I don't know. What does NFPA say about it? Or ask DOT and ATF how they'd feel about an certifying authority that lends its credibility to manufacturers and shippers of unlicensed motors. Even if there was nothing in the law requiring the certifying authority to confirm compliance, how likely would those agencies be to work with that organization in the future?
There's a lot more to consider than just our wants. In the regulatory sense, our wants don't amount to a hill of beans.
DOT and ATF have demanded NAR and TRA stop doing it and they refuse. And you have been told this by me, by them (public admissions) numerous times and you still post this crap.
Contest use is only a tip of the iceberg. My #1 concern: are they reliable? I don't want to buy motors that will CATO, destroying my rocket, maybe starting a grass fire, and perhaps causing injury.
#2, what is their actual performance? Back in the days before certification MANY motors didn't do what they claimed. Many were under impulse. Some WAY under, to the point that if you thought you had an H150, you might only have a G70. Makes a BIG difference if your rocket needs an H150. But some were actually over impulse by a considerable margin. Do a simulation based onthe claimed data, and you might go higher than you thought. Maybe high enough to violate your waiver.
And part of the performance is the DELAY test results. NAR has always given this information, but TRA TMT has been silent on delay accuracy since they ousted Cato and declared that "all delays are accurate" when we know damn well that this is NOT the case. While some complain about bonus delays, I've had several rockets destroyed by extremely short delays: 6 second delays that end up 2 second delays, or 10 second delays that end up 3 second delays. And these are all on HPR motors tested by TRA TMT that I've never been able to get delay test results on.
Well, you DO need to know that your cars SPEEDOMETER is reasonably accurate or you're liable to collect a few undeserved speeding tickets. In fact most cars read high, both to prevent this problem, and to make the odometer run faster, thus expiring the warranty sooner, and making you think you're getting better mileage than you really are.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
LOC IV on the
make our 5:1
be in serious
bust a waiver.
Back in the early days of HPR, no one really knew what the motors actually did. What was the actual total impulse of the H89-7 I certified with? No one really knows. The manufacturer claims it was a 200 ns H, but maybe it was only a G. It could have been any where between 150 and 250 ns and I'd have never nown the difference. And what was the delay? The manufacturer made IIRC H89-11s. Way too long for a LOC-IV. He custom cut it down for me, and told me it was about 7 seconds. It seemed good in flight, but I don't know if it was 5, 7, 9, or something else. I'd really like to know exactly what I'm getting.
All that testing tells me what to expect.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
DOT and ATF don't _care_ about whether or not NAR or TRA have a given motor "listed as certified".
ATF seems to be more concerned about the political implications of the off-the-shelf availability to the general public (some of whom haven't even had background checks! *gasp*) of prefabricated solid systems with gross performance levels that _apparently_ overlaps the little end of the army stuff.
DOT does the first few tests on the list and says "That stuff is barely dangerous enough to be class 1.3c if you have a huge chunk of it. Come back when you have something interesting enough to be worth doing all the tests..."
-dave w
The odometer test signs on the side of the roads are a private citizen approach to dealing with thaT ASSUMING THE GEARS BETWEEN MPH AND MILES TRAVELED ARE IN ANY WAY RELATED.
Jerry
Capsoff.
Point.
Sounds like a case of "flimsical rocketitis" to me. ;-)
H123-S anyone?
What is screwy is the odometer/speedo on both my newer bikes. They indicate a much higher than actual speed, but the odometer is spot on. Atlanta may be one of the fastest cities in the country now (according to the evening news) but no way should people be streaming past when my speedo is reading 105 mph and I am riding in the right lane.
Are you sure your speedo isn't calibrated in kph? 105 would be about 65 mph, which in Atlanta would mean that just about everybody would be passing you. [I've driven I-285, aka the Georgia Autobahn]
LOL...
~ Duane Phillips.
Who knows? Both bikes are like that, though the Suzuki is worse. It's evidently quite common now. None of my older bikes were like that.
What about new cars?
Credibility only to the specs of the motor. We are not required to do even that! But that is all that the MAJORITY of entusiasts are looking for!
Raunchy garbarge, Ray. It is the FIRST and FORMOST consideration. Otherwise our group is really just another lawgiver, and not an enabling organization.
>--- NFPA 1125 - Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors, 2001 Ed. (excerpted for editorial review)
8.1 Certification of Model Rocket Motors, Motor-Reloading Kits, and Components.8.2.1 A prerequisite for certification of a high power rocket motor or motor-reloading kit shall be its prior classification by DOT, or competent authority as a Division 1.3. or 1.4 explosive, or a written acknowledgment from DOT, or one of its approved testing agencies, that the high power rocket motor or motor-reloading kit is a flammable solid.
Really? DOT doesn't do testing or require its approval for APCP motors? Then how have other manufacturers such as AT, CTI, AMW and Ellis been getting their motors tested and approved?
Are they as slipshod about other materials? "Well shoot, that stuff passed the first couple tests, why bother with the whole series? Just tell 'em it's ok."
Excuse me, but I believe that motor testing is a requirement of NFPA. And you haven't addressed the issue of the certifying authorities' standing with the regulatory agencies. Regardless of the law, those agencies might take a dim view of any certifying authority that approved motors which are illegal to ship or sell. Can you prove that this would not be the case? Until you can, it's premature to demand the certifying authorities put an end to those requirements.
You've either missed my point, or ignored it. What we _want_ will always take a backseat to what the law requires or allows. For instance, you might _want_ to be allowed to purchase TNT without permits or ID. But until the law allows it, you're not going to find many vendors who will let you do that, and it would be pointless to demand that they do. The fact that you want it doesn't give the vendor any power to do anything about it.
Iz quoted from NFPA:
Ok, here we have proof that DOT classification is a requirement of NFPA regs. Until that changes, TRA must verify that any motors submitted for certification be tested and approved by DOT. That DOT classification can be either as a 1.3 or 1.4 explosive, OR as a flammable solid.
J U S T Jerry
By analogy except for CTI and ACS.
I believe motor testing is something started for specs and got expanded for fear. I know it is not required.
And you
Can you prove it would be?
Until you can, it's best freedoms are exercized before they are lost.
Until you can, it's
organization. >>
Well, now, since you've cropped the background statement (again) it isn't really worth chasing anymore, is it?
What we _want_ will always take a
Are we talking about TNT? I wasn't.
without permits or ID. But until the law allows it,
~ Duane Phillips.
This should be in the FAQ.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.