Shells size vs. Tube size...did iI just get bad advice?

[PyroGyro]

I was at a local fireworks retailer looking to buy a bunch of ball shells with tails. The clerk told me that I should not use these smaller ball shells in DR11 tubes because the shells were too small. I was bewildered, and asked "Are you sure?" a couple of times. After I got home after NOT buying the shells because I wasn't about to build a DR9 rack for this crap, I again said to myself....no I think they are totally wrong.

Here's a link to the shell:https://www.fireworks.us/Absolute-Power-p/rl290.htm

Yes, the inner diameter of the tube that came with the shells was smaller than DR11 by 1/4", but I still I think I'll be just fine shooting them from my DR11 tubes. What do you think?

Btw, does anyone know of anyone that makes 1.75 cannister shells with tails? If so, can you name them? I cannot find any.

Thanks!

[Rick_In_Tampa]

Well in my little mind, if a business owner is telling me NOT to use his/her product in a certain way, I would take that to heart.

Additionally, if the tubes that come with the shells have a smaller inside diameter than the tubes you plan to use, that should be bell #2 going off in your head.

My knowledge of physics also tells me that the more space the launch gas has to escape up and around the shell during launch, the lower the shell will be launched (if at all!) into the air. So you'll be risking low breaks or possible flower-potting. I'm pretty sure that's not what' you're looking to do.

So I would err on the side of caution and use the correct size tube.

Just my $0.02.

[joewad]

You were correct in heeding sellers advice. I've dabbled a bit in 1.4 ball shells and have found some brands to be smaller than others forcing you to use their package provided tubes. They are smaller than 1.75".

Two (2) 1.4 artillery shells with tails come to mind, Jake's Fireworks Super Magnum and Wild Dragon's Looks Dangerous. I lean towards Looks Dangerous because of performance and price. But these are both ball shells.

[PyroGyro]

Thanks for the advice guys, better safe than sorry, now I just have to find 1.75 canister shells with tails. Either that or get a DR9 rack, which I'm not sure is worth investing in.

[joewad]

Thanks for the advice guys, better safe than sorry, now I just have to find 1.75 canister shells with tails. Either that or get a DR9 rack, which I'm not sure is worth investing in.

The 2 ball shells mentioned above shoot fine from a DR11 tube. I have said for years now there is a market out there if someone would promote a decent performing canister shell with tail.

[PyroGyro]

The 2 ball shells mentioned above shoot fine from a DR11 tube. I have said for years now there is a market out there if someone would promote a decent performing canister shell with tail.

The Super Magnums are the same size as the Absolute Power shells, and they were right next to each other on the shelf. Go figure. Btw, fyi, the Super Magnum box has changed and no longer says "with tails". I have no idea if they have tails still or not but this is what the box looked like that I saw. https://www.thefireworkssuperstore.com/shop/super-magnum-shells

[Mississippipyro]

Any truth to a longer tube length providing more lift and making shells go higher?

[Rick_In_Tampa]

In a word, no.

[AxeElf]

Any truth to a longer tube length providing more lift and making shells go higher?

I'll answer this from a purely theoretical perspective, with no real-world experience or knowledge, and that answer would be yes, to some extent.

That extent would be determined by the amount of lift charge powering the shell out of the tube. To the extent that the gases are still expanding faster than the shell is moving at the time that the shell leaves the tube, any additional acceleration that could have been imparted by the expanding gases in a longer tube will be lost. In other words, yes, with a sufficiently powerful lift charge, the shell will be accelerated more in a longer tube. However, to the extent that the explosion is essentially spent before the shell exits the tube, such that it could impart no further acceleration to the shell, a longer tube would have no positive effect on lift (and could even be argued to impart a negative effect on lift due to additional friction potentially decelerating the shell).

That's the physics of it, but knowing which shells have enough lift charge to potentially benefit from the additional acceleration time a longer tube would provide is the key to knowing whether or not you should use a longer tube. My guess is that with most consumer shells, there is enough of a diminishing return curve that increasing the tube length a couple of inches probably won't provide any appreciable difference to the naked eye.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

Like I said..... No. :p

[Mississippipyro]

So....no lol

[Icooclast]

The 2 ball shells mentioned above shoot fine from a DR11 tube. I have said for years now there is a market out there if someone would promote a decent performing canister shell with tail.

i'm with you. i like the tail effect. whether it be in shells or cakes. i'd love to see a Z cake with cracking tails or really just some more of a variety with tails than there is.

[cptnding]

Both Absolute Power and Super Magnums will work just fine with DR11 tubes. I've used lots of both and never had issues. I really like the tails as well. Sky puking a rack of these looks much better with all the tails going up. If I'm fast fusing a bunch of canisters I'll sometimes mix in these every 3rd or 4th shell.
When I saw your post this morning I remembered I had a couple of the Super Magnums that didn't get used sitting in the garage. Here's one shot out of a DR11 tube. Sorry for the crappy video. My daughter was recording it with my phone and it startled her when it launched lol.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRd6ZIN72IE

[topshelfpyro]

Any truth to a longer tube length providing more lift and making shells go higher?

In a word yes it matters. Longer tubes produce higher shell breaks even in consumer stuff....4300

Note that the tubes are measured in inner length not outer.
For these particular shells which are 1.3 the difference is 25' per inch of tube length from 6" to 16".

The same thing works in consumer cannister shells...…..I have more than 700 tubes and they are all longer than the 12" outside length that "everyone" says to buy because they are just fine. lol

[joewad]

i'm with you. i like the tail effect. whether it be in shells or cakes. i'd love to see a Z cake with cracking tails or really just some more of a variety with tails than there is.

Sounds like someone needs to up their ante to 1.3

[AxeElf]

In a word yes it matters. Longer tubes produce higher shell breaks even in consumer stuff....4300

Note that the tubes are measured in inner length not outer.
For these particular shells which are 1.3 the difference is 25' per inch of tube length from 6" to 16".

The shells tested were 3" shells, which might be expected to have a greater lift charge in them than consumer shells. As I said, the more lift charge, the more explosion; the more explosion, the more expanding gas to continue accelerating the shell through a longer tube length.

And the observed difference was not "25' per inch of tube length"--that would be a linear increase. The actual observed increase was logarithmic in nature, with diminishing returns for mortar lengths greater than about 25". So they observed shells bursting at close to 650 feet from a 25" mortar, and shells bursting just under 700 feet from a 60" mortar--probably not an appreciable difference to the naked eye.

Again, this is what my review of the relevant physics would suggest.

So again, for the amount of lift charge in your typical consumer shells, tube length is probably not going to make an appreciable difference, once you get past that threshold of diminishing returns. You may notice a difference between shells launched from a 6" tube vs. a 12" tube, but you probably wouldn't notice a difference between shells launched from a 12" tube vs. a 15" or even an 18" tube. Maybe with precise measurements you could demonstrate a statistical increase, but I doubt that it would be a noticeable one.

[topshelfpyro]

The shells tested were 3" shells, which might be expected to have a greater lift charge in them than consumer shells. As I said, the more lift charge, the more explosion; the more explosion, the more expanding gas to continue accelerating the shell through a longer tube length.

And the observed difference was not "25' per inch of tube length"--that would be a linear increase. The actual observed increase was logarithmic in nature, with diminishing returns for mortar lengths greater than about 25". So they observed shells bursting at close to 650 feet from a 25" mortar, and shells bursting just under 700 feet from a 60" mortar--probably not an appreciable difference to the naked eye.

Again, this is what my review of the relevant physics would suggest.

So again, for the amount of lift charge in your typical consumer shells, tube length is probably not going to make an appreciable difference, once you get past that threshold of diminishing returns. You may notice a difference between shells launched from a 6" tube vs. a 12" tube, but you probably wouldn't notice a difference between shells launched from a 12" tube vs. a 15" or even an 18" tube. Maybe with precise measurements you could demonstrate a statistical increase, but I doubt that it would be a noticeable one.

So, go out and shoot things with a perspective that is actually usable not underneath (as I have) and see the difference between a 12" (10.5" inside) and a 15" (13.5" inside length) and even a 20". As I stated previously on the 1.3 from 6-16" inside length there was an increase of almost 25" per inch of length of tube on average from 6" to 16" just look at the table! 6"-8" increased 50' (25' per inch), 8"-12" increased the height by another 120' (30' per inch), 12" - 16" another 65' increase (15+' per inch).

Yes, those were 3" shells not consumer 1.75" but that is irrelevant to the question of does a longer tube make a shell go higher because the answer is yes and it doesn't matter if its a consumer or a 1.3 display shell. To simply blow off the facts as "it doesn't matter" or "you can't tell" which is what most answer this question with is frankly bullshit because it factually does matter and yes you can see it (or your audience can at least). The inside length of the included tubes of your better consumer cannister shells are all longer (at least all the ones I bought even the light weight FX comets from dominator) than the 10.5" inside length of the aftermarkets 12" tubes. (Excalibur's used to be the standard that others were judged on and their tubes are 12" INSIDE LENGTH)

[AxeElf]

So, go out and shoot things with a perspective that is actually usable not underneath (as I have) and see the difference between a 12" (10.5" inside) and a 15" (13.5" inside length) and even a 20". As I stated previously on the 1.3 from 6-16" inside length there was an increase of almost 25" per inch of length of tube on average from 6" to 16" just look at the table! 6"-8" increased 50' (25' per inch), 8"-12" increased the height by another 120' (30' per inch), 12" - 16" another 65' increase (15+' per inch).

Yes, those were 3" shells not consumer 1.75" but that is irrelevant to the question of does a longer tube make a shell go higher because the answer is yes and it doesn't matter if its a consumer or a 1.3 display shell. To simply blow off the facts as "it doesn't matter" or "you can't tell" which is what most answer this question with is frankly bullshit because it factually does matter and yes you can see it (or your audience can at least). The inside length of the included tubes of your better consumer cannister shells are all longer (at least all the ones I bought even the light weight FX comets from dominator) than the 10.5" inside length of the aftermarkets 12" tubes. (Excalibur's used to be the standard that others were judged on and their tubes are 12" INSIDE LENGTH)

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Understand that, like you, my "technical" answer is also YES, the length of the tube technically matters; we just differ on whether or not it subjectively matters. It matters a lot when you're talking about the difference between a 3" tube and a 10" tube, but I maintain that the subjective difference in burst altitude achieved from a 12" tube and the burst altitude achieved from a 15" tube (for consumer shells) is negligible due to the rate of diminishing returns--even though it may in fact differ by 10 or 15 actual feet--just as the difference between a 25" tube and a 60" tube was negligible for the 3" shells tested in the study you cited. Nobody can tell with their naked eye if a shell bursts 650 feet in the air or 680 feet in the air, and I don't think people can reliably tell the difference with consumer shells between a 200 foot burst and a 215 foot burst.

So I guess it depends on how you define "does it matter?" If that means will the shell potentially go a few feet higher, then yes, it probably will. If that means will you be able to tell a difference in how high the shell goes with the naked eye, then no, it probably won't.

Just out of curiosity, how high do you think a consumer shell would go if you shot it out of a 200-foot tube?

[cptnding]

In a word yes it matters. Longer tubes produce higher shell breaks even in consumer stuff....4300

Note that the tubes are measured in inner length not outer.
For these particular shells which are 1.3 the difference is 25' per inch of tube length from 6" to 16".

The same thing works in consumer cannister shells...…..I have more than 700 tubes and they are all longer than the 12" outside length that "everyone" says to buy because they are just fine. lol

We can test this theory. You busy this weekend? lol

[chrish]

i have done a fair amount of testing on the length thing. reason being, I have bought a bunch of the irregular tubes from pyroboom.
I wanted to see what length tube I could get away with or when it mattered.

what I found is the following:
I have shot cans out of 10.75 to 15" and could not tell a noticeable difference. so I shoot cans out of mortars that are 11-12". I do not invest in 15" mortars.
ball shells I will shoot out of 9" mortars. no perceived difference.

I am sure it can make a little difference, but my testing was side by side mortar fires. one 12" and the other test mortar. don't get me wrong, there are some shells I put in 12" length because I want what possible height it "may" yield. but for average cans and balls, I stand behind the number I posted above.

still don't believe me, look at the cakes you fire. how long are the mortars in most of these cakes?

to the original questions. 1.5" ball out of 1.91" mortar. yes that does affect lift. does it matter? well that depends on the height you need for safety. I have shot many of junk 1.5" balls out of 1.91" mortars. they broke a little lower. for my situation it didn't matter.

[RoosterWalt]

I did try this before the 4th - with the happy face ball shells and Excalibur canister shells. Now.... what I did was hackish..... I cut off a 6 inch piece of tube from one of the “included” fiberglass tubes and gorilla taped it to another one. So I had one 12” and one say... 18” tube. Fused them up and ran.

I didn’t see any noticeable difference in height... but... I suppose the exact shell would matter.

[topshelfpyro]

We can test this theory. You busy this weekend? lol

this weekend unfortunately yes...?.next weekend not at all! lol I know you actually have the space as well

[topshelfpyro]

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Understand that, like you, my "technical" answer is also YES, the length of the tube technically matters; we just differ on whether or not it subjectively matters. It matters a lot when you're talking about the difference between a 3" tube and a 10" tube, but I maintain that the subjective difference in burst altitude achieved from a 12" tube and the burst altitude achieved from a 15" tube (for consumer shells) is negligible due to the rate of diminishing returns--even though it may in fact differ by 10 or 15 actual feet--just as the difference between a 25" tube and a 60" tube was negligible for the 3" shells tested in the study you cited. Nobody can tell with their naked eye if a shell bursts 650 feet in the air or 680 feet in the air, and I don't think people can reliably tell the difference with consumer shells between a 200 foot burst and a 215 foot burst.

So I guess it depends on how you define "does it matter?" If that means will the shell potentially go a few feet higher, then yes, it probably will. If that means will you be able to tell a difference in how high the shell goes with the naked eye, then no, it probably won't.

Just out of curiosity, how high do you think a consumer shell would go if you shot it out of a 200-foot tube?

Unfortunately it would not even make 200' in a 200' tube the gases would exhaust around the shell, friction would take over and the shell would pop inside the tube...?.

If you have any consumer shells that actually have a burst at 200' please tell everyone which ones they are so we can all buy pallets and pallets of them. :)

I agree that there is a point in which you have diminishing returns just like the table of the 1.3 3"shell which was actually lower out of a 60" tube vs a 47" with the "standard" length being 20". 2x the length of the standard tube produced a burst that was 50% higher. Do you think you could not see a 50% difference in shell height? How about a 25% difference? Using the table for the display shells the difference between an 8" tube and a 16" tube is greater than 50% higher. yes, that tube is 100% longer......

Since we are not talking display shells but instead consumer shells that you buy off the shelf if your happy with the heights you get from a 10.5" inside length tube then by all means use that. Personally I want as high as possible before the burst charge ignites, I prefer seeing a shell still traveling a straight path and then bursting instead of hitting the apex and falling before burst. Most of the time I shoot at an angle with an audience that is elevated (private lake shooting off the dam over the water with the audience on a hill beside the water almost at burst height) you can easily see the differences in shell height (or length in this case)

[topshelfpyro]

i have done a fair amount of testing on the length thing. reason being, I have bought a bunch of the irregular tubes from pyroboom.
I wanted to see what length tube I could get away with or when it mattered.

what I found is the following:
I have shot cans out of 10.75 to 15" and could not tell a noticeable difference. so I shoot cans out of mortars that are 11-12". I do not invest in 15" mortars.
ball shells I will shoot out of 9" mortars. no perceived difference. so, when you did this "test" where exactly were you standing? 30-50' from the tube? yea, exactly move your position so you can actually get a perspective.....

I am sure it can make a little difference, but my testing was side by side mortar fires. one 12" and the other test mortar. don't get me wrong, there are some shells I put in 12" length because I want what possible height it "may" yield. but for average cans and balls, I stand behind the number I posted above.

still don't believe me, look at the cakes you fire. how long are the mortars in most of these cakes? so your saying that your cakes are traveling the same height as the shells you are shooting out of reloadable mortars? That must be one hell of a cake.

to the original questions. 1.5" ball out of 1.91" mortar. yes that does affect lift. does it matter? well that depends on the height you need for safety. I have shot many of junk 1.5" balls out of 1.91" mortars. they broke a little lower. for my situation it didn't matter.


I believe my response is in red above

[topshelfpyro]

The "biggest problem" with consumer shells is the time fuse that hits the burst...…..they are simply to short to really get the height that is possible from a standard consumer shell. The faster you can get the shell moving when it exits the tube the higher it will go before that super short time fuse expires...….

[AxeElf]

Unfortunately it would not even make 200' in a 200' tube the gases would exhaust around the shell, friction would take over and the shell would pop inside the tube...?.

Exactly, so you can't just say, "the longer the tube, the higher the burst" as a hard and fast rule. That generally holds true for very short tubes, but as the tubes get longer, the return on their increased length diminishes, until at some point an extremely long tube would even reduce the burst height as its internal friction becomes a greater decelerating force than the force of the explosion accelerating the shell.

This may even be why they reported a higher average break for their 47" tubes than for their 60" tubes--although I'm not sure I trust the numbers in the table. If the 47" tubes had a higher average break than the 60" tubes, then why do the 47" tubes have a LOWER "normalized burst height" than the 60" tubes? That doesn't make sense to me (although it could be a statistical artifact of having an extremely small sample size, statistically speaking, of only 3 tests on the 47" tubes and only 5 tests on the 60" tubes, depending on what method they used to "normalize" the burst height data).


I agree that there is a point in which you have diminishing returns just like the table of the 1.3 3"shell which was actually lower out of a 60" tube vs a 47" with the "standard" length being 20". 2x the length of the standard tube produced a burst that was 50% higher. Do you think you could not see a 50% difference in shell height? How about a 25% difference? Using the table for the display shells the difference between an 8" tube and a 16" tube is greater than 50% higher. yes, that tube is 100% longer......

Ok, now don't look at the numbers from the table, look at the raw data points plotted on the logarithmic curve of diminishing returns. You can see that the highest shell from the 24" tube burst at almost the exact same height as the lowest shell from the 60" tube--just under 700 feet. I don't think that difference would have been distinguishable with the naked eye, no.

Now granted, those are the two "outliers" from the two tube lengths, but with only 5 trials of each, it's difficult to conclude just how much of an outlier they are. I do believe that the longer tubes had a positive effect on the burst height--and in that technical sense, tube length matters--I just don't believe that the audience is going, "Oh wow, these shells are supposed to burst at over 700 feet, and they're only bursting at 625 feet--they probably should have used mortar tubes that were twice as long as the ones they are using. How disappointing."

In THAT sense, tube length (above a reasonable threshold) does NOT matter.

[topshelfpyro]

I just don't believe that the audience is going, "Oh wow, these shells are supposed to burst at over 700 feet, and they're only bursting at 625 feet--they probably should have used mortar tubes that were twice as long as the ones they are using. How disappointing."

In THAT sense, tube length (above a reasonable threshold) does NOT matter.

LOL! That is a reasonable assumption....

We seem to agree that longer tubes generally equal higher bursts obviously at some point with a diminishing return such as your 200' tube question...?.the point of this was when the OP asked if a longer tube made the shells go higher and the responders said no which is simply not true...??

That seems to be the answer given every time to everyone that asks that question when it is not true.

Maybe a bigger problem with consumer shells is again the time fuse which is much shorter duration than necessary.....or maybe its that way because of the continued mis information of tube length doesn't matter so the manufactures only let the shells fly for 1-1.5 seconds before burst to prevent some of the consumer idiots from killing themselves using 8" tubes...?..

[AxeElf]

the point of this was when the OP asked if a longer tube made the shells go higher and the responders said no which is simply not true...

That seems to be the answer given every time to everyone that asks that question when it is not true.

That was one of the answers given; my answer was...


I'll answer this from a purely theoretical perspective, with no real-world experience or knowledge, and that answer would be yes, to some extent.

I then explained how technically, yes, the tube length matters, but how practically, no, the tube length doesn't matter.

[Mattp]

to help answer the original posters questions... personally i would do the proper shell for the corresponding tube... and ive seen that brothers makes 1.75 ball shells with tails... american chief they're called and SO76 has them... ive never used them myself... but saw them on the website... as much as i do like tails.. i feel in a consumer shell, because of composition limits.. having a tail will take away from the break size.. so will have to do some research to find a happy middle....but if looking for both tail and nice break.. finding it in a low shot count cake may be a better option

[AxeElf]

to help answer the original posters questions... personally i would do the proper shell for the corresponding tube... and ive seen that brothers makes 1.75 ball shells with tails... american chief they're called and SO76 has them... ive never used them myself... but saw them on the website... as much as i do like tails.. i feel in a consumer shell, because of composition limits.. having a tail will take away from the break size.. so will have to do some research to find a happy middle....but if looking for both tail and nice break.. finding it in a low shot count cake may be a better option

I actually like American Chief as far as ball shells go. They have a nice mix of effects, rings, fish, strobes, even jellyfish. They were the only non-canister shells I used this year.

[PyroGyro]

Thanks for the 1.75 American Chief recommendation they look pretty decent and they will be used for fanned sky puke so they're exactly what I'm looking for. I also have a local supplier for them and their price is comparable to an online wholesaler.

[chrish]

I believe my response is in red above

"yea, exactly move your position so you can actually get a perspective....."

no smart ass, I was firing remotely so I could be at an appropriate distance. and as I stated, 12 to 15" mortars showed no consistent, measurable difference.
you already tried this comment with someone else. do you think I would state what I did after reading your last comment if my "test" didn't adhere to your gold standard.

you clearly don't agree. so be it. I (and others) have posted a differing opinion. mine is based on testing to back up my statements. let people pick from the information presented. but you can shove your presumptions that the rest of us are not up to your level up your ass.

[PyroGyro]

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Understand that, like you, my "technical" answer is also YES, the length of the tube technically matters; we just differ on whether or not it subjectively matters. It matters a lot when you're talking about the difference between a 3" tube and a 10" tube, but I maintain that the subjective difference in burst altitude achieved from a 12" tube and the burst altitude achieved from a 15" tube (for consumer shells) is negligible due to the rate of diminishing returns--even though it may in fact differ by 10 or 15 actual feet--just as the difference between a 25" tube and a 60" tube was negligible for the 3" shells tested in the study you cited. Nobody can tell with their naked eye if a shell bursts 650 feet in the air or 680 feet in the air, and I don't think people can reliably tell the difference with consumer shells between a 200 foot burst and a 215 foot burst.

So I guess it depends on how you define "does it matter?" If that means will the shell potentially go a few feet higher, then yes, it probably will. If that means will you be able to tell a difference in how high the shell goes with the naked eye, then no, it probably won't.

Just out of curiosity, how high do you think a consumer shell would go if you shot it out of a 200-foot tube?

I read that pdf article posted. Based off rough in my head numbers, shell size difference of 1.75 vs 3", and tube length of 12 vs 15, I'm guessing you'd see a height difference of about 20ft shooting from a 15 with a 1.75 can. Considering the fact the average 1.75 canister height is about 140ft, it's probably noticeable if you're actually looking for it AND you are shooting the same shells out of 12" tubes at the same time, but it probably won't matter at all to how the show looks or to anyone in the audience otherwise. You also have to factor in where your audience is. If they are closer to the show, the break from the 15" will be further away and not as impressive. If anything, that will be more noticeable. And don't forget to factor in the inconsistency in shell break height seen in a 1.75 consumer shell package. One shell could break as high as 175ft, and the next shell from the same pack could break as low as 120ft. I'll save the extra cash and stick with 12" tubes and less weight in my racks.

[AxeElf]

And don't forget to factor in the inconsistency in shell break height seen in a 1.75 consumer shell package. One shell could break as high as 175ft, and the next shell from the same pack could break as low as 120ft. I'll save the extra cash and stick with 12" tubes and less weight in my racks.

Yeah, that was basically my point. Technically, the tube length matters, in that you may see an AVERAGE increase in height of a few feet. But the variance is great enough that practically, the tube length doesn't matter (after a certain minimum threshold is reached), and your average spectator is not going to be able to tell the difference with the naked eye anyway.

[FruitLeups]

Btw, does anyone know of anyone that makes 1.75 cannister shells with tails? If so, can you name them? I cannot find any.

Thanks!



For tails, the best bang for the buck that I've found (double-pun intended) are the Bang-Kok ball shells from Ninja Fireworks. Not sure how easy those are to find outside of Alabama & Atlanta, though.

Best video on YT is the one by CodyB. First part of the video sucks since he's right underneath and you can't really see the tails very well. But he was smart and had someone videoing from further out and that is shown afterwards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lwr3xxTh4I

[PyroGyro]

For tails, the best bang for the buck that I've found (double-pun intended) are the Bang-Kok ball shells from Ninja Fireworks. Not sure how easy those are to find outside of Alabama & Atlanta, though.

Best video on YT is the one by CodyB. First part of the video sucks since he's right underneath and you can't really see the tails very well. But he was smart and had someone videoing from further out and that is shown afterwards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lwr3xxTh4I


Thanks and I also found another shell with tails, Magnus Appballs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwYj2Z2nr0w

[Rick_In_Tampa]

look at the raw data points plotted on the logarithmic curve of diminishing returns.

OMG... What the hell?!?! :confused:

It was my understanding when I started this hobby that there would be no math involved!!

You lost me right after "look at the..."

After reading all the data and science behind launching consumer shells in this thread, the consensus seems to be what I stated 4 pages ago.

Tube size doesn't matter. It's what you do with your tube that matters.

[Fulliautomatix]

Tube size doesn't matter. It's what you do with your tube that matters.

That's what she said?

[AxeElf]

Tube size doesn't matter. It's what you do with your tube that matters.

Your shell doesn't have to hit the bottom as long as it can reach the sides.

[Rick_In_Tampa]

That's what she said?


Your shell doesn't have to hit the bottom as long as it can reach the sides.

A. Not to me!
B. No comment.

Lol.. You guys are killing me!