Print PDF
Favorite
Email
This instructable has been removed by the author.
126
comments
|
Add Comment
|
| 1-50 of 126 | next » |
Dude! I beg you to delete this instructable. I searched the term "rocket motor" on Instructables, just to see what clever motors others have devised and safely tested. But what you've described is no more than a crude pipe bomb. It's not truly experimental, since it will never produce useful, predictable thrust, and someone could get killed, or incur grievous injury if they attempt to duplicate your process. The copper tube can easily become deadly shrapnel if the propellant burns too fast -or is allowed too little nozzle to escape through. Really. Your other two instructables are quite interesting and imaginative. Delete this instructable and you'll be batting a 1,000.
Sep 30, 2009. 12:43 AMnavaburo (author)
says:
You are the most recent in a steady stream of people telling me this is a dangerous idea. So, in service to the community, I will delete this instructable. Sorry for any harm I have done, however indirectly, to anyone who read this.
Sep 20, 2009. 6:51 PMChr1spy
says:
this is dangerous u should use paper tubes if paper tubes explode they are not as dangerous because they don't shoot dangerous shrapnel seriously us paper tubes
Sep 7, 2009. 11:09 PMDenger
says:
It is my belief that that there is a very high probability for serious bodily injury using your construction and ignition methods. Why use a metallic copper casing when a wrapped paper cylinder or ceramic casing would work just as well, without the possibility of dangerous shrapnel in the case of explosion? Why use cannon fuse instead of an inexpensive electric igniter? The ignition sequence of an electric system may be safely aborted at any time prior to ignition, and the cost cannot be much more than for specialty cannon fuse. A $2 rocket 'motor' suddenly becomes a whole lot more expensive with the bill from an emergency room visit tacked on to it.
Jun 15, 2009. 4:00 PMdagenius
says:
Not exactly a bomb... will actually produce substantial thrust for a small model rocket.
Jun 15, 2009. 8:31 PMTombini
says:
Its made of copper with an inadequate nozzle pressed together with pliers, no though for safety has gone into the design and it is just a pipe bomb waiting to happen! Ive been working with high powered rockets for 4 years and that thing will encounter problems.
Aug 10, 2009. 12:44 PMnavaburo (author)
says:
Chemically, very*.
Physically, this mixture is hygroscopic, meaning it soaks up water from the air. Propellant should be stored in tight-fitting airtight containers or frozen.
Physically, this mixture is hygroscopic, meaning it soaks up water from the air. Propellant should be stored in tight-fitting airtight containers or frozen.
- I'm no chemist, so this is a best guess.
Aug 31, 2008. 9:38 PMwhyheneeds
says:
the last comment is totally correct it is dangerous ,if the explosion is powerful enough all you will be making is a "pipe bomb" that could very easily kill someone!!!
Jul 24, 2009. 11:44 AMcowgomoo
says:
no its a rocket motor till it has another cap and the folded part would come up copper is very mailable especially when hot. dont be stupid a pipebomb is completely different
Jul 7, 2009. 3:38 PMdagenius
says:
You don't have to say "the last comment...," you could just click the reply button on that comment...
May 5, 2009. 7:01 AMDealmann
says:
gd idea, just watch out to make the hole big enough or it will explode
May 5, 2009. 8:18 AMnavaburo (author)
says:
Well, if you don't weld the nozzle shut an explosion is unlikely: too much pressure will force the nozzle open and avert an explosion. I witnessed this first-hand when I put in too much black powder primer; in fact, the nozzle _was_ braze-welded shut when I did that, and the rocket did _not_ explode, the nozzle was just torn open.
Jul 7, 2009. 3:37 PMdagenius
says:
if you weld the nozzle shut, an ignition in general is unlikely... oooohhhh, what!
Nov 21, 2008. 11:31 PM270168
says:
I live in Surrey BC Canada do you know what store I can get potassium nitrate at? (it shouldn't be too far away from the peace arch crossing or the pacific crossing)
Feb 27, 2009. 7:23 AMwarrant
says:
I HAVE BEEN A PYRO-TECH FOR MANY YEARS. YOU CAN GET KNO3 JUST@ ANY RX SHOP ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PLACE AN ORDER FOR POTASSIUM NITRATE , YOU CAN GET THIS AT ANY WAL-MART PHARMACY OR GO TO YOUR LOCAL FEED CO-OP AS THIS IS SOMETIMES USED IN SMALL PORTIONS IN ANIMAL FEED
Jul 5, 2009. 11:54 PM-Cry_Wolf
says:
Dang, you might just use more caps than Billy mays.... aww.. now I made myself sad :-(
Nov 22, 2008. 9:47 PMnavaburo (author)
says:
You can buy it at some pharmacies as potassium nitrate. Also as stump remover, but don't get "Bonide" brand (it is NOT KNO3 but rather sodium metabisulfide which releases toxic gas when it is cooked with the sugar! Don't do it! ( I found this out the hard way tonight.)
Dec 14, 2007. 5:12 PMdeathsithz
says:
bombs impload this will not if you make the nossle right that means DON'T BLOCK THE NOSSLE (now some stupid is gonna kill him self doing just that)
Jun 15, 2009. 8:45 PMTombini
says:
Bombs EXplode not IMplode, (unless your talking about a nuke)
Aug 20, 2008. 10:50 AMthatoneguy900
says:
In pyrotechnics, putting compositions into metal containers is generally VERY BAD. Stick with Paper tubes and clay plugs/endcaps. You can make very strong tubes with a dowel, some manila folders, and wood glue. The ones I make can't be crushed with your fingers, and make perfect rocket engines, that won't fll you full of shrapnel if the device explodes.
Aug 22, 2008. 2:03 PMnavaburo (author)
says:
Yes, metal containers should be avoided as a general rule. However, imo, copper doesn't spark as easily as other metals (besides this mixture is somewhat difficult to ignite) and copper is quite malleable decreasing the risk of shrapnel.
Jun 15, 2009. 8:33 PMTombini
says:
Although copper is malleable and conductive you shouldn't say it will decrease shrapnel, (not noticeably anyway). As a general rule ALL metals produce shrapnel, just look at lead it is soft and malleable and makes good shrapnel...
Feb 18, 2009. 2:09 AM831
says:
in sted of useing coper pipe u can use cut upe cans cus the metal is much more lihter an u can rapit in lots of war like cardborde ferst then then seler tape an the the metal of a cocacola can then a bit i duck tape to mack it tiyt
Jul 7, 2009. 3:36 PMdagenius
says:
If you use proper spelling and grammer, people will take you more seriously. I could understand most of what you said, but whats with the: rapit, seler tape, mack it, tiyt? Really, 831, not cool.
Feb 18, 2009. 1:57 AM831
says:
ha I'm new an I love all wet I see A dent A put a video o g off it bein propeld out of sum pipe or scafholdin pols that wuld mack it fly fare have A tested it out
Jul 16, 2008. 5:49 AMTombini
says:
I have made an instructable explaining a more powerful way to make the rocket candy...<br/><a href="http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-rocket-candy/">http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-rocket-candy/</a><br/>Please leave comments<br/>
Jul 13, 2008. 12:42 PMtwenglish1
says:
you know your rocket fuel is the is made the same way as homemade smokebombs
Dec 13, 2007. 11:28 PMDungeonbrownies
says:
I dont think this is an engine, im pretty sure this is a pipebomb. you know if anyone sees this then you'd be questioned and maybe arrested on terror suspicions you know...
Jul 2, 2008. 2:57 AMspyder1313
says:
What makes this different from a bomb, is that it has a semi-restricted exhaust portal.
Dec 14, 2007. 12:23 PMaltaria1993
says:
no, a bomb will not have a nozzle, this does, so its not a bomb, this is the wiki page about it *quote* "a tightly sealed section of pipe filled with an explosive material."*unquote* this is not tightly sealed.
Dec 16, 2007. 12:56 AMaltaria1993
says:
in a rocket, there is still space left for the gasses to get out, in a bomb not, otherwise it wouldn't explode at all :X
Jan 9, 2008. 7:00 AMaltaria1993
says:
because it has such a high burning rate, the gasses cant escape fast enough, and it will explode if you use a too weak shell, after it flew.. a bit
Jun 15, 2009. 8:37 PMTombini
says:
Nitrocellulose doesn't have a high "burning" rate, if under enough force it detonates
Dec 14, 2007. 4:43 AMflamerz14
says:
I wonder if nitrocellulose would be as effective and safer?
Dec 16, 2007. 1:00 AMaltaria1993
says:
do you actualy know what nitrocellulose is?
its one of the most explosive chemicals this is what it is
nitrocellulose safer?!? where the hell do you have your brains?!? if this goes wrong, its just a firecracker that shoots copper shrapnell, otherwise your dead, just dead..
its one of the most explosive chemicals this is what it is
nitrocellulose safer?!? where the hell do you have your brains?!? if this goes wrong, its just a firecracker that shoots copper shrapnell, otherwise your dead, just dead..
| 1-50 of 126 | next » |
 |
