MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

All Recipes and Chemistry!

Moderators: richardh08, Boophoenix, Lloyd

Post Reply
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

just came across this snappy ematch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-m8ydkQwxk

designed for training with IEDs
3x as loud as an ordinary ematch

any ideas what the composition might be.
could be a primary but i doubt it due to shipping,
it also appears to emit very little flash,
hope it doesnt contain lead.

ive never come across such a snappy reaction for a small bead of composition.
maybe it uses nano mics, but i would expect more flash
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

it also looks like it might be used as a "DRY WALL BULLET EFFECT"
I am beginning to think it might use lead styphnate, due to black residue after firing and no flame,its a bit of a tenuous guess I know.
if it is, its a shame, lead is a big no no
https://youtu.be/u7GhtpFHrps
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

it also looks like it might be used as a "DRY WALL BULLET EFFECT"
I am beginning to think it might use lead styphnate, due to black residue after firing and no flame,its a bit of a tenuous guess I know...………………..although it is very "smokey",
if it is, its a shame, lead is a big no no
https://youtu.be/u7GhtpFHrps
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

well, after much thought and re-visiting this, i have to confess any composition
remotely giving this effect eludes me.

jeff genzel confirms it is lead free.
on closer examination of the video by frame by frame, it does appear to give total
white out of the camera, BUT the flash is so fast it is almost non detactable on normal veiwing speeds.

appreciate any thoughts on this VERY SNAPPY e-match, and how the effect could be created.
it could use a primary, but i'm thinking more of a pyro composition.

any thoughts appreciated. :?:
User avatar
Pyro-Gear
Site Admin
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:24 am

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Pyro-Gear »

If you look at the drywall you can see that the match is initiated from behind giving the effect of a bullet coming through the wall, I suspect the white out is a result of the gypsum being thrown towards the camera, in my opinion, a composition would not be difficult to make if it was confined and placed in the drywall.
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

ken,
its not the gypsum at all that creating the white out, its a flash from the composition,
see the video below of just the e-match , its damn snappy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-m8ydkQwxk

maybe its an ematch coated in epoxy for confinement, I admit i'm running out of ideas.

red p and chlorate would be snappy but they wont be using that, its too sensitive
User avatar
Pyro-Gear
Site Admin
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:24 am

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Pyro-Gear »

There is a dead giveaway on that test, in my opinion, it’s not a million miles away from a crackle formula, maybe.
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

are you suggesting very fine magnalium to reduce the delay time ?

have i caught your line of thinking ?
maybe richard could comment ?
User avatar
Pyro-Gear
Site Admin
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:24 am

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Pyro-Gear »

Look at the residual copper oxide from the test sample.
Richard may help but I think he is busy on his crackle research, Lloyd may jump in though.
A question, do you know the delay time? Assuming there is one that is.
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

it looks to me like there is no delay time , or its very very short

would eckhart aluminium be better than atomised aluminium do you think ?
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Lloyd »

I don't know what's in that 'snappy' formula, but I know a bit about brissant compositions.

Chlorate/antimony, with a bit of copper oxide as an 'accelerant' is a pretty-potent mix. If coated with a 'secure' over-wrap of something like epoxy, it WILL explode, and with force.

Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

ken, lloyd,

thank you both for your input, :) i will try both your sugestions and try videoing and posting the results.
it will take me a few days as we are looking after the grandchildren, one of whom has just broke his collar bone :( ,
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by richardh08 »

Some kind of crackle/thermite could certainly provide enough energy to produce that level of noise, but I don't think that's what's being used. I've videoed a lot of that type of explosion and don't get the same impression from the ematch. I suspect Lloyd's suggestion is closer to the truth.
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
User avatar
Fulmen
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:31 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Fulmen »

Chlorate/antimony sure is pretty darn potent and will explode with any kind of confinement.
In my youth I made "pull string crackers" with red pentasulfide, those were ...fun...
Too many assholes, not enough bullets
User avatar
Pyro-Gear
Site Admin
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:24 am

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Pyro-Gear »

Talking to a respected Spanish pyro technician today he has given me a base formula to work with that is more or less what Lloyd suggested but with the addition of conductive lamp black, @ Dave what blank igniter bridge do you have or intend to use?
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Lloyd »

Ken,
I hope you're not going to make 'bridgeless' igniters. There's no positive way to test them before trying to fire, and they're not nearly as reliable as bridge wire types.

And, if you use a bridge wire head, you don't need (nor actually want) the lampback.

Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

Pyro-Gear wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:45 pm Talking to a respected Spanish pyro technician today he has given me a base formula to work with that is more or less what Lloyd suggested but with the addition of conductive lamp black, @ Dave what blank igniter bridge do you have or intend to use?
ken,
i think they are ~44awg chips from china.
I also have some 52awg chips from oda enterprises when they were in business.
(i'm not looking at bridgeless they need too much current)

does the Spanish base mix given deviate much from the ~50/50 chlorate /ant sulphide mix?
User avatar
Pyro-Gear
Site Admin
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:24 am

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Pyro-Gear »

@ Lloyd, I don’t intend to make anything at the moment it was just an option put forward, Dave a 50/50 mix is not what I was given Google translate is not the best but I think I can get my head around it.
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Lloyd »

Ken,
There aren't very many mixtures of Chlorate/antimony that will explode harder than 50:50. If the formula varies much from that, I think you could consider it a 'flame match', and not a 'snappy match'.

Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
User avatar
Fulmen
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:31 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Fulmen »

How bad is it compared to flash or whistle? From memory it was stupid fast and sensitive, but it was a long time ago...
Too many assholes, not enough bullets
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Lloyd »

50:50 is a very-brissant mix. It explodes with a report, even in tiny quantities.

If the 'snappy-match' contains that, then I would expect it to explode fairly violently.

Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

well,
quodos to lloyd, even the small amount on an ematch blank,coated with a sealing layer of 12.5%nc,
and then coated with a PU 2 part resin, and allowed to cure explodes very LOUDLY.

I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat, the noise from the MJG FER match is definately
different to the noise from the mix suggested by lloyd.

(the mix used was pot chlorate50, antimony trisulphide45, copper oxide 5)
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by Lloyd »

Well, thank you... and hooray! Now you can 'tone it down' to the level of brisance you require.

Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

after repeated viewing of the video, I am coming to the conclusion that the explosion or bang, is not due to a confinement coating, but the pyro reaction itself.

whilst Lloyds suggestion works and is easy to reproduce, I am coming to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the "FER"
probably uses something like an MIC or nano thermite type mixture, maybe nano aluminium+nano molybdenum trioxide or even copper oxide.

I have had no success getting anything near the item using dragons egg type compositions.

from this viewpoint, I guess ken may be right in a way if a nano thermite is involved.
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

Pyro-Gear wrote: Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:16 pm There is a dead giveaway on that test, in my opinion, it’s not a million miles away from a crackle formula, maybe.
ken, i am re-visiting this,

are you saying the "giveaway" is the black residue after ignition ?
are you implying its copper oxide or bismuth related ?
Last edited by dave321 on Fri Jul 22, 2022 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

richardh08 wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:29 am Some kind of crackle/thermite could certainly provide enough energy to produce that level of noise, but I don't think that's what's being used. I've videoed a lot of that type of explosion and don't get the same impression from the ematch. I suspect Lloyd's suggestion is closer to the truth.
richard , i am re-visiting this, as they now do a self dip kit.

can you elaborate more on your..."but I don't think that's what's being used. I've videoed a lot of that type of explosion and don't get the same impression from the ematch"

it would be nice to get to the bottom of it
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by richardh08 »

You are asking me to expand on a comment I made over three years ago! But I'll do my best.

I think my point was that a) I don't think I have ever seen crackle that did not exhibit an initial, glowing smolder phase, even if only very briefly and b) being based on a thermite reaction, with significant amounts of solid or liquid products, all the ones I have observed produced visible sparks. I don't see either of these effects in that video.

If they make a self dip kit, would not the answer be to get one and analyze its contents?
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
dave321
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Re: MJG "FER" Snappy ematch

Post by dave321 »

richard,
i tried to send you a pm, but not sure the pm system is working.
Post Reply