amateur motor manufacture - what's really wrong with it? [religious heresy / alternate history speculation?]

In the 50s you used to be able to buy all sorts of "experiment kits" with various chemicals that there's no way you could market to kids now. That included nifty things like radioactive materials.
Forget the mixer; for motors that small, it's hardly worth the effort, and it would increase the cost tremendously. An accurate digital scale would be much more appropriate, and more necessary.
Now, that said, assuming such a beast existed back in the 1950s, I highly doubt it would be on the market today. Not only has the market changed dramatically, but the potential liability issues would be large. Not to mention that local fire departments (remember, fire departments make up a good portion of NFPA) would have an absolute fit over it.
-Kevin
Reply to
Kevin Trojanowski
Loading thread data ...
Imagine how many hazmat labels would be required for a chemistry set (1oz bottles). The box would have to be enlarged to accept them. And the fees!
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Imagine if model rocket engines _hadn't_ come to existence in that "window of opportunity" and think of the regulatory stuff they would face if someone tried to introduce them as a "newly developed product" these days...
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
"David Weinshenker" wrote in message
(The starter set would include a small electric mixer, like a miniature Kitchenaid built on the scale of a Mattel Vac-U-Form - along with casings and ingredients for, say, half a dozen "A" and "B" motors...)
I have a hard time imagining this alternate reality of yours, Dave. It's just not feasable. History didn't go this way because boys back then didn't have enough money to buy a safe motor making kit. A safe kit couldn't use a cheap mixer that could potentially catch fire and cause a propellant fire. If a kit like you describe did get marketed, it would soon come off the market because of the injuries, and evolution would have continued with commercially (safe) manufactured Estes motors.
steve
Reply to
default
Simply not true. No company felt like offering it. Supply creates its own demand.
The Estes model was the "razor blade model" with all expendables value added focused in Penrose.
Dave's scenario is practical. And more importantly is instructive as to the political whims that led us by the nose (through the 70's and 80's) to where we are today. To deny that is to miss the entire point.
We have "will" (self-regulation) going forward. The only question is, who's "will" will prevail?
Just Jerry
I fear the winners will be the very club members who just love rules, gatekeeping, and added laws.
(read Benedict Arnolds)
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Bill Stine talked about this at NARCON 2004, and answered your questions. If you can find someone who went, they'll have gotten a CD with video of that talk (I belive; I haven't looked at it myself).
In The Begining, model rocketry was illegal: it violated many if not all states' fire codes. G. Harry Stine went to the NFPA to draft model codes making model rocketry legal. It took 30 years to get all 50 states to adopt that model code as law.
What that led G. Harry to form a company with Orvile Carslile to manufacture motors was what he had called the "Teenage Rocketry Problem": there were many people (including but not only teenagers) who were trying to build their own rocket motors. Many of those experiments lead to injury and death. States were starting to talk about enacting more laws to prevent this from happening, and those laws would squash everything that later became known as model rocketry. This is what drove the "leave the motor making to the profesionals" tone of the regulations.
Today we're the beneficiary of the work of people like G. Harry, yet we post hatred torwards him & them here on RMR monthly.
The fire codes despised here, NFPA 1122 & 1127, applies to individuals. The specificly do not interfere with corporations (NFPA 1125 does that ;-) If you want to make your own motors, form a parternship with others in your area and incorporate a company whose purpose is to research rocket propultion. You'll have other codes to contend with, but this will permit a clean end-run around NFPA 1122 & 1127. And, mabye one day you can join the Motor Manufacturer Monopoly and overcharge the rest of us for mixed chemicals.
Glen Overby Twin Cities, MN
Reply to
Glen Overby
No. Never.
The language is written mostly recently and mostly by the CURRENT sport rocket caucus sans GH Stine.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
"Glen Overby" wrote in message
................If you want to make your own motors, form a parternship with others in your area and incorporate a company whose purpose is to research rocket propultion. You'll have other codes to contend with, but this will permit a clean end-run around NFPA 1122 & 1127.
Wouldn't it be easier to just sit around and gripe about it here on the net, ala Irvine and Weinershaker?
steve
Reply to
default
Well yes, that would be *easier*. But easier doesn't always make it better :)
Ted 'still looking for that perfect KN03/magAL/epoxy mix' Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Reply to
nedtovak
No, it's better too.
The only motor partnerships ever (Rocketflite and Powertech were severe failures and highly counterproductive.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Really? Wasn't that mostly before fireworks became widely illegal (hmm. It would have been close, timewise.) You'd have a hard time convincing me that model rockets were ever more illegal than fireworks rockets in any given location...
BillW
Reply to
Bill Westfield
That's an account of an incident involving compressed nitrous oxide bottles becoming included in a structure fire, and releasing their gas. It is not relevant to the question of whether it would have been historically feasible to develop safe means for "hobby-scale" preparation of APCP, the makings for which would present no greater fire hazard than an equivalent quantity of finished propellant.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
A bit extreme (which is what was needed) but I do generally agree.
Tripoli has led the way toward this in opposition to its mission.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Site Timeline

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.