New Crackle

Share Videos and Images here!

Moderators: richardh08, Boophoenix, Lloyd

Post Reply
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

New Crackle

Post by richardh08 »

Here's a little test of one of our new crackle compositions: https://vimeo.com/174365078.

As discussed in the Research and Development section, it is rollable, and contains no heavy metals or NC.
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
davidg
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:07 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: New Crackle

Post by davidg »

Very nice.
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Lloyd »

Richard,
It's adequately noisy to be considered 'good' for crackle effects. The timing (excuse me) "sucks". AS SOON as I'm shuck of this Army project, I'm going to knuckle down on testing - and perhaps modifying (just to see the effects) - the mix.

I'm close -- We were about a day away from operator training yesterday, when a part was damaged due to - still - an undetermined cause; Now I must repair the machine, find the cause of the 'crash', and RE-certify it for proper operation before we may then train staff.

Please don't get me wrong: You've done a great thing here -- the lack of heavy metals would make this a boon to the industry. I think it's probably a commercially usable formula, as I just saw it work in the video. But to attract the higher-sophistication manufacturers, the timing needs to be MUCH tighter. I think we will get to that place.

Good work, guys!

Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
User avatar
Pyro-Gear
Site Admin
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:24 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Pyro-Gear »

Lloyd how can you say the timing sucks!! The stuff was pumped in to a comet what you see is what you get, I have seen some Maltese crackle based on lead that have double the timing, that’s if you can prove the timing and you cant.
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: New Crackle

Post by richardh08 »

I appreciate comments from those who don't mince their words :lol:

That's a valid criticism. I don't wish to appear overly defensive, but this trial included crackle granules from two of my (famously small) sample batches, with slightly different formulations and, perhaps, different delays. That _might_ explain the time gap between the first few reports and the rest. Even if you take that into account, I'll accept that the volley is somewhat ragged.

It might be down to my 'manufacturing' techniques, which - I'll admit - are far from a professional standard, or it might just be a feature of this type of composition. No doubt time will tell.

On that last point, I'll add that a ground-based trial that I performed on 5 samples of a Chinese commercial product gave delay times that varied from 0.9 to 2.2 seconds, which is not that different from the range of delay times in the video.
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Lloyd »

"On that last point, I'll add that a ground-based trial that I performed on 5 samples of a Chinese commercial product gave delay times that varied from 0.9 to 2.2 seconds, which is not that different from the range of delay times in the video."
---------------------
Yes, the Chinese product from most manufacturers does give that. But consider those "crackling brocade" bursts, where first a (very quiet) titanium salute explodes, then with almost perfect simultaneity, an outer 'petal' of crackle explodes -- all in unison! Wanna bet THAT timing has a spread of less than 1.3 seconds? <grin>

That's the way it should work. Not that it always does!

Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: New Crackle

Post by richardh08 »

I'm sure we all seek perfection, even though the path that leads in that direction can be very steep and littered with sharp stones. (I'd like to end with a smiley that means 'sententious', but there doesn't appear to be one.)
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Lloyd »

HAH! I love it! My life's path is - indeed - littered with sharp stones! I generally undertake "the impossible", then figure out how to make it possible! <grin>

LLoyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: New Crackle

Post by richardh08 »

Lloyd wrote:...then with almost perfect simultaneity, an outer 'petal' of crackle explodes -- all in unison!
I'm perfectly prepared to be told I'm wrong, but I have always assumed that such a degree of precision was achieved by a means other than just primed dragon eggs.

It's taken nearly two years of trial, error and re-thinking the problem to get these d*mned things to work at all. We still don't really know why they work, while other, similar combinations of almost identical ingredients don't. Although we have a few dim indications of one or two factors that affect the delay, we seem to be far from the degree of control that would be necessary to get the near simultaneous explosions that you describe.

At the moment, the only thing I can think of that might help would be extremely accurate control (or selection) of the core size and of the priming layer. I, for one, don't have the skills or the means to do that.
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Lloyd »

"...I have always assumed that such a degree of precision was achieved by a means other than just primed dragon eggs."
----------------
I hate to say this (because it might disappoint you), but that's exactly how my "single crash" crackle mines work.... They're just a tube with a tiny bit of lift, a load of primed "dragon's eggs", and a paper top. When they fire, one sees only a faint smoke trail until the stars reach apogee. At that time, they ALL "CRASH" in a burst with a maximum timing disparity of about 0.3 seconds. (and that's 'worst-case').

In my case, the difference between that timing and a somewhat less desirable variable delay was the switch from single-based NC to a double-based powder.

It's a pretty popular effect with the close-prox folks! ;)

Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: New Crackle

Post by richardh08 »

Lloyd wrote:...that's exactly how my "single crash" crackle mines work
I have to say that I was rather expecting Lloyd to come back with that response. I now wish I had put a bet on it!

As far as I can see, the ideal crackle composition would have the following (not in any particular order) properties:

1) a consistently loud report
2) 100% (or very close) reliable ignition
3) a short, or otherwise highly consistent delay
4) be easy to manufacture, particularly in moderate to large batches
5) use cheap and readily obtainable materials
6) be non-polluting or, at least, minimally polluting

There may be more, but that will do for now.

As a result of our research, Ken and I could give examples of compositions that fail to meet any number of these criteria – up to and including all of them. Right now I don’t know of any example that fully satisfies all 6.

I suggest that Lloyd's crackle fails to meet criterion 5 on at least two counts: bismuth trioxide is not exactly cheap and (at least in the UK and probably elsewhere) double-based powder is not only expensive but also, for the majority of people, effectively unobtainable. Arguably, it might also be considered to be weak in respect of criteria 4 and 6, but I wouldn’t want to press those points.

I would argue that our latest compositions are a match for any other in relation to criteria 1 and 2, and give significant advantages in respect of 4, 5 and 6. The main weakness is in respect of criterion 3. So far, everything we have done in trying to reduce the delay has either had a minimal effect or severely reduced either the loudness or the reliability, or both. The converse is also true; the crackle can be made louder, but only at the expense of increasing the delay. I suspect it would take a critical breakthrough, analogous to Lloyd’s replacement of NC by double-based powder, to resolve this issue.

On the plus side, there are many applications where a longish or variable delay is irrelevant – for example, in a crackle fountain. It might turn out that the effect Lloyd describes is the one that our compositions can’t match. If that is the case, then "horses for courses" might be the only sensible solution.
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Lloyd »

Well, Richard,

Just so I'm taken at my meanings rather than as this conversation has seemed to wander -- I think your crackle would work for 95% of 'ordinary' crackle applications as it is now.

We in the close-prox industry are "a bit odd" with respect to timings, lift heights, smoke toxicity, and other things not necessary to pursue for other sorts of venues.

I'm greedily looking forward to the time I'll spend working with your new formula.

Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: New Crackle

Post by richardh08 »

Lloyd,

I agree that the conversation has drifted a little, but I found it interesting.

I believe our differences of opinion are much smaller than one might think.

And, as for being 'a bit odd', who of us would dare to claim that they are not?
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
xanbond
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:57 pm

Re: New Crackle

Post by xanbond »

Hi All,

Just throwing my opinion here. For dragon eggs I don't feel one can really critique there timing fairly based on a comet test, due to the natural way a comet is burnt. I ll suggest a more proper test would be a shell test or at the very least a few dragon egg stars lit at once.

As for how long the delay is, in my opinion it doesn't really matter how long it is as long as it is present and it is not too long of a delay. What matters is that all stars 'pop' at the same point in time.

But all in all they look great!

Sean
User avatar
biffo
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:25 pm

Re: New Crackle

Post by biffo »

I agree if you want all the stars to light and go out at the same time ie crackling then a report can do that. Great work gentlemen B
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Lloyd »

"For dragon eggs I don't feel one can really critique there timing fairly based on a comet test, due to the natural way a comet is burnt."
----------------------
Please understand that I do not write this to be argumentative, but to (perhaps) shed some light on how crackle may be evaluated.

Even in a comet, it is easily possible to get a general idea of the timing consistency of the crackle bits. Although a comet sheds the bits somewhat randomly, the distance they fall behind the flight of the comet is a good indicator of their timing.

When one sees all the crackle exploding behind the comet in a sort of 'front' that follows up at the same speed as the comet, then the timing is 'tight'. When one sees bits straggling along, popping at all points along the flight path (even low-down when the comet is high-up), it is clear the timing is not so tight.

I'm blessed by having made many tens of thousands of crackle devices. One eventually gets a 'feel' for the timing in every burn regime, and every effect.

Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: New Crackle

Post by richardh08 »

I don't think there is any argument here; everyone is making valid points.

The fact remains that our current formulations don't have the tight control of the delay time that would be needed for the effect that I believe Lloyd is describing.

I'm beginning to think that a somewhat variable delay is an inescapable feature of simple compositions of this type. It's now our biggest problem, but we're working on it.
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
Tyvole
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:55 pm

Re: New Crackle

Post by Tyvole »

As a purely personal view, I tend to prefer crackle effects 'distributed-in-time', such as demonstrated by fountains or rising tail comets. I don't so much like the 'all-at-once' version obtained from shells/inserts as it seems very much over-used in present day commercial cakes. Just my tuppence worth. My preferences aside, I think Richard, Ken et al have done a superb job on this research and rightly deserve praise and recognition.
"If you don't learn anything, what's the point?"
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Lloyd »

As is so often the case, a highly valued feature ends up being abused in Chinese goods to such an extent that it becomes undesirable...

Of course, it's entirely possible to make 'tight' crackle operate in the random time domain, without changing the nature of the crackle itself. Comets and fountains are good examples of where the explosions occur over a long duration event.

But there are still venues where 'crash' effects are useful and desirable. Many music groups like accent shots to highlight features of their music, and the 'all at once' crackle bursts are a popular way to do those accents.

When used sparingly, it can be attractive, and quite an attention-getter. When used like they do in Chinese cakes, it becomes hackneyed and just 'noisy'.

LLoyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
User avatar
Boophoenix
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 11:49 pm

Re: New Crackle

Post by Boophoenix »

I believe it's at 7 seconds and around 33 seconds show a different use for Crackle.

http://youtu.be/p2qk7jsL8YY

I thought I had posted already, but I recon the forum ate my responce. Great work guys! It's been exciting to follow as you've shared with us.
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Lloyd »

Yep! That's the sort of tasteful use of the "all at once" effect with tightly-timed crackle. But, then, I seldom see Maltese shells that are not well thought-out.

The idea of placing the crackle in a "smiley face" pattern is unusual.


Lloyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: New Crackle

Post by richardh08 »

Something that Ken has been telling me for some time now has finally sunk in: that isn't the effect that we have been working to produce.

I'm thinking that's the difference between 'dragon eggs' and 'crackle'. Our formulations produce a single featureless white flash, in addition to a reasonably loud report. A uniform delay was way down our list of desirable features during development.

In addition to finding a way to regularise the delay, we would need to add, say, some fine titanium in order to get the spark cloud. It strikes me that if they do all explode virtually simultaneously then each individual report may not need to be that loud. So if, in working towards a more consistent delay, we end up with a less loud result, that might not be such a disaster.
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
User avatar
Lloyd
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Lloyd »

"It strikes me that if they do all explode virtually simultaneously then each individual report may not need to be that loud. So if, in working towards a more consistent delay, we end up with a less loud result, that might not be such a disaster."
---------------------

Hmmm.... perhaps not "a disaster", but not the most-desirable end. Always, and without exception, manufacturers are looking for both simultaneity and loudness.

I know... <shrug>. But, that's what we look for (and no apologies, because it IS a business, after all!). And it's often a long ordeal between what we have and what we want.

I will soon be off the Army base, and back home. My FIRST project (other than cleaning up my shop) is to begin experimenting with your formula!

LLoyd
"Pyro for Fun and Profit for More Than Sixty Years"
User avatar
richardh08
Site Admin
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: New Crackle

Post by richardh08 »

See my earlier post about the search for perfection :)
Even when I'm wrong, I'm convincing.
User avatar
Pyro-Gear
Site Admin
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:24 am

Re: New Crackle

Post by Pyro-Gear »

I am 99% sure the crackle depicted in the video from Boo is lead based, I would give you the other 1% but I don’t want to wake up next to a horse’s head.

The bloom effect or “tight timing” was something I played with some years back, again this was a very low heavy metal composition and here is a demonstration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I-rI3ZOBlg , the effect is so simple to achieve it beggars belief.

However this discussion is about is about no heavy metals and a No NC formulae and that’s what we are working on, I am sure that given our research to date we may very well achieve that goal.
User avatar
Boophoenix
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 11:49 pm

Re: New Crackle

Post by Boophoenix »

Ken, I'm certainly not one to cratique another's work much unless it's maybe a fuel mine which I have the most pyro experience with. I was just sharing something similar to the Crashel effect Lloyd describes and a really neat use for it I had come across recently.

I've found the work y'all have done quite interesting and am a little envious of the knowledge it took to go threw all that work. Which is a little ironic since I'm not a fan of crackle from it's over use.

Lloyd, I'm planning a trip back to GA sometime soon if ya need any help setting back up. You're not that much further.
Post Reply