Cappy
Hazard to Self
Posts: 92
Registered: 27-3-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Inert material in M-80 style firecrackers?
The other day I was lighting some of my firecrackers, and I decided to dismantle an M1 firecracker (while wearing eye protection, of course). I was
surprised to find that the outer cardboard tube contained a smaller firecracker surrounded by a white solid. The smaller firecracker was like the
cheap quick-fuse braided firecrackers. I extracted the the white solid by breaking it apart. I assumed it was nitrocellulose (It sure didn't look
like gunpowder, but it didn't look like BLACK powder either). I tried burning it with a wooden splint, but it decomposed less readily than
sucrose.
I did some research and found that firecrackers can legally contain FAR less pyrotechnic material today than the authentic M-80s did (0.050g vs.
2.916g).
This leads me to believe that the white solid which takes up the majority of the container's volume is only there to allow pressures to build
(confined explosion) and fill the M-80 style container.
What is that white powder? P.S. Firecrackers contain black powder, right?
|
|
|
Haggis
Hazard to Others
Posts: 238
Registered: 1-12-2002
Location: Mid-America.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lacrymating
|
|
This is definately not on topic. I suggest you take your quests elsewhere. Prepare to have this thread locked.
If you will quit making these types of threads, I will answer. Firecrackers contain flashpowder. The white solid is most likely clay. It is
definately not nitrocellulose. Fireworks, by law, cannot have more than 50 mg of powder if they are on the ground. The 'nitrocellulose'
that you were thinking of would boost the mass way over that limit. Perhaps this chemistry stuff isn't for you.
[Edited on 31-3-2003 by Haggis]
|
|
|
Cappy
Hazard to Self
Posts: 92
Registered: 27-3-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"Discuss the theory, preparation, and initiation of energetic materials."
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood this. I've only take 1 year of college chemistry, so I don't know as much most of you do. I'll take
pyrotechnic related posts to "Miscellaneous" from now on.
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
to clarify
Is this post about the preparation of energetic materials? No, you were taking a firecracker apart. Is it about the initiation of energetic materials?
No, you were taking a firecracker apart. Is it about the theory of energetic materials?
You won't win any prizes for guessing that no, you were just taking a firecracker apart.
I suppose your pyrotechnics questions can go in Miscellaneous, but if you're interested in such things (and you seem to be) I really suggest
rec.pyrotechnics on Usenet.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You haven taken one year of college chemistry? 
I even haven't finished my first year of college in chemical engineering....
Why am I beginning to fear about the US education system?
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
to be fair
I think the chemistry department at my school is really good for such a small university. But I still wouldn't expect an 'A' student
who had finished General Chemistry I & II (first year chem studies) to be very knowledgeable about explosives or pyrotechnics. Gen Chem gives you
the general foundations to build upon, so that things you later learn have a framework to fit into. I'm only in Gen Chem II (taking it as a
recreational class before graduation) but I have a lot of knowledge that I gained outside the classroom to add to the mix. That's a lot different
from someone in Gen Chem II who's just started in the world of amateur experimentalism.
I am almost learning in reverse: I learned, from books/articles/personal experimentation, many specific and interesting things that are now forming
unified constellations of knowledge in my mind as opposed to the isolated pinpricks they were before. The only purpose of classes for me is to make
sure I keep on studying what I should; lecturing professors don't help me much. I hope that with self-discipline I will also grow into a
competent organic chemist through personal study, as opposed to the sort of patchwork chemist (very good in some areas, totally ignorant in others)
that I am now.
But, eerily, I have found in my short time studying chemistry here that the problems that most interest me are of a physical chemistry nature...
Spooky, for someone as disinterested in math as I am! Thank goodness for computers and my ability to program them, so I don't have to do all
those horrible horrible calculations by hand 
Oh, what was I saying before I went off on a tangent? Ah, yes: the pre-university American education system is pretty abysmal, but I don't think
the universities are. And no matter where you live, I think it is unusual for a first-year chem major to be well-informed on explosive/pyrotechnic
chemistry unless they have done a lot of extracurricular work.
|
|
|
Cappy
Hazard to Self
Posts: 92
Registered: 27-3-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I am a freshman mechanical engineering major, not a chem major. Sophomore year in high school, I took high school chemistry (a joke). Last year, I
took one year of Advanced Placement (college) chemistry in high school. I believe this covered two semesters of chemistry. Last semester, I took
chemistry for engineers. Basically, this covers the first year of chemistry, but without lab. 
I didn't mind the redundancy, because I love chemistry and physics. Any chemistry courses I take from now on will be electives.
[Edited on 4/2/2003 by Cappy]
|
|
|
PHILOU Zrealone
International Hazard
Posts: 2893
Registered: 20-5-2002
Location: Brussel
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bis-diazo-dinitro-hydroquinonic
|
|
Cardboard, clay, resinous plastic/epoxyd, hydrated lime can be found aside from the pyrotechnic composition; Most of the time indeed to increase
resistance and confinement!
I personnaly have also dismanteled crackers in my early times (when I was younger-so much than today...  ) to see what was in it...natural scientific curiosity!
And I wonder how many of us haven't done this or be tempted to do so...?
So to be honnest I don't blame you for being so currious because after all your post was stil scientific in the way you investigated the white
stuff and read the legislation about crackers and made some conclusions; then running out of idea to confirm or infirm what you thought you asked
here!
That's the way science work!
Read what is known and assimilate theories, put new hypothesis, make experiments, infirm or confirm hypothesis, run other experiments to decrease
incertitude and improve theory or see its limitations!To have the umbleness to admit you are confused and seem to reach a deadend and explain your
results with other knowledgeable people to see if they might help!You did this!
  
PH Z (PHILOU Zrealone)
"Physic is all what never works; Chemistry is all what stinks and explodes!"-"Life that deadly disease, sexually transmitted."(W.Allen)
|
|
|
Haggis
Hazard to Others
Posts: 238
Registered: 1-12-2002
Location: Mid-America.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lacrymating
|
|
Yes, it was scientifically grounded, but I just suggested that the subject matter wasn'y appropriate for the Energetic Materials section. Yes, I
believe that most people have dismantled a firework or two, me included.
|
|
|
Cappy
Hazard to Self
Posts: 92
Registered: 27-3-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks PHILOU Zrealone! You are the kind of person that makes forums helpful and enjoyable for new members like myself.
I've never been to a forum where information was such serious business. Other forums share plenty of information, but don't mind off topic
conversation so much. It is about socializing and having fun too. However, I can understand why some forums wouldn't want to be to friendly to
people who have made mistakes like me. It seems like people here don't have the patience/time to waste helping newbies, and would rather
concentrate on sharing information that can't be found other places. I was finally able to get onto roguesci.org, and I have found some resources
that are a bit more reliable than Anarchist Cookbook/Terrorist's Handbook. For lab equipment/materials, I only have what your average kitchen and
household have + sulfuric acid and a few model rocket/fireworks supplies. That makes it pretty hard to learn stuff on my own. I don't know if
I'll be able to contribute to the conversations on exotic explosives any time soon.
[Edited on 4/2/2003 by Cappy]
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What I was trying to say is that I cannot believe a 16 year old is being taught college level chemistry. The chemistry I am being taught now requires
math and physics knowledge which usually 16 year olds don't posses.
Ofcourse, there are studies who say that a US kid that finished high school has the same capabilities as a 16 year old fourth grader in belgium.
Is there such a big discrepancy in the education systems?
[Edited on 2-4-2003 by vulture]
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
madscientist
National Hazard
Posts: 962
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: American Midwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
It definitely is possible. Take me, for example. I'm sixteen and am breezing my way through a college-level chemistry course (it's easy for
me now because I became familiar with most of the material when I was fifteen).
Age really shouldn't be taken for anything other than a general guide - it's not an absolute indicator of who someone is and what their
abilities are.
Edit: Yes, public schools here in America are really bad, but not necessarily the worst in the world. Many nations, when participating in comparisons
of public schools around the world, will only submit the standardized test scores of their best students, while America submits the standardized test
scores of all students. Just something to keep in mind when seeing statistics of the "a sixth grader there equals a third grader here"
variety.
[Edited on 2-4-2003 by madscientist]
I weep at the sight of flaming acetic anhydride.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
