Looking for PSA/Scare Information re: R-Candy

I'm currently a high schooler and have been developing r-candy engines for the past whole school year. We have a teacher supervising us the whole time and we haven't had a single mishap(knock on wood). To be honest we actually have made consistent and reliable r-candy engine using paper tubing(like ones used in Estes engines). The tube is from skylighter. They easily kick to 1500-2000 ft. We use think 1/2 inch plexiglass to shield the engines during testing and use a fume hood to test propellant. The issue is going bigger. Probably one of the scariest things we've done is moved on to PVC engines we've had two fail due to over pressurization actually have a vid...here:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4wjYio4TlRo . In reality we should have painted it a neon pink or orange just in case. This was scary but still we we're prepared for it very well except the ejection. I don't want to say don't discourage them but this has been one of the best learning experiences We've had and is almost therapeutic after school. If you want show them my video and warn them of that engines falling down on their heads especially if they want to go bigger. Best regards.

DeltaFuturistics said:

I'm currently a high schooler and have been developing r-candy engines for the past whole school year. We have a teacher supervising us the whole time and we haven't had a single mishap(knock on wood). To be honest we actually have made consistent and reliable r-candy engine using paper tubing(like ones used in Estes engines). The tube is from skylighter. They easily kick to 1500-2000 ft. We use think 1/2 inch plexiglass to shield the engines during testing and use a fume hood to test propellant. The issue is going bigger. Probably one of the scariest things we've done is moved on to PVC engines we've had two fail due to over pressurization actually have a vid...here:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4wjYio4TlRo . In reality we should have painted it a neon pink or orange just in case. This was scary but still we we're prepared for it very well except the ejection. I don't want to say don't discourage them but this has been one of the best learning experiences We've had and is almost therapeutic after school. If you want show them my video and warn them of that engines falling down on their heads especially if they want to go bigger. Best regards.

Click to expand...

Very informative and well done video which clearly illustrates Murphy's Law. Hard hats might be a good idea in lieu of a formal bunker and distance is your friend. If you are going to be using PVC for testing purposes, you might consider the information contained here: https://www.space-rockets.com/newbook.html Good luck to you and your fellow students.:handshake:

tmacklin said:

Very informative and well done video which clearly illustrates Murphy's Law. Hard hats might be a good idea in lieu of a formal bunker and distance is your friend. If you are going to be using PVC for testing purposes, you might consider the information contained here: https://www.space-rockets.com/newbook.html Good luck to you and your fellow students.:handshake:

Click to expand...

I appreciate it. Some custom hard hats would be sweet. Will definitely look into that link, thanks.

I have been flying high power rockets for over 10 years using "rock Candy" motors with great success. It is a great way to get into motor making with minimal danger if done correctly. The u-tube videos one often sees are indeed the scary side of this mode of making this type of propellant. It is difficult to use common table sugar (sucrose) as the fuel in sugar motors as it melts at too high of a temperature and crystallizes too easily. The use of low melting sugars and various recrystallization techniques are the methods to use as detailed by the web site listed below and others (mine at www.ajolleyplace.com). Also, one should always start out using commercial motors before attempting to make motors from scratch.

Ten times less expensive.

Not quite a "scare you straight" link, but some good information:
https://apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter135.pdf

I know that a lot of high school kids (myself included, at the time) have some trouble seeing things in a broader perspective, but I think that the "tarnishing our reputation" aspect is an important one to discuss. Every time someone injures themselves and/or others with a homebrew-rocket-experiment gone wrong, some parent says "Sorry, kid. I ... I saw on the news about a kid getting really badly hurt. Maybe I could get you a nice bouncy ball instead of this Estes kit?"

I think experimentation is REALLY important for developing minds.
I think that failure is also really important -- being able to dust off your knees and say "well, crap" and press on is really important.

But you need to engage in experiments and failures that leave you with life and limb intact.

What's the best way to get teenagers to do (or at least really want to do) something? Tell them they can't, no way, no circumstances, never ever. Exaggerating the dangers will just make you lose credibility. So I think it's fine to say "this is what can happen if you do it wrong", but you should be honest about what it takes to do it right (it's not impossible. It can be dangerous if done improperly, but so is driving a car, shooting a gun, swimming in a pool - or launching commercial HPR). Smart kids like to learn. Hell, I enjoy reading about rcandy motors even though I have no intention to build one anytime soon - it's neat stuff. So I'd vote for letting them learn by reading, both about the dangers and the appropriate methods, then say "So now you know how complicated it is to do this properly, and how much can go wrong if you don't - still want to do that, or just want to fly rockets? I'll buy you an Aerotech".

Oberon said:

What's the best way to get teenagers to do (or at least really want to do) something? Tell them they can't, no way, no circumstances, never ever. Exaggerating the dangers will just make you lose credibility. So I think it's fine to say "this is what can happen if you do it wrong", but you should be honest about what it takes to do it right (it's not impossible. It can be dangerous if done improperly, but so is driving a car, shooting a gun, swimming in a pool - or launching commercial HPR). Smart kids like to learn. Hell, I enjoy reading about rcandy motors even though I have no intention to build one anytime soon - it's neat stuff. So I'd vote for letting them learn by reading, both about the dangers and the appropriate methods, then say "So now you know how complicated it is to do this properly, and how much can go wrong if you don't - still want to do that, or just want to fly rockets? I'll buy you an Aerotech".

Click to expand...

Well-put. Ultimately, I think a big chunk of the problem is that teenagers think they're invincible.

It sounds like these "kids" are pretty scientifically minded and sophisticated. If so, scare tactics probably won't work. They never have and never will. Just see Reefer Madness if you want a comical example of the government trying scare tactics.
Instead, mentor them like others have suggested. Help them to understand the reactions, the pressures involved, and the honest risks. They are at greatest risk when they don't really understand it and least risk when they grasp the potential by understanding the principles. Their respect for the risk will grow with their understanding, but simply showing them the worst may only make things worse, especially when they figure out there are others out there who do work with sugar propellants safely.

ndzied1 said:

I have a friend who told me that his high-schooler showed him a video of him and his friends test burning their batch of Rocket Candy.

I'm looking for information that he can use to educate (scare) his son and friends away from this approach and toward commercially available motors.

They are a smart bunch. They have launched instrumented weather balloons to +100k ft. and were even featured during Weather Day at the White Sox Cellular Field hosted by one of the country's premier meteorologists, Tom Skilling.

Anyway, Help in getting them steered in the right direction is greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

So here we are over six months later...what was the result? Did they blow themselves up? Were they successful? Did they lose interest and find something else to do?

I would be curious also. After this bump I saw this thread and how cringeworthy it was, then saw even more cringeworthy posts. Not a young whipper snapper anymore, but was involved with rocketry as a youngin back before TRA even allowed candy propellant at launches. I read a lot, ended up with Terry McCreary's book, read every single page on Nakka's site the day they were posted(he was more active with updates then), and any other place I could get information. I even got to meet Nakka, one of my rocketry idols.
They keys were understanding melting points vs. caramelization points vs. ignition points, always to work outside away from buildings a bit, and always use a temperature controlled electric frier. Never use an open flame burner. I didn't even like the idea of using a hot plate. I had a rocket club mentor who I did APCP stuff with.

I had to deal with a lot of bullshit from some club folks and internet folks naysaying and such, primarily because of a lack on knowledge. But I had good references and other good people to work with and it made all the difference.

Mentor and show these kids the ropes, and if you don't know the ropes, help them find said ropes, because otherwise they will find them on their own. Introduce a sense of respect for the material, points of risk and how to mitigate risk. Don't try to scare them to commercial motors because that's retarded. Anybody with half a brain can see through it.

Rocketry is really in that there are different kinds of flying people can focus on. Some people just really like making motors and are less interested in the process of flying. Some people like the satisfaction of both. If the kids aren't mixing flash powder in glass jars with metal spoons, count yourself lucky and roll with it.

No one has blown themselves up. I think they made one batch of candy and moved on to other things. I'll call my friend and find out their latest interests and post back.

DavidMcCann said:

I could be off here, but I believe the danger in rcandy is cooking it, not so much the lighting it part.....

Click to expand...

This is generally true and that can be minimized by proper safety procedures. Sounds like the unfortunate incident that is being discussed would have been avoided by lighting it a safe distance.

when i was a kid, scare tactics made me want to do what i wasn't supposed to do even more.

why not maybe explain the importance of safety and correctly and point them to where they can find information on how to achieve both?

out of curiousity, how did their test burn go?