At our club launch this Sunday past, we had some chunks left over form a CATO Saturday. It was cold, so I brought my patio fire containment device and had a fire. We threw in a chunk, not into direct flame or coals, but near enough. Took the thing almost 5 minutes to catch and then just fizzled like a sparkler. A sheet of paper would have caught and burned much faster.
Expect a visit from Homeland Security for blatant deflagration without a permit.
Bill Sullivan
"The Bermuda Triangle got tired of warm weather. It moved to Alaska. Now Santa Claus is missing." - Steven Wright
A permit is needed when when someone pulls my finger? Oh the horror...
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Guys,
Take a stick of Ex propellant that is uncored and burn it. It burns no more rigorously than a road flare. If it has a Bates core, it burns a little faster out both ends. It is a flammable solid not an explosive. We modelers shouldn't have the onerous restrictions place upon ourselves concerning propellant as it is not explosive.
But keep in the back of your mind that this really isn't about regulating _explosives_. It's about regulating _rockets_ and their use. There isn't any legislation on the books that permits regulating rockets, so the approach was taken to regulate motors which effectively regulates the rockets.
O.K.
Then if our rockets are such terrorist weapons how come the other "alternative" propellants (hybrids) aren't harassed?
Whenever I have seen propellant bjurned, it has been very hard to light. When I've done it myself, it has taken several matches almost every time.
Brian Elfert
All in due time :(
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
That's been my findings as well. However, I was able to ignite a Blue Thunder grain one time with one wooden match.
Remember that time up in Fargo when Dave lit that green flamed propellant grain? The grain actually hovered for a few seconds! Very cool and surreal.
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Because there isn't a regulatory framework for doing so, just as there isn't one for regulating the rockets themselves. There needs to be a few more arbitrary rule changes to make that happen.
Have patience. In time, not only hybrids will be regulated, but so will the
1/2A.If you would have thrown a small piece of C-4 in there it would have behaved much the same way. What is your point?
The point is if the rules weren't so restrictive concerning propellant you might gain a little more in sales on the hobby rocketry side. C4 may burn in a fire but you of all folks should know it is capable of nefarious explosions. APCP is a flammable solid that sometimes over pressurizes in a casing leading to rupture.
Yep. That's what my beef is. The ATFE is not willing to negotiate a fair possession limit for modelers so the NAR/TRA lawsuit is a necessity. Many a more experienced, long term modeler pointed this out to me in the past.
Kurt
I've heard that for at least 10 years.
The ATF never negotiates.
YET. A nitrous oxide hybrid could easily be classified by ATF as a monopropellant.
But, the real question I have: the List of Explosive Materials lists "black powder, explosive powders, pellet powder, pyrotechnic compositions, and smokeless powders." Black powder is an obvious permit-requiring substance. Some say pyrodex is not a permit-requiring substance. How can that be given what is on the List?
If APCP wasn't on the BATFE explosives list, there wouldn't be any regulation of it by the BATFE period.
Everyone except the BATFE agrees that APCP does not meet the legal defintion of an explosive. People here are merely reinforcing that idea that APCP is quite safe and doesn't explode.
Brian Elfert
I test burned a small silver of white lightning before... it just fizzles like sparklers. Plus its tough as hell to light, you have take a bic lighter to it for several seconds before it will light. It's like lighting sparklers with a BIC lighter.
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.