Since we need only about 5-10 seconds of smoke
(Skywriting isn't really on the menu) could we
just drown a glo-plug in a small tank of 'fog-fluid'
(glycol/water) and control it with a relay? (This
probably needs a less expl--um--messy design cycle...)
Here is nice overview of smoke generating tec
A commonly accepted temperature when wood starts to pyrolyze to form
burnable gases is 250C. If you light those gases with a flame they will
burn. But if you heat wood up in a closed box with no flame to start it, it
may require a temperature of 450C before it spontaneously bursts into flame.
Since
I suspect that if a glo-plug technique were used, there's some maximum
volume of fluid you could spray over the glow plug, after which the fluid
would simply cool the glo plug instead of burning the fluid. I suspect this
would boil down to an energy conversion problem based watts into the plug
and
As a licensed pyro, I agree- do NOT use a pyro technique for the smoke. Yes,
Potassium Nitrate and melted sugar ignite... in fact it is a very effective
rocket fuel! And it burns WAY too fast for this application and is quite
hot, but it does make smoke . Smoke compounds have things that make them
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:38:16 -0700, Dave Camarillo
wrote:
> It seems like it should be OK to light stuff on fire and/or make smoke
> electrically anytime after the motor has started up... I hope that wouldn't
> be frowned upon?
It has been; the concern is in having something burning after the ro
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:53:51 -0700, Dave Camarillo
wrote:
> That's a great point! I would love the smoky-flag indicating where the thing
> landed on the ground... I would also mention, if there is a risk in the area
> that we launch, the flight computer can cut off power to the smoke
> generator.
iginal Message-
> From: Keith Packard
> Sender: psas-avionics-boun...@lists.psas.pdx.edu
> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:37:41
> To: Jeremy Booth; David Madden
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [psas-avionics] Smoke generators...
>
> ___
It seems like it should be OK to light stuff on fire and/or make smoke
electrically anytime after the motor has started up... I hope that wouldn't
be frowned upon?
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:10:21 -0700, Jeremy Booth wrote:
>
> > Honestly, smoke
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:37:41
To: Jeremy Booth; David Madden
Cc:
Subject: Re: [psas-avionics] Smoke generators...
___
psas-avionics mailing list
psas-avionics@lists.psas.pdx.edu
http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-avionics
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:10:21 -0700, Jeremy Booth wrote:
> Honestly, smoke balls in an apparatus for precise ignition might work
> rather well...
Anything which generates heat/flame that might be burning on the ground
is heavily frowned upon.
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
pgpUc9SdfdZMk.pgp
Descri
Since we need only about 5-10 seconds of smoke
(Skywriting isn't really on the menu) could we
just drown a glo-plug in a small tank of 'fog-fluid'
(glycol/water) and control it with a relay? (This
probably needs a less expl--um--messy design cycle...)
Here is nice overview of smoke generating te
You can make a similar compound to the ones used in 4th style and smoke bombs
and real smoke grenades by caramelizing powdered sugar and adding salt petter.
The cool thing about that is you can pour the compound into what ever storage /
delivery vessel you like. It works very well, a pop can si
This has definitely been done, but being able to start and stop it allows
for low cost long term use, as a cheep bottle of fluid will last an extended
period, as well as allows for testing on the ground...
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:01 PM, David Madden wrote:
> On 10/07/2010 01:24 PM, Jeremy Booth
I used to poke at pyrotechnics, but smoke was never my big thing. I
was more into colors and flashes. That said, I bet I could have some
reasonable stuff fairly easily, and I think someone else mentioned
this as well. Heat would be a big issue, as might timing. I remember
pyro smoke being rathe
Humm, interesting... It says that it's based on a vaporization principle,
where as I think the type we we're thinking of is based on combustion by
products... It may work though...
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Jeremy Booth wrote:
> There's this little guy, but it looks like smaller foggers (t
On 10/07/2010 01:24 PM, Jeremy Booth wrote:
There's this little guy, but it looks like smaller foggers (this
included) are way too expensive.
What about pyrotechnics (I'm thinking of 4th of July smoke bombs)? It
seems like you don't really need start/stop/start capability, as long as
you can
There's this little guy, but it looks like smaller foggers (this
included) are way too expensive.
http://www.theatrefx.com/moreinfo_fg90_tiny_fogger_fog_machine.html
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Dave Camarillo wrote:
> Humm, bummer, I was hoping it would be an easy COTS part... Well, we were
Humm, bummer, I was hoping it would be an easy COTS part... Well, we were
talking about the possibility of using a RC glo-plug as a heating element,
so perhaps the COTS pump in conjunction with the glo-plug would do the
trick
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Aaron Burt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 12:12:11PM -0700, Dave Camarillo wrote:
> So at one point we were talking about putting a smoke generator on the
> rocket above the control surfaces so that we could see the aerodynamic
> affects of the canards and fins. I came across a COTS smoke generator
> online, it woul
Very cool. Especially the programability.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Dave Camarillo
wrote:
> So at one point we were talking about putting a smoke generator on the
> rocket above the control surfaces so that we could see the aerodynamic
> affects of the canards and fins. I came across a CO
20 matches
Mail list logo
