Arizona Rocket Gathering

You used smokeless, an exempt explosive, to act effectively as a cannon (for non-commercial purposes). Why would the smokeless be classified as something else?

Joel. phx

Without a warrant?

Is that an ax I hear grinding? You were kicked out of TRA Jerry. Had you not been you would be one of those "TRA EX" guys.

So you agree propellant is an explosive and should require an LEUP?

What type of propellant? How were they mixing it? I have a friend with a third degree burn from a coffee pot that was spilled because the wrong cord was pulled. I believe that was being made in the kitchen.

Joel. phx

Careful, you'll be accused of creating chaos to increase your profits.

This has NOTHING at all with politics, axes, or my past with TRA. Nothing.

Your attempt at misdirection is evidence safety, and I mean meaningful safety, not just arbitrary rules on paper, have no priority for you.

You suck.

Jerry

Of course not and YOU are changing the subject. (in a truly evil way no less)

A car does not require an LEUP and is responsible for far more accidents than real explosives and infinitely more than rockets. Your car has a bumper doesn't it? It is a safety precaution. It is NOT related to if you have a drivers lisence or not. Even illegal aliens have bumpers on their cars.

If I thought telling you would change your view, I would bother. I do not. Suffice to say it is on-topic. Unlike your entire post.

Jerry

Intellectual dishonesty is the enemy of public discourse and the best friend of NAR and TRA leaders.

Illegal under what law, and why?

-dave w

I didn't indicate mixing propellant would 'blow' someone backwards. Did it?

So maybe a certification for EX, instead of learn on your own?

Well thank you. I would hate to think that information such as known accidents could be used to prevent further injury.

Certainly the big fire shows the stuff is dangerous, though generating sparks into a field of flammable particles didn't seem prudent.

My mind is changing. I'm beginning to think anything other than certified, single use motors should be illegal.

Joel. phx

Even if such a proposal were suggested and adopted TODAY the time to adjust people's behaviour would take YEARS now that there have been about 4 years or so of wacky TRA style EX.

Not to mention the proposal has NOT been made and there is no track record of sensible proposals passing at either TRA or NAR.

This is wy having a conversation with you is a waste of time. Bi-polar thinking.

Thank god the lurkers who read and do not post can view the position and "logic" you employ to support it, and my posts and the anecdotal proof and law cites I post to support it. It may not be immediately visible on rmr, but minds are changing.

And I am talking to the log.

Jerry

The "Joel Corwith contemperaneous law" of course!

Illegal from a 'club' point of view. Perhaps non-certified would have been a better term?

As Jerry has pointed out, EX can be dangerous, so only manufactures should make motors. Other groups have talked about the need to ensure the flier what the motor actually is so motors should be certified. Reloads can be dangerous when assembled incorrectly. I've read discussions of people pouring BP while smoking or the altimeter setting the charge off on the ground. Someone else was concerned about the 'force' of the confined smokeless ejection charge.

So if we want to be "safe" and insured (as a club), isn't it wise to limit ourselves to single use motors?

Joel. phx

Or we could create a certification program for EX. Or at least start a root causal analysis list of known accidents to create a safe handling guideline?

"Potentially dangerous" The incidence rate is lower than car accidents, but the consequences on average are FAR greater.

This is a religious arguement.

The word "only" clouds the intellectual arguement. The "trend" should be that "primarilly" manufacturers make motors. To "popularize" TRA-EX is a "bad idea-TM".

Jerry

Only to the rocket. Big deal.

The prior certification program is broken and arbitrary and you want to duplicate it? Are you and John DeMar really ATF agents in disguise?

Any allege bone picking aside, what part do you consider 'wacky'. Are there any statistics on injury during this time?

I have not submitted any proposals, so I really can't speak to that. I do know the membership guide changed slightly after I made a comment here, but I am not aware if that was the cause.

I'm trying to grasp your jump from "some people have been (or could be) injured doing EX" to "only manufactures should make motors". Could I not make the same argument about transportation (as was used in your previous post)? Since it's been shown to be unsafe to drive in your car, shouldn't a few (buses) control the road?

I find it amusing you think discussing the 'alternatives' is Bi-polar thinking.

You talked about explosive force while mixing. Does it explode? Has that happened? I am certainly open to the possibility that EX is completely unsafe and mixing should only be performed in commercial facilities which comply with the NFPAs. I know of several who have been making motors for some time now without injuries. I also know quite a few more people who operate backyard foundries, something I consider far more dangerous. What I don't know is the risk level comparison. You cited 2 instances where someone was hurt. Was that out of 1000s, 100s of motors made or 10s?

I, unlike many, am open to the possibilities.

Joel. phx

I don't know how getting hurt or killed in a car compares to getting hurt or killed while mixing propellant. People have been burned not tightening down the propane connector tight enough on the gas grill. By consequences do you mean the hobby as a whole? I don't think I would disagree with that.

Is it not what you were saying by "Professional Techniques" and "none of the fringes of consumer rocketry included mix kits and mixing practices at all."?

I've not been saying "TRA-EX". Is homemade propellant in itself a bad idea? If so, should the clubs not do what's necessary to obtain the least cost insurance for their membership?

It has been argued (by others) on other forums that the certification increases safety because it decreases the overall number of failures.

I know not of a 'certification program' for EX motors. You're 'implying' that EX be eliminated and you're not really an ATF agent? ;)

Joel. phx

I'm not surprised that a former (?) and still wannabe manufacturer would hold this opinion. The more people making their own motors, the less you can sell.

Ok, so we have no reference.

2 people injured that you indicated. Several injured and one killed in Vegas. Surely there's more,..

Of which we appear to have none (numbers). I would agree having zero homemade propellant would result in zero injuries due to homemade propellant manufacture. As zero rocket flights would increase range safety,...

Aside from the danger of pouring 1000+ degree metal on one's foot, encountering moisture in the pour will result in an explosion as the liquid vaporizes, throwing molten metal some distance.

Offsets, great! What are they, what should they be? See, that's how that certification stuff got started. "it would be safer if we did,...".

What if someone had a propellant 'kit' like the igniter dip kits?

What if someone published a book, describing the various aspects of propellant and a method to mix one type?

Ok, what sort of test questons should be included on an EX exam?

Just me...

Nope.

It is a "safety and marketing" position.

Unless you would rather the Dane Boles view of the world prevail?

Jerry

Definitely.

YOU don't, but policymakers do.

I have PUBLISHED the FIELD EXPERIENCE standards.

TRA and NAR and NFPA have published arbitrary standards or rules.

One grew fast, and one grew toa plateau and shrank.

That all exists right now.

Jerry