Ok, you all know about the old KNO3/sucrose smoke composition. You may have also noticed that it has a shit storage life because it is very hydroscopic. That's why I fucking hate it!
Well I have bought some commercial smoke bombs (small white tablets) from a joke shop. Now these have no hydroscopic properties from what i can see. They are very effective smoke generators (better than KNO3/sugar) too.
I was wondering if anyone has seen these before and if anyone has any idea of their composition.
I suspected that there was a chlorate involved. So I added a drop of H2SO4 to it and it ignited the mix so I think I was right about the oxidizer.
As for the fuel I think it could be dextrin?
I have seen this composition (or very similar) on other smoke compositions like those smoke matches.(It seems to be a very widely used composition)
Anyone have any ideas/thoughts on this?

I once experimented with the following mixture:

40% KNO3
20% KClO3
20% sugar
20% corn starch (or dextrin)

Wet until it becomes sticky, at which point it can be shaped into any desired form. It becomes rock solid when dry, to the point where it is throwable.
Ignite with blackpowder core.

To me, the smoke seemed to be more white and denser.
Experiment to find the right ration between KClO3 and KNO3 to achieve optimum density and speed of smoke production.

Hmm, I'm not sure anymore of the exact % I used, but it was somewhere along those lines.

I use a Calcium nitrate/sugar/dextrin mix as tracers in my rockets.
I shape these into pucks and let them dry in the oven over night.
Calcium Nitrate is VERY!!! hygroscopic. however, a dip in hot wax for 30 seconds cures this for loading into the end chamber.

I`ve never tried it on the bench however, the calcium salts (in flight) leave a beautifull white trail that will show up even on an overcast cloudy day.

maybe you could try this also?

That's interesting. What ratio do you use? Also, do you position it at the top of the fuel grain, or as part of it? I'm wanting to find a decent trace smoke, but am not sure where I'll put it. I was thinking of having a 1" section at the very top of the core, with the core extending into the smoke, so that it adds to the main efflux throughout the flight, rather than just at apogee.

Arkangel,

the ratios I don`t remmeber now, In fact I don`t think I even noted them in the 1`st place, it was a bit like making stars, mostly guess work for me. I do remmeber that more calcium nitrate was needed than in my KNO3 mixes (they sucked for smoke)

I placed them as a dual role component in my rockets, Delay charge and tracer.

(out of interest I use half a gram of Flash 70/30 wrapped in a cigarette paper as my parachute deployment charge)

the wax in the comp also helps with the white smoke :)


as for adding it in the actualy propelant grain itself, I wouldn`t, it`s WAY TOO hygroscopic for that, and too slow burning as a core, a delay/tracer it`s perfect for :)

My problem with a trace smoke at the end of the propellant burn is that I tend to be firing these things toward something, rather than just up (45 degrees or so), so by the time the smoke appears in decent volume, it's already hit the ground. That's ok to see where it lands, but I'm keen to see a nice trail as it's on the way. Anyway, that's a whole other subject I suppose;)

(Oh, and PARACHUTES......:eek: Parachutes are for pussies mate. Put 20g of Flash in instead, and make your rockets do something REALLY impressive. If you put a parachute in, that means you've got to go and retrieve the fucker. Valuable time that could otherwise be spent firing (or indeed making) more rockets. After my mini MLRS is complete and I'm bored with it, I'm making a cheap multi-engined, multi stage rocket. The idea is to build it from Balsa and cardboard, and when the motors have all burnt out, it will explode (or should that be detonate;) ) a large flash charge. All that I want to see fluttering gently to earth are the boosters and some very small pieces of the main "vehicle":D )

Edit, that was completely off topic, sorry. Regarding the original questions all the suggestions so far involve sugar. There are surely less hygroscopic fuels? If you go through the Skylighter products pages (http://) you should find something.

Commercial smoke bombs from joke shops contain Potassium Chlorate (oxidizer) - yes, you were right - and lactose as a fuel and also sometimes a powdered dye.

When ignited, this composition burns at a fairly low temperature, which evaporates the dye into fine particles and disperses them into the air. Therefore, coloured 'smoke' isn't exactly smoke.

...Commercial smoke bombs from joke shops contain Potassium Chlorate (oxidizer) - yes, you were right - and lactose as a fuel and also sometimes a powdered dye...
That is correct! If the smoke is white, ammonium chloride is most probably present as it sublimes into a dense white smoke.

And, yes, ammonium chloride (sal ammoniac), is compatible with chlorates.

Search for Shimizus "Minimum Solubility Law" to be convinced!

is compatible with chlorates.

I highly doubt that, ammonium compounds don’t mix well with chlorates for it can from ammonium chlorate, a highly sensitive explosive capable of igniting or exploding at unexpected moments.

I highly doubt that, ammonium compounds don’t mix well with chlorates for it can from ammonium chlorate... Yes, that is true for many ammonium compounds but not for salmiac! I cannot quote Shimizu directly because I don't have access to my litterature right now. So, I quote a post from 2002 by Richard Ogden at rec.pyrotechnics who sums it up pretty good:

"...
KClO3 35 %
Lactose 15
NH4Cl 50

...This formula and others by Shidlovsky and Becher contain both potassium chlorate and ammonium chloride. The double decomposition reaction that occurs with many other ammonium compounds in combination with chlorates does not occur with ammonium chloride - the thermodynamics favors the ammonium remaining in association with the chloride. In any case, such formulations have been used safely for years.

This has been discussed here before. Go to Google and do a search on ammonium, chloride, chlorate and smoke..."

Hey Arkangel, I saw on www.inverseengineering.com that he uses KNO3/Sucrose as a tracer, and he drills holes above the engine (in the rocket body) and puts the tracer inside the rocket body near those holes. You could put a delay on the tracer, but as it burns, it slowly burns and spits smoke out of the holes. This way you can trace the whole path of the rocket and watch where it lands.

Here is a link to one of the rockets where he used this design:

http://inverseengineering.com/Pages/2002/622/622%20Flight.html

Just scroll down to the pictures and it has the holes in the body and the smoke assembly.

+++++++=

Use the CODE tag for long URL's.

The formula Crazy Swede mentions,

Pottassium Chlorate 35 Parts
Ammonium Chloride 50 Parts
Lactose 15 Parts

Is currently used in "Reign" smoke matches,and smoke candles For airflow studies. There MSDS sheets leave out Lactose or Sucrose because its not considered hazardous and to have mystery to there formula. I have used this recipe recently. Even though this formula needs no containment to work I prefer to use Tomato Paste cans. They are the perfect size for this as they can take heat and allow some pressure build up, Causing a very effective Jet stream. Soon I will try pressing "tablets" of this using dextrin or Nitrocellulose lacquer

Reading this thread I thought I should try the Chlorate/Chloride/Lactose formula, but I don't have any lactose, so I subbed sucrose. I seemed to burn fine but the smoke smells like ammonia! I don't see what possible use this could have with such a nasty smell to it. It smells nothing like commercial smoke compositions in smoke bombs that I've bought. Does anyone else have this problem or is it just because of the sucrose?

Try adding NaHCO3to the mix, it stops it overheating, maybe the NH4Cl is decomposing as it starts to decompose into NH3 and HCl gas, although the HCl and NH3 will react readily, some NH3 might remain and therefore the smell. The sucrose should be fine though :D.

That’s exactly what’s happening.
'http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/A5724.htm'
At fire temperatures ammonium chloride begins to corrode metals and may dissociate into ammonia and hydrogen chloride.

Ammonium chloride sublimes at 338C so it isn’t likely to get the temp low enough to stop the smell.

That is true so I guess it wont help that much, it might stop it a little bit but I guess it wouldn't make a significant change. Maybe take out the NH4Cl, and just add NaHCO3, the lower temperature may make more smoke, I think at lower temperatures more smoke is made.

IIRC more smoke is made at lower temp in the classic KNO3/sugar smoke bomb, but I don’t know much about others.

Replacing the NH4Cl with NaHCO3 would defeat the purpose of adding anything to the smoke bomb in the first place, as the NH4Cl is added to break down into NH3 and HCl so it can react again resulting in the smoke (fine NH4Cl particles), at least that’s how I think it works.

I think NH4Cl is there to make NH4ClO3 in situ on high temperature when smoke bomb ignite. There is no reason to substitute it with NaHCO3 that I can think off...pH of NH4Cl is acidic and NaHCO3 is basic substance.

Even if you hoped to reduce the smell of NH3 by adding (or substitute part of with) "acid" salt (that was my first thought you try to do) that won't work as ammonium buffer is around 9,25 and bicarbonate 8,8 AFAIR.

...I think NH4Cl is there to make NH4ClO3 in situ on high temperature when smoke bomb ignite... No, that is completely wrong! The salmiac (ammonium chloride) is added to produce a dense white smoke made of sublimated...guess what... ammonium chloride! :rolleyes:

Phlegmatizers like sodium bicarbonate is seldom needed for salmiac smokes. It is better to adjust the burning behaviour by experimenting with the fuel/oxidiser ratio and the amount of salmiac.

Glycerin or paraffin oil can be added in small amounts to these kind of smoke compositions to produce a kneadable and soft dough that can be attached to almost any surface and still be readilly ignited with a sulphur-free black match.

Try using a paraffin wax comp, It is virtually waterproof, so long as you melt the wax it takes about 3 minutes, and means I can stir in the other components. It also means it sets nice and hard and is mouldable.

I do, however have serious problems with using visco to light it. If there is any paraffin on the fuse, it simply stops burning, does anyone know anything about this?

What about hexachloroethane? I know it produces HCl fumes in it's smoke (But what isn't funny about that) and I don't know it's availability, but there has to be a reason it's chosen for military use over other commercial comps.

The Tetracloromethane in the TCM/Zn/ZnO compositions forms HCl but thens reacts with zinc to form ZnCl2 which makes good smoke.

What about hexachloroethane? I know it produces HCl fumes in it's smoke (But what isn't funny about that) and I don't know it's availability, but there has to be a reason it's chosen for military use over other commercial comps.

I Think it's because the smoke it produces, has little water, and tends to cling to the ground in a thick cloud for quite a while, giving very good cover. They also produce vast amounts of smoke. I don't think toxicity/cost comes into it for western militaries.

Glycerin or paraffin oil can be added in small amounts to these kind of smoke compositions to produce a kneadable and soft dough that can be attached to almost any surface and still be readily ignited with a sulfur-free black match.

For anyone new to Smoke production, that is interested in trying something other than the "Potassium Nitrate & Sugar comp I would highly suggest trying the "dough" Crazy Swede mentions. It is a totally flameless smoke composition that puts out rich volumes of White Smoke gradually but very steadily.

Ammonium Chloride "lends its self" well with many binders including Silicone. Molding tablets of this composition with Nitrocellulose Plastic is probably the easiest way I know of to form the product that was originally asked of this thread.

...Since low ignition temperatures must be used, the oxidiser is invariably KClO3. The fuel may be lactose, usually as a 50/50 mixture, with oxidiser mixed with the dye or chemical agent. ... The other fuel used is sulfur which also requires the presence of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) to stabilise this potentially dangerous mixture. Two typical coloured smoke compositions are 25 percent lactose/25 per cent KClO3/50 per cent dye, and 10 per cent S/25 percent KClO3/25 percent NaHCO3/ 40 per cent dye... Brassey's World Military Technology: Explosives, Propellants And Pyrotechnics.


Couldn't remember the code for subscripts (sorry).
Also this is for colored smoke or chem dispersal. Also The book says A suitable first fire for the Coloured smoke compositions is 60 parts potassium nitrate to 40 parts lactose.

For subscript: KClO₃ Use the quote button and look at the script.

Lactose/chlorate/organic dye smokes are well and good if you've got access to the organic dyes. But they're EXPENSIVE compared to the inorganic smokes. Crazy Swede knows what he's talking about.

Glycerin or paraffin oil can be added in small amounts to these kind of smoke compositions to produce a kneadable and soft dough that can be attached to almost any surface and still be readilly ignited with a sulphur-free black match.

Today I made 300 gram batches of the smoke composition (Ammonium Chloride 50, Potassium Chlorate 35, Lactose 15) and then mixed them with Paraffin Oil,Glycerin,Vaseline, & Mineral Oil to throughly test their differences.

I was over all most impressed with the texture that Vaseline was able to provide. This obtained the closest consistency to a puddy of the binders I tried and remained very sticky for target surfaces. Although this worked very well, their were problems found. When the puddy was quickly moved the molten glob would slide off, and then the dough would gradual re-light on its own.

The same problem stood with Glycerin, however the re-light was quicker and the dough was less "traumatized" by the molten drop away. The texture is also far, far less sticky than Vaseline. Although all the dough types gave off INCREDIBLY RICH & SMOOTH smoke the Glycerin composition was my choice favorite. For it seemed to add to the riches of the white smoke where the other binders darkened its color.

The Paraffin Oil composition was very similar to wet sand and really did not stick to much of anything, even crumbling away in some cases.

Mineral Oil Gave a nice in between texture from wet sand to puddy.

I know that most of you hate the potassium nitrate/sugar mix, however, melted it is an incredebly good comp. Add a little sodium bi-carb will give off thicker smoke I have found.

The best smoke bomb I have ever made was based on the idea from a splinter cell novel :D. I took apart one of those huge 6V lantern batteries, pulled apart the four cells inside and dug all the graphite/shit from inside them (really easy). These metal canisters are approx 3.5" inchs long and and inch wide, and they are made from real pure zinc, another real plus.

Anyway, melt the KNO3/sugar mix outside and melt it on LOW, you risk it igniting if you melt it on medium (I found out the hard way :eek:) Then, when it is the consistancy of peanut butter, stuff it into the zinc casing. Stick in an inch long piece of visco and let it dry. This mix is incredable, when ignited it creates approx 25 Cu meters of smoke, and real thick to! Then the fun part, the casing gets so hot, the zinc begins to ignite, time for a real fireworks show! I have recorded my best smoke bomb burning for 2 minutes and filling the whole school parking lot with smoke :eek: It was a real foggy day on July 2 at West Van secondary!

While searching through Patents on smoke production I found patent #5,154,782 which mentions some really interesting smoke formulas using Sebacic Acid,Adipic Acid,Pimelic Acid,Suberic Acid, & Azelaic Acid

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but a great formula for smokebombs is as follows:

16:Sulfur
13:Potassium Nitrate
3.5:Baking Soda
1:Charcoal

It seems very similar to what is used in commercial smokebombs, although I can't vouch for that because I honestly am not sure.

There also is one catch, when using the mixture, it is essential that it is ignited in an oxygen-free environment, otherwise it will barely work. My recommendation is to just put it in a tube with a nozzle (works well for me).

Potassium Perchlorate 35
Sulfamic Acid 65

or

Ammonium Perchlorate 42
Sulfamic Acid 58

Yep that's it and Damn, does it work good!!
Personally I like the Potassium mixture best, but the Ammonium mixture is said to have a little more smoke.

Sulfur Trioxide is vaporized from the Sulfamic Acid which reacts with the Chlorine in the Potassium Perchlorate creating Hydrogen Chloride :) Which all makes for a very impressive smoke mixture. A little goes a long way, much more so than, "lets say" a Potassium Chlorate & Sugar mixture.

I would really like to stress how exciting this formula is,

So all of you "Flash" makers out there all you will need is this, just click on the Sulfamic Acid title to the left after you reach this link:

http://www.artistictile.net/frameset%20pages/store/accessories/aguamix/restoration/stripper-frameset.html (http://www.artistictile.net/frameset%20pages/store/accessories/aquamix/restoration/stripper-frameset.html)

This is the cheapest place that I found to buy a 1lb container on the net and it's 99.5% pure, although.....

Sulfamic Acid is sometimes used as a replacement for Muriatic Acid and it is available in a select few stores on the shelf. I was able to find some at a Marine Supply Store under the name of UN-Chloric Acid.

Lowes hardware carries Aqua Mix products but not the Sulfamic Acid, or at least not "my Lowes".

Chemistry Store.com has it for 90$ for 50lbs = $158.00 with shipping

I've seen sulfamic acid on the hardware store shelf in with the concrete products as a surface prep.

Thanks Cracker.

I am defininatly going to try that comp.

I am going to run out this afternoon and see if I can locate Sulfamic Acid OTC. You may be able to find it in the HD or Lowes tile department as a cleaning product. I will let you know if I find any.

I looked in Lowe's pool chemicals, building supplies, janitorial supplies and the flooring department. I found it in the paint department. The manufacturer is UGL. The brand name is DRYLOK ETCH. As NBK stated, it is sold as a masonry etch for paint prep. According to the MSDS it is 100% Sulfamic Acid. A 12oz bottle was $3.48 USD including tax.

Two questions:

What is your procedure for mixing the composition?

Are you confining it in any way, canister, defuser etc?

Damn Bacon46 your fast! Thank you for including all the necessary information for your find, that is a very good deal condsidering most internet places charge a Hazard Fee.

Over the counter sources!:), all the more reason why this formula is very exciting.

There really is no special mixing procedure that "I" use, other than making sure of no clumps, "I" do not bother with diapering, "I" simply mix throughly.

This composition does not need to be contained to work. As a loose powder in a pile some of the mix often fails to ignite. So for my testing I lightly pressed it into "Tea Lite Candle Tin's" and lit them with a piece of "Micro-Fuse" or Silicone Fuse. Visco also works great.

What about hexachloroethane?....but there has to be a reason it's chosen for military use over other commercial comps.

Hopefully to improve safety, it would appear that trying this mix in enclosed spaces (inhaling too much smoke) could result in breathing problems.

Reference here:
Case report - hexachloroethane smoke inhalation (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Case+report%3a+hexachloroethane+smoke+inhalation%3 a+a+rare+cause+of...-a0158523320)

I mixed a batch of Crackers 65% - H3NO3S - 35% - KClO4 composition.

The H3NO3S practical size was similar to course sand so I milled the comp for an hour. I strongly recommend using a respirator and eye protection when handling H3NO3S, especially in fine powder form. It was late; I was only mixing 150g, I didn't feel like putting on a respirator. I’m regretting that decision. Shortly after opening the mill drum I had to exit the room quickly. There was no visible dust in the air, but when it hit the back of my throat I definitely knew it was there. My throat is still a little sore this morning.:(

I put on my respirator and continued. My first attempt to ignite this comp with visco fuse failed. It didn’t burn at all. In my second attempt I used a small amount of the sparkler composition that I use to ignite Thermite. It did ignite but barely, smoldered is a better description, and only a very small percentage of the composition did that. However, that small percentage did create a proportionately significant amount of smoke.

On my third attempt I added 1% S to the mix and used an electric match for an ignition source. It ignited but burned very, very slowly, or smoldered quickly depending on how you look at it.

I am not sure why I am having trouble with the ignition. The KClO4 came from a 2kg batch that I have been working out of for a while so I know its okay. The manufacturer of the etch claims it is 100% H3NO3S. Got any ideas?

I can tell by the volume of smoke emitted in these initial tests that this composition is defiantly worth perusing.

I have been working on a composition of KClO3 / Al, suspended in a two part Pt cure silicone. It ignites easily and puts out a decent volume of smoke, but is a bit energetic for a smoke devise. (See Video Below) I am perusing it more as an incendiary or illumination comp. I'll post the results in a different thread. I am going to try modifying this composition by switching from KClO3 to KClO4 and adding H3NO3S. It should slow the burn rate and increase the volume of smoke. If the H3NO3S doesn’t prevent the silicone from curing I could end up with a castable, waterproof smoke comp. No canister required. Bitchin!:D

http://good-times.webshots.com/video/3066698970100688881sOBKZo?vhost=good-times

Grinding compositions into fine powder is sometimes counterproductive.

It could be that the powder needs to be granular to work properly. Let's see what Cracker says.

This and my Personal Tests are my knowledge base>http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT2842502&id=MyZPAAAAEBAJ&dg=Sulfamic+Acid+smoke

At first look I'm not sure that I can tell you what went wrong. First I will start by saying I am almost sure the problem is NOT contaminated Sulfamic Acid. The UN-Chloric Acid that I have used is Sulfamic mixed with Oxalic Acid and it still works GREAT! Oxalic Acid has nothing to do with its success it was simply added in a small percentage as an additional cleaner.

I did grind my Sulfamic very briefly in a Mortar and Pestle. Nothing compared to Ball Milling but I still suspect this is not the problem.

I almost always use "Micro-Fuse" so I will re-try with Visco.

No batch that I have made has had any resistance in lighting, but very loose powder's falied to continue burning only if there was a shallow pile.

Because I had planed on it any way I will go out and purchase DRYLOK ETCH right now and give it a try.

See you very soon.

Also I plan on taking pictures in the next few days.

Maybe one source is anhydrous, and the other is hydrated?

I highly suggest you try my formula should you have the available resources...heres a video if interested.

http://s153.photobucket.com/albums/s233/evilknny9/?action=view&current=L1000106.flv

OK Bacon46 this is what I believe to be the problem. My advice about using Visco is wrong and the composition was not getting hot enough.

I just returned from purchasing DRYLOK ETCH at a hardware store other than LOWE's.

When I returned home I mixed the composition by "Eye" with NO weight scale or Measurements and without any type of "Grinding" or "Milling". The DRYLOK ETCH came straight from the bottle. I then tried to lite it with a piece of Visco, and I received the same results that you did. Smoldering but no reaction, I tried a second time again with the same results.

I Then took a Barbecue Lighter and held a Flame on the Mix for approximately 90 seconds and slowly but very surely it started and sustained its own reaction producing volumes of white Smoke. :D

As I had said before I almost always use Microtek's Silicone Fuse and evidently got lucky when I used the Visco. I notice that Visco will work if it can continue to heat the molten area. I assume your alternate igniter that you tried was probably fairly quick burning and did not allow for sufficient heat build-up of the molten particles. Possibly it was to vigorous and scattered the particles.

If you use a lighter the reaction you will see right before it starts is similar to melting, bubbling Sugar. Be sure it has a dish or cup to keep in the molten liquids that will be produced when burning.

I would like to say again that I never had a failure to ignite this mixture using the "MicroFuse".

I mixed a fresh batch. This time I did not grind it at all. I packed a 6” (15.25cm) long ¾” (19mm) I.D. paper tube 1/2 full, inserted an electric igniter and poured in about 1” (25.4mm) of loose composition on top of that. When I touched the igniter to the battery it lit right up. You’re right. The key to a sustained burn with this is to keep the unburned composition underneath the burning comp.

It’s interesting stuff. It burns very slowly, around 3” (7.62cm) per minute. It produces a great deal of smoke with no visible flame and surprisingly little gas. In my case the smoke exited the tube more like fog out of a fog machine than smoke out of a smoke canister. During almost the entire length of the burn the tube was burping up something that resembled bright chartreuse snot. :cool: What remained in the bottom of the tube at the end of the burn was a mass of small Aqua or Turquoise colored crystals. I attached an image of these crystals but the image quality is poor.

I had the tube buried in the ground. While it was still burning I decided to see how it would act under pressure by placing a brick on top of the tube. I was hoping it would increase the burn rate but it didn’t. The brick would have extinguished it if I didn’t remove it.

I like the volume of smoke this produces. I am going the tweak it a little and see if I can get it to ignite easier, burn a little faster, and produce more gas without loosing the any of the smoke.

Cracker; you may be getting closer to that “Flameless” smoke composition your where looking for last month. This stuff burns pretty cool. I did a autopsy on the paper tube and it had only burned through a couple layers of paper. Most of comps I burn in that type of tube almost, if not completely burn through.

I will provide video of the next test burn

http://thumb1.webshots.net/t/57/557/5/80/79/2322580790100688881OxBEwo_th.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2322580790100688881OxBEwo)

Excellent, it's good isnt it!

The key to a sustained burn with this is to keep the unburned composition underneath the burning comp.

Yes, this is my experience also. A light "press" in a open top can works well.


Have fun experimenting but I would like to stress to readers that this Mix really doesn't need any alteration's, The speed at which it burns is a benefit and I found it relatively easy to lite using a suitable source.

Certainly it's Smoke Production Levels need NO tweaking.

Cracker is right. "Tweaking" this composition is a bit misleading. It works fine "as is", and the ingredients are easy to make and/or obtain.

What I am actually doing is attempting to incorporate the ingredients, mainly the sulfamic acid, into a composition I was already working on.

The comp I am working on uses KClO3 / Al and silicone. It produces a very respectable volume of smoke but the density is a little weak and it burns too fast, too hot and produces a little too much gas. I could never contain it. I can't even get it to stay where in one place. This also has its uses "as is".

What I am hoping for is that the sulfamic acid will slow down the burn rate while at the same time greatly increase the density of the smoke. It should light with visco as well. Just an added bonus.

Have you tried substituting ammonium percholate (in place of potassium chlorate to slow the burn time? :)

Did you mean Potassium Chlorate? instead of Potassium Perchlorate? Ill send you a Personal Message to edit the above post.

Ammonium Perchlorate is suggested in the patent, and it's use is listed as "giving a more copious cloud of smoke per unit weight".

As NBK suggested the more I look the more I find this Chemical over the counter. Here are 2 other brands of Sulfamic Acid available in stores(also 99+%pure)>http://www.custombuildingproducts.com/ProductCatalog/TileStoneCare/ProblemSolvers/SulfamicAcidCleaner.aspx?user=arc&lang=en

http://doitbest.com/DoItBest/Main.aspx?PageID=64&SKU=276014

Here is the DRYLOK ETCH picture http://www.usahardware.com/inet/shop/item/11600/icn/20-847897/united_gilsonite_labratories/01908.htm

and don't forget the "Aqua Mix" brand pictured previously.

I had gone to a local Hardware store looking for DRYLOK ETCH and was not able to find it so I went to a different Hardware store in the next city and the whole time both the "Tile Lab" product and "Damtite" was on the shelf. Of course no one that worked there could tell me that.:mad:

Information of possible sources for these acids would be appreciated.

Adipic Acid, Pimelic Acid, Suberic Acid, Azealic Acid, Sebacic Acid, Cinnamic Acid

Cracker, you previously wrote:

Potassium Perchlorate 35
Sulfamic Acid 65

or

Ammonium Perchlorate 42
Sulfamic Acid 58

...Personally I like the Potassium mixture best, but the Ammonium mixture is said to have a little more smoke.

Subsequently Bacon46 expressed interest in slowing the burn rate for his KClO3 based concoction (which isn't based on the patent).

Ammonium Perchlorate is often used in pyrotechnics to create slower burn rates. The slower burn rate may very well result in the Ammonium Perchlorate/Sulfamic Acid mix (reportedly) producing more smoke than Potassium Perchlorate/Sulfamic Acid.

In any case, I'm going to try the ammonium perchlorate/sulfamic mix per the info you provided (and appreciate your efforts here).

Subsequently Bacon46 expressed interest in slowing the burn rate for his KClO3 based concoction (which isn't based on the patent).

I am not trying to slow the burn rate of either of the mixtures of the compositions that Cracker posted. I am trying to use the H3NO3S from that comp to slow the burn rate of a comp I was already working on.

I have not tried the NH4ClO4 / H3NO3S composition but the burn rate of the KClO4 / H3NO3S already has a pretty slow burn rate. Too slow for me personally. I don't feel the ignition and/or combustion is relaible enough for what I am working on, a devise designed for concealment of troop movement in the field.

As a smoke generator in a pyrotechnic display or movie where the position of the container holding the composition is easily controlled it is perfect as posted.

Here are my notes from the initial test of the KClO4 / H3NO3S composition:

Test One

Smoke Composition 1.0
 Sulfamic Acid _ H3NO3S – 65%
 Potassium Chlorate ¬_ KClO4 - 35%

Mixing Method

Ball milled both ingredients together for one hour.

Results

Ignition
Ignition was difficult. It did ignite with an electric igniter and occasionally with visco fuse

Combustion
Unconfined it did not burn with enough energy to propagate ignition laterally. Any composition within approximately 6mm of the ignition source ignited. It produced a chartreuse colored slag and burned downward, burning a hole through the pile until it reached the bottom where combustion ceased.

Sustained and complete combustion was accomplished by packing the composition a in a 19mm I.D. paper tube. This kept the burning composition directly over the unburned composition. This was ignited with an “electric match” that was hot enough to ignite the entire top surface area. Once burning most of the molten slag, and the heat, was confined within the tube. This was enough to sustain combustion. Gravity then forced it to burn to the bottom of the tube at the rate of approximately 8cm per minute.

Smoke Production
Smoke was very dense. The lack of gas generated from combustion prevented the distribution of the smoke over a large area. This composition is definitely worth further experimentation.


My latest composition is:

 Al - (3 micron powder)___________________ 15%
 KClO3 ________________________________ 30%
 Two Part Pt Cure Silicone_________________ 28%
 H3NO3S_______________________________ 27%

This composition is still a little faster than I would like and it does not produce as dense a smoke as Crackers. Tonight I am going to try the following:

 Al - (3 micron powder)___________________ 5%
 KClO3 ________________________________ 35%
 Two Part Pt Cure Silicone_________________ 28%
 H3NO3S_______________________________ 32%

I will post my results if I come up with anything that I feel is an improvement over the comp that Cracker posted. If I can’t improve it I will take the comp I was working on in another direction.

Am I missing something here, or does Hydrogen Chloride (the byproduct of the KClO4 / H3NO3S mixture) not burn your lungs in seconds after inhaling even minute amounts?

This is kind of a late reply, but I am sure that the above question is worth answering...

Evilknny, I know personally from making CuCl many years ago that HCl vapors are indeed choking but they aren't really that noticeable in small amounts... Only when carrying a glass pie pan full of really, really hot HCL/CuO...

They obviously are not good to inhale as opposed to KNO3/Sucrose smoke, for example... Though I try never to inhale any smoke when possible.

On another note, next time I can hitch a ride to Lowe's I will try the sulfamic acid comp. I have five pounds of KCLO4, and not a lot to do with it! (I am obsessed with AN based HE's atm, as opposed to flash :o :cool: :p :rolleyes: )


Also...
I tried a commercial smoke composition I saw on Passfire a while ago-- heres the comp:

Sulfur: 54.5%
KNO3: 41.5%
Charcoal: 4%

I made 25g and packed into a capped paper tube, lit with visco in the middle primed with 4g of KCLO4/Al/meal. (Microteks silicone fuse doesn't require prime, I tested it w/ a 10g batch. Thank you, Microtek!) The mix generated tons of smoke, jetting out of the 1/8 hole about 5-6 feet before leveling off even. It burned for only 15-20 seconds. Looked just like a commercial smoke...

I promptly mixed 200g and made 33g, 67g, and 100g smokes. However, when I lit each of these smokes, all the did is burn slowly with a small jet of flame for about 5 minutes each. With almost no smoke. The conditions were the same... Any ideas? If its inconsistent in results, its worthless. :(

Cheers!

Ok so it sounds like the mixture you made is very similar to a slightly better version that I invented a while back (credit to a good friend and accomplished pyrotechnician for giving me the original idea).

16:Sulfur
13:KNO3
3.5:Sodium Bicarbonate
1:Charcoal {Replace with black powder for faster burn time and more smoke}

(A Video of it Burning) (http://s153.photobucket.com/albums/s233/evilknny9/?action=view&current=L1000106.flv)

The key to this composition, is the lack of oxygen. When there is oxygen present, it completely changes the chemical equation, thus giving you a small flame, and no smoke.

Another word of advice, is that this composition burns very hot, meaning that paper/cardboard tubes are not recommended. Because there is Little to none gas emission, it is completely safe to put this in a metal casing (which is what I did) and drilling a 1/16 - 1/8" hole for the smoke to escape.

If you insist on using some kind of paper/paper shell, Sodium Silicate is a must otherwise you will end up with a wasted smoke bomb and a small, boring flame that burns for ~5 minutes.

Evilknny9

Looks like a great smoke composition. What is the preparation method?

How is the composition mixed?

Is it pressed or rammed into the casing or is it loose? (I assume it's pressed)

If it's pressed is there a core or is it an "end burner"?

Because there is Little to no gas emission, it is completely safe to put this in a metal casing (which is what I did) and drill a 1/16 - 1/8" hole for the smoke to escape.

The size of the nozzle opening is directly related to the maximum amount (surface area) of fuel burning at any given time and the volume of gas produced by that combustion. Even if "little to no gas" is produced.

Example:
Let’s say your devise was an end burner and you used a 1 ½” pipe as a container with a 1/8” nozzle opening. Then theoretically the 1/8” nozzle opening can safely vent the gasses produced by the combustion of 11.41 square cm of this fuel.

If I use a 3” pipe for a container I’ve got 45.6 square cm of fuel burning. An 1/8” nozzle opening could turn my devise into a pipe bomb or steel missile.:eek:

Do you know how much of the fuels surface was burning in your devise?

Bacon: I simply mix mine by emptying the ingredients into a bottle and rolling it on its axis, I don't like to shake anything except thermite. Excellent point on the surface area. Mine had a 1/8 hole and was a 3/4 inch tube, but was center-lit so 1 1/2in total surface area. It was loose, not pressed, but didn't burn through my crappy dry-rolled tube. Granted... the tube was 1/4" thick.

Evilkenny: (I cant view the video, its blocked. :mad: ) Thanks for the input and improved formula. I don't have very much sulfur left (100g?) and I do NOT want to buy it for five times Firefox's price, (Ebay is spendy) so I will probably just bag it, as far as making a whole lot of it. Unless I find another good source. Skylighter is too much as well. Where is my 2.50/lb and no shipping?? :mad: :mad: :mad:

I have 2 of those bamboo oil torch (metal) cans that I cleaned out, its 2-1/8" x 3-3/4" with a 1/4 inch hole in the top. With the cap unscrewed, its a 1" hole. I will probably fill it up with the aforementioned composition (Probably with a 1.5" clay base to make it smaller) and then bend the nozzle to a slightly smaller size... I suppose at least 1/8" to accommodate visco. :D

Thanks!

I too ran out of technical grade sulfur. Since it is just a smoke composition I mixed a batch with garden sulfur. It seems to work just fine. I loosely placed a few grams in a small container and lit it. As evilknny said it produced a flame rather than smoke. It was actually a very nice flame around six inches tall that lasted for at least a minute.

I have decided to press this comp into a smoke canister that I designed and have yet to try. It will definitely restrict the oxygen supply.

The canister is a 6” piece of ¾” steel pipe welded inside of a 1-1/4” steel pipe cap. I am going to press the smoke comp into this piece of pipe then screw it onto a 6” piece of 1-1/4” steel pipe that has holes drilled in it to vent the smoke. The other end of the 1-1/4” pipe will be capped and have an 1/8” hole for a piece of fuse. At some point I want to try to add an atomized powder of some sort in the space between the larger and smaller pipes in the hope of dispersing it with the smoke. (See attached drawing)

I purchased the material yesterday and will try to get it built today. I will post a video of the results.


http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3929/smokecanisteryd2.th.jpg (http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=smokecanisteryd2.jpg)

Sorry for the delay in posting as I have been exceptionally busy the last week. First of all, I typically don't press the mixture as it slows down the burn rate considerably, and would not be as practical for something like paintball where you need a relatively quick burning, fast release of smoke to provide cover. The hole/fuse is in the center of the tubing, so generally speaking, the burning comp is not on top of the unburnt, and it burns outwards towards the edges.

The tubes I use for a typical smokebomb (I clamp the ends) have roughly
6CM x 1.5CM Diamater filled with smoke composition. That equates to roughly
10.6cm3 worth of composition in one device. As for how much of the fuels surface was burning in my device, I will test one of these tonight (very difficult to do in my neighborhood :() and I will find the burn rate which should be able to give me a general impression of how safe it is to continue using such tubing.

Now that the preliminaries are aside, as for mixing...I typically just combine the chemicals together and mill for 10-15 minutes. I have tested it with simply combining the chemicals and with extensive milling and haven't found there to be enough of a difference to warrant the extra time spent occupying my ball mill. When using 1/16 visco I will typically pack a small amount of black powder around the fuse hole to ensure ignition, however with a slower burning 1/8 falling leaf fuse that I have been trying lately...ignition has not been an issue.

Anyway Bacon, I can't wait to see the video of how yours turned out, and for everyone who is looking for sulfur at semi-reasonable prices, I have had great success with the cheap sulfur that I got here.

http://www.dbcpyrotechnics.com/servlet/the-544/Sulfur--dsh--Price-per/Detail

(I found the guy on eBay, sells a lot of chemicals cheaply however some are a bit unreasonably expensive such as dextrin which makes no sense, but whatever)

P.S. after further inspection of your device, and the amount of composition that will be occupying it, I will say that unless it is pressed, you should definately lose one of those exhaust holes.

Excellent Smoke Composition Evilknny

It produces a high volume of dense white smoke and does it quickly.

The pipe in a pipe idea I tried was unnecessary for this composition but it may still work for dispersing powders. It caused the composition to burn inconsistently. Had I just put the composition in a pipe with a hole in it, it would have dispersed the smoke consistently I’m sure. I wound up just filling both pipes with loose comp and letting it rip. Way too easy. :D The total burn time was 2 minutes 30 seconds for 5oz (141.74g) of composition.

The only drawbacks to this comp are the large quantities of SO2 in the smoke and the smell of sulfur could gag a maggot. (Not that this was unexpected) Great if you’re trying to force someone out of a building, not so great if you have to breathe the smoke.

Xenodius; I like the Tiki Torch can idea. I am going to see if I can find a couple of those. The pipe I used holds 10.6ci your torch cans hold 13.29 ci if you are going to use it for cover smoke I would leave it as is and not put any clay in it

To try and avoid pissing off my neighbors I tested the devise real early on Sunday morning when most people are still sleeping. Most of my neighbors are wetbacks anyway; they wouldn’t call the fire department if their house was on fire.

Here’s the video of this mornings test. The flame you see in the beginning is composition that was ejected from one of the vent holes as soon as the devise ignited.

<a href="http://img532.imageshack.us/my.php?image=smokecanistersuccessug4.flv"><img src="http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/5470/smokecanistersuccessug4.flv.th.jpg"/></a>

Not bad, although if that flame had not come out, I can almost assure you that you would have seen smoke production equal to that of in the first 20 seconds throughout the entire burn time.

The sulfur smell is rather annoying, and I did severely piss off my neighbors with it a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately since then it has become increasingly hard to test fireworks in my backyard without worrying about the cops or the fire department :(

Removing Post Out of Fear...

FOR ANYONE WHO SAW, IT WAS ONLY A SMOKEBOMB AND NOT DANGEROUS or EXPLOSIVE

The last thing I want to do is piss on your parade, but you might (in the future) consider the legal repercussions of your post and image.

If your dude goes where ever with your pipe bomb and substitutes the comp for something a little more energetic, your ass is on the line.

His will likely be blown into the next county.

I would hose it down with degreaser, scrub the shit out of it, and then wipe it down with an oily rag, prior to giving it to him, so there's no fingerprints or DNA on it.

And why would it take so long for him to get around to setting it off? He likes keeping giant pipe-bombs around for months?!

a) Please stop refering to it as a 'Bomb' as it was nothing of the sort. It was a smoke device, which in no way shape or form explodes

b) Thanks for the tip, and by the way, he only goes there in the summer in mid-July. He asked me to make him a giant smoke device for $40 so I agreed :)

A) If it looks like a pipe-bomb, it IS a pipe-bomb, regardless of what's in it. Try telling the cops 'Oh, it's not a pipe-bomb, it's filled with smoke powder.', and see where you'll be sitting for the next few months while waiting to tell the judge that story. :p

Plus, it could explode, if the smoke powder became uncompacted and burned faster than it could vent.

B) Ah.

I didn’t see Evilknny’s controversial post but I agree with NBK, A) If it looks like a pipe-bomb, it IS a pipe-bomb, regardless of what's in it.
If a cop saw the devise in your car you would be in jail in a heart beat. They would be calling out the bomb squad, closing roads and evacuating neighborhoods. And you could bet your ass you would be sitting in jail while they take their sweet ass time analyzing the devise. I wouldn’t put it past the sons of bitches to video tape themselves destroying the devise with HE and claiming they saved the fucking world. I have had them trump up some pretty amazing shit on me to avoid looking stupid. I beat the charges but the time involved and attorney’s fees about killed me.

On the other hand; I am not saying it would be impossible and you should always treat this devise as though it will explode, but you would have a hell of a time trying to get this composition to explode if it is mixed according to Evilknny’s formula. A little too much KNO3 and it would be a whole different story.:eek:

I have experimented with this composition in 1 ¼” I.D. steel pipe and paper tubes, using between 6oz and 8oz of composition per devise.

So far I have found that the best results have been achieved by placing the composition loose in the container so you can get as much of the composition burning as quickly possible. The fuse should be placed in the center of the devise rather than at the end so the composition burns from the center of the devise out, thus increasing the amount of burning composition. If the vent is much larger than 3/16” in diameter the smoke production is greatly reduced. The 1/8" fuse hole has been sufficient. At ¼” you will more than likely have a torch. This confirms what Evilknny stated earlier.

I have also found that this composition seems to work with commercial organic smoke dyes. I conducted the first dye test at night under a yellow light. (Bad idea) The smoke appeared red but it was hard to tell just how red. I will repeat the test during the day and post video if it works.

Just for the hell of it I will make another devise using 8oz of smoke composition and a steel pipe. I will drill a vent hole just large enough for the wires on an electric match to pass through, say 1/16” or smaller. The smallest diameter fuse I have is 1/8”. Any bets on the results? :D

Treat the threads to some Loctite 680, keep the thread locker away from the comp; a little goes a long way. Wear gloves.

And/or, bugger the threads up real good, like with a chisel at an angle, or flatten some of them with the peen end of your hammer. Don't use a file- you want to displace metal, not remove it. Leave enough clean threads to start the caps on, obviously.

Then proceed with the zealous tightening of the caps. Only mangle the threads if you have access to some HD, high leverage tools. A nylon strap wrench is not going to get it. You want a big ass pipe wrench and vice, ideally.

This way, your noob can't get inside it to change anything, without a lot of effort.

Thanks for the tip, and by the way, he only goes there in the summer in mid-July. He asked me to make him a giant smoke device for $40 so I agreed
You work cheap. I doubt two dove will buy a pack of smokes...inside;) .

Remember the guy who got SENTENCED for violating federal explosives laws for only setting off a plastic bottle with CO2? Yes, they actually sent him up the river on federal charges for the simple noise making device. It was only AFTER the trial was over that his attorney realized they charged him with the WRONG laws since it was not actually a high explosive device.

You may be in the right, but to the cops/prosecutors/judges even a little pop bottle going poof is a dangerous destructive device. I think some recent prosecutions have been made on parts of a pipe bomb without any filler at all just based on the probability it COULD (most likely) have been used to make a bomb.

Hell, they shut an entire city down for those Aqua Teen movie adverts just because a few wires were sticking up.

The fedgov will always assume the worst and throw every charge in the book at you in hopes that something will stick. They start from treating you like you were Osama's butt buddy, and just maybe they find out over time, and many beatings later, that you might just be a human after all.

The test using Evilknny9’s smoke composition with commercial smoke dye was successful. The attached video is 100:1 smoke comp to Orcosmoke Red 3B smoke dye. Organic Dye Stuffs Corp sent me 2g samples of four of their dye colors; red, yellow, green and blue. I had already burned up all but the red using various other compositions. This is the only composition that produced colored smoke.

It is a very weak composition to dye ratio so the smoke is pink rather than red but it does work. 25:1 would probably produce a true red smoke. The bad news is Organic Dye Stuffs want’s $35.00 US per lb. Minimum order is 50lbs. The guy wasn’t very helpful as far as technical support was concerned either. :mad:

However; I did find a smoke dye manufacturer in Northampton MA called Walrus Enterprises LLC that was much more cooperative. :)

Here is a copy of their reply to the email I sent them:

Thank you for your interest in our products.

First the technical aspect: I can provide formulae for energetic mixtures to create a smoke cloud with fast or slow burning (smoke evolution) characteristics; you will also need a starter mixture and/or a fuze to initiate the burning.

Minimum order quanity is 1 kg (2.2 lb). Since our dyes are packaged in increments of 25 kg, we require $ 10 per color to repack to smaller quantities.

Average price is ~ $ 20/lb. Non-toxic black smoke is > $ 30/lb.

Let me know how we can be of service.

Renato
Renato Bartoli, DSc
Walrus Enterprises, LLC
30 Aldrich Street
Northampton, MA 01060-2215
(413) 519-9534 phone
http://www.coloredsmoke.com

It’s still not cheap but they are willing to do business with the little guy. And they provide technical support.

If the ratios are similar to the Orco dyes a person could produce a lot of colored smoke with a kg of smoke dye mixed with Evilknny9’s smoke composition; and I would imagine the formulas they provide will produce military quality smoke.

I can’t purchase any now, but when my financial condition improves I will definitely be checking this out. If anyone has already done business with this company any information as to how thigs went would be appreciated.

<a href="http://img531.imageshack.us/my.php?image=redsmokepostjv3.flv"><img src="http://img531.imageshack.us/img531/8009/redsmokepostjv3.flv.th.jpg"/></a>

Current military smoke grenades are terephthalic acid (TPA) because it tested as less toxic than the old hexachloroethane comps.

The old formula was called "HC" and was used by the
military until about 1975.
Hexachloroethane 45%
Zinc Oxide 45%
Aluminum powder 10%
8 oz. makes 100,000 cubic feet of dense gray/white zinc chloride smoke

Other variations are
Hexachloroethane 53%
Zinc Dust 44%
Magnesium Oxide 3%

Hexachloroethane 45%
Zinc Oxide 45%
Calcium Silicide 10%
In addition to producing a zinc chloride smoke, it also forms silicon tetrachloride which reacts with moisture in the air to produce silicic acid which is also a smoke agent.

Hexachloroethane 40 - 45%
Zinc Oxide 20 - 40%
Ammonium Perchlorate 35 - 10%
Powdered Charcoal 5%
This is a newer formula and is mixed after being dampened with a 5% PVC solution (use PVC pipe primer as a solvent). The burn rate varies with the amount of ammonium perchlorate. The smoke consists of ammonium chloride, and zinc chloride.

These days for basic smoke cookies I mix one part potassium nitrate with (I'm ashamed to say) 2 parts powdered coffee creamer and a little water, and bake in a muffin pan at 275 degrees for an hour. Use the little paper muffin cups to line the pan so you can get them out. They make very dense whte smoke and they last 3-4 minutes. Light them with a pair of D cells and a 1/4 watt resistor.

Hello,

I've been a member here for a long time but use this forum as my library vs trying to store all the info in my head but after reading this whole smoke thread through twice, I just had to add my 2 cents worth.

1st of all my understanding of smoke dyes (I use DISPERSE RED DYE #9) is that too much heat is its biggest problem. Too hot and the dye is destroyed and not enough heat and again the dye fails. So in my formula that I supply with my dye when I sell it is this:

DISPERSE RED DYE........ 43%
POTASSIUM CHLORATE... 30%
SODIUM BICARBONATE.... 25%
SULFUR........................ 02%

*As a note it was given to me from a senior member of the Pyrotechnics Guild as part of an offer in my ad for the sale of the dye. Best formula submited will get 1lb for free including S&H. He was the only person who submitted one!*

First the KClO3 is ground to a fine powder, Second the baking soda is broken up so there are no lumps, Third same with the sulfur. Mortar & Pestle is what I have been using. Now when mixing it up I start with the Dye 1st & add in the baking soda while mixing at the same time, then I add in the KClO3 in small portions till all is mixed together. Now I then put the mixture into a baggie or large plastic tub & shake it on & off for a long time to insure that it's mixed well. Now I then add in the 2% sulfur which by the way I use only the finest low acid type I can find. Once it is finished being mixed up, it's ready to go.

********* WARNING PLEASE READ! ************
NOW AS THIS IS A CHLORATE SULFUR MIXTURE A WARNING SHOULD BE GIVEN THAT IT COULD BE SENSITIVE TO FRICTION OR SHOCK. BUT IN ALL THE TIME I HAVE USED THIS MIXTURE I HAVE NEVER EVER HAD A PROBLEM & I ALSO HIT 0.5 GRAMS OF THIS MIXTURE ON A ROCK WITH A LARGE HAMMER WITH THE ONLY RESULT BEING RED DYE ALL OVER MY SHIRT.
*****************************************

This generates very little heat at all. The amount of RED smoke it gives off is massive compaired to other smoke dyes I have tried in the past. It can be if needed packed into a tube or just put into a piece of aluminum foil with some fuse & lit. Nothing special unless it goes into a 2" or wider tube then the hole for the smoke to exit through must be a minimum of 1/4" or larger if your using tubes with 3-4" diameters.

The smokes color is BRIGHT RED but my DISPERSE YELLOW DYE looks gold vs yellow but is still awsum. So my original desire to create a safe smoke mixture that won't burn down anything around it has been satisfied by this mixture. I ignited a 1/4LB lot of it in a building that was about to be torn down. The size of the room was large enough for an olympic sized pool, which by the way is what was in it but it was drained & the cement was cracked. Anyway the 1/4LB lot was put into a large soup can & then ignited. Once I saw smoke coming from the can I left the room for about 3-4 minutes. Upon my return the whole room was full of a thick very dense red smoke. I had to leave as breathing was not possible without getting the dye particals in my lungs.

This was my last attempt at making a good safe colored smoke formula & it had to be donated to me. But I learned something. Just because the military HC smoke mixtures burn with a lot of heat they are nothing like the art of a real colored smoke mixture. In fact they are no way the same. This formula if followed always works!

I now use 5 colors mixed up & turned into almost rubber form using PBAN resin mix like used in the AP rocket motor castings. But I make it up let it cure at room temp slice them into 1/2 tall sections then stack them in a carboard tube one on top of the other. First Red, then Blue, then yellow then green & last but not least purple. It is a cool effect but once it is finished burning the tube can be picked up in one's hands w/o any trouble at all. They do not even start to burn the tube. In fact I lit one on a piece of news paper and when it was done the paper was not burned though it was darkened a little.

So my reason for this post was first to tell people that at least most of the colored smoke dye's do not want a lot of heat, That oxygen is not a problem and that they can be made & used w/o fear of causing a fire. Also colored smoke is an art & if the dye changes so will the ratio's of the other chemicals.

So far this posted formula has worked with almost all of the samples I got in the past but could not get to work right using all of my own formula's or ones found here on the forum. But it only took one nice person's help to bring me the needed knowledge. Now the art of colored smokes is FUN FUN FUN!

I hope my 1st post gave someone if not everyone some insight into the workings of colored dyes & their makeup's & maybe the donated formula may help others as much as it has helped me. Thanks & good day!

If I use a 3” pipe for a container I’ve got 45.6 square cm of fuel burning. An 1/8” nozzle opening could turn my devise into a pipe bomb or steel missile.:eek:



I am not saying it would be impossible and you should always treat this devise as though it will explode, but you would have a hell of a time trying to get this composition to explode if it is mixed according to Evilknny’s formula. A little too much KNO3 and it would be a whole different story.:eek:


My little Experience with this composition seems quite relevant to this thread. Just see for yourself what happens when the exhaust hole is a bit too small. http://youtube.com/watch?v=QxHOIqNJfEo
The smoke device is towards the end if you don't feel like watching the whole thing.

I used this mixture:
16:Sulfur
13:KNO3
1:Charcoal {Replace with black powder for faster burn time and more smoke}

Everything was mixed to the milligram. Not too much KNO3 in this batch Bacon. I believe the final amount came out to be about 500 grams.

I see young kids doing things that could maim or kill them.

A pile of flashcrackers being cut apart with metal scissors? :rolleyes:

How about a pipe-bomb filled with BP being capped by two people, one holding the pipe as the other wrenches in the plug?

'But we used teflon tape!' you say?

Originally Posted by: 0162017402290215
I used this mixture:
16:Sulfur
13:KNO3
1:Charcoal {Replace with black powder for faster burn time and more smoke}

Everything was mixed to the milligram. Not too much KNO3 in this batch Bacon. I believe the final amount came out to be about 500 grams


The video of the red smoke I posted earlier was about the same amount of composition (500g) in a 2” steel pipe with a single .125” (3.175mm) exhaust hole and was ignited from the end. It burned so slow had it not produced colored smoke I would have considered the devise a complete failure.

As I stated in my previous post you should always treat the devise as if it could explode but the burn rate of the devise in your video appeared to be much faster and the exhaust hole much larger.

Did you use black powder or charcoal?

How big was the exhaust hole?

How big was the container?

Was it ignited from the end or the center?

NEVER FORGET:
Most LE agencies get their people graded on the amount of felony arrests they make that the prosecutor will take to trial. They have a stake in the felony arrest; not determining the truth. Their "CSI" is in place to uphold their contention that the felony exists and is trial worthy. Certain facts remain:

Real life is not a TV series wherein the CSI is there to discover evidence to determine truth. It's in place to make prosecution easier.

Law Enforcement lies quite often. They have a stake in putting the arrestee away.

Posting on YouTube.com is a very, very easy way to get in serious trouble. The methods of ISP discovery have advanced to a point of remarkable effectiveness.

There are "internet desks" in certain LE agencies (both large & small) which are devoted to this process to generate leads. When times are slow they prove their worth.

The agency most vulnerable to funding cuts is one that has to continually prove their need to exist: ATF! And they OFTEN go after easy targets.

The above are self-evident truths. It's wishful thinking to believe that these problems don't exist. The statement: "It's just a smoke bomb" gets easily converted into "It's just a small bomb" in courtroom testimony. STOP any and all posting in the first person: "I made a cake". Instead, use: "when I saw a cake made...." or some such shit. It's a simple grammatical correction that can save a lot of grief for many.

DON'T STOP BEING PARANOID; that's self-preservation talking.

I have to agree with you Picket. Our society now is just out to get us Enthusiast that mean no harm. Its sad, just a few years ago you wouldn't be called a Terrorist when playing with a few petty fireworks, but now you are pinned as a terrorist when you do just about anything that can be twisted out of context or meaning. I should take more precautions than I do. Not that I Really do know about anything in my previous post. haha

I know you are sticking your tongue at me NBK. I am limited by my parents to what I can do in my dreams, anything to get my pyro fix I suppose. Those crackers were cut below the flash right on the clay plug :p. My parents believe that these things were not as dangerous as some of the High Explosive alternatives. Maybe they are right, but I say you have to respect anything and all of it poses a danger. Some argumentative pointers would be nice.

In my dream I saw the following details about the smoke device at the end of the video:

-3/16" Exhaust hole
-2" diameter pipe, 6" long
-Charcoal Brickette (crushed)
-Ignition at top from visco safety fuse
-The baking soda was eliminated from the composition. When tested in a smaller tube the burn rate was far too slow with baking soda. I suspect the larger radius of the tube provided more surface area for the composition to burn at a faster rate than the smaller tube.

Two weeks later in my dreams I repeated the same process. The exact same batch was used but it had been sitting out in the open for the two weeks. Same tube, but five of the same size holes rather than one. The device was a complete failure, there was some flame but not much smoke. I believe the composition may have collected moister in the open, but then again, maybe there were too many holes allowing for more oxygen to burn with the mix.

Briquettes are a poor source for charcoal because they typically contain clay and other binders.

I used technical grade KNO3 and S, food grade NaHCO3 and air float Mesquite charcoal. It must be the absence of NaHCO3 in your composition that caused it to explode. It may have been a better idea to reduce the amount of NaHCO3 a little at a time rather than excluding it all together.

Odds are the problem you had with the device with five holes was too much oxygen. I performed a similar test the same results. (See Evilknny9's post at the top of this page)

Yeah, I was really pressed for time in my dreams. I only had about 3 hours of prep. This was on the 4th, Had to finish before daylight was gone. Sulfur was 90% Gardening pellets, then the Briquettes, and fairly pure KNO3 (stump remover). Not to mention that I had to do the testing with and without NaHCO3 :). But yeah, I guess it was the best of both worlds, Thick smoke and an unexpected percussion.

Do you think there is a way to make the composition burn in the open and produce smoke, Maybe by adding even more baking soda? It would be great because the container design wouldn't have to be as critical.

First thing you should buy is an electric coffee grinder (<$20), so you can save a lot of time by not manually crushing powders, and get a much finer powder to boot.

I finally got around to mixing up a batch of the following smoke composition. It was posted by Baggs back in July. When he first posted it I tried substituting KClO4 for the KClO3 because it was all I had on hand and it didn’t work. I couldn’t even get it to ignite. The problem was more than likely with the KClO4 . It has failed me in other compositions in the past.

To mix I passed all four ingredients through a 300 mesh screen three times. I would not normally mix chlorates with sulfur in this manner due to the friction sensitivity, but I made an exception with this very low energy composition.

DISPERSE DYE............... 43%
POTASSIUM CHLORATE... 30%
SODIUM BICARBONATE.... 25%
SULFUR........................ 02%

It worked quite well. The linked video (http://img532.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yellowsmokepostnx3.flv) is of 85g of this composition very loosely confined in a 38mm diameter x 150mm long cardboard shipping tube. The plastic end caps are taped in place with foil duct tape. It has a 6mm exhaust hole and was ignited by a piece of visco fuse.

Unfortunately it was a breezy day and the smoke was carried away rather quickly. On a still day you could definitely use this composition to screen troop movement etc.

This video (http://img532.imageshack.us/my.php?image=reddispersesmokehqey2.flv) is the same composition as the one above but the dye is red, the composition is slightly more confined, the air is still and there is 114g of composition. These are tests of the compositions performance, no thought was given to the way this device dispersed the smoke. With very little effort a container could be made from PVC that dispensed the smoke in a way that would keep the smoke closer to the ground.

Almost the entire volume of smoke from this device wound up in my next door neighbors back yard. He has a pool; I am thinking the colder air at the surface of the pool created a down draft causing the smoke to concentrate in his yard. It’s a drop house for illegal Mexican aliens so who fucking cares!:mad:

With the ease of availability of Lithium Carbonate from ceramic supply places I found this smoke recipe to be particularly interesting as well.

METALLIC COMPOSITION FOR PRODUCTION OF HYGROSCOPIC SMOKE

http://http://www.google.com/patents?id=uFZpAAAAEBAJ&printsec=description&zoom=4&dq=lithium+carbonate+smoke (http://www.google.com/patents?id=uFZpAAAAEBAJ&printsec=description&zoom=4&dq=lithium+carbonate+smoke)

So, I was planning on developing a smoke device that would release it's full volume of smoke as fast as possible (almost instantaneously if possible). I was thinking I would make the regular 60:40 mix. Only, after hardening I would grind that up and mix with a small percentage of BP, dextrin, and bind it with paraffin for that extra bit of smoke. Then I would place the entire composition in a can with a starting fire comp... are there any special considerations that I should account for before experimentation? I'm not that experienced with pyro, although I attempt to exercise the maxim "always think, what would happen if this blew up right now"


Edit 1: the paraffin was a bad choice for a binder, It burned way too slow. I will try again later this week with a different formulation... thickest smoke I've ever seen though

I am assuming the 60/40 mix you are referring to is 60% sugar / 40% KNO3. Grinding that mix into a powder will cause it to burn faster. Turning it back into a solid mass using dextrin and or paraffin will more than likely prevent it from igniting at all. The 60/40 composition is already fuel rich. With paraffin it may burn like a candle.

Creating a device to release a large quantity of “smoke” at once is probably going to be difficult. The faster a pyrotechnic composition burns the more efficiently it burns. Typically the more efficiently a composition burns the less smoke it produces.

The “colored smoke” produced by the devices in my previous post are a combination of smoke and a very fine colored dye that is dispersed into the air by the combustion gasses from the low energy, low temperature composition it is mixed with. If the combustion temperature of the composition is too high, the dye will burn and the device will create black smoke and soot.

I suppose one could place a pyrotechnic charge in the bottom of a container full of dye and set it off creating a large cloud very quickly. The charge would have to be large enough to lift all of the dye into the air and not just spread it all over the ground, but not so large that it dispersed the dye too much. I am also assuming you want the cloud to be dense. A cheap powdered dye you could experiment with would be concrete dye. It is available at your local hardware store.

If I was you I would spend more time reading and experiment on a small scale. Your odds of surviving a mistake are much better.:D

Grinding that mix into a powder will cause it to burn faster. Turning it back into a solid mass using dextrin and or paraffin will more than likely prevent it from igniting at all. The 60/40 composition is already fuel rich. With paraffin it may burn like a candle.

Creating a device to release a large quantity of “smoke” at once is probably going to be difficult. The faster a pyrotechnic composition burns the more efficiently it burns. Typically the more efficiently a composition burns the less smoke it produces.

I suppose one could place a pyrotechnic charge in the bottom of a container full of dye

If I was you I would spend more time reading and experiment on a small scale. Your odds of surviving a mistake are much better.:D

Ahh but I am using the dextrin not as a binder, but as a additive to increase the smoke density... a little trick I read on the UK pyro forum. Also, as it is I have managed to create a hell of alot of smoke fairly quick using a 50/50 BP, pre-ground smoke powder mix. This may in fact be the ideal comp.

In addition, I plan to not use dye at all as it will dilute the mix and in turn cause it to burn that much slower, even though it will be such a small amount the point is the same... I want it as fast as possible, fast enough to make a smoke bang :D which is ideally what I hope to accomplish... hmmm, I suppose a metal can is out of the question for a non-lethal device.

By the way, I did not use that much paraffin, just enough to make it crumbly, and yes I have been attempting small amounts only. I do value my digits :D
.
.
. I will edit this in the morning when I've had a decent cup of coffee and a bowl to clear my head... I hate telemarketing!!!:mad:

I want it as fast as possible, fast enough to make a smoke bang :D which is ideally what I hope to accomplish

Try mixing fine grained black powder with powdered napthalene moth balls and filling a caseing- bang, fireball and a cloud of black smoke. Proportions can be altered to produce more bang, or more smoke and fireball.

If I understand what you guys are discussing, you want to make a small explosion that distributes enormous amounts of smoke in a very short time....(?)

What about a composition such as the theatrical smoke/flash type:

KCLO4 - 55%
Al (-325 mesh) - 10%
S - 5%
Asphaltum (Gibsonite) 30%

You have dark smoke but it's fast as can be...??? The Asphaltum is a mil-spec (JAN-A-356) fine grade (I believe 325 itself) that is soluble in toluene for a mold-making effort that allows for a self contained unit.

Here's what he's looking for. :)

Improvised Ninja Smoke Devices:

/ftp/upload/nbk2000/E&W/

1.8MB PDF

Hmmm... I would have edited my above post however the button seems to be missing.:confused:

Also it has been said that reducing both above percentages by 2.5% and adding 5% sulfur works better. If you wish, this smoke mix may be catalyzed to burn much faster by adding a small amount of red iron oxide (+1%) during the melting phase.
http://www.pyroguide.com/index.php?title=Smoke_mix

++++++++

You only have a short period of time to edit your own posts. This is to prevent pissy people from deleting their own posts in past threads, ruining the continuity of the topic, as happened once (and only once! :p) before. NBK

Thermiteisfun - A problem with doing what you are trying to do is that it is more efficient as Bacon said, and the heat of the smoke makes it auto-combust upon contact with air, effectively ruining your smoke.

An idea might be to use a fuel whose byproduct, when oxidised, is something that resembles a smoke. For instance, when hexachloroethane burns, it will release HCl gas as a byproduct (I assume) which forms dense clouds in the air. Another one could be powdered Zinc metal, which (hopefully) would form a powder of Zinc Oxide, which would become airborne.

On the topic of Zinc, I've read about some smoke compositions that use Zinc Stearate as a fuel to form your Zinc Oxide powder. Perhaps that is worth a try?

An interesting proposition could be Titanium as a fuel, which is oxidised to (hot) Titanium Dioxide, which would emit vast quantities of EM radiation in the IR spectrum, and when it cooled, assuming it was still airborne, would disrupt IR night-vision equipment.

Powdered PVC might be an interesting addition, although I wouldn't breath it in.

I'm the luckiest sonofabitch on the planet. One of my occasional clients called and said he wants me to design a new smoke grenade per a DOD contract. His company is topheavy with chemical engineers, but I still was able to convince him to let me handle some of the pyro, as well. The budget was fat enough that he agreed to buy me a "chemistry Set."
So, with the assistance of Uncle Sam's checkbook, I'll be shipped any & all chemicals I'd need for not only the smoke comps themselves, but primes and initiators, too. Plus, I've got limited use of the company card for any other tools & supplies I might need. What a hoot!
And I was wondering; what sort of formulas would you persue if you had the equivalent of an account with every chemical and metals company you could name?
By the way, NO PHOSPHORUS and NO HEXACHLOROETHANE!!! Other than that, what would you cook up in your "dream lab?"

"A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet."

Give the parameters for the device(s) you are to design?

Possibly a sphere shaped device with a thermite composition in small tubes running latitudinal through the device to ignite the exterior of a soon to be suggested smoke composition.

For better smoke distribution, holes placed at equidistant points around the device, possibly covered in a type of hard NC lacquer that would burn off allowing smoke to escape from points other than the fuse hole (kind of like a fire-proof whiffle ball full of smoke mix :D).

Obviously, the tubes of thermite (or whatever else would ignite the mixture) should run across the ports to burn the NC away. The only reason I am suggesting the thermite is... well look at my name.

OK, Bert. The basic parameters include more or less the same size & weight as the M-18, similar smoke density and duration, and as many COTS items as possible. This last requirement will, of course, neccesitate the use of the standard M-201-A1 grenade fuse, which has no appreciable well and, in addition to the impact primer and delay, a mighty 30 mg. of ignitor mix (basically a slag-producing flash mix). We can go bigger on this.
I just erased a bunch of stuff that would've gotten my ass kicked if I posted it here, and in more ways than one!
Thermiteisfun, suffice it to say that the need for linearity pretty much rules out anything but a cylindrical configuration, though a "hip flask" arrangement is being considered. Spheres are kind of like wearing cast Iron Christmas ornaments. And ask any girl with a real rack if they ever get in the way (this may have to be approached delicately).
I think my main line of questioning had to do with formulas, for smokes, primes, delays, thermonuclear initiation techniques etc. Remember, in the dream lab you can have any mix you want. And we all know the thrills of Grant's prills, so try to think out of the Home Depot box. I'm interested in how other pyros would deal with such luck.
Believe it or not, this is a high pressure job.

If they want/need such similarity to M-18, why do they need a new design? What DONT they like about the current smoke grenade?

As far as things I have wanted for experimentation that would reasonably be found in a military pyrotechnic setting, but not in a hobbyist pyro supply catalogue...

Elemental Boron powder

Tungsten powder in low micron range

Zirconium hydride powder

Barium and Strontium perchlorates and peroxides

Hexachlorobenzene

Guanidine nitrate

For a quick list of other pyro chemicals you could want for entertainment fireworks, just go and read Skyligher and Firefox product lists. A look at the list of banned and reportable chemicals could also suggest a few things-

I don't know how many times I have read on the Internet that the Potassium Nitrate and Caramelized Sugar mix cant be colored well. I always new that was bull, However I never took the time to prove it wrong.

So heres a nice one on the video below.

Quite simply this was obvious I just thought it best to include this here for those that have heard the same as I.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62OSwuSlR4Y&feature=related

That’s disheartening. If you watch all of his videos, the guy appears to be an idiot, but he managed to do something I haven’t been able to do. I have added organic dyes to KNO3/Sucrose smoke compositions and couldn’t even get them to ignite. At the time, I had a very limited supply of dye, so I was only able to test a couple different compositions but all were failures.

I wish the guy would have given more specifics on the dye used. It also would have been nice if the formula wasn’t a spoonful of this and three spoonfuls of that.

I’ve got more dye, I guess I’ll weigh out some spoonfuls and give it another try.:)

"This video has been removed due to terms of use violation"

So what exactly have we missed?

Here is the same video but a different link, that is currently working well.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/704958/ultimate_colored_smoke_bomb/

Also, any one trying this should never use an open flame burner, like this one.

A much safer method is to melt the Sugar to a syrup carmel, then take it of the Burner. At that point slowly add and throughly mix in the Potassium Nitrate and Dye.

If the sugar is good and Hot it will do all the melting for you, with out the continued use of external heat.

Jesus, I don't know how many times this has been brought up before on a bunch of forums. That video, and pretty much all of this guy's videos, are complete BS.

If you would UTFSE you would find out how many people have debunked this video. It is simply an idiot trying to fool other idiots. He simply wrapped a commercial smoke grenade in tape and lit it.

It has been brought up multiple times that KNO3/Sucrose smoke generators cannot be colored, they simply burn too hot and destroy any dyes you add. You need a very cool burning formula like Chlorate/Lactose to actually vaporize the dye particles into a visible smoke cloud, it isn't really even smoke at all.

So I say to all of you, quit posting this garbage about coloring KNO3/Sucrose smokes, it has been tried so many times and it just ain't gunna happen. And in the future, DO NOT BELIEVE ANY OF THESE "SHOOTING EGGS" VIDEOS. I haven't seen a single video from this guy that has any realistic info in it. Just plain camera tricks, and the techniques he uses could get people hurt.

Rant over.

It is simply an idiot trying to fool other idiots. He simply wrapped a commercial smoke grenade in tape and lit it.

So I say to all of you, quit posting this garbage about coloring KNO3/Sucrose smokes, it has been tried so many times and it just ain't gunna happen.



You have said some interestingly bold things here "wyman".

Regardless of this videos authenticity, to say something "cant" be done is really quite ridiculous.

You can stop and "say" it cant be done, all while someone else out there is actually doing it.

Simply by definition all it will take to color this type of smoke is an Oil based Dye with a high enough evaporation temperature and-or other additives and methods to control the high heat output the standard mixture creates.

So tell me "wyman" you say this video is fake because the person in the link below says so? Or because you have thoroughly tested this method and other similar methods yourself and believe it to be a fake?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/721562/re_ultimate_colored_smoke_bomb_fake/

My main idea with my rant was that the way shown in the video was not possible with what he used, not necessarily you cannot color that smoke altogether. I should have been more specific, but was not careful about what I said. You're right, I shouldn't have said that KNO3/Sucrose smokes can't be colored, that was a bad on my part, I was a little hot headed about another person that was fooled by the video that this guy made.

If you have actually seen the other videos he has made and look at them closely you can tell they are fake, such as the ninja smoke device video, and the "super binary explosive" one. To me this falsifies anything he does and gives him zero credibility.

When searching through other forums in the past I have come across a few threads/posts about this same video and it's composition. On one of the forums there was talk about what types of dyes were used and some people had contacted this guy to ask him what he used.

The people that actually got replies back were told that it was some sort of hobby store dye, he wouldn't ever give any names of anything and would be vague about it. I think after awhile someone was actually told by the author that the video was fake, so it pretty much ended there. I would have to look again for where I found this info, but I believe it was on APC forum, along with info from Passfire about why they couldn't be done.

When I do get my workshop back together I will try to get one to work, as you are right, I have not actually tried it since I have no dyes, but I still believe it is a lost cause. I mean really, if there was a way to actually color a KNO3/Sucrose compositon I bet somebody would have found it out long ago, as it most likely would be the cheapest way to do it. If one has been found, it was most likely inferior/incredibly expensive and was never used.

SO I would like to apologize anyway for my rant, I just hate seeing people getting fooled over and over again. Although until I actually see a real colored smoke device made with KNO3/Sucrose I will not believe it can be done. But by all means if people want to try and get it to work, shoot for the moon, it would be great if it could be done but with currently available materials is most likely not possible.

PS - What was that link for, it only went to the reply section...

http://www.metacafe.com/tags/shooting_eggs/

If you take a careful look at all the videos you will come to believe as I do that "Shooting Eggs Productions" is FULL of BS

Thank God I don't have to worry about colored smoke yet. At this point, the Gummint just wants a white smoke that will outperform, or at least match, the output of the Red Phosphorus comp and be less toxic.
And the question still stands: If you had any & all chemicals and gear you want at your disposal, what sort of formulas would you gravitate toward?

white smoke that will outperform, or at least match, the output of the Red Phosphorus comp and be less toxic.


I'm not sure you'll be able to outperform a Red P. composition.

According to my research they are the most effective Smokes known.

My guess is this will definitely fail your toxicity test, but the Sulfamic Acid Smoke I mentioned earlier is amazingly effective.

The cubic footage of smoke that can be created from a space the size of a standard smoke grenade is unmatchable by any formula I have read in this thread.

If the Sulfamic proves to be to toxic for your tests you might want to have a look into these possibilities as well.

Sebacic Acid,Adipic Acid,Pimelic Acid,Suberic Acid, & Azelaic Acid

As I'm sure you already know the US government finds Terephthalic Acid to be the best for there safety and performance specifications.

It is simply an idiot trying to fool other idiots.

I agree, the guy in the video is an idiot. If he continues this reckless behavior he will eventually end up hurting himself or someone else. I am not condoning his reckless stunts or defending him in any way, but I saw nothing in the videos that would prove that any of them where edited in an attempt to deceive anyone. None of the “stunts” shown in any of his videos are imposable or even difficult to duplicate.

Rather than posting a rant based on something I claim to have read somewhere, I put together a KNO3 / Sucrose / NaOHC3 smoke composition based on his recipe. I changed his “spoonfuls” into the following percentages:

36% - KNO3

24% - Sucrose

20% - NaOHC3

20% - Red Disperse Dye

The method used to create this smoke composition was similar to the one used in the Shooting Eggs video. The difference was I used re-crystallization rather than melting, an electric heat source rather than an open flame and Red Disperse Dye rather than orange organic. The first attempt produced colored smoke.:D The composition is still a little hot and the volume of “Red Smoke” is lower than the devise in question but it was my first attempt using this composition. If I increase amount of dye and NaOHC3 I am sure I could create a more dense smoke cloud, unfortunately that was the last of my dye.

In the attached video (http://hidebehind.com/545535) when the combustion temperature of the device becomes too high the dye ignites, the “colored smoke” stops. Flames shoot from both ends until the temperature drops again and the “colored smoke” resumes. I didn’t waste my time recording and editing the entire process. If I would have posted the entire process uncut and unedited it would have been an hour long boring video that may have resulted in a reprimanded by the moderators. As it is the video is too long. I apologize. My computer crashed a week or two ago and my video editing software has not worked properly since.

I don’t believe most of what I see on the internet, but just because a video has been cut and/or edited does not mean the creator was attempting to deceive or hide something. It is often times an attempt to keep from boring the viewer to death.

It has been brought up multiple times that KNO3/Sucrose smoke generators cannot be colored, they simply burn too hot and destroy any dyes you add.

What the fuck does the number of times a suject is brought up have to do with its validity? Is there specific number of times something can be "Brought up" that automatically makes it fact?
Although far from a perfect, the outcome of the test I ran proves that colored smoke can be generated by a composition using the same chemicals as the ones used in the Shooting Eggs video. The composition and video in question could very well be legitimate. I can't swear to the legitimacy of the Shooting Egg video because I wasn’t there when the video was created. For the same reason I can't swear it was a hoax either.

You could challenge the validity of many videos posted in this forum; most of them are edited in some way, but if you don’t have some sort of proof or personal experience to back up your challenges you are just arguing for arguments sake and we have enough crap to sort through as it is.

You need a very cool burning formula like Chlorate/Lactose to actually vaporize the dye particles into a visible smoke cloud, it isn't really even smoke at all.

Have you ever even attempted to create a colored smoke composition?
Most powdered smoke dyes are very fine colored powders that are dispersed by the combustion gases of a pyrotechnic charge. They are not vaporized. As long as the combustion temperature of the pyrotechnic composition is lower than that of the dye and the volume of combustion gases produced is sufficient to disperse the dye the device will work. In order to vaporize the dye would first have to become a liquid (melt). That liquid would then have to be held at a temperature just below its boiling point. Creating a pyrotechnic composition with a combustion temperature between the melting point and boiling point of a powdered dye would be a challenge. Probably imposible for most amature pyrotechs. Creating a composition with a combustion temperature below the melting or combustion temperature of that dye; much easier!

So I say to all of you, quit posting this garbage about coloring KNO3/Sucrose smokes, it has been tried so many times and it just ain't gunna happen.
Rant over.

I doubt that it has been tried by you. Your rant is based completely on things you have read and not on anything you have done. The garbage posted here was posted by you wyman and I proved it in less than an hour and on my first attempt. So I say to you; heed your own advice.


If you would UTFSE you would find out how many people have debunked this video.

What key words did you use in your search when you found all of the testimony “debunking” that video? I couldn’t find anything in this forum.:confused:

:D
Damn Bacon, I f--king loved your post. Thank you for helping prove my points so clearly.

Mighty fine example for a first attempt. Clearly with a short testing period you'll have it dead on :)

Let this be a lesson to those who are quick to doubt something they themselves can not do.

I want it to be clear to readers that Bacon used the exact same ingredients with the exception of a different Dye ( as the video in question) to prove a point.

That it IS possible and it CAN be done.

What would he have achieved using other materials as well?

I myself would like to suggest to anyone trying to do this.
To mix in 2 to 3 times the normal dye amount used, along with some granulated sand.

I suspect these additions might have solved Bacons flaming problem.


Great "clean up" Bacon46 !!

Whoops! You got it all wrong. Dedicated smoke dyes do not "boil," they sublime. This phenomenon occurs with dry ice which, at atmospheric pressure, goes straight from a solid to a gaseous phase. Silicon Carbide does it too, just north of 5,000 F.
The Sulfamic Acid sounds interesting. (By the way, I called UGL about the Dry Lock Etch, and they said it's 100% pure.) Is that a pretty hot mix? Has anybody measured it? And what are the final products? Also, has anyone tried it with KNO3? And whose dye was that, anyway?

The formula is very interesting, there is no flaming that occurs.

You will have little to no success with Potassium Nitrate or most other Oxidizers. The patent goes into detail about these attempted mixtures, I'm sure it will help answer many of your other questions as well.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=MyZPAAAAEBAJ&printsec=description&zoom=4&dq=sulfamic+acid+smoke#PPP2,M1

Whoops! You got it all wrong. Dedicated smoke dyes do not "boil," they sublime.
I know the dyes don't boil. I was trying to make that very point to wyman. He used the word "vaporized" in one of his posts to describe how powdered "Smoke Dyes" function. The powdered smoke dyes that I have experimented with neither sublime nor boil/vaporize. They are simply dispersed into the air by the combustion gases in the same solid form that they started out in.

And whose dye was that, anyway?
The dye in the video was purchased from a member of this forum who happens to live close to me. Recent attempts to contact him have failed. He claimed the dye was military surplus. It appeared to me to be a petroleum based dye. When I opened the container I noticed a slight odor similar to diesel fuel. In a previous experiment the dye burned slowly and emitted black, soot laden smoke similar to the smoke produced by burning plastic.

The attribute that makes this dye perform so well (IMO) also makes it difficult to work with. It is so easily dispersed into the air that the slightest disturbance and everything around you winds up the same color as the dye. I made the mistake of using a light colored grout in my living room tile and opening a yellow dye container in the house. My grout is now piss yellow and I haven't found anything that removes it yet. :(

I have tested two other powdered commercial smoke dyes and they both functioned on the same principle. I am not saying that all powdered dyes are dispersed as a solid. I think laser printer toners/dyes function via sublimation so there may very well be some smoke dyes out there that sublime, I just haven't ran across any.

The commercial dye manufactures that I have dealt with produce both liquid and powdered smoke dyes. The liquid dyes are expensive so I haven't looked into them any farther than the price. I assume these dyes function via vaporization/evaporation.

My goal when I started experimenting with colored smoke was to create it without using commercial dyes. That is still my goal, I just got sidetracked. (ADD) Anyone can make colored smoke with commercially available dyes. The dye manufactures/suppliers will provide you with proven compositions for any application you can imagine. I had my fun, now it’s time to get back to work on a colored smoke composition that can be made with OTC materials.

I am not sure where the line is between advertising and supplying forum members with detailed resource information. Wherever it is, I really don’t want to cross it. I like it here. :D PM me If you would like the contact information for the dye suppliers that I have dealt with.

Good one Bacon, perhaps this is the time to remind everyone of Mega's (old) signature. The person that says it can't be done shouldn't interrupt the person doing it.

Wyman, just because you don't think it can't be done doesn't mean it can't be. From my smoke experiments I know you can get KNO3/Sugar to burn damn slow and cool, so I'm not really surprised by Bacon's results.

Uhhh, Bacon. In your second to last post, is that meant to be NaOCH3 as in Sodium Methanoate (I'm sure that is what it is) as opposed to NaOHC3?

Uhhh, Bacon. In your second to last post, is that meant to be NaOCH3 as in Sodium Methanoate (I'm sure that is what it is) as opposed to NaOHC3?

Damn!:eek: It's supposed to be NaHCO3. Sodium Bicarbonate / Baking Soda:o The time alloted for me to edit it has expired. If one of the mods would change that it would be greatly appreciated.

*laugh* You have no idea how many times I do that.

I thought that a hydrolysed ester was a little weird. I did briefly think Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate (I've used it before and it works a treat) but discounted it. Still, no harm done.

Otherwise, good work on the smoke compositions bacon, it is something that interests me and I'll need to pursue now that I have much more free time.

So I'm making some progress on my research... I just got a small device to spit a load of burning granules of standard 60:40 mix...
To get a fluffy consistency I added a few pinches of Bicarb at the last point of cooking the mix, it foamed up and the texture resembled whipping cream made by shaking in cups. After that I allowed it to cool at which point it looked and felt like the expanding insulating foam that you get in a can, and crumbled it up into a coarse consistency.
At this point it was impossible to grind it in my mortar and kept forming clumps, so I decided to do a test. I packed it into a small paper tube, due to the very odd texture there was a spot in the device where the mix was less dense than the rest (presumably powdered mix) which is what I assume made it eject the remainder of the composition.

The end result was a large ejaculate of burning particles which burnt very quick resulting in a large cloud in very little time... I am attempting to replicate the process with better results...all this from an accident in manufacture... cool :D

Edit 1: There appears to kind of a trick to making the finished product. Because of the hygroscopic properties, It has to be just a little wet but still crumbly and there must be some fine powder incorporated into the mix, I've had better results mixing dry, unmelted sugar, KNO3 composition in with the original comp just enough to coat the granules and make the powdered portion burn fast enough to provide lift.
It is very hard to keep it at the right degree of moistness so I think that it might be easier to make "smoke stars" and keep the rest in a container with dessicant until ready to manufacture the casing...
I have yet to light my other experiments involving solid mix with vent holes and dry powder filled into the vents to create more surface area combusting at once...I don't think the neighbors like seeing so much smoke

I checked out a "Brand-X" forum site, and may have discovered exactly what I need for the white smoke. "Golden Powder" (KNO3 & Ascorbic Acid, basically), can be made to burn cooler than Blackpowder. Not that it matters for the white smoke, though, since I'm going to use varying proportions of Ammonium Chloride to increase the smoke, while at the same time slowing the burn rate. You've got to get it hot enough to partially dissociate into NH3 and HCl initially, but it'll reform into NH4Cl on contact with the ambient air. You'd have to get it pretty damned toasty to break it up to the point where it wouldn't recombine.

Here I went to all the trouble of working out an NDA with MagKor for a couple of pounds of "BlackMag-3" propellant, and now I find that I can make the stuff even easier than Blackpowder. And if I can work it out right, I should be able to juggle the manufacturing parameters to the point that the mix can be loaded in the thixotropic phase, perhaps even in a continuous process.
Anybody been working with GP in smoke comps?

I realize that this thread hasn't been posted on in a while but I recently came across a new smoke composition that I think would be worth building on. It is a 1:1 ratio of NH4NO3 : Zinc powder. This is very hygroscopic and can be initiated with only a few drops of water. I have not yet tried to burn the mixture but using water alone has shown great output in smoke. I think the smoke is mainly Zinc Oxide but I am not entirly sure yet.

I recently came across a new smoke composition that I think would be worth building on. It is a 1:1 ratio of NH4NO3 : Zinc powder

Thanks for the composition kafrboomer.

I tried this composition last night and I agree, it is definitely worth further investigation. It produces a high volume of very dense white smoke and does it quickly. Another plus is you don’t need a match or fuse to ignite it. A couple drops of water and you have smoke. This would make constructing an auto igniting grenade type smoke device much simpler. All one would have to do is have a small glass vial of water inside the smoke canister and a “Firing Pin” that when struck, broke the vial, releasing the water into the composition. You just have to make damn sure that both the smoke canister and the vial are airtight and water proof.

Did you try possible igniting it? I havent gotten a chance yet and was curious what the differences would be. did you try packing it? when i did it i just had it in e petri dish.

Did you try possible igniting it? I havent gotten a chance yet and was curious what the differences would be. did you try packing it? when i did it i just had it in e petri dish.

I did ignite some with visco fuse. It ignites easily and performs the same as when ignited with water.

I have not tried to press it yet, but I am going to. I want to try to press it into a “Bates Grain”. If your not into rocketry, this is a cylinder with a hole lengthwise through the center. You place the ignition source in the hole so when ignited the entire length burns from the center out.

I am not sure what I am going to use as a binder. I think I will start with shellac.

As far as I know our local military uses zinc based smoke grenades. This was discussed in a (now defunc) local home chemistry forum. The claim was verified by a member who had "carried home" a smoke grenade from military while in service.

The composition below is listed as "05-03-013A: Improved "HC" white smoke composition (standard US military smoke composition)" in "The Preparatory Guide of Black Powder and Pyrotechnics" by Jared B. Ledgard. I mixed 226g of this composition this weekend and tested it. The method of preparation below is a modified version of the one in the book.

The smoke was more gray than white. (View Video of test) (http://img532.imageshack.us/my.php?image=smokecomp0503013ade2.flv) This may be attributable to the paper tube, as it burned at very close to the same rate as the smoke composition. Whether positively or negatively, this probably affected the volume of smoke produced as well. My search for a metal container that when assembled won’t look like a bomb continues.

You can see in the video the amount of igniter composition was excessive, causing the device to resemble a torch or flare rather than a smoke generator in the early stages.:o


226g of composition emitted copious amounts (oodles & gobs) of gray smoke for 1 minute, 20 seconds. On my next smoke test I will ignite the device lying on its side, so that the smoke accumulates nearer the ground in the test area, rather than being ejected straight up and dissipated in the breeze.

05-03-013A: Improved "HC" white smoke composition (standard US military smoke composition)

Into a glass jar I placed 75 milliliters of acetone, and then added in 106.8g of calcined zinc oxide (can be prepared by roasting finely divided zinc oxide at 900 Celsius for several hours), followed by 13g of 4-6 micron atomized aluminum powder, followed by 106.8 grams of hexachloroethane, and then stirred/kneaded the composition until the bulk of the solvent evaporated.

Once this point was reached, I corned (forced through a 40 mesh screen) the moist composition onto a cookie sheet covered with aluminum foil and allowed it to thoroughly air-dry. Once dry, I ball milled the composition for one hour and then rammed it into a 31mm ID, heavy walled (5mm), paper tube that had one end plugged with plaster of paris. I then drilled a 12mm diameter hole, 25mm deep into the center (almost center) of the composition , placed a length of visco fuse in the hole, packed an igniter composition (see below) around the fuse. I then placed a small amount of loose igniter composition on top of that and covered the top of the paper tube with four thicknesses of aluminum foil allowing the fuse to poke through. I secured the foil with clear box tape. The foil was only there to keep the smell of the hexachloroethane from escaping since I intended on igniting the device the following day. Had I intended on storing the device I would have devised a more appropriate, moisture resistant cover.


Burn rate: Average.
Water resistance: Good.
Stability: Can be stored for many years.
Flammability: (1 to 10): 5
Ease of ignition: (1 to 10): 4
Tendency to cake: N/A
Explosive ability: None.
Percentage: 47.2% Zinc Oxide, 47.2% Hexachloroethane, 5.6% 4-6 micron Atomized Aluminum
Classification: Deflagrating explosive (classified as pyrotechnic mixture).
Use: Used in many different military operations.


The igniter composition consisted of:
64%.............KClO4
16.75%.......Course Mg flake
16.75%.......Atomized Al
1.9%...........Soybean Oil

I place all of the igniter ingredients in a container and stirred/kneaded until thoroughly mixed. This composition is designed more for igniting thermite than it is smoke compositions but it I had it on hand so I used it.

Damn nice video Bacon!

Heres one me and my girl put together today, its based on the Sulfamic Acid Smoke recipe I posted earlier in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dalqrshT9lU

The Potassium Perchlorate recipe is 35-65 NOT 35-68, sorry that was a slip

Here's an approach I want to try in the next week or so. I was thinking about how if you heat Ammonium Chloride, it breaks down into NH3 and HCl, and then recombines into NH4Cl when it hits the air. It occurred to me that you could accomplish the same thing by just generating enough NH3 and HCl to combine into NH4Cl when it contacts the atmosphere.

This, in turn, led me to believe that the proper proportions of Hexamine, NH4ClO4, and Parlon, PVC or other Chlorinated binder would accomplish this end. The Oxygen would combine with the Carbon in the to form CO/CO2, the rest of the constituents would form HCL and NH3, and then form superfine NH4Cl upon escape into the air.

Sound possible? Or am I just blowin' somoke outta' my ass? (Pun intended.)

It sounds feasible but I’m glad I don’t live downwind from you.

The resulting “smoke” will be nasty if inhaled. It may work well as an irritant for crowd dispersing or building evacuation etc. even if the desired results aren’t achieved.

I wouldn't want to walk through a cloud of NH3, HCl, or NH4Cl

I've used NH4Cl in other comps, where the other stuff was just to heat the Ammonium Chloride to a partial dissociation, and the smoke was only marginally irritating . In fact, don't they put the stuff in some candies in Europe?

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but a great formula for smokebombs is as follows:

16:Sulfur
13:Potassium Nitrate
3.5:Baking Soda
1:Charcoal

It seems very similar to what is used in commercial smokebombs, although I can't vouch for that because I honestly am not sure.

There also is one catch, when using the mixture, it is essential that it is ignited in an oxygen-free environment, otherwise it will barely work. My recommendation is to just put it in a tube with a nozzle (works well for me).

This mixture of smoke works great as you can see in many of the videos posted by me and others. Like evilknny says, it must be used in an oxygen free environment which gives this excellent formula a frustrating setback.

I have discovered a rather easy solution for providing an oxygen free environment during the burning of this smoke mix. Use a base container that contains the contents with desperation holes in the top, and then place another half of a container with the same amount of desperation holes on top of the main container. This creates an empty cavity that allows the gas/smoke to displace and push out the oxygen.

I used the bottom half of three soda cans for testing.
Example:

----Desperation Holes
----||
----\/

___ _ _ _ ___
|__ _ _ _ __| <-- Empty Cavity
|********|
|********|
|********| <-- Smoke Mix
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


I have found that just simply putting the mix into a container with one or more ejection points causes a flame to shoot out and not much smoke.

Does anyone know the reaction formula to this smoke mix without the presence of foreign oxygen? What exactly does the smoke of this formula consist of?

I've used NH4Cl in other comps... ... In fact, don't they put the stuff in some candies in Europe?

I just have to note that I absolutely LOVE NH4Cl as a flavoring agent in candy. Tough now they have gone a bit over board by making NH4Cl flavored chocolate, it tastes horrible and is absolute rape for both of them (NH4Cl and chocolate).

Now on the topic. I resently tried to make the basic kno3 & sugar comp with ratio of about 60g kno3 and 40g sugar, measured on a cheap kitchen scale.
I did a ton of mistakes and ended up accidently igniting it while heating,
I was damn happy that I wore gloves, googles and that I had made a long handle to the vessel containing the comp.

And while burning it produced rather small amounts of smoke and burned VERY quickly, <4s and practically all of the composition was burned.

Notes to people:
¨¨
1. USE SAFETY GEAR! Trust me you will be glad that you used them.

2. Plan properly what you do, I do it usually, but this time I was bored and slapped it to gether in under 30 minutes, that including making the vessel for the comp. Also have plan(s) for failure.

3. Don't use open flame to heat kno3&sugar comps
(seriously, a primus camping stove does not heat evenly enough).
Use a hotplate.

4. Do it out doors, if you fuck up you don't have to worry so much.

Now when I aquire a proper hotplate I'll try it again.

iHME - The reason it doesn't give off a lot of smoke is because the only thing that isn't a gas is K2O that is left over and some water vapour. Everything else burns up into a gas, hence less smoke. If you want more smoke, you need to make the composition a little uneven or add something that gives it "body" (Zn powder, NH4Cl powder).

Otherwise, you need to change you oxidiser and fuel so that the maximum amount of byproduct species are not gasses (such as hexachloroethane, etc.)

Also, though is spelt as such, not tough.

"It isn't very tough to spell though wrong."

Alright everyone, its time to show you a working model of my concept. I explained my ideas in my previous post. Now its time to put them in action.

Here is the Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQotnUa_XAQ


Let me know if you have any ideas or improvements to this composition. I am still curious what makes up the smoke in this composition. I also believe the flame in this experiment is the result of too much heat.

Controlled Chaos - I certainly hope that isn't you in the video.

Looks alright. My guess is that as the smoke comp burnt down, the smoke output decreased to a point where it could mix well with O2 and auto-ignite. Also there seemed to be a little sulphur left over on the bicarb, so you might want to increase your oxidiser material.

If you are looking to lower the burning temperature, I have had some success with used motor oil.

Filling the middle of an oil filter with SLOW smoke composition (really slow) causes the oil inside the filter to boil off, creating a very thick smoke that is rather irritating and tends to continue after the smoke composition has burned out.

First of all, O2 doesn't combine with much of anything. It has to be dissociated into Atomic Oxygen before it can react with most other elements, thermally or by some other means. This is why Nitrous Oxide works so much better in a piston engine; Nitrogen lets loose of Oxygen much more readily than another Oxygen will.

This is also why an expansion chamber helps avoid flaming. The gases and solids have a chance to cool before exposure to atmospheric Oxygen, precluding the chance for thermal dissociation. And the flame isn't the cause of the reduced smoke, it's a symptom of overheating. The flame is just incandescence of superheated gases and solids that are further heated by the sudden availability of Atomic Oxygen, dissociated by the initial heat of the combustion products. Wanna prove it? get a two channel temperature measurement setup. Install one thermocouple inside the canister in a gap just above the mix. Place the other in the area just outside where the flame appears. I can guarantee that you'll get a Delta T between the interior gases and the exterior flame, with the exterior being the hotter of the two. And by the way, Chaos, that,s DISSIPATION holes, not "desperation." And you can make your chamber much smaller and still functional by loosly packing it with something like stainless wool (fairly coarse) or, if you can get it, some low density Nickel felt. The tortuosity of the gaspath tends to cool the products before their escape, performing the same function as a large expansion chamber.

By the way, some of you may recall that I was working on a new smoke comp for the Marine Corps about a year ago. Well, after going through all kinds of shit & grief coming up with such concepts as the above-mentioned Hexamine, NH4ClO4 & parlon mix, and ZnO2 + Zn -> ZnO, ya' wanna' know what they finally chose for their upgrade? Try KNO3 & Sucrose, with a little Teflon powder for IR obscuration. Embarrassing? Fuckin'-Ay! We were mortified! Grade school comp! Sheee-it!

By the way, some of you may recall that I was working on a new smoke comp for the Marine Corps about a year ago. Well, after going through all kinds of shit & grief coming up with such concepts as the above-mentioned Hexamine, NH4ClO4 & parlon mix, and ZnO2 + Zn -> ZnO, ya' wanna' know what they finally chose for their upgrade? Try KNO3 & Sucrose, with a little Teflon powder for IR obscuration. Embarrassing? Fuckin'-Ay! We were mortified! Grade school comp! Sheee-it!

I wouldn't blame them, The comp is relatively inexpensive and non toxic ( though maybe not with teflon in the mix).
However I have a question for you, how did they deal with the hygroscopic nature of the comp and did they caramelize the sugar and add the oxidizers or press the composition?

Not sure, Waveguider. I was consulting, and my work was parallel to work at the plant, 2,000 miles away. Might have just moistened it, pressed it and pulled a vacuum on it. The teflon might interfere with binding, however, and it could come to pass that they return wanting to try some of the other comps.

I thought I would never see the day... An anarchist cookbook smoke mix with only one modification used by the military... I too am curious as to how they bind the mix, and how it stands up against the other mixtures you came up against. However seeing as its cheap and relatively non toxic I do see why. However would the burning teflon not decompose to PFIB which just happens to be a nerve agent iirc... Could you give ratios for the Ammonium perch and hexamine mix? I would be interested in trying it out.

I saw a rocket launch with Ammonium perch composite propellant at the scout jamboree in punchestown in the summer, I was the idiot 10 feet away and the smoke cloud it made was huge, and I got a blast of the vapors to the face. Not nice.

Hex, I'll be glad to describe the comp in more detail, just as soon as I file the patent disclosures and claims. You won't be able to sell it, but I have no objections to private individuals playing around with it. I know, it sounds stingy but, hey, a guy's gotta' eat. (Something that's becoming increasingly difficult these days, but I still aint' votin' for no socialist!)

Hahaha I had no intention of trying to patent anything, and I know how you feel when ideas get stolen by Bastards with nor money. My lighting system was stolen by Phillips before I could file a patent for anything. Now their light emitting diode based lighting system has my design. And to think that they stole from a 16 year old...

Anyways I have been wondering how safe chlorate and sugar actually is. Is it too shock sensitive for use?

I am working with Cracker on a smoke composition that contains powdered cadmium. I am having trouble melting the metal. A torch is too hot; the cadmium burns and produces clouds of cadmium oxide, which happens to be the reason for cadmium in the composition. I tried using same pot I use for melting lead but as soon as the cadmium is hot enough to melt (just over 600F) it appears to be oxidizing and rather than becoming fluid it turns to “metallic mud”.:( Stirring it makes the problem worse. I assume this is due to the infusion of oxygen.

Before I attempt the time consuming process of building an oxygen free enclosure for my melting pot, I thought I would see if anyone on the forum had any ideas.

You could try spraying argon into the pot from above at a slow rate. It would get hot, and rise out of the pot, but it would still probably shield out atmospheric O2.

I know what you mean, Hex. Shit, if I had a buck for every time one of my ideas has wound up making someone else a pile, I could buy NASA for a personal toy. In times past, it wasn't too difficult to find a patent attorney who'd bet on the come for a little piece of the action, say 5% of the net.

Nowadays, most of 'em are totally delusional about their value. They think they're part of some sacrosanct, holier than thou undertaking. At least that's the image they want to exude. Fact is, they're just too grabby to let things take their course. They want the money NOW, and never mind that the cash comes from the results, not the startup. Still, there's got to be a few out there somewhere who'll play ball.

You could try spraying argon into the pot from above at a slow rate. It would get hot, and rise out of the pot, but it would still probably shield out atmospheric O2.

If I had to, I thought I could build a simple enclosure and replace the majority of the O2 in the enclosure with Ar. It doesn't take long to go through a 20 cubic foot cylinder of Ar using it intermittently as a shielding gas on my MIG welder. Just letting it flow would be costly even at a slow flow rate. I figure an enclosure would help hold the gas around the melting pot and significantly reduce the atmospheric O2 level.

The problem is, I need to be able to work with the cadmium. Once it becomes fluid enough, I want to try to spray the metal into a steel drum in an attempt to “atomize” it. My idea is to weld a nozzle from a high pressure paint sprayer to a piece 3/8” steel pipe. Then penetrate the side of a steel drum and weld the pipe to the drum, with the nozzle facing inward of course. The drum would be void of O2 either by vacuum or replacement of the O2 with Ar. I am leaning toward replacement rather than vacuum.

My hope is to then gravity feed the molten Cd from the bottom of the melting pot to a point where it is then forced through the “atomizing” nozzle with high pressure Ar. It probably won’t be as fine as commercially atomized metal but if needed, it can be milled from there. I might wind up just coating the inside of the drum with cadmium, or I may never get the Cd to a fluid state, who knows? If this works I may try to build one that can handle Al. Wouldn’t that be Bitchin!:cool:

I have other metals I can experiment with but I need the powdered Cd for this smoke composition.

Use the sealed enclosure above to your advantage. Have a pipe running from the bottom of your melting pot down to your nozzle. Rig up a copper coil with current around the pipe to attempt to keep the cadmium molten, and pressurise the sealed enclosure above the cadmium. It should push the cadmium through the tube/out the nozzle.

Might want a simple flow valve in the pipe to stop the cadmium just running down anyway and solidifying. If the flow valve is close enough to the melting pot, it shouldn't be sealed shut once it gets to temperature.

You could always try using a CO2/Nitrogen stream to instantaneously cool the "atomised" cadmium as it comes out of the nozzle, as opposed to it possibly clumping together when it gets to the bottom/wall of the barrel.

I wasn’t planning on building the melting pot encloser to be completely air tight. It would be a lot of work and I don’t think I will melt Cd all that often. I think if I can displace the majority of the O2 in and around the melting pot it should prevent CdO from forming. I can’t find anything on the production of Cd that indicates it has to be melted in an O2 free environment but it’s all I can come up with.

I like the induction coil idea for heating the pipes.

This smoke composition is interesting for a couple of reasons. As the Cd in the composition burns it turns to CdO which ranges in color from yellow to red. This video (http://img531.imageshack.us/img531/5074/burningcadmiumtocdowe2.flv)shows the transition from yellow to red as a piece of Cd is being burned using a torch. CdO is highly toxic, especially when inhaled. Bitchin color and highly toxic; what more could you ask for? Great for killing gophers or a variety of other pests.

If a large device with this composition was set off inside a building the CdO would be distributed through the air conditioning system. I imagine the cleanup would be very time consuming, expensive and render the building unusable until such cleanup could be completed. Not something you would want to use for ridding your house of roaches!

Bacon, maybe something along the lines of a bastard offspring of a Mig/Tig welder and a plasma cutter. There's got to be a source for Cd wire, which could be fed into an Ar stream, with the arc disintegrating the wire and the stream scattering it. In my experience, it's a little easier to inert a vessel than to hold a vacuum on it, since the sealing issues aren't as severe. As a matterof fact, in this case it could be easier yet as the Argon inflow would serve to maintain positive pressure in the drum, so that any leakage would be from the inside out, lowering contamination risks. Something to think about.

Not a bad idea Yafmot. I have “sprayed” Al by turning the voltage and wire speed up to maximum on my MIG welder then running the weld off of the edge of the of grounded piece just close enough to maintain the arc. It isn’t a fine spray but higher pressure Ar from a source outside the welder could change that.

Cracker and I have worked together on various smoke compositions over the last year or so. Recently he has acquired a large quantity of Cd in the form of ~20lb ingots. That’s why I am trying to come up with a method for melting it then spraying it. I can’t believe melting Cd is such a pain in the ass!:mad: