Adjusting Aerotech delays

Wait a minute here Ray. This response is reminding me of your "logic" on other matters.

Lets assume the obvious. That a device whose jurisdiction is covered by the safety code necessarily has a model rocket motor actually installed for launch.

I do not feel that is a stretch. You appparantly do.

Ray again (amusing, eh?): "and says nothing about the motor"

2-12.3: "operated so the liftoff of the rocket shall occur winthin three seconds of actuation of the launch system

--liftoff of the rocket--

I do believe that requires the action of the propellant actuated device, er, the model rocket motor.

Jerry

I apologize once again Ray for confusing you with the facts. I'm sorry, so sorry.

As I have said repeatedly, due to poor rule authoring, EVERYTHING we do is technically illegal at some point.

Hence why we should shift to exemptions not regulations. We HAVE the authority to do so.

In those few areas where they do not already exist, mainly regs authored by NAR and TRA themselves.

Jerry

At least you didn't do anything silly like add value to the conversation.

Thank you.

Jerry

I don't think I have ever seen a H123-S that wasn't short. Some of them VERY short.

Liftoff yes, "As a result of the igniter and launch system", (motor working properly is assumed, unless it is a US Rockets Firestarter..(:-))

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

Fred

In general, there is no value in conversation with you; other than the limited entertainment value of your responses, "at best". Especially when you get confused and frustrated. Paid that fine yet????(:-)

Fred

Sure, the liftoff does, but the code itself regulates only the launch system and igniter. That was specified in the section you deliberately cut out, as well as the heading: "Launch Systems".

Yeah, you're a sorry piece of work alright. The guy who usually twists and squirms to come up with the most liberal interpretation of the regs when it applies to himself, now twisting and squirming even harder in a futile attempt to apply the regs governing launch systems to the time it takes a motor to come up to pressure. And for what? Just to take another swipe at a perceived enemy. What a hypocrite! Especially since the motor in question was slow to light due to age (which can be an issue for any brand of motor) and you've long insisted that motor certs should never expire.

r

If you think rocketry should be exempt from all regulations, including state fire regs, you're an idiot. If you think there's even a ghost of a chance that rocketry ever could be exempted from all regs, you're a delusional idiot.

Well, that's settled. You're a delusional idiot.

TRA/NAR do not work in a vacuum, nor do they have authority to write regs without oversight or input from regulatory agencies. They cannot unilaterally grant exemptions nor can they force any regulatory agency to capitulate to their wishes. You know that, of course, but you'd much rather rant and rave against your perceived enemies than face reality.

f

No.

The regulation restricts activities of model rocketeers.

That is not related to your perception of evil intent, which incientally is wrong.

The hypocracy is not in OBSERVERS of the law or its various enforcers (TRA and NAR included), but in the acts of those enforcers to choose a liberal interpretation for their perceived friends and a strict or even non-existent interpretation for their perceived non-friends.

It sems your fears are actually realized among YOUR friends.

Jerry

What he said. I've had a handful of "un-bonus" delays, all on 38mm WL reloads.

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

So long as they are under 2 seconds short they are "legal".

Short of what one might ask?

Jerry

"That is absolute bs & shouldn't happen (except to maybe a few people that we know.)"

- Phil Stein

If Jerry wasn't slamming you, people might get suspicious.

No what? Are you now saying that motor certs should expire?

That's what regulations do.

jerry, put the tube of Testors down, and take a deep, glue free breath of fresh air.

Now, don't you feel better?

See, it is actually possible for us to agree.

It is not slamming to discuss well known "anecdotal" evidence. I respect Gary's reporting of his REPORTED reliability figures. But I know as well as anyone many defects are simply not reported.

Well, except on rmr.

Jerry

Interesting. On the one hand, we have two people who say they've had short delays on certain motors, and on the other hand we have Jerry who claims that extra-long delays are "common". So even the couple of folks who have had problems, have not had the type of problem that Jerry claims is "common".

i

It IS slamming when you allege that "bonus delays" are "common", despite the fact that you're the only one who thinks they are common. No one else so far has backed that claim. It's also slamming when you falsely assert that a manufacturer is violating NFPA regs just because one person reported slow ignition of an old motor.

i

These were WAY outside the 2s window. I211M (10) that ejected at 3. I161-S (6) that ejected between 1-2 sec. I161S that ejected at 2. H123S (6) that ejected at 2. All but the first resulted in rockets that were essentially destroyed. One resulted in the loss of my 35mm camera payload as well.

I've had ZERO of these malfunctions in other 38mm propellant types. I don't know if this is a coincidence or what.

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