Not logged in [Login - Register]
 Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Special topics » Energetic Materials » Smoke Formulations ( book excerpt) Select A Forum Fundamentals   » Chemistry in General   » Organic Chemistry   » Reagents and Apparatus Acquisition   » Beginnings   » Miscellaneous   » The Wiki Special topics   » Technochemistry   » Energetic Materials   » Biochemistry   » Radiochemistry   » Computational Models and Techniques   » Prepublication Non-chemistry   » Forum Matters   » Legal and Societal Issues   » Detritus   » Test Forum

Author: Subject: Smoke Formulations ( book excerpt)
roamingnome
National Hazard

Posts: 363
Registered: 9-9-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

Smoke Formulations ( book excerpt)

Im taking pitty on Battery even though all 8 of his posts are double bogies.....

first if you can get to the FTP server the whole book is hosted there
"pyro books"

It happened to be the first book I bought a decade ago with my own money, for my interest in smoke formulations ( hence my pitty)

pyrotechnics George W. Weingart pages 191-194

Smoke Screens

Although these are really no part of the pyrotechnical art they do come under the heading of military pyrotechnics.
They often consist of a fine stream of titaniumtetrachloride which is sprayed from an airplane at a suitable height and which, in falling, produces a dense smoke intended to screen what is behind it. The liquid is projected from the plane at the same rate as the planes forward movement through the air, so as to cause the droplets to fall perpendicularly

The army is said to use another type of smoke screen, the action of which is a military secrete

Colored smokes

This branch of pyrotechny seems to have been somewhat overlooked, though its possibilities could open an interesting field for those with enough imagination to develop it.
There are many colors and tints of smoke as there are flames and aireal combinations. The simplest form of smoke used in pyrotechny is the smoke pot, as used in spectacles like THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII and BURNING OF ROME where it is desired to give the effect of destruction by fire. Smoke and spark pots consist of short mine cases about 4-6 inches in diameter and 6-12 inches in length.

The basic formula to variation

SmokePot
Saltpeter 4
Lampblack 1
Charcoal 1
Realgar 1
Rosin 1

This composition is rammed into a large, partly choked case about half the lngth of the gerbe.
A starting fire as given below is also necessary

Saltpeter 6
sulfur 1.25
anitimony sulfide 1
meal powder 1

About 1/4 inch of this is placed on top of the other composition before putting the top on the case This may consist of a wooden disk with a hole, fastened in place with small nails.
A tin can may be used as a container

The following are good formulas for smoke compositions

White
sulphur 16
saltpeter 12
fine charcoal 1
or
zinc oxide 2
zinc dust 1

Black
magnesium powder 1
hexachloroethane 3
naphthalene 1

Bright Red
Postassium chlorate 1
Lactose 1
Paranitraniline red 3

Canary Yellow
Postassium Chlorate 1
Lactose 1
Paranitraline yellow 3

The chemical warfare service has developed the following formulas

Yellow
Auramine 38
Sodium Bicarbonate 28.5
Potassium chlorate 21.4
Sulfur 9.4

Red
diethylaminorosindone 48
potassium chlorate 26
sugar

Violet ( purple haze, as featured in apocalypse now)

1- methylaminoanthraquinone 18
1,4-Diamno-2,3-dihydroanthraquinone 26
sodium bicarbonate 14
potassium chlorate 30.2
sulfur 11.8

Blue
1,4- Dimethylaminoanthraquinono 50
potassium chlorate 25
Sugar 25

there you go son....
i was confused and sadened when i first read it beucase the colored dyes seemed beyond my reason

but after writing this today I wonder if those rit-dyes available everywhere will make a good colored smoke mixed with lactose

you need chlorate or nitrate for the real deal
havent the pros here figured out the chlorate cell yet!!!

[Edited on 29-3-2008 by roamingnome]
Sauron
International Hazard

Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: metastable

Traditionally US military white smokes have been powdered zinc and hexachloroethane (such as used in smoke grenades), and the naval screening, mixtures of SO3 and chlorosulphonic acid, or oleum and chlorosulphonic acid. IIRC the designation for the Zn/hexachloroethane mixtures is HC, and that for the mostly naval SO3/chlorosulphonic acid mixtures is FC.

WP was also used for smoke along with its other effects.

Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
Mr. Wizard
International Hazard

Posts: 1039
Registered: 30-3-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

The first formula sounds like a dandy. Arsenic Sulfide (Realgar) and rosin smoke, cough cough. Through in a little carbon monoxide and lampblack particles and it's a real joy to be around.
roamingnome
National Hazard

Posts: 363
Registered: 9-9-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

indeed.....

i was going to question the TiCl4 business too

just getting the approval to use 1 ml of it in a fume hood for an peroxide testing procedure for furan is taking the signatures of many upline managers at the moment.
As soon as the MSDS says toxic inhalation hazard the whole works turns into a dilbert comic

shoot monday blues.
Sauron
International Hazard

Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: metastable

I thought TiCl4 was the standard smoke test for hood performance? I mean, for making sure that nothing gets out front with sash open.

For the overall system with scrubber they have some phoenybaloney standard mixture in a cylinder that is sold by the compressed-gas vendors.

Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
Nicodem
Super Moderator

Posts: 4227
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

Apparently, tests indicate TiO2 is completely non-carcinogenic and does not cause asbestosis-like syndromes. So I really do not see why TiCl4 fumes would be so hazardous. Surely not because of some HCl forming! I certainly never asked for permission in using it, though you would see all the colleagues slowly migrating out of the lab as soon as you get the smoke out of the bottle.

Anyway, this topic is obviously getting its own course here in Miscellaneous. I think it might get some more appropriate and focused attention in the Energetics even though it's a off topic there as well. I'm sure our dear Battery, certainly the k3wlest member ever if judging by all his 8 posts, would also appreciate the move.

…there is a human touch of the cultist “believer” in every theorist that he must struggle against as being unworthy of the scientist. Some of the greatest men of science have publicly repudiated a theory which earlier they hotly defended. In this lies their scientific temper, not in the scientific defense of the theory. - Weston La Barre (Ghost Dance, 1972)

E-tech
Harmless

Posts: 36
Registered: 30-5-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

"WP was also used for smoke along with its other effects."

Not was, IS. It is used primarily in tank/vehicle defensive smoke screens- other smokes simply aren't generated fast enough to quickly hide a vehicle from a guy with an RPG or optically-guided missile.
It's also still used as a battlefield smoke delivered by artillery or mortars. The US Marines got in a bit of trouble for using it in Fallujah. Until they explained that they were trying to keep the enemy from seeing the surrounding battle (the fact that the smoke it covered them with was at about 900C had NOTHING to do with it! Honest!)
cracker
Harmless

Posts: 17
Registered: 17-1-2009
Location: Washington State
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pyrotechnic-Scientific

For those who have not tried or seen this
Military Smoke recipe, you may find it interesting. I have copy pasted below a previous converstaion Iv had on the E&W forum

Be-careful the smoke is hazardous and acidic >

Military Sulfamic Acid Smoke Mixture

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potassium Perchlorate 35
Sulfamic Acid 65

or

Ammonium Perchlorate 42
Sulfamic Acid 58

Here is a simple and some what psychedelic video a friend of mine made for me of the formula in action.> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk9sr5IIUm0

Yep that's it and Damn, does it work good!!
Personally I like the Potassium mixture best, but the Ammonium mixture is said to have a little more smoke.

Sulfur Trioxide is vaporized from the Sulfamic Acid which reacts with the Chlorine in the Potassium Perchlorate creating Hydrogen Chloride Which all makes for a very impressive smoke mixture. A little goes a long way, much more so than, ''lets say'' a Potassium Chlorate & Sugar mixture.

I would really like to stress how exciting this formula is,

So all of you ''Flash'' makers out there all you will need is this, just click on the Sulfamic Acid title to the left after you reach this link:

http://www.artistictile.net/frameset%

20pages/store/accessories/aguamix/

restoration/stripper-frameset.html

This is the cheapest place that I found to buy a 1lb container on the net and it's 99.5% pure, although.....

Sulfamic Acid is sometimes used as a replacement for Muriatic Acid and it is available in a select few stores on the shelf. I was able to find some at a Marine Supply Store under the name of UN-Chloric Acid.

Lowes hardware carries Aqua Mix products but not the Sulfamic Acid, or at least not ''my Lowes''.

Chemistry Store.com has it for 90$for 50lbs =$158.00 with shipping

nbk2000 say's>

I've seen sulfamic acid on the hardware store shelf in with the concrete products as a surface prep.

Bacon46 say's>

Thanks Cracker.

I am defininatly going to try that comp.

I am going to run out this afternoon and see if I can locate Sulfamic Acid OTC. You may be able to find it in the HD or Lowes tile department as a cleaning product. I will let you know if I find any.

I looked in Lowe's pool chemicals, building supplies, janitorial supplies and the flooring department. I found it in the paint department. The manufacturer is UGL. The brand name is DRYLOK ETCH. As NBK stated, it is sold as a masonry etch for paint prep. According to the MSDS it is 100% Sulfamic Acid. A 12oz bottle was \$3.48 USD including tax.

Two questions:

What is your procedure for mixing the composition?

Are you confining it in any way, canister, defuser etc?

cracker say's>

Damn Bacon46 your fast! Thank you for including all the necessary information for your find, that is a very good deal condsidering most internet places charge a Hazard Fee.

Over the counter sources!, all the more reason why this formula is very exciting.

There really is no special mixing procedure that ''I'' use, other than making sure of no clumps, ''I'' do not bother with diapering, ''I'' simply mix throughly.

This composition does not need to be contained to work. As a loose powder in a pile some of the mix often fails to ignite. So for my testing I lightly pressed it into ''Tea Lite Candle Tin's'' and lit them with a piece of ''Micro-Fuse'' or Silicone Fuse. Visco also works great. (later tests in this thread show that visco does not burn hot enough for this comp, please continue to read)

Bacon46 say's>

I mixed a batch of Crackers 65% - H3NO3S - 35% - KClO4 composition.

The H3NO3S practical size was similar to course sand so I milled the comp for an hour. I strongly recommend using a respirator and eye protection when handling H3NO3S, especially in fine powder form. It was late; I was only mixing 150g, I didn't feel like putting on a respirator. I’m regretting that decision. Shortly after opening the mill drum I had to exit the room quickly. There was no visible dust in the air, but when it hit the back of my throat I definitely knew it was there. My throat is still a little sore this morning.

I put on my respirator and continued. My first attempt to ignite this comp with visco fuse failed. It didn’t burn at all. In my second attempt I used a small amount of the sparkler composition that I use to ignite Thermite. It did ignite but barely, smoldered is a better description, and only a very small percentage of the composition did that. However, that small percentage did create a proportionately significant amount of smoke.

On my third attempt I added 1% S to the mix and used an electric match for an ignition source. It ignited but burned very, very slowly, or smoldered quickly depending on how you look at it.

I am not sure why I am having trouble with the ignition. The KClO4 came from a 2kg batch that I have been working out of for a while so I know its okay. The manufacturer of the etch claims it is 100% H3NO3S. Got any ideas?

I can tell by the volume of smoke emitted in these initial tests that this composition is defiantly worth perusing.

nbk2000 say's >

Grinding compositions into fine powder is sometimes counterproductive.

It could be that the powder needs to be granular to work properly. Let's see what Cracker says.

cracker say's>

This and my Personal Tests are my knowledge base>http://www.google.com/patents

?vid=US...mic+Acid+smoke

At first look I'm not sure that I can tell you what went wrong. First I will start by saying I am almost sure the problem is NOT contaminated Sulfamic Acid. The UN-Chloric Acid that I have used is Sulfamic mixed with Oxalic Acid and it still works GREAT! Oxalic Acid has nothing to do with its success it was simply added in a small percentage as an additional cleaner.

I did grind my Sulfamic very briefly in a Mortar and Pestle. Nothing compared to Ball Milling but I still suspect this is not the problem.

I almost always use ''Micro-Fuse'' so I will re-try with Visco.

No batch that I have made has had any resistance in lighting, but very loose powder's falied to continue burning only if there was a shallow pile.

Because I had planed on it any way I will go out and purchase DRYLOK ETCH right now and give it a try.

See you very soon.

Also I plan on taking pictures in the next few days.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nbk2000 says>

Maybe one source is anhydrous, and the other is hydrated?

cracker say's>

OK Bacon46 this is what I believe to be the problem. My advice about using Visco is wrong and the composition was not getting hot enough.

I just returned from purchasing DRYLOK ETCH at a hardware store other than LOWE's.

When I returned home I mixed the composition by ''Eye'' with NO weight scale or Measurements and without any type of ''Grinding'' or ''Milling''. The DRYLOK ETCH came straight from the bottle. I then tried to lite it with a piece of Visco, and I received the same results that you did. Smoldering but no reaction, I tried a second time again with the same results.

I Then took a Barbecue Lighter and held a Flame on the Mix for approximately 90 seconds and slowly but very surely it started and sustained its own reaction producing volumes of white Smoke.

As I had said before I almost always use Microtek's Silicone Fuse and evidently got lucky when I used the Visco. I notice that Visco will work if it can continue to heat the molten area. I assume your alternate igniter that you tried was probably fairly quick burning and did not allow for sufficient heat build-up of the molten particles. Possibly it was to vigorous and scattered the particles.

If you use a lighter the reaction you will see right before it starts is similar to melting, bubbling Sugar. Be sure it has a dish or cup to keep in the molten liquids that will be produced when burning.

I would like to say again that I never had a failure to ignite this mixture using the ''MicroFuse''.

Bacon46 says>

I mixed a fresh batch. This time I did not grind it at all. I packed a 6” (15.25cm) long ¾” (19mm) I.D. paper tube 1/2 full, inserted an electric igniter and poured in about 1” (25.4mm) of loose composition on top of that. When I touched the igniter to the battery it lit right up. You’re right. The key to a sustained burn with this is to keep the unburned composition underneath the burning comp.

It’s interesting stuff. It burns very slowly, around 3” (7.62cm) per minute. It produces a great deal of smoke with no visible flame and surprisingly little gas. In my case the smoke exited the tube more like fog out of a fog machine than smoke out of a smoke canister. During almost the entire length of the burn the tube was burping up something that resembled bright chartreuse snot. What remained in the bottom of the tube at the end of the burn was a mass of small Aqua or Turquoise colored crystals. I attached an image of these crystals but the image quality is poor.

I had the tube buried in the ground. While it was still burning I decided to see how it would act under pressure by placing a brick on top of the tube. I was hoping it would increase the burn rate but it didn’t. The brick would have extinguished it if I didn’t remove it.

I like the volume of smoke this produces. I am going the tweak it a little and see if I can get it to ignite easier, burn a little faster, and produce more gas without loosing the any of the smoke.

Cracker; you may be getting closer to that “Flameless” smoke composition your where looking for last month. This stuff burns pretty cool. I did a autopsy on the paper tube and it had only burned through a couple layers of paper. Most of comps I burn in that type of tube almost, if not completely burn through.

I will provide video of the next test burn

cracker say's>

Excellent, it's good isnt it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon46
''The key to a sustained burn with this is to keep the unburned composition underneath the burning comp.''

Yes, this is my experience also. A light ''press'' in a open top can works well.

Have fun experimenting but I would like to stress to readers that this Mix really doesn't need any alteration's, The speed at which it burns is a benefit and I found it relatively easy to lite using a suitable source.

Certainly it's Smoke Production Levels need NO tweaking.

Bacon46 say's >

Cracker is right. ''Tweaking'' this composition is a bit misleading. It works fine ''as is'', and the ingredients are easy to make and/or obtain.

What I am actually doing is attempting to incorporate the ingredients, mainly the sulfamic acid, into a composition I was already working on.

[Edited on 1-18-2009 by cracker]

cracker
Harmless

Posts: 17
Registered: 17-1-2009
Location: Washington State
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pyrotechnic-Scientific

I would really like to hear about any possible binder, additive and containment-packaging ideas from anyone who has actually tried this formula.

The internet has surprisingly little information about this mixture. What is up there I have been spreading around. I found the formula in a US patent

It would be very interesting to hear ideas from experienced members on ways to improve its burning stability, its proper packaging, etc. Thank You

Formatik
International Hazard

Posts: 927
Registered: 25-3-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: equilibrium

I like this one, pretty impressive: http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to/video/how-to-build-orange-...

Original instructions seem to be from: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/a/coloreds...

Variation of more of the same: http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to/video/how-to-make-a-pull-r...

[Edited on 4-7-2009 by Formatik]
Formatik
International Hazard

Posts: 927
Registered: 25-3-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: equilibrium

Here are some more formulas based on chlorate:

Blue smoke:

KClO3 25%
Lactose 25%
Sudanblau G 35 37.5%
kieselguhr 12.5%

Green smoke:

KClO3 28%
Lactose 25.0%
Auramine 31.7%
Sudanblau G 12.3%
kieseguhr 3%

Violet smoke:

KClO3 25
Lactose 22%
Rhodamine 44%
Sudanblau G 6%
kieselguhr 3%

Red smoke:

KClO3 20%
Lactose 20%
Sudanrot G 55%
kieselguhr 4%
methylcellulose 1%

Orange smoke:

KClO3 18%
Lactose 22%
Orange 1584 32%
Rauchgelb 27%
Methylcellulose 1%

Black smoke:

Anthracene 60%
KClO3 38%
kieselguhr 2%

source.

Mixing procedures and granulation described in cited source. The structures are given for the dyes in the same.
Though these formulas are old, and sudan dyes are known carcinogens.

These formulas are claimed to be safer:

Red smoke:

17.5 pbw KClO3
17.5 pbw sucrose
6.8 pbw Disperse Red 11
34.2 pbw Solvent Red 1
10.0 pbw MgCO3
14.0 pbw terephthalic acid

Yellow:

22.0 pbw KClO3
15.0 pbw sucrose
33.0 pbw Solvent Yellow 33
21.0 pbw MgCO3

Green:

24.5 pbw KClO3
16.5 pbw sucrose
12.5 pbw Solvent Yellow 33
29.5 pbw Solvent Green 3

Violet smoke:

18.4 pbw KClO3
19.1 pbw sugar
38.0 pbw Disperse Red 11
4.4 pbw Disperse Blue 3
20.1 pbw MgCO3

source.

There are also inorganic colored smoke formulas mentioned in those sources, but nearly all I've seen will yield a heavy metal compound in the smoke, but worrying about the carcinogenic potential of some organic dyes is already enough (e.g. Solvent Green 3 smoke yielding some adenocarcinomas in rodents). Among one inorganic one I've found which is not so harmful is in US4184901 using bismuth subnitrate which yields on top of yellow smoke bright flame (signal pyro).

[Edited on 16-7-2009 by Formatik]
The WiZard is In
International Hazard

Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by Sauron I thought TiCl4 was the standard smoke test for hood performance? I mean, for making sure that nothing gets out front with sash open. For the overall system with scrubber they have some phoenybaloney standard mixture in a cylinder that is sold by the compressed-gas vendors.

In WW I titanium and tin tetrachloride were commonly used to
generate white smoke.

1918 US Production
TiClO4 181 tons
SnClO4 695 tons

Report of Benedict Crowell
America's Munitions 1917-1918
[I have an original copy ... you can get yours from Google.com/books .]

Tin Tetrachloride (SnCl4)
British: "KJ"; French: "Opacite"

As phosphorus was very dangerous to work with and could not be used in liquid form for spraying without extreme hazard to using troops, and since the various S03 compounds oxidizing sulfuric acid were very corrosive, much effort was expended toward the end of the war in finding substitute smoke agents free from these disadvantages. This resulted [239] in the introduction of a series of metallic chlorides of which tin tetrachlor¬ide was the first.

This compound is obtained by the direct chlorination of metallic tin. it is a liquid of 2.28 specific gravity, which boils at 114oC. (237oF.). it fumes in the air and hydrolyzes into stannic hydroxide:

SnCl4 + 4H20 = Sn(0H)4 + 4HCl

The smoke thus produced is only one half as dense as sulfur trioxide smokes, but is less corrosive and far more penetrant to the gas mask canisters used during the war. For this last reason tin tetrachloride was employed principally in mixtures with phosgene and chlorpicrin to increase the visibility and penetrability of the gas clouds generated therewith. It is very expensive and the scarcity of tin caused other compounds to be substituted toward the end of the war.

Augustin M Prentiss
Chemicals in War
McGraw Hill 1937

240 CHEMICAL AGENTS

Titanium Tetrachloride (TiCl4)

German: " F Stoff "; American: " FM

The complications involved in producing dense smoke by use of ammonia with silicon tetrachloride caused the introduction of titanium tetrachloride by the Allies, near the end of the war, as a substitute for tin and silicon tetrachlorides.

This compound is obtained from rutile Ti02 which is found in natural beds in Norway and in Virginia. The rutile ore is first mixed with 30 per cent carbon and heated to 650'C. in an electric furnace. A fused mass is formed, consisting of titanium carbonitride (Ti5C4N4) and titanium carbide (TiC, which is converted to TiCl4 by heating with gaseous chlorine. The product is a colorless highly refractory liquid, of 1.7 specif¬ic gravity, which boils at 136'C. (277'F.) and solidifies into white crystals at 23'C. ( 9'F.). It reacts vigorously with the moisture in the air, forming titanic acid hydrate and hydrochloric acid:

TiCl4 + 4H2O = Ti(OH)4 + 4HCl

with the evolution of dense clouds of acrid white smoke. The titanic acid hydrate forms finely divided solid particles in the smoke while the hydrochloric acid, is in the gaseous state.
Like silicon tetrachloride, complete decomposition of the titanium tetrachloride, according to the above equation, is inhibited by an excess of hydrochloric acid. Therefore, the best smoke is formed when the titanium tetrachloride is present in low concentrations and there is an excess of moisture in the air (five parts of water to one of the tetrachloride, instead of the theoretical four parts). Owing to these peculiarities, when it is used in concentrations under 0.060 mg. per liter and when the humidity is high, titanium tetrachloride is superior in obscuring power to sulfur trioxide; but when the concentrations are high and the humidity low, it is inferior.

On account of its hydrochloric acid content, titanium tetrachloride smoke is acrid, but in ordinary field concentrations it is not sufficiently irritating to the respiratory system as to cause coughing or other unpleas¬ant physiological effects; The smoke can be neutralized and rendered completely harmless by the simultaneous use of ammonia which fixes the hydrochloric acid and greatly increases the density of the smoke by the addition of ammonium chloride. While the addition of ammonia almost doubles the obscuring effect of the titanium tetrachloride, the total amount of material required is doubled, so that no advantage is gained from the standpoint of weight. Also the apparatus employing two liquids is much more complicated and, as titanium tetrachloride alone is an excellent smoke producer when used in the proper proportion to the moisture content of the air, the use of ammonia is not necessary.

Because of its high boiling point and not too great volatility, titanium tetrachloride is peculiarly adapted for use in laying smoke screens from airplanes since each individual droplet can move through a great distance before it is completely volatilized and hydrolyzed. For this reason it was adopted as the standard American liquid smoke agent for several years following the war. Because of its relatively high cost (about twenty times as much as sulfur trioxide for equal smoke effect), the fact that in hydrolyzing it deposits a gummy solid residue that clogs up the emission orifices of the sprayer, and its corrosive action (in liquid form) on metals, titanium tetrachloride has been displaced by the much cheaper and more generally satisfactory smoke agent FS.
It requires 0.15 oz. of titanium tetrachloride to produce 1,000 cu. ft. of standard smoke, as against 0.06 oz. of phosphorus, so that, on a basis of equal weights, the former is about 40 per cent as efficient a smoke producer as the latter.

Titanium tetrachloride, although more expensive and not otherwise superior to FS, is nevertheless used as a filler in artillery and mortar smoke shell.

On the basis of total obscuring power (T.O.P.), the smoke agents discussed above, as well as other substances that have been used since the War for producing smoke, are arranged below in the descending order of their T.O.P.'s.

White phosphorus 4,600
Titanium tetrachloride and ammonia 3,030
Sulfur trioxide 3,000
Sulfur trioxide and chlorsulfonic acid (FS) 2,550
Hydrochloric acid and ammonia 2,500
HC Mixture 2,100
Silicon tetrachloride and ammonia 1,960
Titanium tetrachloride (FM) 1, 900
Oleum* 1,890
Tin tetrachloride (KJ) 1,860
Phosphorus trichloride and ammonia 1,800
Chlorsulfonic acid and ammonia 1,600
Silicon tetrachloride 1,500
Sulfur chloride and ammonia 1,425
Chlorsulfonic acid* 1,400
B.M. Mixture 1,400
Berger Mixture 1,250
Titanium tetrachloride and ethylene dichloride 1,235
Sulfuryl chloride 1,200
Chlorine and ammonia 750
Arsenic trichloride 460
Type S mixture 460
Crude oil 200

*Heating to 450*F. increases T.O.P’s from 30 to 50 per cent.

In comparing the T.O.P.'s for different smokes, the rate of burning must be considered, since a slow burning smoke may not reach its maxi¬mum density before its particles begin to settle out. Humidity and tem¬perature also have an important influence' on the T.O.P.'s of many chemical smokes. The values given above are for average conditions of temperature and humidity and may vary greatly with variations of either or both.

Chemicals In War
LtCol. Augustin M Prentiss
McGraw Hill 1937

------------------------------------------------------------

b. Titanium Tetrachloride (FM).
(1) General. Traces of moisture cause FM to solidify; making it difficult to handle in spraying apparatus. Also the acidity of the smoke causes harmful effects on paints, bare metals, and other materials.
(2) Chemical name. Titanium tetrachloride. (3) Formula. TiCl4.
(4) Molecular weight. 189.73.
(5) Vapor density. Not applicable.
(6) Liquid density. 1.7 at 20' C.
(7) Freezing point. 30' C.
(8) Boiling point. 135' C.
(9) Vapor pressure and volatility. Not applicable.
(10) Decomposition temperature. Above the boiling point.
(11) Latent heat of vaporization. Not applica¬ble because FM must be mechanically dispersed by spray or explosion.
(12) Rate of hydrolysis. Reacts immediately with water or water vapor. This behavior makes the use of FM in airplane smoke tanks difficult because of orifice clogging by solid hydrolysis products.
(13) Hydrolysis products. Solid TiOCI, and HCl, chiefly, but also Ti(OH)4 if sufficient water is present.
(14) Stability in storage. Stable in steel con¬tainers if FM is dry.
(15) Action on metals or other materials. None on steel if FM is dry; vigorous action if FM is moist. FM smoke is definitely corrosive.
(16) Odor. Acrid.
(17) Physiological action. FM smoke is not toxic but the liquid burns the skin like a strong acid. The smoke is irritating to the nose and throat, but is only mildly so at concentrations usually found in a smoke cloud.
(18) Protection required. None for ordinary smoke clouds; protective mask for heavy con¬centrations.
(19) Decontaminants. Alkali in solid or solu¬tion form for liquid FM. *
(20) Munitions suitable for use. Artillery shell, 4.2 inch mortar shell, airplane smoke tanks, bombs,
and special munitions.

FM 3-9 Military Chemistry and Chemical Compounds
TM 3-215 Military Chemistry and Chemical Agents

TiCl4 + 5H20 >>. TiCl4-5H20
TiCl4-5H2O >> TiCl3(OH)2-2H2O + 3H2O
TiCl2(OH)2-3H2O >> Ti(OH)4-H20 + 2HCl

Eng. Design HDBK Mil Pyro Series Part One
Theory and Application

JohnWW
International Hazard

Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

With the exceptions of TiCl4, SiCl4, and SnCl4, most of those smoke mixtures are either too dangerously explosive, too inflammable, too corrosive, or too dangerously poisonous, to be safely used to generate smoke, especially for military applications where there is a danger of the smoke being blown back onto one's own troops.
The WiZard is In
International Hazard

Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by JohnWW With the exceptions of TiCl4, SiCl4, and SnCl4, most of those smoke mixtures are either too dangerously explosive, too inflammable, too corrosive, or too dangerously poisonous, to be safely used to generate smoke, especially for military applications where there is a danger of the smoke being blown back onto one's own troops.

Ahhaaa which of thee listed smokes in either flammable or
explosive?

In WW I as in most wars, toxic screening smoke are the
combats least worry.

In terms of the number of lives lost, relative to the ground
gained, the actions of the First World War make dismal
reading, In the first two hours of the battle of Loos we
lost more men than were lost by all the services together
in the whole of D-Day 1944. On the first day of the Somme
offensive the British Army suffered 57,000 casualties – the
biggest loss ever suffered by an army in a single day.
And yet, as one historian has put it, to see the ground
gained one needs a magnifying glass and large-scale map.

Norman F. Dixon, On the Psychology of Military
Incompetence, 1976.

Worry about shrapnel marked - occupant.
Murray's Laws of Combat

Landmines are relative — Between the enemy and
you they are good. Between you and the enemy - bad.
Self
Formatik
International Hazard

Posts: 927
Registered: 25-3-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: equilibrium

I'm not convinced any of the even today used smoke dyes are actually safe. Some of them have questionable carcinogenic potential and others are known and experimental carcinogens.
The WiZard is In
International Hazard

Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

 Quote: Originally posted by Formatik I'm not convinced any of the even today used smoke dyes are actually safe. Some of them have questionable carcinogenic potential and others are known and experimental carcinogens.

Absolutely — coloured smokes are a different animal. There
are a SL of papers from Unkl. Sap on non-toxic environmental
safe coloured smoke comps.

This is the first one I found on my HD.

ARCSL-TR-81054
EVALUATION OF REPLACEMENT RED SMOKE DYE FOR
1N METHYAMINOANTHRAQUINONE
Commander/ Director
Chemical Systems Laboratory ATTN: DRDAR-CLN-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010
15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thin report) UNCLASSIFIED
16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

INTRODUCTION
The objective of this work was to compile a list of possible replacement compounds for the dye currently employed to generate red smoke by pyrotechnic methods. The red dye now used is 1-N methylaminoanthraquinone.

2. METHOD
A list of dyes used or tested for use in pyrotechnics was compiled by eviewing open literature and reports available in the Technical Library of Chemical Systems Laboratory.

You can DL a PDF copy from the obvious US Gov. web site. A
search for EVALUATION OF REPLACEMENT RED SMOKE DYE
yields 270 hits. Didn't check other colours. Or smoke dye in
general.

--------
Science of the ages, the highest arts of man,
Degraded and prostituted, that Might should take the van,
Whilst Empire, Justice, Freedom slumbered.
Then chemists, student, artisan answered Duty’s call;
Our arms, our arts, our poison fumes
Gained Liberty for all.

Authorship unknown.

 Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Special topics » Energetic Materials » Smoke Formulations ( book excerpt) Select A Forum Fundamentals   » Chemistry in General   » Organic Chemistry   » Reagents and Apparatus Acquisition   » Beginnings   » Miscellaneous   » The Wiki Special topics   » Technochemistry   » Energetic Materials   » Biochemistry   » Radiochemistry   » Computational Models and Techniques   » Prepublication Non-chemistry   » Forum Matters   » Legal and Societal Issues   » Detritus   » Test Forum