Adjusting Aerotech delays

Trying to set a new standard for spewing shit Brian?

At least you are good at SOMETHING.

Oh well, so much for distracting people from bickering with some humor....

Too bad, so sad.

:)

How do you "know" that? Where's your proof?

Hogwash! I fly lots of AT motors and have found their delays to be very reliable. I've also seen plenty of AT motors flown by others without having any delay problems.

This is just another example of Jerry making up crap just to slam a perceived "enemy".



It applies to all motors.

What verifiable proof do you have that AT or any other manufacturer is exceeding the tolerance? "Jerry says so" isn't proof of anything.

What NFPA code regulates speed of ignition?

BTW, I recall quite clearly the time I tried to fly your K firestarter. It sat smoldering on the pad a lot longer than 3 seconds, then produced a short burst of thrust sufficient to lift it 20 feet into the air. It didn't come up to full pressure until after it hit the ground. That was a NEW motor too, not an old one. You ought to remember this incident too, since you were present at the launch. So if you're going to claim that AT is somehow violating NFPA codes because an old motor was a little slow to light, you'd better take the beam out of your own eye first.

In article snipped-for-privacy@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com at snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote on 6/8/05 2:15 PM:

Thanks for the feedback Ray!

Jerry, consider this a challenge. Please stop badmouthing AeroTech/RCS and start speaking positive things. You might be pleased and surprised at the results.

FYI, The product being produced by the Cedar City facility and crew is superb. Warranty issues are currently running less than 1% for AeroTech products...actually closer to 0.1%. Also, most dealer orders are being filled within 1-2 weeks, many in just a few days.

Gary

Gary wrote,

You too huh? :-) I love QC stats.

Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

887-2370 x222 Toronto (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (410) 571-8292 Annapolis

Look at the delay test results on the NAR S&T web pages. It clearly shows that several of the AT delays are seriously wacked from what AT claims they are. In fact, in order to get them certified, AT had to chenge the designations, but they did it in a way that is VERY confusing. THe F39-6 is NAR certified as an F39-3 and the F39-9 is certified as an F39-6. So when someone refers to t he F39-6, which one are thye refering to.

TRA keeps all of the delay test results a secret, in violation of NFPA requirements. No one outside TMT knows how accurate the delays they tested are, if they actually comply with NFPA requirements, of if TMT even tests the delays for accuracy. It's been a huge ongoing cover-up since 1994. And it leaves TRA and TMT open to huge liability if a serioius accident ever results from a TMT certified motor with an innaccurate delay.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Many, many, many posts to rmr?

Direct observation at group launches?

You don't know?

The rule was not added yet. Maybe it was my fault?

Jerry

That is sensationally good news.

Well Jerry, your ignorance of what constitutes "verifiable proof" certainly hasn't improved in the years since I saw you in court. As you may recall, at that time you thought that writing "stolen motor" on someone's flight card constituted legal evidence that the motor was stolen.

Your word is less than worthless, especially in regard to anything related to Aerotech or TRA. And your statement that "bonus delays are common" doesn't match my own observations, nor that of anyone else I know. Besides, how many sanctioned launches have you attended recently, without being kicked out? How often do you fly AT motors?

You're the one who claims such a regulation exists, so prove it. Post the NFPA code that regulates the speed of ignition -- I'm sure we'd all be interested in reading it, and finding out exactly how much time a motor is allowed to take coming up to pressure.

You're so fond of quoting idiots calling you a hero, or quoting CFRs out of context. Yet whenever you make this ridiculous claims, suddenly you're reluctant to quote anything relevant to your claim.

i

...

Don't you have a copy of the safety code Ray?

From the HPR Safety Code (aka NFPA 1127) dated "2/98 1:02":

2-12 Ignition Systems. ... 2-12.3 The launch system and igniter combination shall be designed, installed, and operated so the liftoff of the rocket shall occur winthin three seconds of actuation of the launch system. ...

An old NAR Model Rocket Safety Code from 7/99 (presumably based on NFPA

1122) required 1 second (this is for model rockets only).

Dave Morey

That pertains to igniter and launch systems, not the motor; unless I'm reading the quote wrong??

Fred Wallace

No.

You are OFTEN wrong, especially including now. You obviously cannot read the obvious (again).

Jerry

Just curious...

It appears that the wording says that it should be designed, installed, and operated so that the liftoff occurs within three seconds...

Just what, exactly, happens if something does not work as designed?

So, the next time that I have an igniter burn through without the rocket lifting off, I should be arrested?

If that is the case, is there any rocketeer, anywhere, that shouldn't immediately have the book thrown at them???

Get real. The intent of the law is obviously meant that OPTIMALLY, these are the things that should occur. Just as congress could not repeal the law of gravity, there is no law that is going to be able to repeal the laws of physics. Realistically, things occur that prevent things from occurring optimally. The only way I could see anyone ever being prosecuted under this law would be if the DESIGN were such that the system didn't operate properly within three seconds. For example, if I had a system with a built in delay (for whatever reason) such that there's no possibility that the liftoff couldn't occur in three seconds, I would be violating the law (using some Rube Goldberg device from the 'mousetrap' game comes to mind). But there's simply no WAY that this law is enforceable, as it attempts to overrule the laws of physics.

For example, the law says that you must not run into the car in front of you. But, if your brakes fail, did you break the law??? No, you didn't (even though you might be CIVILLY liable, but that's an example of @#$@ happens).

So, what exactly is your POINT (sorry, couldn't resist) here, Jerry?

David Erbas-White

Yes, I'm aware of that. It refers specifically to the launch system and igniter, and says nothing about the motor. The only reason that's even in the code is to keep people from using slow fuse or other time-delayed launch systems.

As normal "BIG FINE", your opinion is not relevant, but is consistent with someone who takes liberties with the truth.

Fred

Please don't confuse Jerry with facts based on common sense; it only confuses and frustrates him. Sorry, I couldn't resist..(:-)

Fred