[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.These empirically derived formulas are of varying degrees of excellence in ef-fect.They furnish a large data field of functional formulations.Since the data werederived empirically for each formula, it is probable that a much larger range of66TABLE #9: WHITE FORMULAS WITH POTASSIUM NITRATE ONLY007 008 014 015 016POTASSIUM NITRATE 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.000.86 0.84 0.84 0.84SULFURANTIMONY TRISULFIDE 0.53 0/64 0.54 0.291.381.39TOTAL SULFURCHARCOAL 3.37 3.59 3.36 3.37ALUMINUM 0.69 1.06 0.91 1.23TABLE #10: WHITE GLITTER FORMULAS CONTAINING POSITIVE ION SOURCESOTHER THAN POTASSIUM NITRATE009 010 012 013POTASSIUM NITRATE 1.47 1.69 1.80BARIUM NITRATE 0.53 0.56STRONTIUM OXALATE 0.31 0.31BARIUM CARBONATE 0.12SULFUR 1.15 1.14 0.86 0.71ANTIMONY TRISULFIDE 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.66TOTAL SULFUR 1.47 1.46 1.01 1.91CHARCOAL 3.03 2.38 2.84ALUMINUM 0.76 0.67 1.16 1.02TABLE #11: YELLOW OR GOLD SODIUM SPECTRA GLITTER FORMULAS001 004 005 006POTASSIUM NITRATE 1.65 1.56 1.55 1.50SODIUM OXALATE 0.35 0.44 0.45 0.50SULFUR 0.74 0.65 0.63ANTIMONY TRISULFIDE 0.82 0.13 0.21 0.22TOTAL SULFUR 1.51 0.87 0.86CHARCOAL 2.78 2.62 2.530.82ALUMINUM 0.77 0.78 0.9367 were tested and found wanting.This larger field of data is lost but the fact thatit existed is significant and enhances the validity of conclusions drawn from the datapublished.If it can be shown that the published known functional formulas make achemically logical pattern, then the theory given here and the arguments made hereare valid enough to be called a theory rather than a hypothesis.We are looking forpatterns in the formulas, rules for formulating glitter mixtures.It is expected that theformulas are sufficient in number to represent the boundaries of the possible for-mulations.We know that the formulas can be shown to be a near continuum of effectvariations.The minimal necessities of chemical results for the production of glitterare sought.We expect to find the adjustments of formulas for the differing natures ofthe charcoal and a frequent adjustment for the fact that charcoal is not pure carbon.We expect to see sulfur in a continuum of concentrations with a definable lower limitand a range that exceeds the stoichiometric requirements for potassium disulfidetype ratios, especially the all sulfur delay formulas should show great variation andhigh equivalence.The antimony sulfide equivalence should show the greatest varia-tion of all the chemicals used for the reasons already given.Naturally, the formulas which are based on meal powder are first calculated asthe amount of the meal powder ingredients the meal powder represents, and thenthe chemical equivalence of the formulas are calculated.The formulas below are cal-culated as equivalence of materials present disregarding binders, and setting thepositive ion equivalence to two.FIELD #1: AALL NITRATE PRESENT AS.ALL AMOUNTS ARE IN MOLES.#06 #17 #18 #26* AVER.2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.004.15 3.37 3.86 0.67C1.21 1.89 2.55s0.18 0.20 0.121.62 1.62 2.06 2.55TOTAL S 1.96 0.44____-AL 0.65 0.872.05TOTAL AL& 0.65 2.01 2.05 0.87 1.40 0.7468Thus far into our comparison we see that it takes approximately three molesto reduce two moles of nitrate, and if oxalates are used as substitutes for the nitratesit takes correspondingly less charcoal to perform the transition to sulfide melt.Lookat the total sulfur.In no instance does it fall below the amount necessary for Equa-tion One Notice that our empiricists have found that half way toEquation Two from Equation One is a nice zone of compromise between longerdelay and forming enough potassium sulfide to use plenty of aluminum.Notice thatthe aluminum equivalence is very erratic.Aluminum is the least controllable vari-able.In the early days of glitter, the flake types of aluminum predominated and theequivalence of aluminum used had to be smaller for reasons already discussed.Remember that the spritz reactions derive their energy for light production from thealuminum fuel.The older formulas intended to be used with flake aluminums can bemade more effective by using atomized aluminums at maximum effective loadinglevels.We can now see that formulas are only a guide - a starting place - and theproduction of the best glitter will depend upon knowledgeable adjustments.FIELD BALL NITRATE PRESENT AS.CONTAINS ORALL AMOUNTS ARE IN MOLES.STD.DEV.#03 #04 #12 AVER.2.00 2.00 2.00 2.002.69 2.69 3.37 2.92 0.39c1.14 1.14 0.92S0.040.12 0.121.38 1.38 1.26 0.21TOTAL S1.91AL1.89 1.89TOTAL AL & 1.89 1.91 1.90 0.010.140.16 0.07SPECIAL COMPARISONSALL AMOUNTS ARE IN MOLES.AVERAGE AND STANDARD DEVIATIONARE CALCULATED ONLY ON FORMULA WHICH CONTAIN THAT COMPOUND.HIGH Low # OF FORMULAS AVER.STD.DEV.TOTAL 2.00 2.00 39 2.002.00 1.38 3969FIELD #1: CALL NITRATE PRESENT AS.CONTAINS#14 #15 #16 #19 #20 AVER2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00C 3.36 3.16 3.86 3.36 0.291.39 1.18 2.52 2.23 1.61 0.61S 1.140.12 0.06 0.12 0.11 0.06TOTAL S 1.50 1.57 1.54 2.52* 2.23* 1.81 0.451.50 1.09 0.75 0.94 0.25AL 1.120.25 0.33 1.21 1.04 0.83 1.04 0.78 0.40MGAL1.37 1.83 2.30 1.58 1.98 1.86 0.35& MG0.43 0.24 0.35 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.32*NOTICE THAT WHEN THERE IS NO SB2S3 THAT THE TOTAL S IS HIGHER.FIELD #1: SUBFIELD DALL NITRATE PRESENT AS CONTAINS.DOES NOT CONTAIN MAGNALIUM.ALL AMOUNTS ARE IN MOLES.#21 #22 #23 #27 #28 #29 #30 AVER.2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00C 3.37 3.37 3.37 3.03 3.20 0.171.82 2.52 1.14 1.14 1.89 1.14 1.70S0.12 0.12 0.18 0.120.072.42 2.52 1.50 1.50 2.43 1.50 1.99TOTAL S 2.03AL 0.87 1.20 1 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]