Armory Sponsor
Posted: 10/17/2009 4:28:05 AM EDT
| Got a question for you guys. First off, no I have not tried it and no I'm not going to try it. I have a buddy that use to , legally, make his own pyrotechnics. He made most of them using titanium, aluminum or iron oxide powder. We were talking about it the other day and I got to thinking. I wonder if you could use the same powder as a propellant for ammunition? I don't have any idea on the pressures or anything. Has this ever been tried before. It seems as though it would work in "ideal" conditions. I know it doesn't take much titaniun powder to make one hell of a boom! Just curiosity. Thanks guys! |
|
What you should do is start reading about the differences in explosives and propellants, their constituents, and the difference in explosive, burn, and deflagrate.
Think about the lack of confinement and weak packages used for these fireworks compared to a firearm chamber. Those big booms without confinement translate into ginormous pressures under confinement. Hatcher's Notebook and Rinker's ballistics book are two good places to start that are easy to find. |
|
The metals you list have nothing to do with the detonation of fireworks. They are part of the pyrotechnic composition and only provide the visual component of the fireworks. Now for your homework assignment junior.
Research the following words: oxidize combustion brisance deflagrate detonate Now fill in the blanks: (you may be required to use the noun, past tense or third person present singular form of the word) Gunpower __________ slowly and therefor is a low __________ explosive material. During the ignition sequence of a rifle cartridge, the primer is __________ by the firing pin, causing the fuel component of the propellant to __________. This process generates heat which acts upon two primary gases* created simultaneously and propells the projectile down the barrel. Name the gases: __________ and __________. The two gases are the most common found in the atmosphere you breathe. Both are equally important but one of them is not given the respect it deserves as the workhorse of the process. Which one is overlooked and why? Hint: Street racers love it and deep water divers hate it. Now, ask your question again and see if you can't answer it yourself. Class dismissed..... *The ambient quantity of these gases is not sufficient to react with a fuel source to be an effective propellant. |
|
I think they use a lot of black powder for fireworks because it is an actual explosive, not a propellant. Black powder does not require teh confinement to go BOOM!. It helps, but is not required.
Propellants, of the types used in firearms, do not even burn vigorously much less go BOOM! unless contained. |
Metals form nasty fouling. Stay away from metals including potassium and sodium salts  . We have been doing fine since the late 19th century, potassium and sodium salts are the hallmark of black powder.Smokeless propellants are nitrated polyhydroxyls, from 3 on up. Yeah, the simplest nitrated triol in smokeless is nitroglycerine. Nitrostarch isn't used nor are any nitrated sugars as these are too unstable. While octol (TNT and HMX) has been used as a solid rocket propellant, it has no application in firearms because of the rapid deflagration to detonation transition. And it is a high explosive, not what is considered impact insensitive so it COULD be set off by high velocity rifle fire (think Tannerite). Modern smokeless propellants need far more initiation than even a blasting cap for the DD transition. Most other metal-free propellants do not and have undesirable burn characteristics. |
|
One phrase: Deflagration to Detonation Transition.
I'm going to take a somewhat different approach than the other posters here though. Alternative propellants are possible, in fact there are some that may have superior characteristics for one or two applications. The reason we use single or double based powders is that they fulfill the most requirements the cheapest. They are stable, insensitive to shock or friction, difficult to cause to undergo DDT under normal circumstances, don't cause undue barrel wear or corrosion, and most important, relatively cheap to make. Now, you COULD experiment around with developing new propellants. To do so you will need a good understanding of energetic chemistry, decent lab set up with test equipment and monitoring equipment, small scale production capabilities and a willingness to invest a fair amount of time and effort to the project. It'll probably take years and cost a whole lot of money. And in the end you may develop something useful (when lots and lots of very well funded researchers haven't in the past), but more likely you'll come to the same conclusions that thousands of people working on the same project for the last couple of centuries have. But let's say you have your wonder product. Convincing anyone to manufacture and apply your wonder product will be an uphill battle. The days of the garage inventor coming up with a superior product are behind us in this field. If you want to do it as a hobby, feel free. If you think you're going to actually develop something better than what we have now, then don't invest your life savings on it. |
|
Quoted:
One phrase: Deflagration to Detonation Transition. I'm going to take a somewhat different approach than the other posters here though. Alternative propellants are possible, in fact there are some that may have superior characteristics for one or two applications. ... Since I've been working on the Countermine System, I've been exposed to three companies plus a government agency that do this work everyday. Mostly, they select from an enormous menu of explosives, propellants, and reactive materials, then tailor the packaging for the application, and do this with about as much ease as we read a reloading manual. A remarkable example is the design of the gas generator for our dispenser. As the overall design of the weapon has evolved, the sub for the dispenser (Nammo Talley) can change the propellant design to meet the payload acceleration requirement in just a couple of hours by changing the propellant or its grain size and shape. Same with the self destruct fusing - one of our parts has an ignition sequence that spans less than 100 micro-seconds (the number is not classified, but it is proprietary and I'm not going to disclose the figure), in the mean time the self destruct fuse has already started burning and in several 10's of micro-seconds after the part should have exploded, the self destruct fuse will ignite the explosive if the primary fuse didn't. Plus, there are no electronics involved, everything is triggered and fired mechanically using inertia. Both of those ignition sequences are designed by selection and tweaking of the ignitor materials and their physical shapes. Even with the fancy new explosives, some materials such as BNO3 (Boron Nitrate) and KNO3 (Potassium Nitrate) are still important staples (these are oxidizers). I accidentally discovered the Wikipedia entries while searching the internet a few weeks back. There's a fair bit of interesting material there - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material |
|
Quoted:
Gotta love pyro chains! Hard to screw up, reliable as all get out, and inexpensive so you can make 'em redundant. Example: the system used in the F111 to eject the crew capsule. Hundreds of steps had to be spot on in timing, and this was done with simple pyro devices, including delay links, splitters and gas generators. Complex simplicity...
Plus, there are no electronics involved, everything is triggered and fired mechanically using inertia. Both of those ignition sequences are designed by selection and tweaking of the ignitor materials and their physical shapes. |
Armory Sponsor