Re: strange burst in consumer shell

missmonkey****ne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 fired this volley in news:4f8f9647-6c2c-4a78-
8dbc-f43087a438cd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Also, the notion that shell wall thickness being pro****tionally
> relative to larger shells is bunk. The size of the shell has nothing
> to do with the interaction of gas pressure with containment strength
> over time. We could get off onto the topic of dwell time (containment
> duration) and the effective relation****p of break brissance on casing
> strength, but for lack of a lengthy explanation, just accept that gas
> pressure/gas volume /time/containment have nothing to do with shell
> size. Shell size has an effect on each of those (except time)
> independently, but size and wall thickness ratios are not
> interdependent. Shell size is not in the formula for relative
> potential energy all other things being equally upscaled.

I did not suggest that shell size directly impacts wall thickness ratio.
It is a fact, rather than a method, that the walls of small shells 
available commercially are thicker in pro****tion to the size of the shell 
than are those of large shells.  It's an assembly process limitation, not 
a design characteristic.

Thicker walls of the same quality paper will result in higher pressures 
before wall failure.  The dwell will be longer than with a thinner wall.  
The internal temperature will rise higher.  Star ignition will be more 
complete (even if they blow out again after leaving).

None of these things are requisite for small shells; they're simply by-
products of the means by which they're made.

LLoyd