If there were 80% less content in NFPA-1127 as I suggested from the table in the room, to the rocketeers assembled, NFPA would still get the same $ for the book and we would have 9000% more (underestimate) participants in HPR and at least 20 more **viable** vendors.
Not in hindsight.
Chuck Rogers, Dane Boles, Bruce Kelly and Tripoli, and Gary Rosenfield and Errortech have successfully constrained and over-regulated HPR (and banned willing vendors) until HPR is all but officially dead.
Nails keep being installed in the coffin by both insiders and outsiders.
The day to preserve HPR are over.
HPR as a "general consumer product" is dead.
Jerry told you so, and how to fix it, for decades.
Nobody in a (enforced with an iron fist) position to act lifted a single finger (except the middle one to Vulcan, ACS, Kosdon, USR and others). You DO get what you wish for.
Be careful in the future what you wish for. You WILL get it.
Jerry Irvine
"What you call History, I remember as current events."
"Too many people when they don't have a use for something seem to attack it."
"The value was back when I said, and carefully described why, I told you so."
-Jerry Irvine
"I think we would all do well to look past our prejudices of Jerry and objectively look at what he has to say. Whatever he may have done to various parties in the past does not automatically make him wrong. And if he's willing to stick his neck out for his beliefs, we all stand to benefit.
- Philip Doolittle
"his quotations of laws, regulations, and court rulings are correct"
The NFPA code that allowed the popularizaton of HPR was an EXEMPTION!!
Replacing the EXEMPTION with REGULATION, and badly written, long winded and choking regulation (CRIMINAL penalty LAW in most states!) no less, has killed HPR exactly as Dane Boles and Mary Roberts and Gary Rosenfield intended.
Gary has his monopoly.
What has it really gotten him?
I see dead people. I see dead vendors. I see dead former HPR participants. I see death.
ok jerry, I'll bite...I can see perhaps that Dane Boles of Quest and Mary Roberts of EStes were anti-HPR... But Gary of AT? I would submit that he probably makes more money off HIJKLMN motors than he does off DEFG motors.....so how does that square with him being anti-HPR ..
Do you think you could tone down the venom just a hair? You're corroding my monitor screen. (It's one thing to spew vitriol, but when you get hooked on that hydrofluoric stuff it's gonna catch up with you sooner or later!)
Commerce motive, and the sinking tide sank all ships. HPR Tsunani.
He has 90%+- of the Y market, so he basicly doesn't care about THAT.
If the great HPR starts with the letter A, The 1979 event was an S. NAR adopting HPR was a V. Peak in 92 was a W (max), and now is an X on our timeline (crash).
What "monopoly"?? He has competition from at least four other manufacturers of APCP motors plus so many hybrid manufacturers that I've lost count of them.
Put down your Weasel Dictionary of Twisted Meanings, and learn real English.
D no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution except the Estes D11, D12. No other vendors have offerings.
E no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution except the Estes E9. Ellis might have an E hardly anyone buys.
F no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. Ellis might have an F hardly anyone buys.
G no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. Ellis might have a G hardly anyone buys.
H no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. Ellis might have an H hardly anyone buys. Illegal access restrictions vary (by club, vendor, leader claim), (confusion) killing it for mass-market.
RL
C no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution.
D no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution.
E no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution.
F no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution.
G no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution.
H no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. There is some niche competition in "hard access markets". Illegal access restrictions vary (by club, vendor, leader claim), (confusion) killing it for mass-market. Aerotech has dominant market share.
I no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. There is considerable niche competition in "hard access markets". Illegal access restrictions vary (by club, vendor, leader claim), (confusion) killing it for mass-market. Aerotech has dominant market share.
J no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. There is considerable niche competition in "hard access markets". Illegal access restrictions vary (by club, vendor, leader claim), (confusion) killing it for mass-market. Aerotech has dominant market share.
K no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. There is considerable niche competition in "hard access markets". Illegal access restrictions vary (by club, vendor, leader claim), (confusion) killing it for mass-market. Aerotech has dominant market share. Thin, stratified market.
L no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. There is considerable niche competition in "hard access markets". Illegal access restrictions vary (by club, vendor, leader claim), (confusion) killing it for mass-market. Aerotech has dominant market share. Thin, stratified market.
M no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. There is considerable niche competition in "hard access markets". Illegal access restrictions vary (by club, vendor, leader claim), (confusion) killing it for mass-market. Aerotech has dominant market share. Thin, stratified market.
N no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. There is considerable niche competition in "hard access markets". Illegal access restrictions vary (by club, vendor, leader claim), (confusion) killing it for mass-market. Aerotech has dominant market share. Extremely thin, stratified market.
O no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution. There is considerable niche competition in "hard access markets". Illegal access restrictions vary (by club, vendor, leader claim), (confusion) killing it for mass-market. Aerotech has dominant market share. Extremely thin, stratified market.
What is your definition of " no competition in HIS primary channels of distribution." be specific. There are competitive products to almost all that you mentioned. Weather you are correct or not depends on your definition of HIS primary channels of distribution.
"Might"? What's the matter, would it kill you to admit that Ellis DOES have those motors? Is the truth just too painful to acknowledge?
What the hell does that even mean?? There are plenty of motors available in the I-plus range, from CTI, AMW, Ellis and Loki. Anyone capable of obtaining AT motors in that range can also obtain motors from these other vendors. That's not a monopoly, no matter how you try to spin it.
You seem fixated on modifying the conclusion, and attacking the messenger WITHOUT adding any DATA for level headed folks to make their own decision based on.
I carefully set out my data and you offered no changes to the DATA, only bypassed the point (monopoly as defined by a federal statute) and relied on a dictionary definition.
Jerry
Is that how you justify not addressing the point I raised?
Not slamming anyone, sir, and admittedly writing in hindsight: there does seem to be some present concern over that the the methods that were attempted to "make model rocketry accepted etc. etc." involved advocating that the "Model Rocket (& HPR) safety codes" be given force of law by way of the NFPA process, thereby, at least in potential, giving rise to a situation where anything _else_ is forbidden - there's a lot of risky code language in 1127 - the sort of thing that would scare a programmer writing computer code instead of legislative code: for example, in various parts of 1127, there are sections that forbid, and others that disclaim jurisdiction over, rocketry of types other than that within the intended scope of the code.
As I said, this depends upon your definition. Say what your definition is - otherwise don't waste my time. Your statement & challenge reek of Jerryspeak.
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.