Discussion:
Italian style shell
(too old to reply)
t***@aol.com
2006-07-30 03:28:23 UTC
Permalink
I made a couple 3 inch Italian style shells and both just broke out the
ends. Three wraps 60 lb. paper with two wraps 120 lb. paper for a
liner.I strung both with butchers string spaced about 1/4 inch apart.
Two wraps pasted paper. I'm using PB coated rice hulls with teaspoon of
whistle mix to break the shell. I pack the shell very good. What do I
need to do to get a better break? Am I building the side wall to strong?
Jim B.
2006-07-30 07:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
I made a couple 3 inch Italian style shells and both just broke out the
ends. Three wraps 60 lb. paper with two wraps 120 lb. paper for a
liner.I strung both with butchers string spaced about 1/4 inch apart.
Two wraps pasted paper. I'm using PB coated rice hulls with teaspoon of
whistle mix to break the shell. I pack the shell very good. What do I
need to do to get a better break? Am I building the side wall to strong?
Umm, Learn proper construction techniques and use the right
materials, Not some shit that you cobbled together from the junk
drawer. Your twine is wrong, your paper is wrong your break charge is
wrong. Tell us some more about these shells and that is probably wrong
too.

Get a passfire subscription, Get ready to plunk down a couple of
grand for chemicals, tools, books, etc.(Get it while you can Seems like
it might be getting a little bit harder in the future). Build em'
twenty different ways that are all shitty breaking untill you get it
right. Dont just expect the people here that know how to build to solve
all 30 of your problems on your first post, maybe one or two but I
wouldnt even expect that without a lecure or three about properly
barricading your mortars ( Sorry Harry I couldnt resist :) )



Jim B.
h***@yahoo.com
2006-07-30 22:55:55 UTC
Permalink
ROFL!

Jim, a truly great post!

Evidently like myself, you have your own concerns regarding people
altogether willing to cobble together something that can easily perform
instant surgery on themselves without first doing a significant amount
of research on the subject first.

You're an excellent saleman for Passfire, and have even convinced me to
purchase a membership. Still, a few of the classic texts can be very
helpful as well, often covering topics which Passfire does not. Also,
if you are not a member of a club or have anyone to teach you (and to
yell at you as is sometimes required), a few selected titles of the AFN
published videos can be very helpful (the Louis Semenza video and that
one on how to make cut both stand out at the top of my list.) For
books, were I only to purchase one, it would be Lancaster's 4th
edition, followed by Hardt and Weingart in that order. Lancaster is
roughly $125, Hardt $85, and Weingart $5 in disk form from Warren
Klofkorn (a great buy).

I believe that you hit it right on the head about the materials needed,
the paper, string, glue, and chemicals. One nice thing about
constructing fireworks is that the amount of machinery required is
somewhat minimal, but owning a ball mill and press quickly become a
must as one develops lasting interest in the craft.

I would have to debate the point that $2,000 in chemicals are needed by
a beginner, because when producing fireworks in limited starter
quantities and varieties, very few are needed, and those only in modest
quantities. To me, $200 in chemicals would be a very reasonable
starting point. An equivalent sum invested in paper, headers, string,
etc. is of course needed.

As you so well have stated, you don't make quality and safe firworks by
combining things that you find in your junk drawer with chemicals. If
you do, you will likely find yourself quickly becoming a statistic or
gaining local notoriety.

I consider a 3" Italian shell to be an excellent starting point, but
you first have to learn from somewhere how such a traitional shell is
constructed, and why. For beginners, I would strongly suggest starting
out with the star comps required to produce highly color saturated red,
green, silver, and gold stars, since these will produce at first the
maximum personal saftisfaction on achieving a good break, and be
enteraining in the process for others to watch. Fortunately, these
require use of the least expensive chemicals. Leave blues to the more
experienced, since with the use of today's chemicals the production of
highly saturated blues can be problematic and require much more
sophisticated star comps.

As an aside, I suggest that everyone acquire a copy of the Fulcanelli
Papers from Pyrotechnia. These entirely capture the art of Italian
shell making in a couple of dozen short pages, and a a must to own.
$50, but money well spent. (Contact Mike Swisher, John Smith, or Ken
for information on how to acquire the copies of Pyrotechnia IX and XI
containing the two parts of fantastics this series.)

My suggestion for a beginner would be to first perfect the classic red
and green star shell to the point where you have both reliable
performance, a good spread of stars, and a reasonably uniform break.
Don't even think about making anything more sophisticated until you
have perfected the level of craftsmanship skill required to accomplish
this.

I doub't that a beginner wish to hear this, but 'that's the facts'.

For years I've been involved in two very different but both life
threatening hobbies.

The first is offshore sailing, where poor seamanship can get you killed
faster than you have time to issue a distress call on your radio unless
you are prepared for the worst case type of events plus are extremly
lucky.

The second is fireworks, where most of those reading this realize where
and what the hazards are, and survive over the years only by taking
them into account through extreme precaustionary measures.

Both hobbies have caused me to be accused of "living on the edge". :-)

I suppose that both would be considered extreme sports, but these like
most extreme sports offer a certain type of thrill that you cannot
easily obtain elsewhere. The risks associated with each are
comparabile, and in either case if you lack knowledge of the
fundamentals, the downside is equally draconic. At sea, if you're hit
by a sudden line-squall 30-miles offshore and go down, likely no part
of you will ever be recovered. (A swamped sailboat with several tons of
ballast in its keel can sink in 30 seconds or less.) With fireworks, if
you have an accident, if the rescue squad is able to save your life,
you will spend the rest of it minus a hand, eye, or leg. For me, I'd
rather go down at sea and be eaten by the sea creatures than live the
balance of my life that way.

On a more positve note, I've been offshore sailing for more than 20
years, and making/shoting fireworks for more than 50. I'm still in one
identifiable piece, and credit that solely to a complete knowledge of
the risks involved in both fields and a knowledge of how to minimize
the risks and survive intact.

Knowlege acquired before experimentation helps! Seeing the terrible
consequences of even one serious fireworks accident also helps.

Curmudgeonly, Harry C.

p.s., My offshore sailing is/was conducted using a 23' Hutchins
Compac-Yacht, two of which have already completed the voyage from
Boston to England/Ireland. Something that I have always wanted to try,
but quite honestly have never had the guts to do! I really don't know
if I could live with the constant boredom of 30 or more days at sea,
with the constant threat of severe storms while crossing the North
Atlantic, or the more Southern return voyage following the route of
Columbus. After all, not with GPS navigation is not a challenge, nor is
fuel cost when travelling by sail. It's a crazy idea, but then that
has not been an unusual thing for me. Also, satellite comunication
could make boredom less of an issue making the Internet available for
the entire duration of such a voyage. Let me know if there are any
potential sponsors! (Seriously) It would not be the first time that
anyone has ever crossed the Atlantic in a Compac 23, but to my
knowledge no one has yet to make the entire round trip from Boston to
England and then back again.
Post by Jim B.
Post by t***@aol.com
I made a couple 3 inch Italian style shells and both just broke out the
ends. Three wraps 60 lb. paper with two wraps 120 lb. paper for a
liner.I strung both with butchers string spaced about 1/4 inch apart.
Two wraps pasted paper. I'm using PB coated rice hulls with teaspoon of
whistle mix to break the shell. I pack the shell very good. What do I
need to do to get a better break? Am I building the side wall to strong?
Umm, Learn proper construction techniques and use the right
materials, Not some shit that you cobbled together from the junk
drawer. Your twine is wrong, your paper is wrong your break charge is
wrong. Tell us some more about these shells and that is probably wrong
too.
Get a passfire subscription, Get ready to plunk down a couple of
grand for chemicals, tools, books, etc.(Get it while you can Seems like
it might be getting a little bit harder in the future). Build em'
twenty different ways that are all shitty breaking untill you get it
right. Dont just expect the people here that know how to build to solve
all 30 of your problems on your first post, maybe one or two but I
wouldnt even expect that without a lecure or three about properly
barricading your mortars ( Sorry Harry I couldnt resist :) )
Jim B.
Jim B.
2006-07-31 01:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Evidently like myself, you have your own concerns regarding people
altogether willing to cobble together something that can easily perform
instant surgery on themselves without first doing a significant amount
of research on the subject first.
You're an excellent saleman for Passfire, and have even convinced me to
purchase a membership.
Harry,

I dont Mean to be a salesman but for 40 bucks it is a GREAT place to
start. Hell the formula archive and calculators alone are worth 40
bucks. It also seems that Kyle basically follows Fulcanelli exept for
the places where maltese techniques are faster or more efficient.

My Quote of $2000 was intentionally high, I figured in a good
collection of books, Tools, Ball mill construction, Etc. And a Very
good supply of chemicals if he plans to stay an amateur ( Might Get a
little hard to acquire key stuff in the next year or so).


Jim B.
h***@yahoo.com
2006-07-31 02:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Jim, no problem. As you know I am one of those old farts that like to
pull people's chains simpy to test the metal of which they are made.
It's an Irish thing, but since I'm not Irish I have little excuse for
doing it except their respose helps me to understand a little more
about the person behind the post.

Actually, you alone didn't sell me on Passfire, but your posts and the
many leaning in the same direction did. Kyle will get my $40 in the
next day or so, and I've come to regard Passfire as a very valued asset
to pyros on the Internet.

With respect to the clueless folks attempting to make fireworks without
researching the subject, I mean't everything that I posted.

Harry C.

p.s., Jim, I post what I mean, and don't get into the fuzzy
sensativities. I believe that by reading my posts until now, you know
exactly why I do this. If not, just ask.
Post by Jim B.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Evidently like myself, you have your own concerns regarding people
altogether willing to cobble together something that can easily perform
instant surgery on themselves without first doing a significant amount
of research on the subject first.
You're an excellent saleman for Passfire, and have even convinced me to
purchase a membership.
Harry,
I dont Mean to be a salesman but for 40 bucks it is a GREAT place to
start. Hell the formula archive and calculators alone are worth 40
bucks. It also seems that Kyle basically follows Fulcanelli exept for
the places where maltese techniques are faster or more efficient.
My Quote of $2000 was intentionally high, I figured in a good
collection of books, Tools, Ball mill construction, Etc. And a Very
good supply of chemicals if he plans to stay an amateur ( Might Get a
little hard to acquire key stuff in the next year or so).
Jim B.
r***@bestweb.net
2006-07-31 21:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
As you so well have stated, you don't make quality and safe firworks by
combining things that you find in your junk drawer with chemicals.
That's how the Maltese do it!
Post by h***@yahoo.com
For beginners, I would strongly suggest starting
out with the star comps required to produce highly color saturated red,
green, silver, and gold stars, since these will produce at first the
maximum personal saftisfaction on achieving a good break, and be
enteraining in the process for others to watch. Fortunately, these
require use of the least expensive chemicals.
No way. For cheap and easy (no priming needed), start with charcoal
stars (which POSSIBLY is what you meant by "gold stars"), then
"granite" and/or white, the Sb2S3 for white being the most expensive of
the chems needed for those stars.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
I suppose that both would be considered extreme sports, but these like
most extreme sports offer a certain type of thrill that you cannot
easily obtain elsewhere. The risks associated with each are
comparabile, and in either case if you lack knowledge of the
fundamentals, the downside is equally draconic. At sea, if you're hit
by a sudden line-squall 30-miles offshore and go down, likely no part
of you will ever be recovered. (A swamped sailboat with several tons of
ballast in its keel can sink in 30 seconds or less.) With fireworks, if
you have an accident, if the rescue squad is able to save your life,
you will spend the rest of it minus a hand, eye, or leg. For me, I'd
rather go down at sea and be eaten by the sea creatures than live the
balance of my life that way.
I'm unable to read the above para. without hearing it in the voice of
Bluto or some other stereotypic sailor character. Arrr....

Robert
r***@bestweb.net
2006-07-31 21:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim B.
Post by t***@aol.com
I made a couple 3 inch Italian style shells and both just broke out the
ends. Three wraps 60 lb. paper with two wraps 120 lb. paper for a
liner.I strung both with butchers string spaced about 1/4 inch apart.
Two wraps pasted paper. I'm using PB coated rice hulls with teaspoon of
whistle mix to break the shell. I pack the shell very good. What do I
need to do to get a better break? Am I building the side wall to strong?
Umm, Learn proper construction techniques and use the right
materials, Not some shit that you cobbled together from the junk
drawer. Your twine is wrong, your paper is wrong your break charge is
wrong. Tell us some more about these shells and that is probably wrong
too.
From the description above, I think it presumptuous to suppose all that
wrongness. They may very well be wrong, but let's not assume so. As
to the materials, I use recycled paper and have used various strings,
not all of them the best twine, yet my breaks have not been bow ties.
OTOH, I usually use a stronger burst powder in a central bag.

Robert
Jim B.
2006-08-01 02:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@bestweb.net
Post by Jim B.
From the description above, I think it presumptuous to suppose all that
wrongness. They may very well be wrong, but let's not assume so. As
to the materials, I use recycled paper and have used various strings,
not all of them the best twine, yet my breaks have not been bow ties.
OTOH, I usually use a stronger burst powder in a central bag.
Robert
Robert,

I use some of these things as well to save money, time or effort
where I can, But when I was learning construction, I learned the right
ways first as I am sure you did. Only after I had gained sufficient
Knowlege to appreciate how all of these parts functioned together did I
start to make some informed substitutions. I can throw a 3" or
4"together with Nothing but rough powder, Recycled Kraft, Hemp twine
from wal mart and soda cracker box end disks, Ive done it, Doesnt Hose
break but even my pyro hating girlfriend can tell the ( Fairly large)
difference from one constructed following Fulcanelli.

Im not in buisiness so I dont really see any point in making
substitutions that will effect how a shell looks, Do it right or dont
do it, Flash bags are OK for some things (Spiderweb) But its use in
other shells is just a time/money saving technique adopted by
commercial manufactures to be able to compete in the market. I see no
reason to use it in a Italian shell, the correct way to get a good
break is outlined in great detail in Fulcanelli. A central core of
2-3Fa in the proper size cannula combined with proper spiking and
pasting will give you a great break every time. No need to dial it in.


To each there own, I am not getting down on your techniques just
that most people will (I think) say that there is indeed a Correct way
to do it, anything else is a departure from convention and should not
be attempted by the beginner.


Jim B.
r***@bestweb.net
2006-08-01 03:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim B.
A central core of
2-3Fa in the proper size cannula combined with proper spiking and
pasting will give you a great break every time.
Does the extra space taken up by the cannula in a 3" shell exclude
fewer stars than are crushed by a whistle or flash bag?
Post by Jim B.
To each there own, I am not getting down on your techniques just
that most people will (I think) say that there is indeed a Correct way
to do it, anything else is a departure from convention and should not
be attempted by the beginner.
I'm just saying that the general method must be more tolerant than you
might think from what you write, if my breaks aren't bow ties. I've
had bow tie breaks in my 1.75" shells, which are basically just cans,
but not in my 3" shells. I don't use a spiking horse, either.
Therefore in trying to figure out why the original poster is getting a
bow tie break, I would look for a SEVERE departure from form, not at
such relatively fine points as the type of string or paper s/he used.
I'm sure those materials & tools are used for a reason, but it's
probably the sort of thing that separates the advanced competition
shell makers from the mere mortals, rather than a 1-component
substitution that would account for bow tie breaks.

Robert
Däve
2006-08-01 16:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Well, after hearing all the fuss on Italian style shells, I figured I would
have a go at it. Since it was a sudden decision, no "proper" materials and
nothing more than a 1.75" tube to launch from....

The outside tube was an empty toilette paper roll.
The inside sleeve was rolled filing folder paper.
The end caps were shoe box cardboard.
The spiking was done with #10 cotton (same used on black match)
Spiking horse? Hah! Stepped on string to keep it tight.
Pasted over with Elmer's and 9" wide paint masking paper.
Break charge was 2F in center.

It went together remarkably fast. It even looked remotely "professional" in
appearance.
Now, if there was ever a list of unapproved materials used for an Italian
shell, I'm sure it just got rewritten.
Built it. Shot it 4 hours later. I was really expecting a flower-pot.
The break was incredible! It put those little class-C festival balls to
shame.
I will certainly NOT be re-ordering any small hemi's when I run out. You
can get 3x the effect out of a 1.75x4" long mini salami.
Now I would definitly study Fulcanelli and get proper materials before
attempting to make any larger bore shells. But for now, I'll keep you
posted on my triple-break with bottom shot 1.75" toilet paper shell....
...to be continued...
Post by Jim B.
Post by r***@bestweb.net
Post by Jim B.
From the description above, I think it presumptuous to suppose all that
wrongness. They may very well be wrong, but let's not assume so. As
to the materials, I use recycled paper and have used various strings,
not all of them the best twine, yet my breaks have not been bow ties.
OTOH, I usually use a stronger burst powder in a central bag.
Robert
Robert,
I use some of these things as well to save money, time or effort
where I can, But when I was learning construction, I learned the right
ways first as I am sure you did. Only after I had gained sufficient
Knowlege to appreciate how all of these parts functioned together did I
start to make some informed substitutions. I can throw a 3" or
4"together with Nothing but rough powder, Recycled Kraft, Hemp twine
from wal mart and soda cracker box end disks, Ive done it, Doesnt Hose
break but even my pyro hating girlfriend can tell the ( Fairly large)
difference from one constructed following Fulcanelli.
Im not in buisiness so I dont really see any point in making
substitutions that will effect how a shell looks, Do it right or dont
do it, Flash bags are OK for some things (Spiderweb) But its use in
other shells is just a time/money saving technique adopted by
commercial manufactures to be able to compete in the market. I see no
reason to use it in a Italian shell, the correct way to get a good
break is outlined in great detail in Fulcanelli. A central core of
2-3Fa in the proper size cannula combined with proper spiking and
pasting will give you a great break every time. No need to dial it in.
To each there own, I am not getting down on your techniques just
that most people will (I think) say that there is indeed a Correct way
to do it, anything else is a departure from convention and should not
be attempted by the beginner.
Jim B.
f***@cableone.net
2006-08-01 18:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Dave,

Whatever else might be said about your aerial shells, I'll volunteer
that I laughed out loud and, in a manner of speaking, cheered you on.
Your statement " Spiking horse? Hah! Stepped on string to keep it
tight." more or less epitomizes your "field expedient" approach to this
shell. And it all worked!! Bravo!

The American spirit lives on still.

I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember an ad campaign that ran
in print and on TV years ago: It was for a brand of TP called "Charmin"
and the tag line was "Please, don't squeeze the Charmin!" You have
managed, all this time later, to give an entirely new meaning to that
old ad line.

Thanks for the refreshing interlude Dave. I for one enjoyed it. (Not to
be a spoiler but do please be well away when you launch those pups.)

Tom C.
Post by Däve
Well, after hearing all the fuss on Italian style shells, I figured I would
have a go at it. Since it was a sudden decision, no "proper" materials and
nothing more than a 1.75" tube to launch from....
The outside tube was an empty toilette paper roll.
The inside sleeve was rolled filing folder paper.
The end caps were shoe box cardboard.
The spiking was done with #10 cotton (same used on black match)
Spiking horse? Hah! Stepped on string to keep it tight.
Pasted over with Elmer's and 9" wide paint masking paper.
Break charge was 2F in center.
It went together remarkably fast. It even looked remotely "professional" in
appearance.
Now, if there was ever a list of unapproved materials used for an Italian
shell, I'm sure it just got rewritten.
Built it. Shot it 4 hours later. I was really expecting a flower-pot.
The break was incredible! It put those little class-C festival balls to
shame.
I will certainly NOT be re-ordering any small hemi's when I run out. You
can get 3x the effect out of a 1.75x4" long mini salami.
Now I would definitly study Fulcanelli and get proper materials before
attempting to make any larger bore shells. But for now, I'll keep you
posted on my triple-break with bottom shot 1.75" toilet paper shell....
...to be continued...
Post by Jim B.
Post by r***@bestweb.net
Post by Jim B.
From the description above, I think it presumptuous to suppose all that
wrongness. They may very well be wrong, but let's not assume so. As
to the materials, I use recycled paper and have used various strings,
not all of them the best twine, yet my breaks have not been bow ties.
OTOH, I usually use a stronger burst powder in a central bag.
Robert
Robert,
I use some of these things as well to save money, time or effort
where I can, But when I was learning construction, I learned the right
ways first as I am sure you did. Only after I had gained sufficient
Knowlege to appreciate how all of these parts functioned together did I
start to make some informed substitutions. I can throw a 3" or
4"together with Nothing but rough powder, Recycled Kraft, Hemp twine
from wal mart and soda cracker box end disks, Ive done it, Doesnt Hose
break but even my pyro hating girlfriend can tell the ( Fairly large)
difference from one constructed following Fulcanelli.
Im not in buisiness so I dont really see any point in making
substitutions that will effect how a shell looks, Do it right or dont
do it, Flash bags are OK for some things (Spiderweb) But its use in
other shells is just a time/money saving technique adopted by
commercial manufactures to be able to compete in the market. I see no
reason to use it in a Italian shell, the correct way to get a good
break is outlined in great detail in Fulcanelli. A central core of
2-3Fa in the proper size cannula combined with proper spiking and
pasting will give you a great break every time. No need to dial it in.
To each there own, I am not getting down on your techniques just
that most people will (I think) say that there is indeed a Correct way
to do it, anything else is a departure from convention and should not
be attempted by the beginner.
Jim B.
Däve
2006-08-01 18:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Next one I'll have some pictures. Most "pro" salami's I've seen in my few
months of pyro experience are HUGE. Some 4-5' long. This little 4"er was
cute to say the least.
My limited FPAG experience has taught me one thing for sure... SAFETY! Even
small shells deserve much respect. Last 4th was my first post-FPAG Fourth
of July. What a difference. The usual hang out with neighbors/friends and
shoot fireworks was changed forever. Never gave it much thought before
FPAG, but now... Watching people light consumer grade pyro was down right
terrifying! I do have a little more respect of CPSC's position on pyro, but
feel they go about it all wrong. Less effort and money spent on a
prohibition campaign that will never happen, and more effort spent on
consumer safety education. A couple of info-mercials played a few times a
year. Maybe even a saturday morning cartoon series. Who knows, maybe those
two idiots that died throwing fireworks out of a moving vehicle would have
gotten a clue..."Man, this is kinda stupid, you think?"


<***@cableone.net> wrote in message news:***@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dave,

Whatever else might be said about your aerial shells, I'll volunteer
that I laughed out loud and, in a manner of speaking, cheered you on.
Your statement " Spiking horse? Hah! Stepped on string to keep it
tight." more or less epitomizes your "field expedient" approach to this
shell. And it all worked!! Bravo!

The American spirit lives on still.

I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember an ad campaign that ran
in print and on TV years ago: It was for a brand of TP called "Charmin"
and the tag line was "Please, don't squeeze the Charmin!" You have
managed, all this time later, to give an entirely new meaning to that
old ad line.

Thanks for the refreshing interlude Dave. I for one enjoyed it. (Not to
be a spoiler but do please be well away when you launch those pups.)

Tom C.
Post by Däve
Well, after hearing all the fuss on Italian style shells, I figured I would
have a go at it. Since it was a sudden decision, no "proper" materials and
nothing more than a 1.75" tube to launch from....
The outside tube was an empty toilette paper roll.
The inside sleeve was rolled filing folder paper.
The end caps were shoe box cardboard.
The spiking was done with #10 cotton (same used on black match)
Spiking horse? Hah! Stepped on string to keep it tight.
Pasted over with Elmer's and 9" wide paint masking paper.
Break charge was 2F in center.
It went together remarkably fast. It even looked remotely "professional" in
appearance.
Now, if there was ever a list of unapproved materials used for an Italian
shell, I'm sure it just got rewritten.
Built it. Shot it 4 hours later. I was really expecting a flower-pot.
The break was incredible! It put those little class-C festival balls to
shame.
I will certainly NOT be re-ordering any small hemi's when I run out. You
can get 3x the effect out of a 1.75x4" long mini salami.
Now I would definitly study Fulcanelli and get proper materials before
attempting to make any larger bore shells. But for now, I'll keep you
posted on my triple-break with bottom shot 1.75" toilet paper shell....
...to be continued...
Post by Jim B.
Post by r***@bestweb.net
Post by Jim B.
From the description above, I think it presumptuous to suppose all that
wrongness. They may very well be wrong, but let's not assume so. As
to the materials, I use recycled paper and have used various strings,
not all of them the best twine, yet my breaks have not been bow ties.
OTOH, I usually use a stronger burst powder in a central bag.
Robert
Robert,
I use some of these things as well to save money, time or effort
where I can, But when I was learning construction, I learned the right
ways first as I am sure you did. Only after I had gained sufficient
Knowlege to appreciate how all of these parts functioned together did I
start to make some informed substitutions. I can throw a 3" or
4"together with Nothing but rough powder, Recycled Kraft, Hemp twine
from wal mart and soda cracker box end disks, Ive done it, Doesnt Hose
break but even my pyro hating girlfriend can tell the ( Fairly large)
difference from one constructed following Fulcanelli.
Im not in buisiness so I dont really see any point in making
substitutions that will effect how a shell looks, Do it right or dont
do it, Flash bags are OK for some things (Spiderweb) But its use in
other shells is just a time/money saving technique adopted by
commercial manufactures to be able to compete in the market. I see no
reason to use it in a Italian shell, the correct way to get a good
break is outlined in great detail in Fulcanelli. A central core of
2-3Fa in the proper size cannula combined with proper spiking and
pasting will give you a great break every time. No need to dial it in.
To each there own, I am not getting down on your techniques just
that most people will (I think) say that there is indeed a Correct way
to do it, anything else is a departure from convention and should not
be attempted by the beginner.
Jim B.
f***@cableone.net
2006-08-01 18:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Dave,

In a better world, a "CPSC" would do just that: provide a modicum of
education to those that would partake of consumer fireworks. One might
fancy a similar stance where amateur pyrotechnics is concerned ... but
then, one might fancy a lot of things.

Unfortunately, in the world we do live in and upon this subject, the
CPSC isn't interested in education, it's interested in the abolishment
of the amateur practice. Ban it, eliminate it, make the world a safer
place, on and on with no regard for the liberty that fireworks
themselves once represented.

Enough of the soap box Dave. Please do provide some pictures!

Tom C.
Post by Däve
Next one I'll have some pictures. Most "pro" salami's I've seen in my few
months of pyro experience are HUGE. Some 4-5' long. This little 4"er was
cute to say the least.
My limited FPAG experience has taught me one thing for sure... SAFETY! Even
small shells deserve much respect. Last 4th was my first post-FPAG Fourth
of July. What a difference. The usual hang out with neighbors/friends and
shoot fireworks was changed forever. Never gave it much thought before
FPAG, but now... Watching people light consumer grade pyro was down right
terrifying! I do have a little more respect of CPSC's position on pyro, but
feel they go about it all wrong. Less effort and money spent on a
prohibition campaign that will never happen, and more effort spent on
consumer safety education. A couple of info-mercials played a few times a
year. Maybe even a saturday morning cartoon series. Who knows, maybe those
two idiots that died throwing fireworks out of a moving vehicle would have
gotten a clue..."Man, this is kinda stupid, you think?"
Dave,
Whatever else might be said about your aerial shells, I'll volunteer
that I laughed out loud and, in a manner of speaking, cheered you on.
Your statement " Spiking horse? Hah! Stepped on string to keep it
tight." more or less epitomizes your "field expedient" approach to this
shell. And it all worked!! Bravo!
The American spirit lives on still.
I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember an ad campaign that ran
in print and on TV years ago: It was for a brand of TP called "Charmin"
and the tag line was "Please, don't squeeze the Charmin!" You have
managed, all this time later, to give an entirely new meaning to that
old ad line.
Thanks for the refreshing interlude Dave. I for one enjoyed it. (Not to
be a spoiler but do please be well away when you launch those pups.)
Tom C.
Post by Däve
Well, after hearing all the fuss on Italian style shells, I figured I would
have a go at it. Since it was a sudden decision, no "proper" materials and
nothing more than a 1.75" tube to launch from....
The outside tube was an empty toilette paper roll.
The inside sleeve was rolled filing folder paper.
The end caps were shoe box cardboard.
The spiking was done with #10 cotton (same used on black match)
Spiking horse? Hah! Stepped on string to keep it tight.
Pasted over with Elmer's and 9" wide paint masking paper.
Break charge was 2F in center.
It went together remarkably fast. It even looked remotely "professional" in
appearance.
Now, if there was ever a list of unapproved materials used for an Italian
shell, I'm sure it just got rewritten.
Built it. Shot it 4 hours later. I was really expecting a flower-pot.
The break was incredible! It put those little class-C festival balls to
shame.
I will certainly NOT be re-ordering any small hemi's when I run out. You
can get 3x the effect out of a 1.75x4" long mini salami.
Now I would definitly study Fulcanelli and get proper materials before
attempting to make any larger bore shells. But for now, I'll keep you
posted on my triple-break with bottom shot 1.75" toilet paper shell....
...to be continued...
Post by Jim B.
Post by r***@bestweb.net
Post by Jim B.
From the description above, I think it presumptuous to suppose all that
wrongness. They may very well be wrong, but let's not assume so. As
to the materials, I use recycled paper and have used various strings,
not all of them the best twine, yet my breaks have not been bow ties.
OTOH, I usually use a stronger burst powder in a central bag.
Robert
Robert,
I use some of these things as well to save money, time or effort
where I can, But when I was learning construction, I learned the right
ways first as I am sure you did. Only after I had gained sufficient
Knowlege to appreciate how all of these parts functioned together did I
start to make some informed substitutions. I can throw a 3" or
4"together with Nothing but rough powder, Recycled Kraft, Hemp twine
from wal mart and soda cracker box end disks, Ive done it, Doesnt Hose
break but even my pyro hating girlfriend can tell the ( Fairly large)
difference from one constructed following Fulcanelli.
Im not in buisiness so I dont really see any point in making
substitutions that will effect how a shell looks, Do it right or dont
do it, Flash bags are OK for some things (Spiderweb) But its use in
other shells is just a time/money saving technique adopted by
commercial manufactures to be able to compete in the market. I see no
reason to use it in a Italian shell, the correct way to get a good
break is outlined in great detail in Fulcanelli. A central core of
2-3Fa in the proper size cannula combined with proper spiking and
pasting will give you a great break every time. No need to dial it in.
To each there own, I am not getting down on your techniques just
that most people will (I think) say that there is indeed a Correct way
to do it, anything else is a departure from convention and should not
be attempted by the beginner.
Jim B.
Däve
2006-08-01 19:31:20 UTC
Permalink
The CPSC should take "real world" experience from the RIAA. RIAA's world:
Ban Napster = no more free music trading. Real world: ban Napster = 500 new
underground, non-centralized trading platforms that move like liquid mercury
through the internet. Banning chemicals used in pyro will ultimately result
in "new" methods to aquire them. Grocery, hardware and Walmart stores would
have to be monitored for sales of items that could be converted into
something pyro usable. Making crack illegal is no more effective in curbing
chemical addiction than banning a pyro's chemical supply. It will however
open up new markets of selling little baggies of Perc. on street corners in
the night...

<***@cableone.net> wrote in message news:***@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Dave,

In a better world, a "CPSC" would do just that: provide a modicum of
education to those that would partake of consumer fireworks. One might
fancy a similar stance where amateur pyrotechnics is concerned ... but
then, one might fancy a lot of things.

Unfortunately, in the world we do live in and upon this subject, the
CPSC isn't interested in education, it's interested in the abolishment
of the amateur practice. Ban it, eliminate it, make the world a safer
place, on and on with no regard for the liberty that fireworks
themselves once represented.

Enough of the soap box Dave. Please do provide some pictures!

Tom C.
Post by Däve
Next one I'll have some pictures. Most "pro" salami's I've seen in my few
months of pyro experience are HUGE. Some 4-5' long. This little 4"er was
cute to say the least.
My limited FPAG experience has taught me one thing for sure... SAFETY!
Even
small shells deserve much respect. Last 4th was my first post-FPAG Fourth
of July. What a difference. The usual hang out with neighbors/friends and
shoot fireworks was changed forever. Never gave it much thought before
FPAG, but now... Watching people light consumer grade pyro was down right
terrifying! I do have a little more respect of CPSC's position on pyro, but
feel they go about it all wrong. Less effort and money spent on a
prohibition campaign that will never happen, and more effort spent on
consumer safety education. A couple of info-mercials played a few times a
year. Maybe even a saturday morning cartoon series. Who knows, maybe those
two idiots that died throwing fireworks out of a moving vehicle would have
gotten a clue..."Man, this is kinda stupid, you think?"
Dave,
Whatever else might be said about your aerial shells, I'll volunteer
that I laughed out loud and, in a manner of speaking, cheered you on.
Your statement " Spiking horse? Hah! Stepped on string to keep it
tight." more or less epitomizes your "field expedient" approach to this
shell. And it all worked!! Bravo!
The American spirit lives on still.
I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember an ad campaign that ran
in print and on TV years ago: It was for a brand of TP called "Charmin"
and the tag line was "Please, don't squeeze the Charmin!" You have
managed, all this time later, to give an entirely new meaning to that
old ad line.
Thanks for the refreshing interlude Dave. I for one enjoyed it. (Not to
be a spoiler but do please be well away when you launch those pups.)
Tom C.
Post by Däve
Well, after hearing all the fuss on Italian style shells, I figured I would
have a go at it. Since it was a sudden decision, no "proper" materials and
nothing more than a 1.75" tube to launch from....
The outside tube was an empty toilette paper roll.
The inside sleeve was rolled filing folder paper.
The end caps were shoe box cardboard.
The spiking was done with #10 cotton (same used on black match)
Spiking horse? Hah! Stepped on string to keep it tight.
Pasted over with Elmer's and 9" wide paint masking paper.
Break charge was 2F in center.
It went together remarkably fast. It even looked remotely
"professional"
in
appearance.
Now, if there was ever a list of unapproved materials used for an Italian
shell, I'm sure it just got rewritten.
Built it. Shot it 4 hours later. I was really expecting a flower-pot.
The break was incredible! It put those little class-C festival balls to
shame.
I will certainly NOT be re-ordering any small hemi's when I run out.
You
can get 3x the effect out of a 1.75x4" long mini salami.
Now I would definitly study Fulcanelli and get proper materials before
attempting to make any larger bore shells. But for now, I'll keep you
posted on my triple-break with bottom shot 1.75" toilet paper shell....
...to be continued...
Post by Jim B.
Post by r***@bestweb.net
Post by Jim B.
From the description above, I think it presumptuous to suppose all that
wrongness. They may very well be wrong, but let's not assume so. As
to the materials, I use recycled paper and have used various strings,
not all of them the best twine, yet my breaks have not been bow ties.
OTOH, I usually use a stronger burst powder in a central bag.
Robert
Robert,
I use some of these things as well to save money, time or effort
where I can, But when I was learning construction, I learned the right
ways first as I am sure you did. Only after I had gained sufficient
Knowlege to appreciate how all of these parts functioned together did I
start to make some informed substitutions. I can throw a 3" or
4"together with Nothing but rough powder, Recycled Kraft, Hemp twine
from wal mart and soda cracker box end disks, Ive done it, Doesnt Hose
break but even my pyro hating girlfriend can tell the ( Fairly large)
difference from one constructed following Fulcanelli.
Im not in buisiness so I dont really see any point in making
substitutions that will effect how a shell looks, Do it right or dont
do it, Flash bags are OK for some things (Spiderweb) But its use in
other shells is just a time/money saving technique adopted by
commercial manufactures to be able to compete in the market. I see no
reason to use it in a Italian shell, the correct way to get a good
break is outlined in great detail in Fulcanelli. A central core of
2-3Fa in the proper size cannula combined with proper spiking and
pasting will give you a great break every time. No need to dial it in.
To each there own, I am not getting down on your techniques just
that most people will (I think) say that there is indeed a Correct way
to do it, anything else is a departure from convention and should not
be attempted by the beginner.
Jim B.
rob
2006-08-04 03:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Of course you must consider than Jim B. is a choad.

LexJ
2006-07-30 07:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
I made a couple 3 inch Italian style shells and both just broke out the
ends. Three wraps 60 lb. paper with two wraps 120 lb. paper for a
liner.I strung both with butchers string spaced about 1/4 inch apart.
Two wraps pasted paper. I'm using PB coated rice hulls with teaspoon of
whistle mix to break the shell. I pack the shell very good. What do I
need to do to get a better break? Am I building the side wall to strong?
I hate to be like the number one curmudgeon, but what you made is a
cylindrical shell or a canister shell. Italian style shells wouldn't
have any rice hulls in them and also any break other than BP is usually
in a flash bag.

But anyway, you didn't tell us what you used for end disks or if you
even used them. If you didn't use end disks or used very weak ones
then that could be the cause of your end breaks

Lex
John Reilly
2006-07-30 08:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
I made a couple 3 inch Italian style shells and both just broke out the
ends. Three wraps 60 lb. paper with two wraps 120 lb. paper for a
liner.I strung both with butchers string spaced about 1/4 inch apart.
Two wraps pasted paper. I'm using PB coated rice hulls with teaspoon of
whistle mix to break the shell. I pack the shell very good. What do I
need to do to get a better break? Am I building the side wall to strong?
What is PB? As to the shell wall being too strong, no, you can't make
it too strong on a hand rolled kraft and string shell. When your shell
is spiked and pasted, it should feel and sound like a block of wood. A
one inch core of FF-A should open it nicely for an Italian style
canister shell which has been properly rolled, spiked and pastewrapped.


John
t***@aol.com
2006-07-30 09:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reilly
Post by t***@aol.com
I made a couple 3 inch Italian style shells and both just broke out the
ends. Three wraps 60 lb. paper with two wraps 120 lb. paper for a
liner.I strung both with butchers string spaced about 1/4 inch apart.
Two wraps pasted paper. I'm using PB coated rice hulls with teaspoon of
whistle mix to break the shell. I pack the shell very good. What do I
need to do to get a better break? Am I building the side wall to strong?
What is PB? As to the shell wall being too strong, no, you can't make
it too strong on a hand rolled kraft and string shell. When your shell
is spiked and pasted, it should feel and sound like a block of wood. A
one inch core of FF-A should open it nicely for an Italian style
canister shell which has been properly rolled, spiked and pastewrapped.
John
Sorry about the PB, I ment BP. Thank you for your advice, I suspected
that I may have been using the wrong amount of break charge. I also
might try a diffrent string as that seems to be the part that failed
first. I thought I read somewhere that Devon Dickson used BP coated
rice hulls and whistle mix to break some of his shells.
John Reilly
2006-07-30 12:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by John Reilly
Post by t***@aol.com
I made a couple 3 inch Italian style shells and both just broke out the
ends. Three wraps 60 lb. paper with two wraps 120 lb. paper for a
liner.I strung both with butchers string spaced about 1/4 inch apart.
Two wraps pasted paper. I'm using PB coated rice hulls with teaspoon of
whistle mix to break the shell. I pack the shell very good. What do I
need to do to get a better break? Am I building the side wall to strong?
What is PB? As to the shell wall being too strong, no, you can't make
it too strong on a hand rolled kraft and string shell. When your shell
is spiked and pasted, it should feel and sound like a block of wood. A
one inch core of FF-A should open it nicely for an Italian style
canister shell which has been properly rolled, spiked and pastewrapped.
John
Sorry, it didn't eveen occur to me that it was a typo for BP. The
traditional paper requirement for 3" spiked Italian style canister
shells is 3 dry rolled turns of 70# on the 2-1/2" former and 3 turns
of well pasted and ""broken" 70# kraft for the pasted wall over the
spiking after loading. The virgin kraft is best due to its greater
strength than "bogus" or recycled kraft. This holding power of the
virgin paper becomes most evident during the "pasting in" of the spiked
shell. The string used on Italian style shells would best be flax or
linen but 100% cotton can be used doubled up and running the two
strands in parallel. The string needs to be hand saturated with thin
paste before spiking the bomb and above all, should be pulled down
tight enough to bite creases into the top and bottom "shoulders" of the
tightly packed shell. When the strung shell dries, you shouldn't hear
a single grain of powder move inside the shell (much less a star!) when
the shell is turned over.
The burst charge is a 7/8" or 1" core of B.P. placed by cannule (tube)
when loading the stars. FF-A is indicated, I use a granulation like
4FA, same heght as the break is tall.
Remember that the string, paste and paper work in unison to form a
reinforcing mesh grid between the inner and outer layers of paper and
although seemingly rock hard due to the tightly packed interior of the
shell, it could still be easily crushed with a firm grip if the shell
were empty. It's strength and success is in confining the contents
somewhat elastically until string snaps and paper rips with the
expansion of the relatively slow burning B.P. This is all in
Fulcanelli. It's the finest resource on building this type of shell
that has been written in any language.

John
Post by t***@aol.com
Sorry about the PB, I ment BP. Thank you for your advice, I suspected
that I may have been using the wrong amount of break charge. I also
might try a diffrent string as that seems to be the part that failed
first. I thought I read somewhere that Devon Dickson used BP coated
rice hulls and whistle mix to break some of his shells.
h***@yahoo.com
2006-07-31 01:56:20 UTC
Permalink
John Riley posted:

"This is all in Fulcanelli. It's the finest resource on building this
type of shell
that has been written in any language."

John, it's amazing how often that name come up, and your comments are
not an exageration. While portions of Fulcanelli do appear in Hard's
"Pyrotecnics", the original papers have been significantly edited at
great loss. Then too, I'd guess that at $85/copy for Hardt, not many
readers here own a copy.

Then too, the combined prices for a copy of Pryotechnica IX and XI is
(at cover prices) $20 and $25 respectively. You need both to obtain
Fulcanelli Part I and Part II.

Now I certainly don't deny the right for the publisher of Pyrotechnica
(Robert G. Cardwell) to earn a reasonable profit return on his
investment, nor do I blame the author of this extraordinary two
articles...arguably the best ever published, I do have to wonder about
the evident desire to keep this wonderful instructional information
under wraps.

Sure, if you're lucky you may be able to snag a copy of each magazine
from Warren or Ken, but even that is not assured (right Warren?)

My question is why has not Fulcanelli yet been published on its on as a
monograph, which would easily command $20-30 a copy? You might want to
ask Bob Cardwell why?

Galileo said, "Nature abhors a vacuum". The resultant effects are very
predictable, and have in fact already begin. In railroad terminology,
"who was it that was asleep at the switch?" "Don't blame the engineer".

Curmudgeonly, Harry C.
John Reilly
2006-07-31 04:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
"This is all in Fulcanelli. It's the finest resource on building this
type of shell
that has been written in any language."
John, it's amazing how often that name come up, and your comments are
not an exageration. While portions of Fulcanelli do appear in Hard's
"Pyrotecnics", the original papers have been significantly edited at
great loss. Then too, I'd guess that at $85/copy for Hardt, not many
readers here own a copy.
Then too, the combined prices for a copy of Pryotechnica IX and XI is
(at cover prices) $20 and $25 respectively. You need both to obtain
Fulcanelli Part I and Part II.
Now I certainly don't deny the right for the publisher of Pyrotechnica
(Robert G. Cardwell) to earn a reasonable profit return on his
investment, nor do I blame the author of this extraordinary two
articles...arguably the best ever published, I do have to wonder about
the evident desire to keep this wonderful instructional information
under wraps.
Sure, if you're lucky you may be able to snag a copy of each magazine
from Warren or Ken, but even that is not assured (right Warren?)
My question is why has not Fulcanelli yet been published on its on as a
monograph, which would easily command $20-30 a copy? You might want to
ask Bob Cardwell why?
Galileo said, "Nature abhors a vacuum". The resultant effects are very
predictable, and have in fact already begin. In railroad terminology,
"who was it that was asleep at the switch?" "Don't blame the engineer".
Curmudgeonly, Harry C.
Harry,

It would be my guess that Bob (Cardwell) published the Fulcanelli
article in two installments in two seperate "Pyrotechnica" issues and
that's the way he wanted the journal to be formatted. I would assume
that's is the way it's going to stay when it is reprinted. The people
who contributed to the Fulcanelli piece (the living ones anyway) are
well aware of the demand and the distribution issues and I think we can
assume that their wishes will determine whatever format change (if any)
there will be when more are printed. Bob's an old friend and I'd like
to see the work translated into some other languages for the ages but
he is the publisher and knows what is best for his product and I'm
certain that he has some form of psychic contact with the enigmatic
Fulcanelli even now.

JR
Thomas N.
2006-07-31 14:40:37 UTC
Permalink
"My Quote of $2000 was intentionally high, I figured in a good
collection of books, Tools, Ball mill construction, Etc. And a Very
good supply of chemicals if he plans to stay an amateur ( Might Get a
little hard to acquire key stuff in the next year or so). "

Jim,

I think your quote is LOW. I wish I had everything at the $2000 mark. I
surpassed that after my first year in the hobby. Hell, the convention
each year gobbles up half of that amount alone. Travel, food,
chemicals, ect. For those that truly,unconditionally love pyrotechnics,
it's a very expensive hobby and worth every dollar too.

Thomas N.
Post by Jim B.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
"This is all in Fulcanelli. It's the finest resource on building this
type of shell
that has been written in any language."
John, it's amazing how often that name come up, and your comments are
not an exageration. While portions of Fulcanelli do appear in Hard's
"Pyrotecnics", the original papers have been significantly edited at
great loss. Then too, I'd guess that at $85/copy for Hardt, not many
readers here own a copy.
Then too, the combined prices for a copy of Pryotechnica IX and XI is
(at cover prices) $20 and $25 respectively. You need both to obtain
Fulcanelli Part I and Part II.
Now I certainly don't deny the right for the publisher of Pyrotechnica
(Robert G. Cardwell) to earn a reasonable profit return on his
investment, nor do I blame the author of this extraordinary two
articles...arguably the best ever published, I do have to wonder about
the evident desire to keep this wonderful instructional information
under wraps.
Sure, if you're lucky you may be able to snag a copy of each magazine
from Warren or Ken, but even that is not assured (right Warren?)
My question is why has not Fulcanelli yet been published on its on as a
monograph, which would easily command $20-30 a copy? You might want to
ask Bob Cardwell why?
Galileo said, "Nature abhors a vacuum". The resultant effects are very
predictable, and have in fact already begin. In railroad terminology,
"who was it that was asleep at the switch?" "Don't blame the engineer".
Curmudgeonly, Harry C.
Harry,
It would be my guess that Bob (Cardwell) published the Fulcanelli
article in two installments in two seperate "Pyrotechnica" issues and
that's the way he wanted the journal to be formatted. I would assume
that's is the way it's going to stay when it is reprinted. The people
who contributed to the Fulcanelli piece (the living ones anyway) are
well aware of the demand and the distribution issues and I think we can
assume that their wishes will determine whatever format change (if any)
there will be when more are printed. Bob's an old friend and I'd like
to see the work translated into some other languages for the ages but
he is the publisher and knows what is best for his product and I'm
certain that he has some form of psychic contact with the enigmatic
Fulcanelli even now.
JR
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
2006-07-31 15:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas N.
"My Quote of $2000 was intentionally high, I figured in a good
collection of books, Tools, Ball mill construction, Etc. And a Very
good supply of chemicals if he plans to stay an amateur ( Might Get a
little hard to acquire key stuff in the next year or so). "
My first year of "return to pyro" after fifteen years off was quite
expensive. Other than building a ball mill, my only expenses were for
literature, FPAG and PGI memberships, and two chemicals: a 50lb bag of
potassium nitrate, and a 10lb bag of dusting sulfur.

My library - in the first year - cost over $1200. That was the best-spent
money of all.

LLoyd
Däve
2006-07-31 15:51:46 UTC
Permalink
That 50lb bag of nitrate.... was that fertilizer grade or pyro grade? I
seem to be using an awful lot of that stuff. I need a cheaper source.
Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Post by Thomas N.
"My Quote of $2000 was intentionally high, I figured in a good
collection of books, Tools, Ball mill construction, Etc. And a Very
good supply of chemicals if he plans to stay an amateur ( Might Get a
little hard to acquire key stuff in the next year or so). "
My first year of "return to pyro" after fifteen years off was quite
expensive. Other than building a ball mill, my only expenses were for
literature, FPAG and PGI memberships, and two chemicals: a 50lb bag of
potassium nitrate, and a 10lb bag of dusting sulfur.
My library - in the first year - cost over $1200. That was the best-spent
money of all.
LLoyd
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
2006-07-31 15:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Däve
That 50lb bag of nitrate.... was that fertilizer grade or pyro grade? I
seem to be using an awful lot of that stuff. I need a cheaper source.
Hydroponic grade crystals. Then it was $8.50 USD/50lb. Now it runs about
$18.00 a bag.

LLoyd
Däve
2006-07-31 16:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Are these crystals "ready to go" or must they be processed/milled? Is this
the K-Power that I've read about?
Thanks for the info.
Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Post by Däve
That 50lb bag of nitrate.... was that fertilizer grade or pyro grade? I
seem to be using an awful lot of that stuff. I need a cheaper source.
Hydroponic grade crystals. Then it was $8.50 USD/50lb. Now it runs about
$18.00 a bag.
LLoyd
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
2006-07-31 16:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Däve
Are these crystals "ready to go" or must they be processed/milled? Is
this the K-Power that I've read about?
Thanks for the info.
Crystals, not powder. They pass about 30-40 mesh as-is. This was Champion
Brand, but so long as you select "hydroponic grade crystals", they'll all be
the same.

The purpose of selecting that grade is that hydroponic circulation systems
can handle only very little in the way of insoluble particulates. This
grade is selected for its near absence of insoluble material.

LLoyd
David H
2006-07-31 19:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Is hydroponic grade the same as greenhouse grade?

BTW, Haifa is a big supplier of potassium nitrate. You might want to
stock up now since they are being bombed and may not have much to
supply later. I'm seriously considering buying several more bags soon.
Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Post by Däve
Are these crystals "ready to go" or must they be processed/milled? Is
this the K-Power that I've read about?
Thanks for the info.
Crystals, not powder. They pass about 30-40 mesh as-is. This was Champion
Brand, but so long as you select "hydroponic grade crystals", they'll all be
the same.
The purpose of selecting that grade is that hydroponic circulation systems
can handle only very little in the way of insoluble particulates. This
grade is selected for its near absence of insoluble material.
LLoyd
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
2006-07-31 20:08:29 UTC
Permalink
"David H" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Is hydroponic grade the same as greenhouse grade?

I don't know what other suppliers use for their "greenhouse grade", but
Champion supplied that named material in a prill, for incorporation into
potting soil. The only "water white" crystals they offered were in the
hydroponic-specific material.

LLoyd
Däve
2006-07-31 21:09:00 UTC
Permalink
There is a company which has spec's at about 100-200 mesh Hydro grade in the
Tampa area. Isn't that about your neck of the woods? The company is Yara
North America.
http://www.yara.us/en/products/product_range/compound_fertilizers/pn_crystalline.html
Looks to be about the right grade. I'm looking for a distributor in the
Orlando area.
They sell under Yara, Viking, and Champion brands.



"David H" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Is hydroponic grade the same as greenhouse grade?

BTW, Haifa is a big supplier of potassium nitrate. You might want to
stock up now since they are being bombed and may not have much to
supply later. I'm seriously considering buying several more bags soon.
Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Post by Däve
Are these crystals "ready to go" or must they be processed/milled? Is
this the K-Power that I've read about?
Thanks for the info.
Crystals, not powder. They pass about 30-40 mesh as-is. This was Champion
Brand, but so long as you select "hydroponic grade crystals", they'll all be
the same.
The purpose of selecting that grade is that hydroponic circulation systems
can handle only very little in the way of insoluble particulates. This
grade is selected for its near absence of insoluble material.
LLoyd
David H
2006-07-31 23:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Look at the link again. It's to greenhouse grade KNO3. I know a
supplier of greenhouse grade in Plant City, if that's not too far. Send
me an email and I'll hook you up. :)
Post by Däve
There is a company which has spec's at about 100-200 mesh Hydro grade in the
Tampa area. Isn't that about your neck of the woods? The company is Yara
North America.
http://www.yara.us/en/products/product_range/compound_fertilizers/pn_crystalline.html
Looks to be about the right grade. I'm looking for a distributor in the
Orlando area.
They sell under Yara, Viking, and Champion brands.
Is hydroponic grade the same as greenhouse grade?
BTW, Haifa is a big supplier of potassium nitrate. You might want to
stock up now since they are being bombed and may not have much to
supply later. I'm seriously considering buying several more bags soon.
Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Post by Däve
Are these crystals "ready to go" or must they be processed/milled? Is
this the K-Power that I've read about?
Thanks for the info.
Crystals, not powder. They pass about 30-40 mesh as-is. This was Champion
Brand, but so long as you select "hydroponic grade crystals", they'll all be
the same.
The purpose of selecting that grade is that hydroponic circulation systems
can handle only very little in the way of insoluble particulates. This
grade is selected for its near absence of insoluble material.
LLoyd
h***@yahoo.com
2006-07-31 20:39:49 UTC
Permalink
John, just so you are aware of where I am coming from (although you
probably already know) I first, that I consider the Fulcanelli Papers
to be the finest explanation of classic Italian fireworks technology
ever published, in any language. My hat goes of to its author. or if
the case may be, authors. Given the lack of variation in writing style,
I'd tend to go with the singular author in this case.

Now since I'm a physicist, I will share that the publication that I
believe most shaped the science of the modern world is Newton's
"Principia." Now this may be a bit of a stretch, but in a similar vein,
Fulcanelli documents historic Italian fireworks, although a bit after
the fact. Fulcanelli's contribution is to document the craft of Italian
fireworks making, and to preserve this unique collection of skills to
be shared by future generations, without which it will be lost forever.
To the best of my knowledge, the craft is not documented equally well,
in any language.

Now I'm an old fart myself, now approaching 70, so I believe that I am
entitled to describe what many old farts think. We dwell on the day in
the future when we all will accomplish that one great thing...tomorrow,
next week, or next year. The statistical fact for us old farts is
"don't buy green bananas" as told to many of us by the better
physicians that we know. A glimpse at the actuarial tables will explain
why.

What will happen to the Fulcanelli Papers before they are legally
republished (if ever) is becoming a moot issue. You of course already
know why. Hopefully, they will live continue to live forever on the
Internet thanks to some Texan with a scanner.

Harry C.
Post by Jim B.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
"This is all in Fulcanelli. It's the finest resource on building this
type of shell
that has been written in any language."
John, it's amazing how often that name come up, and your comments are
not an exageration. While portions of Fulcanelli do appear in Hard's
"Pyrotecnics", the original papers have been significantly edited at
great loss. Then too, I'd guess that at $85/copy for Hardt, not many
readers here own a copy.
Then too, the combined prices for a copy of Pryotechnica IX and XI is
(at cover prices) $20 and $25 respectively. You need both to obtain
Fulcanelli Part I and Part II.
Now I certainly don't deny the right for the publisher of Pyrotechnica
(Robert G. Cardwell) to earn a reasonable profit return on his
investment, nor do I blame the author of this extraordinary two
articles...arguably the best ever published, I do have to wonder about
the evident desire to keep this wonderful instructional information
under wraps.
Sure, if you're lucky you may be able to snag a copy of each magazine
from Warren or Ken, but even that is not assured (right Warren?)
My question is why has not Fulcanelli yet been published on its on as a
monograph, which would easily command $20-30 a copy? You might want to
ask Bob Cardwell why?
Galileo said, "Nature abhors a vacuum". The resultant effects are very
predictable, and have in fact already begin. In railroad terminology,
"who was it that was asleep at the switch?" "Don't blame the engineer".
Curmudgeonly, Harry C.
Harry,
It would be my guess that Bob (Cardwell) published the Fulcanelli
article in two installments in two seperate "Pyrotechnica" issues and
that's the way he wanted the journal to be formatted. I would assume
that's is the way it's going to stay when it is reprinted. The people
who contributed to the Fulcanelli piece (the living ones anyway) are
well aware of the demand and the distribution issues and I think we can
assume that their wishes will determine whatever format change (if any)
there will be when more are printed. Bob's an old friend and I'd like
to see the work translated into some other languages for the ages but
he is the publisher and knows what is best for his product and I'm
certain that he has some form of psychic contact with the enigmatic
Fulcanelli even now.
JR
r***@bestweb.net
2006-07-31 21:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reilly
What is PB?
Powder, Black. Probably a military designation.
m***@excite.com
2006-07-31 22:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Actually, "PB" is the brand name of a single-based smokeless propellant
formerly made by duPont and then by IMR. It is supposed to stand for
"porous base" and is mainly used for handloading pistol cartridges, if
memory serves.

Standard military nomenclature for black powder is a bit more complex
than "Powder, Black". Ellern gives three compositions (Nos. 146, 147,
and 148, p. 375) and grades (granulations) follow a system of numbering
that differs from the commercial blasting powder (FA, FFA, etc.) or
sporting powder (Fg, Ffg, etc.) schemes. I have this information
somewhere but unfortunately it is not ready-to-hand. Perhaps Don will
provide the reference with greater alacrity than I can.
Post by r***@bestweb.net
Post by John Reilly
What is PB?
Powder, Black. Probably a military designation.
Loading...