BATFE Court Decision

It's pretty darn hard to get APCP to burn at 1.0 inch per second at pressures that our casing can stand. Pretty far from ANY reasonable
definition of deflagration.
-- David

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's already done. Pick a reload, say a J350. Measure the ID and OD of the grain. From that you can find the wall thickness of the propellant. Divide by the motors burn time and you have mm or inches or furlongs per second.

It doesn't affect the other ones, but I think if we get it off the list, the rest are pretty moot. As is the dead in the water legislation from a few years back.

As I stated, we can calculate burn rates from grain thickness and burn time. Open air burn rates are lower than in the casing burn rates.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob: but is burn rate the same thing as deflagration burn rate?
also doesn't this mean that since differnet APCP propellant may have differing compositions they had to test all? or wioll they use a generalized test method here/
shockie B)
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, the burn rates vary depending on the composition. And I'm sure the BATF will try to find the single highest burn rate APCP and try to pass that off as covering all APCP. We must be ready for that.
But we really need to do is to use this court decision to paint the BATF as a bunch of incompetent regulators on the order of Michael Brown and FEMA. make them look so stupid for fighting us over this that the idiots in charge get themselves wiped off the map.
I think we know a senator or 10 and a Wall Street Journal reporter that might help us out here.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11 Feb 2006 09:34:36 -0600, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

I don't think that will help. They will not roll over and die quietly; you'll just make then angry, angry enough to get a last minute amendment added to the Patriot Act renewal that renders the judges decision moot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Deflagration is just a definiton of a range of burn rates. Most reasonable people consider deflagration as a burn rate greater than 1 meter per seocnd, and an explosion as a burn rate greater than the speed of sound.
All of the APCP formulas used in commerically available rocket motors burn slower than 0.025 meters per second. Even the most aggressive experimental propellant forumulas I've seen burn at less than 0.05 meters per second. Think about it - the web thickness of a nice hefty 54mm J motor is about .015 meters. If that APCP burned at 1 meter per second, the motor would burn in .015 seconds and would be a J80,000. And that's the very bottom end of the deflagration range.
So we're way more than an order of magnitude less than any reasonable definition of deflagration. If they lower the definition of deflagration to the burn rate of APCP in its intended use (ie, a rocket motor with a max pressure of around 2500 PSI), they'd have to include a whole ton of common household items as has already been mentioned in this thread.
-- David
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so if APCP get dropped does Al's Hobbies get a refund?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Better yet, does Tim get his job back?
--

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Greg,
Tim left Al's to start his own business.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nuts, can someone search the archives and see if I made any bets on this? for some reason the number $100 comes to mind.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Seems like a win...
--

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com


"David Erbas-White" < snipped-for-privacy@arachneering.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Does this mean I can start building and launching rockets again? I was ready for level 1 cert and all this crap happened. It killed my lust for bigger, faster, farther. There is just no way I could keep going knowing I couldn't build a bigger, better rocket next.
All the hobby stores closed here in the Charlotte area. There is no place to get even F20-7's much less reloads for my casing. Does this mean the hobby stores will come back? Or that vendors can again bring lots of motors to the launches and you can stock up for later once more?
And best of all, does this mean I can finally buy H, I, and J size motors without having to get a LEUP or any of that horrid bullshit that goes with it?
Been a long time, lots or dust and cobwebs on my rockets. That 6 footer that I never got to launch has been mocking me for years. So when can I start to enjoy the sport again?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've been buying H I and J motors for years without needing my LEUP. That wouldn't have changed until and unless the NPRM from several years ago ever got to the rule making stage. This court decision makes that moot.
Long term, it will bring back vendors and folks like you who left the hobby due to the regulation. But it won't happen overnight, and the fight isn't over yet. This decision does put us one "giant leap" closer to our goal.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Most of us never quit.
-- David

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There's at least one hobby shop in Charlotte that has some Aerotech product, Hobbytown USA in Cheshire Place. There's also a local NAR/Tripoli group. Visit www.rocketrycarolina.org/ for more info. We're having a launch & NAR contest next weekend. An onsite vendor is likely to be there and you'll have an opportunity to max out all your credit cards.
Regards,
Bob Bernatchez
NAR 29996
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:21:03 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@carolina.rr.com wrote:

I remember you. I used to come to those launches. If you're talking about the hobby shop off of 51, they don't have reloads for my casing and last I talked with them (been quite a while) they said they weren't going to be getting any more rocket motors.
Yall still launching over at William's farm? I still have 2 reloads sitting in a box. I wonder if they're still any good? They've been there for at least what, 5 years? Does that guy Bob still come with those huge rockets? There was some stuff going on with him last time I was at a launch and I think he was going to start a new club or something. I never heard what happened with that.
And aren't you the guy who gave me that 6ft long 3in diameter red finned, white body and blue noseconed H rocket that was busted? That's the one I want to finish and send up.
Do I have to rejoin NAR to get my level 1?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're thinking of Action Hobbies on 51. The one I'm referring to is on Harris, just north of the University area. There was a problem getting reloads from Aerotech for awhile (Google Aerotech fire for more info), but that is mostly in the past.
Yes, we're still at the Williams' farm in Midland. Your reloads are probably still good, but might be suffering from oxidation. You can usually clear that up by buffing the grains lightly with an emery board. One of us can show you how. Bob Strauss left for a couple of years to pursue a different hobby, but has recently returned.
I'm probably not the guy you're rembering, as I fly mostly mid power stuff, or 'classic' rockets. Ken Allen from Performance Hobby is scheduled to be in attendance, if you need any reloads or most anything else, for that matter. If you need anything specific, call Ken directly and have him bring it for you.
You do need to be either a NAR or Tripoli member for level 1 certification. I do hope to see you there.
Regards,
Bob Bernatchez
NAR 29996
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, I read the legaleze, and I agree it is a very positive step... but I don't understand the "remand" legal terminology.
Does the ATFE have to come back to the court with their definition of deflagration, and an indication of whether APCP meets that definition or not? Or doe they just have to modify their regs according to the court's statements? Do they have a time limit? Without a time limit, it seems to me that the ATFE could take a couple of years (or longer) to even respond, and that's without the appeal process...
It would have been nice if we had gotten injunctive relief in the meantime.
(not trying to take a pessimistic view, I do agree this is a very very positive step - just trying to figure out what happens next)
-- David

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

we can wait a reasonable amount of time (6 months maybe?) and file for a ruling. if they cant prove it is an explosive, we get APCP off the list.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
remand means: send back (a case) to a lower court with instructions about further proceedings.
"ATFE's authority to designate deflagrating materials as
explosives under 841(d) is undisputed by appellants.
But for the agency to so designate a particular material,
APCP, it must establish that it is indeed a deflagrating substance."
The BATFE is under the burden of proof that APCP is indeed a deflagrating substance.
"In this case, the agency has articulated no standard whatsoever for
determining when a material deflagrates. We therefore remand
the case so that ATFE may reconsider the matter and offer a
coherent explanation for whatever conclusion it ultimately
reaches."
Here the court has remanded the case back to the BATFE to allow them to TRY and articulate a standard for determining when a material deflagrates. In Particular, if APCP deflagrates.
" Because ATFE's designation of APCP as an explosive
was in place long before the present challenge, we will not
vacate the designation without first affording the agency an
opportunity to reconsider this matter. "
This is the "meat of the matter"... What the court is saying here is, that AT THIS TIME,
they(the court) will not remove APCP from the BATFE's list of explosives. But this removal is dependent on the BATFE successfully articulating a standard for Deflagrationa AND that APCP meets that standard
"The case is hereby remanded to the District Court with instructions to remand the
case to the agency for further consideration consistent with this decision."
SO basically the DC Court of Appeals has laid down a roadmap for the BATFE:
1. establish deflagration standards
2. using that standard determine if APCP falls within that standard
3. If APCP fails the new deflagration standards, then APCP will be removed from the BATFE Explosives listing.
and Yes, the BATfEe can more or less take their sweet time within reason to come back to the court with all of the above... maybe 6 months to 18 months would seem reasonable to me...
But they have already painted their self into a upper and lower limits for what standards deflargation is and is not. They can't just lower the deflagration rate to such an extent that its not realistic. I would gather right now, they are siting up at BATFE HQ and trying to figure out some way to get our propellants up to the thresold deflagration limits they have already set.
I mean our HPR APCP deflagration burn rates will be so low above conventional definitions thats theres no way for them to be able to include APCP on their explosives list. But I still expect them to establish standards, as the court is giving htme "another bite at the apple" in trying to control APCP., hence the remand to develop "standards".
UNless the BATFE just has their head stuck up their collective butts, I would create the standards, run the tests and when APCP comes back beflow their new standards, they will just remove APCP from the listing.
Now obviously if APCP is not longer on the BATFE explosives listing, the 62.5g limit becomes a moot point.... theres NO need for a limit as APCP will no longer be a regulated substance. So NPRM may become meaningless? If APCP is not an explosive, then how would this effect the PAD exemption? Will we continue to say rocket motors are indeed PADS? If they are PADS, then BATFE can re-write the definition of PADS....to our detriment? SO the question of LEUPS's etc all become moot. Want you money back for the cost of magazines,pics,etc? Can you say Class ACtion suit against the BATFE?
shockie B)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.