Would confetti work as wadding, and double as tracking powder?

madcow rocketry
Shop deals on ebay
the model rocket show
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
B

BABAR

Builds Rockets for NASA
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
6,268
Interestingly enough, confetti does come in a flameproof version (for the record, I haven't tried it, but given it is a party item like crepe paper, which is flameproof, it is not surprising)
references

https://www.amazon.com/Mylar-Confet...lameproof+confetti&qid=1584474044&sr=8-2&th=1
https://www.confettisupermarket.com/biodegradable-tissue-confetti/

both are listed as flameproof, the second source also says it is biodegradable (will win some points with landowners of the rocket launch site.)

It is a bit pricey, amazon is 1$ per ounce. Second source is 31 euros per 1 kg bag with the VAT.

I am wondering if this would work as a replacement for wadding?

In addition to the cool factor (every launch a party! @Daddyisabar are you listening!?), this would also serve the same purpose as tracking powder, except I think this might even be easier to see than tracking powder (it has a mylar version which should sparkle in sunlight in the biodegradable version!)

Anybody try this (or see any significant downsides?)
 
Quest's wadding is the same as the tissue "pomp" squares sold at party stores and online. I am sure it is the same material as the confetti. The tissue squares probably work better because the gaps left by the confetti could allow hot particles through.

Like with "dog barf," you would probably need to fill more of the body tube with confetti to be as effective as a sheet or two of the tissue.
 
Please be sensitive to where you would be dispersing the confetti. Although biodegradable*, it's still going to look like a bunch of trash strewn about. Not worth losing a launch site over.

*You shouldn't even be considering the non-biodegradable stuff.
 
I think that most of the confetti would stay in the rocket if enough were used for it to be effective, but I agree that we should avoid littering.

Tissue pomp squares will work better and are easier to pick up if they are ejected.

Chris Michielssen did a blog post on the biodegradability of Estes versus Quest wadding:

https://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2014/05/unscientific-wadding-degrade-test.html

I think he should have stuck the samples in the soil where microbes would have helped degrade them, but his conclusion that the tissue pomp wadding takes longer to degrade is probably true. Confetti might degrade a little faster than the squares, but probably not as fast as Estes' toilet-paper based wadding.
 
When I brought this up in another thread, my intent was confetti over the wadding, whether over or under the parachute, or in the case of the saucer on that thread perhaps there'd be no chute at all. The point is, I wouldn't trust the confetti alone to either protect a chute or be fully ejected without wadding under it to both stop the gas and particles and push the confetti out.
 
I think the internet is getting to me today...... We have no problem throwing 100grams of sparking titanium sponges on the ground but put 100 grams of confetti 2000 feet into the air and all of a sudden we are Seth Green..... just saying.....
 
jqavins said:
When I brought this up in another thread, my intent was confetti over the wadding, whether over or under the parachute, or in the case of the saucer on that thread perhaps there'd be no chute at all. The point is, I wouldn't trust the confetti alone to either protect a chute or be fully ejected without wadding under it to both stop the gas and particles and push the confetti out.
Click to expand...
I’ll take the blame on this one, I started the thread.
Agree deploying it at 200 or 300 feet might be just for show, and qualify as littering. On the other hand, deploying at 1000 or 2000 feet might help visualize a rocket that might otherwise be hard to track, and from that altitude I think the dispersal would be pretty good.

Anyway, just a thought.
 
BABAR said:
I’ll take the blame on this one, I started the thread.
Agree deploying it at 200 or 300 feet might be just for show, and qualify as littering. On the other hand, deploying at 1000 or 2000 feet might help visualize a rocket that might otherwise be hard to track, and from that altitude I think the dispersal would be pretty good.

Anyway, just a thought.
Click to expand...
How about Mylar Streamers, like really long ones. Reusable and will flash in the sunlight like crazy
 
Yukon@K-9 Rocket Tech said:
How about Mylar Streamers, like really long ones. Reusable and will flash in the sunlight like crazy
Click to expand...
I have thought that adding a long Mylar streamer to a chute recovery rocket would make it easy to see and recover, especially if it lands in the bushes. Downsides are space, weight, and potential tangling.
 
So it's OK to dump loads of aluminum an titanium oxides and potassium carbonate* on the ground, but not small pieces of biodegradable paper. The former are harmless, the latter might even be a little bit beneficial to soil but is more visible.

* A combustion product of black powder. There may also be some potassium oxide.
 
jqavins said:
So it's OK to dump loads of aluminum an titanium oxides and potassium carbonate* on the ground, but not small pieces of biodegradable paper. The former are harmless, the latter might even be a little bit beneficial to soil but is more visible.

* A combustion product of black powder. There may also be some potassium oxide.
Click to expand...
Yes. People are less bothered by things they can't see.
 
Some interesting discussion.

Anybody try the mylar streamers? Not bird tape, actual mylar, like emergency blankets are made from. :dontknow:
 
lakeroadster said:
Some interesting discussion.

Anybody try the mylar streamers? Not bird tape, actual mylar, like emergency blankets are made from. :dontknow:
Click to expand...
It works but it tears easily if the edge of the streamer gets nicked, a better material is the 2 mil (or thicker) Graphix metalized mylar film its a bit stiffer and less prone to tear off and doesn't split and its similar to the stuff used in competion streamers.
 
Our boy scouts are using orange Chalk line powder to show up against gray sky. It is amazing how well it works. They fold about two heaping tablespoons of it into Estes wad paper and it is put in after they put in the regular number of sheets then the pack and then the parachute.
 
Gerald said:
Our boy scouts are using orange Chalk line powder to show up against gray sky. It is amazing how well it works. They fold about two heaping tablespoons of it into Estes wad paper and it is put in after they put in the regular number of sheets then the pack and then the parachute.
Click to expand...

So does that mean after the launch the scouts look like pumpkins as it drifts down onto all of you? 😜
 
lakeroadster said:
Some interesting discussion.

Anybody try the mylar streamers? Not bird tape, actual mylar, like emergency blankets are made from. :dontknow:
Click to expand...
I have cut strips from those mylar space blankets. They are dirt cheap cutting a straight line is a pain but for lightweight LPR stuff it works.
 
rharshberger said:
It works but it tears easily if the edge of the streamer gets nicked, a better material is the 2 mil (or thicker) Graphix metalized mylar film its a bit stiffer and less prone to tear off and doesn't split and its similar to the stuff used in competion streamers.
Click to expand...
Nice! Where can I buy this ?
 
Gerald said:
Our boy scouts are using orange Chalk line powder to show up against gray sky. It is amazing how well it works. They fold about two heaping tablespoons of it into Estes wad paper and it is put in after they put in the regular number of sheets then the pack and then the parachute.
Click to expand...
I always pack construction chalk in my range box. Blue is for cloudy days, red for blue skies or whichever I think will show up better.
 

Similar threads

B
Heli-Bomber--- RSO-Proof? Optional Bombs Away! (or not) You Choose!
Replies
2
Views
862
Daddyisabar
Daddyisabar
J
Hi this is not a rocket project but a reactor motor project using rocket motors???
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
JATO
J
D
Notes from the UK on foreign adventures
Replies
12
Views
2K
Jerry Irvine
Jerry Irvine

Latest posts

Back
Top