Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

KNO3 / Powdered Sugar VS Black powder


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 insutama

insutama

    Pyrotechnician

  • Donator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 548 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada BC

Posted 11 August 2017 - 10:28 AM

Thanks

#22 OldMarine

OldMarine

    Firebreather

  • Donator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lebanon Tn
  • Interests:Interests? Everything interesting!

Posted 11 August 2017 - 05:22 PM

I tried a couple of ¾" sugar rockets this past weekend and was very underwhelmed. No tail, No roar and no power. It flew but so does a buzzard. I'll stick with BP thank you very much.
Come on! Name one other hobby in which you cheer as your money and hard work go up in smoke!

#23 JMan

JMan

    Pyromaniac

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 15 August 2017 - 07:50 PM

For anyone haveing problems with their rcandy and just want to see it work, take an old used Estes rocket and repack it, core it how ever deep you want (i core all of it except 1/2 an inch as the bulk head) and it works better than Estes

#24 Oinikis

Oinikis

    Pyrotechnician

  • Donator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lithuania, EU
  • Interests:Flying, exploding and fast stuff.

Posted 17 August 2017 - 07:15 AM

I have had success with both fuels, and each one of them have their different purposes.

 

If you want to make some simple rockets for use with fireworks, especially if you are a newbie, in my opinion BP is the way to go. It is simpler, safer, and leaves a nice heart-warming tail. You just ram it, put a stick on it and fly. Sure there might be some kinks but they aren't hard to work out and there are plenty of information online. Also, it makes it easy for passfire ignition (no top bukhead). As for efficiency, why bother when you can just add more powder? you don't need high quaity stuff in most cases. In conclusion, if you want to lift a shell, just go with BP, it leaves a nice tail, is simple, safer than rcandy, easy to ignite, and is NOT as hydroscopic

 

Rcandy on the other hand is arguably more powerful, which is actually only a benefit with model rockets. Also, Rcandy is more difficult to make properly, requires more equipment, and is more dangerous to make, plus, it is extremely hydroscopic, meaning you have to launch fast or take care in protecting it. Also, rcandy CATO sends burning pieces of fuel. Only real advatages comes when you want to make some high power rockets with a more complicated grain, like BATES, and use it on something like a model rocket, rocket sled, etc. this fuel is more for performance, and doesn't have any nice sound or effect. 

 

On the other hand, rcandy enables you to make quite a few simple nozleless bottle rockets in a short amount of time, because you just put it in a tube and core it, however, hydroscopic nature of rcandy really turns it off for me.

 

Personally I use rcandy, because I make model rockets. I cast BATES grain, and use a full metal reusable rocket motor and use it to lift a reusable rocket which has a camera, controllable fins which are run by servos and controlled by an arduino with a MPU6050 inertial measurment unit, which makes the rocket extremely stable, and fly straight ant vertical. The thing has a parachute recovery system, actuated by the arduino. the thing weighs in at 800 grams, uses about 75 grams of fuel and reaches height of over 200 meters. Not your ordinary firework rocket, eh?

 

However, if I were to make some eye candy, something nice, I'd go with BP, due to tail and simpleness. Actually, my favourite flying firework is a flying spinners, which are BP powered, like the one Dagabu showed earlier in the thread, however I use a bit different technology. The spinning, the spread of the magnificent tail are the most beatifull thing.

 

Stay safe


Edited by Oinikis, 17 August 2017 - 07:20 AM.

I feel the need, the need for speed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users