Jump to content
APC Forum

Two types of blue stars composition based on bromine donors


OctanoicAcid

Recommended Posts

It is commonly known that a chloride donor can combine with copper ions to form CuCl+, which can turn the flame blue. Some people have attempted to use potassium bromate as a bromide donor, but its sensitivity to friction and impact limits its use. As an alternative, I have tried using decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE) as a bromide donor. However, it should be noted that DecaBDE is highly toxic to aquatic organisms and has been banned in many countries. Decabromodiphenyl Ethane (DBDTE) is an environmentally friendly substitute that can be used instead. Nonetheless, I decided to use DecaBDE to provide bromide.

The first composition is:

  1. 64 Potassium perchlorate
  2. 18 Hexamine 
  3. 9 Copper oxide 
  4. 9 Decabromodiphenyl ether

This mixture resulted in a lovely baby blue flame.

 

 

Since I used potassium perchlorate as the oxidant, there was very little chlorine donor present, resulting in the blue color of the CuBr+ ion.

 

One composition I experimented with included ammonium perchlorate as a chloride donor, producing an attractive dark blue flame.

The composition is:

  1. 36 Potassium perchlorate 
  2. 27 Ammonium peerchlorate
  3. 14 Hexamine
  4. 9 Copper oxide
  5. 9 Decabromodiphenyl ether
  6. 5 Magnalium

Adding a bromide donor to the blue stars composition can make the blue color more varied. Here are the flames of the three blue stars. The right one, Blue Flame, is without a bromide donor, which is the recent forum I posted.

381707732565__pic.thumb.jpg.f4234854acdcdd4b49a98643e6560a11.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting!

Some comments:

Have your read the works by Dominykas Juknelevicius?

Were the compositions consolidated as stars or were they burned as loose powders?
Have you shot or thrown any burning stars to see how the perform in the air?

It really doesn't matter but the emitting species in blue flames are not ions but rather excited monohalides that in this case should be denoted CuBr*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Crazy Swede said:

Interesting!

Some comments:

Have your read the works by Dominykas Juknelevicius?

Were the compositions consolidated as stars or were they burned as loose powders?
Have you shot or thrown any burning stars to see how the perform in the air?

It really doesn't matter but the emitting species in blue flames are not ions but rather excited monohalides that in this case should be denoted CuBr*.

Thanks for your reply. After rechecking the theory book, I realized that the emitting species for the stars are the monohalides, not ions as I previously thought. Anyway, the star will be granulated, and I will test it with a starmine.

Edited by OctanoicAcid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Crazy Swede said:

Interesting!

Some comments:

Have your read the works by Dominykas Juknelevicius?

Were the compositions consolidated as stars or were they burned as loose powders?
Have you shot or thrown any burning stars to see how the perform in the air?

It really doesn't matter but the emitting species in blue flames are not ions but rather excited monohalides that in this case should be denoted CuBr*.

Oh, I just went to see the article by  Dominykas Juknelevicius (https://doi.org/10.1002/prep.202000114 ). It is a great article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should read this one too:

https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.201502752

Ernst-Christian Koch also has written a lot of interesting articles about this are, for example:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prep.201500231

I guess you know about how to get access to many articles behind paywalls? (https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...