woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8012
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
aluminium powder Eckart 5413H and 5481H
I am experimenting with thermites and oxide mixes recently and for this purpose I purchased some Eckart aluminium powder. The seller where I could
purchase aluminium has two kinds of aluminium powder, the one denoted as Eckart 5413 Super H and the other as Eckart 5481 Super H. I purchased the
latter, because it was somewhat cheaper. It is a dark grey powder, nearly black.
The material which I have works fairly well with oxides (I tried with Bi2O3 and with CuO). With the Bi2O3 it burns like a sparkler, with CuO it does
not work safely, the reaction is WAY too violent, actually it explodes  and
gives a brown cloud of smoke.
What is the difference between these two kinds of aluminium powders? If I do a google search I find no info, only links to sellers of the stuff
(mostly eBay sellers). If I understand correctly, the Eckart powders are intended to be used as pigments. I use it for chemistry experiments.
Why don't they simply specify the properties of the Al-powder? Or are 5413H and 5481H well-known codes (which I am unaware of) which tell something
about the properties of the material? They certainly do not seem standardized codes in the world of chemistry.
|
|
|
NedsHead
Hazard to Others
Posts: 409
Registered: 9-12-2014
Location: South Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Interesting, I searched and as far as I can tell 5481 and 5413 are Eckart codes for for particle size, 5481 being 5000 mesh and possibly no longer in
production, no idea what the "super H" denotes.
I found a listing on Ebay advertising "Military Grade Eckart 5413H Aluminum Powder German Blackhead Dark 5413 Indian" if that wording at all helps.
while searching I discovered that stearin is milled with Aluminium to make German dark Aluminium powder, I thought that was a useful little discovery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stearin
[Edited on 3-2-2016 by NedsHead]
|
|
|
Praxichys
International Hazard
Posts: 1063
Registered: 31-7-2013
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Coprecipitated
|
|
According to various sources, 5481H is no longer produced. This is confirmed by the Eckart website.
Technical data for the 5413 can be found here:
http://www.eckart.net/uploads/tx_driveeckartproducts/EE-0475...
And I think an equivalent to the 5481 might be this:
http://www.eckart.net/uploads/tx_driveeckartproducts/EE-0471...
Unofficially, a search of various forums and stores reveals the following properties:
Active metal Content:
5481 = 92%
5413 = 80%
PYRO UZ = >91%
Average Particle size:
5481 = 2-3 micron (4000-5000 mesh)
5413 = 15 micron (listed as 325 mesh)
PYRO UZ = 95% passes 45 micron (~325 mesh)
Unfortunately there is a lot of 'salesmanship' tainting the credibility of data gleaned from online shops. I'm curious myself, but this is all I could
find in a cursory search.
Do you have a microscope? Perhaps examining a sample of each will shed some light on this.
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
A description (with a microphotograph apparently) of Eckart #5413-H Super is found here on the Skylighter site.
Skylighter is a long-established, very well known pyro dealer whose descriptions are reliable I think. Eckart #5413-H is described as a 3 micron
stearin coated powder.
http://www.skylighter.com/german-dark-aluminum-powder.htm
I have Indian blackhead aluminum from Skylighter which is an 8 micron coated powder for doing thermite reactions. I thought 3 micron was too fine (8
micron might be also). Haven't used it yet though.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8012
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
I do not have a microscope, but the powder which I have must be very fine. It has a dark gray silk-like look and its density is low. An amount of 200
grams fills up a decent glass jar of 400 ml or so. The powder is free flowing, it can be poured easily from a spoon. Everything which comes in contact
with the powder becomes covered with a grey layer. Even rubbing with a piece of tissue paper does not completely remove the grey stain, which makes
working with the powder quite annoying. I expect that to be caused by the extremely small particle size.
I only have the 5481H powder, I cannot speak about 5413H.
[Edited on 3-2-16 by woelen]
|
|
|
Detonationology
Hazard to Others
Posts: 362
Registered: 5-5-2015
Location: Deep South
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrophillic
|
|
I was under the impression that just about all copper based thermites were susceptible to exploding. I've never made it myself, but I have seen many
videos of this occurrence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRqFRCTnYNY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG1n7Av_z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCeqcrJTfjs
“There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.” ― William James
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
The numerical codes do specify some information about the alloy. The system is described in an ANSI standard, (but the ISO and CEN standards conform
to the same number system)
In the 5xxx series of alloys, magnesium is the main alloying element
The other digits specify modifications of the original alloy composition or specify the purity of the aluminium.
The H indicates the temper (H=strain hardened).
This document explains it in some detail: http://www.european-aluminium.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/...
It is my experience too that CuO/Al explodes. I was planning to try compressing it to form pellets to see if it would slow the reaction down, but
never found the time.
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston  | | It is my experience too that CuO/Al explodes. I was planning to try compressing it to form pellets to see if it would slow the reaction down, but
never found the time. |
Wouldn't the simpler approach be going up in size of the particles. Has anyone experimented with using Al milled to be no smaller than say 25 microns?
Or doing a series of experiments stepping the size up to where the reaction behaves more like a thermite with reaction rates too slow to explode?
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
MrHomeScientist
International Hazard
Posts: 1806
Registered: 24-10-2010
Location: Flerovium
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The one time I attempted the CuO thermite it reacted very quickly and sputtered a lot, but wasn't particularly violent. Skip to 2:50 in my thermite compilation video.
My hypothesis is that since the CuO was home made, it may have been full of reaction-slowing impurities.
Don't worry, I knew of it's reputation and ran far away after I started the ignition countdown (adding glycerin to the KMnO<sub>4</sub> .
Also I have some experience with particle size. For the longest time I could not get a chromium(III) oxide thermite to work, but switching to a finer
aluminum powder did the trick. I think my original Al was 80 mesh, and I now use 400.
[Edited on 2-3-2016 by MrHomeScientist]
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by careysub |
I have Indian blackhead aluminum from Skylighter which is an 8 micron coated powder for doing thermite reactions. I thought 3 micron was too fine (8
micron might be also). Haven't used it yet though. |
I have ignited 63 microns atomized (spherical) mixed with Iron Oxyde from the pigments store with simple visco fuse.
So yeah, I'd say yours is too fine for that. Keep if for things that you want to go boom
On the other hand, the finer the particles, the lesser the density so maybe coarser aluminium with coarser Fe Oxyde will get you better results at
what you are trying to burn through (I use old frying pans!). I'm pretty sure that in this case the source of ignition should also be a lot hotter (Mg
ribbon?)
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston | | It is my experience too that CuO/Al explodes. I was planning to try compressing it to form pellets to see if it would slow the reaction down, but
never found the time. |
Wouldn't the simpler approach be going up in size of the particles. Has anyone experimented with using Al milled to be no smaller than say 25 microns?
Or doing a series of experiments stepping the size up to where the reaction behaves more like a thermite with reaction rates too slow to explode?
|
Yes yes yes! Totally agree! Besides from Copper Oxyde, Mn Oxyde is even more explosive so there's nothing to recover usually.
So for me, the idea is to recover "some" of the pure element for my collection and the simple pleasure of saying "I did it".
I have some ultra fine and pure SiO2 collected from a quarry nearby my home. Suffice to say that during WW2 it was considered of sufficient strategic
importance to be sent by U-boat to Japan for the manufacture of optical instruments.
There are 5 quarries with sand of that quality on the planet I've been told. Sure, since WW2 more processes were developpend to have "pure" SiO2 but I
dont think I have to explain to my fellow mad scientistist why I want to extract Silicium from this sand !
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Herr Haber |
Yes yes yes! Totally agree! Besides from Copper Oxyde, Mn Oxyde is even more explosive so there's nothing to recover usually. |
For a less violent reaction go with a manganese in a lower oxidation state than manganese dioxide (MnO2, Mn(IV) oxide).
Choices are Mn2O3 (Mn(III) oxide) or Mn3O4 (Mn(II,III) oxide) or MnO (Mn(II) oxide). MnO2 can be reduced to these lower states.
Lead dioxide thermite also produces an explosive reaction, and um, lots and lots and lots of lead vapor. Don't try this near any inhabited area.
|
|
|
MrHomeScientist
International Hazard
Posts: 1806
Registered: 24-10-2010
Location: Flerovium
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Herr Haber | | Yes yes yes! Totally agree! Besides from Copper Oxyde, Mn Oxyde is even more explosive so there's nothing to recover usually. |
Again, that hasn't been my experience. Manganese dioxide thermites are slightly more energetic than iron oxide, but are nowhere near explosive. I've
done many of them. See 1:22 in my video linked above. The problem recovering metal from manganese thermites is not that they are 'explosive', but that
the boiling point of manganese is very close to the temperature the thermite runs at. Thus most of the manganese boils off during the reaction,
greatly reducing yield. That said, I've been able to recover nice Mn nodules from MnO<sub>2</sub> thermites.
A different oxidation state of Mn would be interesting to try sometime. You'd still run into the boiling point problem, though.
[Edited on 2-4-2016 by MrHomeScientist]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist | The problem recovering metal from manganese thermites is not that they are 'explosive', but that the boiling point of manganese is very close to the
temperature the thermite runs at. Thus most of the manganese boils off during the reaction, greatly reducing yield. That said, I've been able to
recover nice Mn nodules from MnO<sub>2</sub> thermites.
A different oxidation state of Mn would be interesting to try sometime. You'd still run into the boiling point problem, though.
|
The idea that lower Mn oxides can solve the problem of low yield is lalgely a myth. I tested that with homemade MnO (from pyrolysis of
MnCO3 under CO2 blanket) and noted no improvement at all.
That's because the problem is Mn's 'low' BP of 2061 C, so close to the MP of alumina, as now has been pointed out ad nauseam. To get
metal/slag separation you have to exceed the MP of alumina, so by definition the vapour pressure of the Mn will always be close to 1 atm.
30 % yield is about the most you can hope for with a well-designed MnOx thermite.
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist | Again, that hasn't been my experience. Manganese dioxide thermites are slightly more energetic than iron oxide, but are nowhere near explosive. I've
done many of them. See 1:22 in my video linked above. The problem recovering metal from manganese thermites is not that they are 'explosive', but that
the boiling point of manganese is very close to the temperature the thermite runs at. Thus most of the manganese boils off during the reaction,
greatly reducing yield. That said, I've been able to recover nice Mn nodules from MnO<sub>2</sub> thermites.
A different oxidation state of Mn would be interesting to try sometime. You'd still run into the boiling point problem, though.
[Edited on 2-4-2016 by MrHomeScientist] |
Ok, understood. So what to the naked eye looks like a more explosive reaction than Fe or even Cu thermites is just Mn boiling and vaporizing. I sure
wasnt comparing to an EM explosion but now I understand better what I saw. This would also confirm why the Cu thermites "appear" more explosive and
less Cu is recovered because of it's boiling point right?
The only time I did a whole flower pot Cu thermite there wasnt much left in the flower pot (which cracked...), but I do remember there were a lot of
shiny copper balls all around the test site (a limestone quarry this time, it was easy to spot on the white floor). I remember I was glad I ran
further for this test than for the Iron thermite
Well, I'll stick to the SiO2 test I had in mind then ! The trouble with the formulations seen here and there seem that I'll have a lot of impurities
(some use sulfur as a tinder). But then, I have a whole quarry at my disposal to make all the tests I want.
Sorry for wandering off topic and thanks again all of you for your input.
[Edited on 4-2-2016 by Herr Haber]
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
I would suggest a coarser grade of atomized Aluminum if you want to have the reaction products more localized after a Goldschmidt reaction. Surface
area of the reactants is closely correlated to reaction rates, if you want something less spectacular and are not constrained by ease of initiating
the reactions, use the coarse stuff.
A great deal of hands on experience in reaction rates versus particle size and shape informs those of us who design and compound pyrotechnic mixtures.
One of your Al flake powders was primarily marketed for pyrotechnic use in flash powders. The other was aimed more at the pigments and coatings
sector, but saw use in pyrotechnics as well. Neither would be my choice if KABOOM! was not intended.
The CuO/Al mixture with very fine flake Al powders has been used in aerial salutes and movie SFX explosion simulations, it is a bit "frisky" for
making and retaining a nice button of reduced metal.
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
chipwit
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 9-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Cu2O/Al is used to weld copper conductors to the rails on railroads. While working for the railroad, I did a little conductor welding and the mixture
also had some metallic copper in it. The components were also pretty coarse, about sand sized.
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 |
The idea that lower Mn oxides can solve the problem of low yield is lalgely a myth. I tested that with homemade MnO (from pyrolysis of
MnCO3 under CO2 blanket) and noted no improvement at all.
That's because the problem is Mn's 'low' BP of 2061 C, so close to the MP of alumina, as now has been pointed out ad nauseam. To get
metal/slag separation you have to exceed the MP of alumina, so by definition the vapour pressure of the Mn will always be close to 1 atm.
30 % yield is about the most you can hope for with a well-designed MnOx thermite. |
Unless someone designed a manganese collection retort and ran it under a CO2 atmosphere.
Would not the vaporizing manganese reoxidize in air and add to the apparent energy of the reaction?
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
