Frank Stein

Hmm, not sure if I could buy it in small enough quantities here, Flaming. And wouldn't it be a little tricky to use that way? I've never played around with that stuff.

Scientific accuracy in a movie?! I've never seen that, Farmboy! Yeah, none of my audience are going to know what nuclear fuel looks like, anyway. So, it'll look like whatever I tell them it looks like! LOL! That's one of the fun things about making movies. Thanks.

Aah, I never thought of that! Yes, that wouldn't be good. Thanks, John.

I'm just bringing a conversation I started in the "Introduction" thread to a more appropriate forum. I plan to use the two fluids from "glow sticks" to simulate a "nuclear fuel" in a beaker being discovered by the protagonist in my film. I have tried it and the effect is very striking, and the light emitted is adequate for video. But although it's a brilliant effect, I thought I might be able to give it a bit more punch by making fumes rise from the coloured fluid when they're mixed. The traditional way of getting "chemical fumes" in movies is to plonk some dry ice into water. So I was wondering, what might happen if I had a few small pellets, (about the size of tic-tacs) in the beaker with the first fluid, when I poured in the other fluid? I understand one of the chemicals in those sticks is plan peroxide, but I'd not sure what the other one is. I have, however, read that it is non-toxic. But would it remain benign if CO2 was bubbled into it? Anyone have any ideas on that? Thanks.

Yes, that would look a bit more dramatic than a wispy vapour. But it seems it has to be ignited, to give smoke. My character will only be mixing chemicals from beaker to beaker, no flame involved. Time for some lateral thinking. I show the fluid in the first beaker being poured into the second beaker, then have a cutaway to his face, looking startled, then back to the second beaker which now has vapour rising, (from a very small smoke bomb sitting on the bottom of the beaker but protected from the fluid by, say, some tinfoil. I'll try that, and let you all know how I go. Thanks for the tip, Michel. Hope I can buy Potassium Nitrate where I live...

Sorry. Made a pointless post but can't find a delete button.

Not possible, Hypervalent. This is a small film set in a closed room, (to keep the sound man happy), and I can't expect my actor to handle acid and ammonia and still remember his lines! So, I'm beginning to think there is no really safe option. Looks like I'll have to add it in post. Thanks, all, for the replies, anyway.

It's safe, but it doesn't give the effect that I want. I need to have the fumes being generated as soon as one chemical meets the other. He pours (or drops) a chemical from one container into another container that already has a chemical in it. When the two meet, fumes rise.

Hmmm, it's different. And it's also slightly more defensible as a method of time travel. After all, we can already "travel through time" simply be evoking memories, and deep memories can be accessed by "mind-altering" drugs, I guess. Only thing is, it's not really visual. For a time travel movie, you've just got to have an exotic contraption with lights and moving parts that make strange noises, etc.. The money scene is always when the machine starts up and things start to happen. And I've already started making that prop. As for the fuel fumes, there's an example in the third "Back To The Future" movie, when the bartender sloppily pours a whiskey into a shot glass and some of it spills on to the bartop. White fumes instantly rise around the glass. I guess the bar was treated with something that would react when the "whiskey" hit it, but I don't know what they used. Obviously it must have been a harmless substance, because the actor was right up close to it. Thanks for your thoughts anyway, Michel. SMF, I'm thinking more along the lines of a small wisp of vapour rising from the beaker/test tube/bottle when the two chemicals are mixed. Something like the vapour that comes from acid, but without the stinging and the ow it hurts me factor!

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it is! How did you guess? Thanks for the welcome, Michel.

Hello, I'm Frank - Frank Stein... yes, it's pathetic, really, isn't it. Anyway, I'm not a chemist or a physicist or anywhere near as highly edumacated as that; I just make amateur movies. That's why I'm here. I have posted a question in the Chemistry forum, and I'm sure someone will have just the right answer to it. Meanwhile, it's off to the Land of Nod for me. Cheers.

Hi, all. I've just signed on and since the maître d' didn't meet me at the door, I thought I'd just come straight over to the forum that interests me most and say Hi. Hi. I have a question, too. I make amateur films. I'm planning one in which a scientist has built a Time Machine, and is looking for ways to power it. He's kind of a hybrid contemporary-plus-turn-of-the-century scientist, (well, it's only a movie), and he doesn't have access to nuclear fuel of any kind. But his machine requires lots of energy to "kick-start" it. More than, say, 1.21 gigawatts. I have a scene where he adds two chemicals together trying to produce a useable fuel, and when they mix, the result gives off white fumes. I don't want to use the traditional dry ice trick, I want something that will give off lingering visible fumes, without the bubbles, and also be totally safe for my actor to be close to. Can anyone suggest anything along those lines? Thanks.