This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The current defnition. as posted, containts factual inaccuracies, some of them dangerous. Notably A Lot Less than '4 ounces' of flash will 'explode' removing fingers, etc.
The '4 ounces equals 1 stick' is a common myth, and just that: Myth. Hoy Hoy!
Proper professionals with experience of fireworks manufacture will be aware of this. 'casual browsers' may be mislead. best
I axed alot of this page because I didn't think Wikipedia was the appropriate place for explosives making instructions. If I'm in error here someone can revert or better yet rewrite the instructions and stick them on Wikibooks. Thanx 68.39.174.150 21:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I added the section on flash powder exploding without being contained. I think it is important for people to know about this hidden danger. We'd assume flash powder users already know this but it is worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.238.142 ( talk) 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Flash powder has all solid reactants and all solid products, right? So what causes the "report?" I would expect that if there were gaseous products a report would be made, due to a pressure wave. Why is there a rise in pressure in the cointainer if no gas products are made? Is the temperature rise alone responsible for increasing the temperature sufficently to cause a "report?" I have never made flash powder, so I'm just going on the equations. KCl and Al2O3 are both solids.- AK7 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that wikipedia is not the place for instructions on how to make explosive compositions. However, i think it should give or at least mention, the less common compositions, for example, barium nitrate with alluminium. Thankyou for reading my suggestion. Also the use of "be warned" in paragraph eight, is somewhat assuming the reader is considering preparation of the composition, which is not appropriate.
I did some research and found several compositions for photographic flash powders. I've added them to the compositions section. Norm Reitzel ( talk) 16:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the use of "be warned", maybe some language can be found that doesn't presume the motivation of the reader, but this is a very dangerous substance. Several deaths and thousands of injuries are attributed each year to combustion of these substances -- many from home-made or black-market firecrackers. These injuries range from minor burns to severe burns, amputations, blindness and deafness.
CarolinaSawDust 16:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There are seemingly conflicting pieces of information in the opening paragraphs. Since all reaction products are solid, we should either clarify or remove the statement about the aero-space industry using similar substances in gas generators.
We can only assume either that the flash-powder like mixtures are used indirectly or as an intermediary in gas production, or that these "flash powder like mixtures" are not actually similar to flash-powder at all.
CarolinaSawDust 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. The contrasting statements need to be clarified. If the flash mixtures does not give off any gases why would it be used to produce high gas volumes? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
141.216.1.4 (
talk)
20:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not an academic and when I read this statement; "Flash powders - especially involving aluminium and chlorates - are oftenly in-sensitive to friction, impact, and static electricity." I come away thinking that flash powder is pretty safe.It isn't at all and I believe this sentence should be changed to "....are Bold extremelytextsensitive to friction...." etc. Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAlex ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Flash powders "go off" by deflagration, not detonation. The difference relates to the speed of the reaction within the substance itself. Detonations occur when the reaction front moves through the detonating substance faster than the speed of sound in that substance. A detonation wave is produced, and these shock waves can be focused by a variety of methods. The prima facia evidence of detonation waves is the existance of the Munroe Effect. Deflagrating mixtures, sometimes (and erroneously) called "low explosives" burn at high speed, sometimes faster than the speed of sound in the atmosphere. They do not produce detonation waves, and they do not exhibit the Munroe effect. "Self Containment" refers to combustion of a mixture faster than the speed of sound in the gaseous reaction products (see above). They will produce a shock front in the gas formed during the deflagration. This is responsible for the report when burned, whether the material is confined or not. Slower deflagrating mixtures require some form of confinement to build up gas pressure to produce a report when the conrinement ruptures.
How much of this that might want to end up in the article itself, I do not know. Any guidance would be appreciated.
Norm Reitzel ( talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The photo labeled; "Note the shared oxidizer (A) powder for some types of fuels (B)." is too fuzzy to read. ...Meaningless bottles of unknown stuff. No higher resolution available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.90.93 ( talk) 21:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
There is one reference and I don't even see the super-text in the article itself. Where are the references for the claims? "Flash powder and flash-powder devices pose exceptionally high risks to children, who typically cannot understand the danger and may be less adept with safe handling techniques" " In certain mixtures it is not uncommon for this sensitivity to spontaneously change over time, or due to change in the environment, or to other unknowable factors in either the original manufacturing, or in real-world storage." "A spark of as little as 0.1-10 millijoules can set off certain mixtures."
Where are the statistics? Where are the references? For all I am concerned, this is a useless article, as Wikipedia relies on citations. Without them, it is absolutely worthless to anyone who is truly an academic. Reading this article could potentially lead to a million problems due to misinformation, so the intelligent thing to do is NOT read it. Now doesn't that seem silly?
To the author of all of this "information": ADD YOUR CITATIONS OR DON'T MAKE CLAIMS. I don't care if it makes sense, its not academic. Its not encyclopedic. Its a waste.
I am not sure how to add the "citation needed" text, but it needs to be on everything in this "article". 205.155.225.1 ( talk) 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
or {{
cn}}
after the statement needing the citation. Sometimes, however, a whole section or article is missing citations, and either {{
unreferenced section}}
and {{
unreferenced}}
is (in my opinion) more appropriate in that case. If there aren't enough citations, try {{
refimprove}}
. Hope that helps!This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The current defnition. as posted, containts factual inaccuracies, some of them dangerous. Notably A Lot Less than '4 ounces' of flash will 'explode' removing fingers, etc.
The '4 ounces equals 1 stick' is a common myth, and just that: Myth. Hoy Hoy!
Proper professionals with experience of fireworks manufacture will be aware of this. 'casual browsers' may be mislead. best
I axed alot of this page because I didn't think Wikipedia was the appropriate place for explosives making instructions. If I'm in error here someone can revert or better yet rewrite the instructions and stick them on Wikibooks. Thanx 68.39.174.150 21:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I added the section on flash powder exploding without being contained. I think it is important for people to know about this hidden danger. We'd assume flash powder users already know this but it is worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.238.142 ( talk) 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Flash powder has all solid reactants and all solid products, right? So what causes the "report?" I would expect that if there were gaseous products a report would be made, due to a pressure wave. Why is there a rise in pressure in the cointainer if no gas products are made? Is the temperature rise alone responsible for increasing the temperature sufficently to cause a "report?" I have never made flash powder, so I'm just going on the equations. KCl and Al2O3 are both solids.- AK7 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that wikipedia is not the place for instructions on how to make explosive compositions. However, i think it should give or at least mention, the less common compositions, for example, barium nitrate with alluminium. Thankyou for reading my suggestion. Also the use of "be warned" in paragraph eight, is somewhat assuming the reader is considering preparation of the composition, which is not appropriate.
I did some research and found several compositions for photographic flash powders. I've added them to the compositions section. Norm Reitzel ( talk) 16:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the use of "be warned", maybe some language can be found that doesn't presume the motivation of the reader, but this is a very dangerous substance. Several deaths and thousands of injuries are attributed each year to combustion of these substances -- many from home-made or black-market firecrackers. These injuries range from minor burns to severe burns, amputations, blindness and deafness.
CarolinaSawDust 16:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There are seemingly conflicting pieces of information in the opening paragraphs. Since all reaction products are solid, we should either clarify or remove the statement about the aero-space industry using similar substances in gas generators.
We can only assume either that the flash-powder like mixtures are used indirectly or as an intermediary in gas production, or that these "flash powder like mixtures" are not actually similar to flash-powder at all.
CarolinaSawDust 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. The contrasting statements need to be clarified. If the flash mixtures does not give off any gases why would it be used to produce high gas volumes? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
141.216.1.4 (
talk)
20:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not an academic and when I read this statement; "Flash powders - especially involving aluminium and chlorates - are oftenly in-sensitive to friction, impact, and static electricity." I come away thinking that flash powder is pretty safe.It isn't at all and I believe this sentence should be changed to "....are Bold extremelytextsensitive to friction...." etc. Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAlex ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Flash powders "go off" by deflagration, not detonation. The difference relates to the speed of the reaction within the substance itself. Detonations occur when the reaction front moves through the detonating substance faster than the speed of sound in that substance. A detonation wave is produced, and these shock waves can be focused by a variety of methods. The prima facia evidence of detonation waves is the existance of the Munroe Effect. Deflagrating mixtures, sometimes (and erroneously) called "low explosives" burn at high speed, sometimes faster than the speed of sound in the atmosphere. They do not produce detonation waves, and they do not exhibit the Munroe effect. "Self Containment" refers to combustion of a mixture faster than the speed of sound in the gaseous reaction products (see above). They will produce a shock front in the gas formed during the deflagration. This is responsible for the report when burned, whether the material is confined or not. Slower deflagrating mixtures require some form of confinement to build up gas pressure to produce a report when the conrinement ruptures.
How much of this that might want to end up in the article itself, I do not know. Any guidance would be appreciated.
Norm Reitzel ( talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The photo labeled; "Note the shared oxidizer (A) powder for some types of fuels (B)." is too fuzzy to read. ...Meaningless bottles of unknown stuff. No higher resolution available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.90.93 ( talk) 21:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
There is one reference and I don't even see the super-text in the article itself. Where are the references for the claims? "Flash powder and flash-powder devices pose exceptionally high risks to children, who typically cannot understand the danger and may be less adept with safe handling techniques" " In certain mixtures it is not uncommon for this sensitivity to spontaneously change over time, or due to change in the environment, or to other unknowable factors in either the original manufacturing, or in real-world storage." "A spark of as little as 0.1-10 millijoules can set off certain mixtures."
Where are the statistics? Where are the references? For all I am concerned, this is a useless article, as Wikipedia relies on citations. Without them, it is absolutely worthless to anyone who is truly an academic. Reading this article could potentially lead to a million problems due to misinformation, so the intelligent thing to do is NOT read it. Now doesn't that seem silly?
To the author of all of this "information": ADD YOUR CITATIONS OR DON'T MAKE CLAIMS. I don't care if it makes sense, its not academic. Its not encyclopedic. Its a waste.
I am not sure how to add the "citation needed" text, but it needs to be on everything in this "article". 205.155.225.1 ( talk) 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
or {{
cn}}
after the statement needing the citation. Sometimes, however, a whole section or article is missing citations, and either {{
unreferenced section}}
and {{
unreferenced}}
is (in my opinion) more appropriate in that case. If there aren't enough citations, try {{
refimprove}}
. Hope that helps!