Discussion in 'Professional Fireworks' started by Locky Smith, Feb 4, 2019.
Wasn’t even a very impressive flowerpot
Any youtube youtube links?
Exactly warily was just going to add.
It was a bright flash streak and that’s it.
As @Fireworks Shop has indicated.
It’s 47:38 in.
To save you from boredom.
I kind of wonder if it blew blind, I would expect an awful lot more effect from a shell that size, this is a 16” gold diadem w/ salutes flowerpotting at my wedding in 2012, loads of effect:
Well that was a load of old horse shit.
I bet they blame the Mexicans.
And Liam neesons looking for revenge
Unfortunately, big shells have quite a high failure rate, I wasn’t really surprised by the outcome
Pants video of it too lol
Rocket man !
Rocket man !
All you had to do was make a lift charge like we agreed.
Now your not so beautiful.
Let’s see if the pootin guy does any better.
Was that it?, seen a bigger mine!, waste of time and effort!
What's the biggest successful shell launch? It seems like almost every attempt over 50 inch fails or doesn't fire properly, maybe there's just a limit to how big they can be with conventional materials without the high failure rate outweighing the large cost and effort involved.
Wasnt it grucci in Dubai?
Maybe few people appreciate the changes that need to happen with increasing diameter and mass, and the sheer mass and number of effects needed to fill a big shell.
Some Japanese makers obviously do understand, Grucci certainly does, but otherwise there seems to be little real world experience and less of it shared. Which, added to the cost of ingredients for experimentation makes experience rare and success even rarer.
The challenge is to do enough testing without running out of money.
Is it usually the casing that cant take the shock? Or the contents moving causing preignition?
A tougher shell would be relatively easy to do? Unless regulations say it must be paper and wallpaper paste?
Apparently the casing was 7" thick cardboard. @DannyB, remember the fallout we see in Malta, could you imagine if it were 7" thick?. I think they had better fallout room there though
I am no expert but I would assume the forces involved are huge given the mass of the shell vs the height they need it to reach.
The rate of the burn in the lift charge is probably one of the bigger subjects, too fast and it will destroy the shell and mortar, too slow and won't lift, I would imagine the line is very fine on that subject.
Pre-ignition or compression/friction on lift would be a possibility however easy to overcome, you would just build a willow shell that has no metals in it just a straight forward black powder (meal powder) variant, very low sensitivity to shock and friction compared to the majority of other compositions and effects.
If I had to put money on the line I would say the two reasons are lift pressure/acceleration rates vs structural design/materials of the shell.
Separate names with a comma.