Flash powder confinement

flash powder really burns too fast to eed a strong container,. you can get
good results by just putting it into a bag

Post by yuv
Flash powder requires some confinement in order to go bang.
Once we have satisfactory confinement, is there an advantage to
strengthen the confinement? Specificaly thickening the walls of the
salute/cracker.
In slow compositions like black powder, it's definitely so. But is it
SIGNIFICANTLY so for flash?

h***@yahoo.com

2006-08-01 12:53:05 UTC

Yuv, for an answer simply examine how a professional display quality
flash salute is constructed, using thick walled confinement and
moderate spiking. Fulcanelli does an excellent job of explaining their
construction.

In fact, Fulcanelli is the only place that I've ever seen the
traditional Italian method of constructing a flash salute using folded
newsprint to fill the space between to coaxially situated tubes.

Of course today, because of labor cost, you rarely see this method
exmployed, being replaced one very heavy walled cardboard tube.

There is a device called a Gabe Morte which typically uses only a paper
bag containing a few pounds of flash powder. This produces an almost
completely different effect than one generally associates with a flash
salute.

So Yuv, the answer is YES. Heavy confinement is needed to produce a
good flash salute.

Harry C.

r***@bestweb.net

2006-08-01 19:06:59 UTC

Post by h***@yahoo.com
In fact, Fulcanelli is the only place that I've ever seen the
traditional Italian method of constructing a flash salute using folded
newsprint to fill the space between to coaxially situated tubes.

Interesting! So it allows for some slowed-down expansion before
hitting the rigid limit of the outer wall and compressed wadding.
Louder that way?

h***@yahoo.com

2006-08-01 19:43:40 UTC

Rob, you must be cheating by reading a chapter ahead in the book -- old
teacher trick, right?

With salutes, the fact is simply this: You need to allow some headspace
for the flash combustion to take place before the containment breaks.
To accomplish this, the old timers either bulked their flask with inert
but compressive things like bran, and traditionally filled their
salutes either half or 3/4 filed. The idea is very simple...to get as
much as possible of the flash to burn before the containment bursts,
since once the containment bursts, the balance of the flash will not
ignite.

A simple experiment will demonstrate this, even at the M80 scale (no, I
never said M80). Still, it's a scientific experiment..so the feds
should look the other way. Pack an M80 completely filled with a dense
flash composition. Fire it on a concrete surface, and the result will
be a coating of unreacted aluminum on the concrete. Do the same
experment with a M80 whose flash has been bulked and only half filled,
and you willd find that you have produced a much louder report, plus
the white stuff on the concrete is aluminum oxide, and not aluminum.

The key idea here is that to maximixe the report, you need to provide
as much confinement as is reasonably achiievable, plus provide suffient
headspace so that as much as possible of he charge is reacting prior to
the burst of the containment.

This is why heavy walled, well spiked containment works better for
flash salutes than any quickly rigged alternative. The old Italian
fireworks makers knew all about this, and often described it to me in
an Italian term that literally related to "Water Hammer". (Google that
term and you my find some threads discussing this point aroung 3-5
years back.)

Harry C.

Interesting! So it allows for some slowed-down expansion before
hitting the rigid limit of the outer wall and compressed wadding.
Louder that way?

John Reilly

2006-08-01 13:15:46 UTC

Many flash powders need no more confinement than the ambient air (1
atmosphere) at sea level provides (no container at all). In a typical
3.5 gm. m-80 salute, the thin walled casing and paper end caps needed
only provide momentary compression to move the mix to a low velocity
"detonation". Even this light casing was unnecessary and you can wrap
the same small charge in a layer of tissue wrapping paper and achive
the same result. Some magnesium flash powders will "detonate"
unconfined at less than 1 gram.
Heavy casings on large aerial salutes are used to protect the flash
inside from the crushing forces of lift and or burst to scatter them in
the sky. The cheaper and coarser aluminum powders with sulfur used by
many makers worldwide explode with a thunderous report using KClO3 or
KClO4, but require more confinement for small quantities. Black
powder is a different animal and can behave more like a mechanical
steam explosion. It requires heavy confinement to give a good report.

h***@yahoo.com

2006-08-01 16:11:32 UTC

Actually John, I would have to take some issue with a few of your
points.

Lets first come to a common understanding of what I mean by a flash
salute, and what you mean by a "flash salute". I suspect that we're
both on the same wavelength here, e.g., a flash salute is not a
firecracker like an M80, but a device 2 or more inches in O.D. and
designed to be used either as an aerial report or a ground bomb.

While there is little doubt that a hot flash mixture can produce a
significant report when essentially unconfined (Gabe Morte's
demonstrate this fact), still the performance of say a 3" aerial flash
salute (charged with from 1-1/2 to 3-Oz of quality flash is directly
dependent on the confinement provided, at least in my opinion.

I must take exception to your contention that the strong physical
construction of flash salutes has anything at all to do with their
ability to withstand the lifting forces experienced when being fired
from a mortar. Weakly constructed and well constructed flash salutes
experience the mortar lift forces nearly equally (withing limits), but
do not perform equally when charged with the same amoung and quality of
flash powder. Generally speaking, the construction of a bottom shot of
a multi-break is also identical to any well made flash salute, and that
has to withstand the dynamic forces associated with lifting the breaks
sitting on top of it. Also, good ground bombs are made identically with
those intended for aerial use, with the exception of a lifting charge
and timer.

Also, it has been my experience that a well confined and spiked 2-1/2
in salute can easily outperform a 3" or 4" salute made using shabby
construction. The difference in performance is easily noted, since a
cheaply made 3" salute can sound very impressive to spectators within
the confines of a football stadium, but with the proper containment
that same device can be heard for many miles (many here translating to
maybe 5), and thump chests and rattle windows within the first mile or
two.

With insufficient confinement, even using the best possible flash mix
spiked with sulfur and antimony trisulfide, even with significantly
increased quantities of flash mix (say 2 to 4-lbs), you achieve a very
different effect. These are the ultimate chest thumpers at relatively
close range, but are barely audible at ranges of 2-miles and over.

To illustrate, when I has a fireworks business in Trenton, NJ and where
we shot the annual July 4th show at the Trenton Fair Grounds (now the
Trenton Speedway), every hour or so from noon on and up to the time of
the display, we fired two of our very best 3" salutes to remind
everyone that there would be "Fireworks Tonight" -- of course this was
to "Test the Wind". Reports indicated that these salutes were heard as
far away as Bordentown (7 miles), Ewing (5 miles), and even downtown
Princeton (close to 9 miles).

This is why all the labor and extra confinement went into their
manufacture. This is why we bothered to do more than the absolute
minimum...and arguably why we aren't in the fireworks business anymore.
:-)

Today, other than a few small Italian fireworks firms (the mom and dad
firms that do primarily saints festivals), and work done by some of the
PGI masters, you don't often hear salutes of this quality today. Where
you run across them, expect to see large multibreak salami shells there
too.

Harry C.

p.s., As an afterthought, with thick, heavy walled containment, why is
spiking so importan?. My simple-minded explanation is that the spiking
is what contributes to keeping the end disks on a salute from being
blown off prior to a significant percentage of the flash powder
undergoing ignition. This is related to the same reason that we use
bulking agents (bran, etc.) in making flash powder, or half-fill the
volume of a flash salute with flash. The longer the integrity of the
containment remains, the more of the flash mix is combusted, and the
greater the report.

John Reilly

2006-08-01 17:12:30 UTC

Post by h***@yahoo.com
Actually John, I would have to take some issue with a few of your
points.
Lets first come to a common understanding of what I mean by a flash
salute, and what you mean by a "flash salute". I suspect that we're
both on the same wavelength here, e.g., a flash salute is not a
firecracker like an M80, but a device 2 or more inches in O.D. and
designed to be used either as an aerial report or a ground bomb.
While there is little doubt that a hot flash mixture can produce a
significant report when essentially unconfined (Gabe Morte's
demonstrate this fact), still the performance of say a 3" aerial flash
salute (charged with from 1-1/2 to 3-Oz of quality flash is directly
dependent on the confinement provided, at least in my opinion.
I must take exception to your contention that the strong physical
construction of flash salutes has anything at all to do with their
ability to withstand the lifting forces experienced when being fired
from a mortar. Weakly constructed and well constructed flash salutes
experience the mortar lift forces nearly equally (withing limits), but
do not perform equally when charged with the same amoung and quality of
flash powder. Generally speaking, the construction of a bottom shot of
a multi-break is also identical to any well made flash salute, and that
has to withstand the dynamic forces associated with lifting the breaks
sitting on top of it. Also, good ground bombs are made identically with
those intended for aerial use, with the exception of a lifting charge
and timer.
Also, it has been my experience that a well confined and spiked 2-1/2
in salute can easily outperform a 3" or 4" salute made using shabby
construction. The difference in performance is easily noted, since a
cheaply made 3" salute can sound very impressive to spectators within
the confines of a football stadium, but with the proper containment
that same device can be heard for many miles (many here translating to
maybe 5), and thump chests and rattle windows within the first mile or
two.
With insufficient confinement, even using the best possible flash mix
spiked with sulfur and antimony trisulfide, even with significantly
increased quantities of flash mix (say 2 to 4-lbs), you achieve a very
different effect. These are the ultimate chest thumpers at relatively
close range, but are barely audible at ranges of 2-miles and over.
To illustrate, when I has a fireworks business in Trenton, NJ and where
we shot the annual July 4th show at the Trenton Fair Grounds (now the
Trenton Speedway), every hour or so from noon on and up to the time of
the display, we fired two of our very best 3" salutes to remind
everyone that there would be "Fireworks Tonight" -- of course this was
to "Test the Wind". Reports indicated that these salutes were heard as
far away as Bordentown (7 miles), Ewing (5 miles), and even downtown
Princeton (close to 9 miles).
This is why all the labor and extra confinement went into their
manufacture. This is why we bothered to do more than the absolute
minimum...and arguably why we aren't in the fireworks business anymore.
:-)
Today, other than a few small Italian fireworks firms (the mom and dad
firms that do primarily saints festivals), and work done by some of the
PGI masters, you don't often hear salutes of this quality today. Where
you run across them, expect to see large multibreak salami shells there
too.
Harry C.
p.s., As an afterthought, with thick, heavy walled containment, why is
spiking so importan?. My simple-minded explanation is that the spiking
is what contributes to keeping the end disks on a salute from being
blown off prior to a significant percentage of the flash powder
undergoing ignition. This is related to the same reason that we use
bulking agents (bran, etc.) in making flash powder, or half-fill the
volume of a flash salute with flash. The longer the integrity of the
containment remains, the more of the flash mix is combusted, and the
greater the report.

I don't know what to say, Harry except that we'll have to agree to
disagree. I'm rather surprised that we're spending all this talk on
flash salutes which are about as high tech as a 2x4. I normally stay
away from flash powder discussions on the internet because that's what
all the kiddos and (wackos) are interested in. For people who are
beyond that and make complex display shells using salutes (whether
little siattenes or larger rondels and bottom shots) the idea is to
move the mix to a low velocity detonation. You can get just as loud a
bang from a potassium perchlorate/809 aluminum and sulfur or antimony
in a 8-3-1 or 4-1-1 mix as a 7/3 mix of potassium perchlorate and 10
micron black flake aluminum. It is cheaper to use Potassium Chlorate
in a 4-1-1 mix and some manufacturers (as in Malta for example) still
do. If using Barium Nitrate, German or Indian black flake aluminum and
sulfur, I agree that much more confinement is necessary to move it to
"detonation" and with the cost of Ba(NO3)2 who would use it anyway? ( I
really don't want to talk about the velocity of detonation as compared
to HE again either.)
I wouldn't say that the bottom shot on a 4 or 5 break 6" repeating
shell is "basically the same construction" as the top breaks. If it
is, I woudn't want to hand light it! It needs to be extremely strong
to withstand the brunt of the lift and wether it is a hand rolled
newsprint report or a heavy walled spiral core it needs strength.
Straight fire salutes don't NEED spiking to give a thunderous report.
Most manufacturers used vertical spiking only both as an increase in
shell diameter reducing "widage" as well as holding the pleated paper
down on the discs, but more importantly, the string winding around
rubber wick or spolette was a base to hold glue and paste to isnure a
fire seal and keep the timer from moving in or out.
No disrespect intended but we probably should just disagree and move
on. I'm happy if you're happy.

John

Post by h***@yahoo.com

h***@yahoo.com

2006-08-01 17:56:35 UTC

John, I'm happy if you're happy!

Still, I'm not sure that Mr. Fulcanelli would be very happy -- Oh, the
wasted time and labor!

Realize John, at least half of what I post is what the old Italian
chaps would describe as in Italian as "Ball Busting"...but never to the
extent that it intentionally or knowingly misinform anyone.

Oh John, and yes, a properly constructed botton shot should be
perfectly able to support the mass of a 6-break shell on lift. In fact,
whether employed as a botton shot. In fact in Italian tradition the
final salute is structurally far stronger than any of the other breaks,
particulaly when constructed of 3/8 or 1/2" thick convolute paper tube
with quad end disks and adequate spiking. (Here I'm referring to the
construction of a classic 5 or 6-break shell with a bottom shot...The
type of salami shell that normally protruded 6 or 8 inches beyond the
mouth of the mortar before firing.

You would be perfectly correct in responding that today no sane person
would do such a thing, but going back only 30 or so years, such shells
were rather common. John, that's the truth! If you doubt me, ask Mike
who is likely old enough to remember these great shells.

My problem for which I ask your forgiveness, it that I was raised in a
fireworks tradition that essentially ceased to exist (except withing
the PGI and a very few small, family oned firms) much beyone 1975, when
like Walmart, Chinese firms because of their very low cost labor, drove
all of the really high quality fireworks firms out of the business.

So, I suppose I'm one of those guys that remains stuck in the fireworks
of the 1960s and 1970s. Those were the days when the individual
reports from say, "A Battle in the Clouds" equaled today's 3" salutes,
and when the bottom shot finally took place, it was, ahem, a profound
experience to witness!

No hard feeling I hope, but maybe a generational difference.

Kindest regarard, Harry C.

p.s., I'm old enough to remember the really great fireworks displays
that followed the end of WWII. At that time triple-tier pupatelles (not
simply triple break) were seen in even small town displays. Sadly, I
haven't seen one of these great shells since around 1950. Also, the
salutes fired at this time in town were frequently associated with
broken plate-glass windows in stores.

Post by h***@yahoo.com

r***@bestweb.net

2006-08-01 19:18:44 UTC

Post by John Reilly
Most manufacturers used vertical spiking only both as an increase in
shell diameter reducing "widage" as well as holding the pleated paper
down on the discs, but more importantly, the string winding around
rubber wick or spolette was a base to hold glue and paste to isnure a
fire seal and keep the timer from moving in or out.

How can it be a base? Don't you put the glue on first?

John Reilly

2006-08-01 20:03:02 UTC

How can it be a base? Don't you put the glue on first?

John Reilly

2006-08-01 20:29:51 UTC

How can it be a base? Don't you put the glue on first?

Sorry, I hit send. There is a often smear of glue rubbed around the
fuse or spolette where it enters the disc or penetrates a "tongue" fold
of paper (I always do) but the pasted spiking at this juncture gives a
"base" and firestop which is reinforced by the pastewrap crown
finishing the report. On paper Japanese style ball shells, I always
run a couple of turns of string around the spun fuse on the outside of
the hemisphere and hitch it tight to finish before pasting the shell.
It is even more important here because the Jap type shell is bottom
fused and takes the full force of the lift. I'm sure that many
flowerpots and perhaps some "muzzle blooms" have been due to the lift
driving the fuse into the shell. Obviously with a top fused Italian or
Maltese style shell, this is not as big a problem.
I also see I typed "widage" instead of "windage" above.

John

m***@excite.com

2006-08-01 22:07:57 UTC

In my experience, the spolette or rubber wick is a friction fit through
the disc and is not glued into the disc before spiking. This would be a
wasted step, since the tensioning of the string as it bears on the fuse
during spiking pulls it every which way and would break any glue joint
applied before spiking. A puddle of hide glue or fish glue is
traditionally applied around the fuse AFTER spiking, when it is locked
in place by the string. This glue penetrates the joint between the fuse
and the disc, saturates the string, and tightly seals the shell at this
most vulnerable point.

If a spolette fits a bit loosely through the hole in the top disc, the
traditional remedy for this is to tie a clove hitch of tarred twine
around the spolette tube at the appropriate place along its length.
This is then pulled tightly against what will be the inside of the disc
when the shell is finished. Another couple turns of tarred twine may
then be tied around the spolette, close to the outside of the disc,
serving to hold the spolette in place and preventing it from sliding in
or out of the hole in the disc. The tarred twine functions as a seal in
the same way oakum does when a shipwright caulks the timbers of a boat
or when a plumber joins two pieces of pipe. Of course, a generous
amount of liquid glue is still applied around the base of the spolette
after spiking the shell.

As the old fugisti would say, "Capiscit'?"

How can it be a base? Don't you put the glue on first?

r***@bestweb.net

2006-08-02 16:12:28 UTC

Post by m***@excite.com
In my experience, the spolette or rubber wick is a friction fit through
the disc and is not glued into the disc before spiking. This would be a
wasted step, since the tensioning of the string as it bears on the fuse
during spiking pulls it every which way and would break any glue joint
applied before spiking.

Obviously you work with a glue that dries very stiff.

Post by m***@excite.com
A puddle of hide glue or fish glue is
traditionally applied around the fuse AFTER spiking, when it is locked
in place by the string. This glue penetrates the joint between the fuse
and the disc, saturates the string, and tightly seals the shell at this
most vulnerable point.

So the glue is runny enough to get thru the maze of string windings?

I remarked a while back here about how mucilage, so common when I was
young, had disappeared from stationery use. Apparently that's the
stuff that has the properties descibed above of stiffness &
penetration.

I haven't been working with spolettes, but if I tried using Elmer's
Glue-All (a white glue) with them, applying it BEFORE the string and
allowing it to dry at least partly before stringing, the tightened
string digging into it from above, would the fire seal be inferior?
How about hot melt glue, used similarly? It's even thicker, and the
stringing seems to benefit from the friction of digging into it.

I've noticed considerable "tenting" by the string holding up a
tensioned cone of paper on the top & bottom of shells, leading me to
believe the additional fire sealage provided by the pasting-in is
fairly loose. That in turn makes me think the initial fire seal made
by gluing in the fuse is the important one, especially because I'm
bottom fusing.

Robert

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

2006-08-02 16:26:22 UTC

Post by r***@bestweb.net
I haven't been working with spolettes, but if I tried using Elmer's
Glue-All (a white glue) with them, applying it BEFORE the string and
allowing it to dry at least partly before stringing, the tightened
string digging into it from above, would the fire seal be inferior?
How about hot melt glue, used similarly? It's even thicker, and the
stringing seems to benefit from the friction of digging into it.

I have tended to use white glue before, during, and after spiking to obtain
what I consider adequate penetration of the mass of twine around the
spolette. But that's not really necessary. If one applies glue generously
to the dried spiking, it will be greatly absorbed among the strings, and
will penetrate deeply before it begins to skin. It's usually necesary to
repeat the gluing once or twice more to fill all visible pinholes.

Keep in mind that many inexpensive Chinese shells derive their fuse seal
simply by winding a few turns of pasted twine around the fuse and tightly
against the shell casing. Often they will apply more glue over the top of
the twine like I suggested above.

LLoyd

m***@excite.com

2006-08-02 21:32:56 UTC

"Elmer's," as well as hide glue and fish glue, dry hard enough to crack
when the string is tensioned against the spolette, or at least to pull
away from the disc, taking a thin layer of paper with. Most liquid
glues are also capable of penetrating the string adequately to make a
good joint with disc and spolette, particularly if applied while the
string is still wet with paste immediately after spiking. It isn't
really a question of them being "runny."

The "tenting" of string about the fuse that you mention is eliminated
by taking a paper tube or a piece of pipe (with its edge appropriately
smoothed), slipping it over the fuse, and gently tapping to press the
string down close to the disc. If this is done while the string is
still wet with paste, it will slip down nicely and will dry tightly. As
I have mentioned before, an advantage of using pasted string is that it
slackens while wet and is stretched tightly on the shell if proper
spiking practice is observed. It then shrinks as it dries, this being a
property of unmercerized natural textile fibres.

I don't like the use of hot melt glue in fireworks. Its principal
advantage seems to be that it sets more quickly than glues that must
dry or cure, and my practice is such that I never need to hurry so fast
as to see any advantage in hot melt glue. I know that many people use
it, but the tip of a glue gun can easily exceed the ignition
temperature of many pyrotechnic compositions. I prefer to keep any
potential source of ignition well away from in-process fireworks or
components.

Obviously you work with a glue that dries very stiff.

So the glue is runny enough to get thru the maze of string windings?
I remarked a while back here about how mucilage, so common when I was
young, had disappeared from stationery use. Apparently that's the
stuff that has the properties descibed above of stiffness &
penetration.
I haven't been working with spolettes, but if I tried using Elmer's
Glue-All (a white glue) with them, applying it BEFORE the string and
allowing it to dry at least partly before stringing, the tightened
string digging into it from above, would the fire seal be inferior?
How about hot melt glue, used similarly? It's even thicker, and the
stringing seems to benefit from the friction of digging into it.
I've noticed considerable "tenting" by the string holding up a
tensioned cone of paper on the top & bottom of shells, leading me to
believe the additional fire sealage provided by the pasting-in is
fairly loose. That in turn makes me think the initial fire seal made
by gluing in the fuse is the important one, especially because I'm
bottom fusing.
Robert

Fred

2006-08-02 11:40:20 UTC

Post by John Reilly
It requires heavy confinement to give a good report.

And this is why I respect the maker of a powerful maroon vs a powerful
flash charge.

John Reilly

2006-08-02 14:01:45 UTC

Post by Fred

Post by John Reilly
It requires heavy confinement to give a good report.

And this is why I respect the maker of a powerful maroon vs a powerful
flash charge.

Fred, just so others reading that fragment understand what I said; The
packing and confinement of a hot flash powder has little to do with the
report it makes, especially in larger flash salutes. There are other
reasons for the packing, bulking and confinement(spiking or otherwise)
of flash powder salutes whether large bottom shots, or small Italian
"saettene", Japanese "rai" or Maltese "beraq." Harry apparantly
disagrees and, as I said, that's fine with me. When you say "maroon"
(above) some folks may not know that you are speaking of a salute based
on granulated black powder or some other powder than high energy
aluminum or magnesium flash powders. This is one reason I've avoided
getting into previous flash powder salute "discussions" on this forum.

John

Fred

2006-08-02 16:04:56 UTC

Post by John Reilly
When you say "maroon"
(above) some folks may not know that you are speaking of

Yep, That's why I made the statment.

h***@yahoo.com

2006-08-02 14:35:33 UTC

Fred, given the instructions for making a maroon in Davis, I'd respect
the maker of a good one very highly!

Fact is I've never actually seen a real "maroon", although black powder
based firecrackers were still being sold when I was a child. Althugh a
matter of personal opinion, these things seemed pretty crappy even to a
9 year old, compared to the then emerging and then much smaller flash
based firecrackers (which reamain pretty much the same to this day).

Making an actual maroon....now there's a project worth consideration.
:-)

Harry C.

Post by Fred

Post by John Reilly
It requires heavy confinement to give a good report.

And this is why I respect the maker of a powerful maroon vs a powerful
flash charge.

r***@bestweb.net

2006-08-02 16:23:06 UTC

Post by h***@yahoo.com
Making an actual maroon....now there's a project worth consideration.

Joe Gwotz used to make kubisches and even tetrahedral kanonenschlagen.
I've made them, with mixed results, cubic & spheric, using BP or
Pyrodex. Even the best made only thudding explosions. Problem is, I
don't have the nerve to awl or drill thru the wall to insert fuse, so
I've used various schemes for getting the box & string around a
pre-placed fuse, none really satisfactory. Plus I stopped seeing the
mucilage that I wanted to use as glue.

There's just something about the heft & appearance of a maroon vs. the
functionality of a flash triangle salute.

Robert

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

2006-08-02 16:32:11 UTC

Post by r***@bestweb.net
I've used various schemes for getting the box & string around a
pre-placed fuse, none really satisfactory. Plus I stopped seeing the
mucilage that I wanted to use as glue.

Dextrin,
gum (arabic or tragacanth) or gelatin,
water
==
mucilage.

Cheaper ones dispense with everything but the dextrin. Better ones use only
the gum(s) or gelatins.

Add aluminum salts (sulfate?) to make a dextrin that adheres so strongly to
glass it will spall the surface upon shrinking.

LLoyd

John Reilly

2006-08-02 19:05:09 UTC

Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Dextrin,
gum (arabic or tragacanth) or gelatin,
water
==
mucilage.

3 pounds fish heads
1 gallon water
1 oz. sodium chloride
2 ozs. Guar gum
2 pounds potatoes
1 pound nonfat dry milk
1 16 oz can chopped clams
Boil for 2 hours

= HoJo's Clam Mucilage (Unprofessional Pyrotechnic Adhesive)

Däve

2006-08-02 19:14:54 UTC

Is that glue or New England Clam Chowder?
Add some soda crackers and a beer.... mmmmm mmmm.

Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Dextrin,
gum (arabic or tragacanth) or gelatin,
water
==
mucilage.

3 pounds fish heads
1 gallon water
1 oz. sodium chloride
2 ozs. Guar gum
2 pounds potatoes
1 pound nonfat dry milk
1 16 oz can chopped clams
Boil for 2 hours
= HoJo's Clam Mucilage (Unprofessional Pyrotechnic Adhesive)

John Reilly

2006-08-02 19:24:08 UTC

Post by DÃ¤ve
Is that glue or New England Clam Chowder?
Add some soda crackers and a beer.... mmmmm mmmm.

Good for man or beast! That stuff will plug you up like a #12 cork!
Nearly as good as "Finkbone's Miracle Glue".

JR

Post by DÃ¤ve

Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Dextrin,
gum (arabic or tragacanth) or gelatin,
water
==
mucilage.

3 pounds fish heads
1 gallon water
1 oz. sodium chloride
2 ozs. Guar gum
2 pounds potatoes
1 pound nonfat dry milk
1 16 oz can chopped clams
Boil for 2 hours
= HoJo's Clam Mucilage (Unprofessional Pyrotechnic Adhesive)

Fred

2006-08-02 20:40:29 UTC

Post by DÃ¤ve
Is that glue or New England Clam Chowder?

LMAO -

David H

2006-08-02 21:23:07 UTC

No salt pork, so it's not clam chowder. No matter what else you add. :)

Post by DÃ¤ve
Is that glue or New England Clam Chowder?
Add some soda crackers and a beer.... mmmmm mmmm.

Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Dextrin,
gum (arabic or tragacanth) or gelatin,
water
==
mucilage.

3 pounds fish heads
1 gallon water
1 oz. sodium chloride
2 ozs. Guar gum
2 pounds potatoes
1 pound nonfat dry milk
1 16 oz can chopped clams
Boil for 2 hours
= HoJo's Clam Mucilage (Unprofessional Pyrotechnic Adhesive)

Däve

2006-08-02 21:28:59 UTC

It sure looks like the leftovers from somebody's chowder or bisque dinner.
Over the years certain items like salt pork, bay leaves and fresh cracked
pepper were found unnecessary as a "glue", so they were ommitted. But it's
still food.

"David H" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
No salt pork, so it's not clam chowder. No matter what else you add. :)

Post by DÃ¤ve
Is that glue or New England Clam Chowder?
Add some soda crackers and a beer.... mmmmm mmmm.

Post by Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Dextrin,
gum (arabic or tragacanth) or gelatin,
water
==
mucilage.

3 pounds fish heads
1 gallon water
1 oz. sodium chloride
2 ozs. Guar gum
2 pounds potatoes
1 pound nonfat dry milk
1 16 oz can chopped clams
Boil for 2 hours
= HoJo's Clam Mucilage (Unprofessional Pyrotechnic Adhesive)

donald haarmann

2006-08-02 19:20:56 UTC