OctanoicAcid Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 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: 64 Potassium perchlorate 18 Hexamine 9 Copper oxide 9 Decabromodiphenyl ether This mixture resulted in a lovely baby blue flame. 33_1707628985.mp4 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: 36 Potassium perchlorate 27 Ammonium peerchlorate 14 Hexamine 9 Copper oxide 9 Decabromodiphenyl ether 5 Magnalium 34_1707628986.mp4 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Swede Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 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 More sharing options...
OctanoicAcid Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 (edited) 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 February 12 by OctanoicAcid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OctanoicAcid Posted February 12 Author Share Posted February 12 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 More sharing options...
Crazy Swede Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts