what makes it fun. So you might just tailor this method or another to suit your purposes best.
ned
Well there you go, it looks like I was missing something! Thanks for the reply, I guess I’ll be checking out one of your kits then.
ned,
Killer tutorial!!!!like you said 10 pyros 11 ways to do it. I cant wait to try it myself. I’m very thankfull to you and Harry, this site is a great place!!!
NICE ONE NED CAN THIS BE DONE IN BLUE??? I ORDERED THE KIT CAN’T WAIT TILL IT SHOWS UP FOR THOSE FAST SHELL MAKIN ON THE 2 OF JULY LOL
Yeah, stay tuned for other color options, Thunder.
ned
Thanks so much for this – and for all your other stuff!
I only wish Skylighter wouls ship tools and books etc to the UK
Any chance you might have a rethink on that policy
I agree with Martyn. ship to us uk guys! pleas
Great article Ned, and Really nice Stars too!! Simplified Indy Red, and every bit as hot a color too!! Nice for almost immediate gratification! I for one thank you brother!!
Tony
Bozhe Moi! That’s a whole lot easier than trying to *roll* that miserable comp.
Thanks, Nedski (and Harry G too).
Good to ‘see’ ya, Bob..
Put Margye to work on some of these for the summer-season.
Will I see you two in Appleton in August?
nski
(Plus,,,it’s just plain hard to make small batches of rolled stars,,for smaller, quick projects..)
After reading this article, It appears to me that these chemicals have a toxic by product. This appears to be a irresponsible business practice that could cause unessary harm. There is no way I would ever consider making anything like this. I spent twenty years in the cleaning industry and would never let anyone I know use such chemicals. I would suggest finding alternate chemicals that do not make a toxic by product.
You forgot to thank G. Smith for pioneering this technique! Great tutorial as always, Ned!
Nevermind, you gave him credit in the acknowledgment section.
Yeah, Bob..
I’d previously done a lot or playin’ with Troy-Fish-type comps,,,and then Gary’s work with alternate formulas and the screen-slicing method came along,,,and I just tailored it all to some different formulas and priming techniques..
But,,as usual,,we stand on the shoulders of others, and, as I said in the project, I wouldn’t have embarked on this process without the work of those two guys and others..
We’d be nowhere without each other.
ned
Thanks for another great project.
Good luck and have fun with them, Bill..
This is one of those skills and projects, which, with a bit of practice, can become second nature. I would emphasize the practice. A few batches, and it’ll be like riding a bicycle,,can’t remember when we didn’t know how to do it.
Organizing the tools and materials first is a Great help.
Then, taking your time to follow the instructions and get the ‘feel’ of it is all it will take.
This has become my main ‘go-to’ method for making quick, small batches of really beautiful stars.
Enjoy,
ned