[DOT] Explosive (Class 1) defined

[Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 49, Volume 2] [Revised as of October 1, 2003] From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 49CFR173] [Page 444-477] TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER I--RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PART 173_SHIPPERS_GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND PACKAGINGS--Table of Contents Subpart C_Definitions, Classification and Packaging for Class 1

Source: Amdt. 173-224, 55 FR 52617, Dec. 21, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[[Page 445]]

Sec. 173.50 Class 1--Definitions.

(a) Explosive. For the purposes of this subchapter, an explosive means any substance or article, including a device, which is designed to function by explosion (i.e., an extremely rapid release of gas and heat) or which, by chemical reaction within itself, is able to function in a similar manner even if not designed to function by explosion, unless the substance or article is otherwise classed under the provisions of this subchapter.

==

Given the term "extremely" this cannot apply to mere slow burning propellant especially those that burn under 10mm/s.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

It releases it slowly.

Let me cite:

formatting link
Furthermore, that is if you see it as an "article".

One could argue even reloads are "substances".

NOT enclosed.

This is a shipping hazard issue NOT an ATF issue. A box of propellant even if it ignites "cannot detonate or function by explosiion".

Just Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Slowly? The miracles of science. It's amazing that it even makes such a good propellant. The result of a box of APCP in an unconfigured shipping state releases sufficient heat and gas to meet the defined criteria of an explosion. Detonation does not even need to be taken into account to qualify. It's an explosive and there is no wiggle room on that fact I'm afraid.

Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

formatting link
887-2370 x222 Toronto (410) 571-8292 Annapolis

Reply to
Anthony Cesaroni

Depends entirely on the jurisdiction and the criterion.

For Canada, of course I agree.

Nuff said.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Beers are on you. :-)

Anthony.

Reply to
Anthony Cesaroni

That's an understatement.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Found this at the Us Patents office website.

(1) Explosive; explosive compositions for the purpose of this class are those containing both a fuel and sufficient oxygen or an oxidizer so that, upon initiation, they are capable of undergoing a chemical change at a relatively high rate of speed, or a speed approaching instantaneous, resulting in the production of usable force through chemical change in the composition to produce gaseous products and usually heat, and are used for blasting, firearms, jet propulsion of rockets, vehicles, etc., rapidly filling automotive passenger-restraining gas-bags

formatting link
However having used explosives most of my life ( Military stuff) I disagree with this definition being used for rocket fuel and I cite the line that states almost instantaneous. Det cord (PETN) burns at about 22000fps I would but the KNO3/Dextrose burns a lot slower. How ever Black Powder Burns at about 300 fps ( from memory) but it does convert more than 95% of its mass to gas. So the definition can be bent a lot just like statistics.

Reply to
hmasmmb

In article , "hmasmmb" >

high rate of speed a speed approaching instantaneous

Perfect post.

This should be in the FAQ.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Reply to
Joel Corwith

According to at least one source, a detonation is defined as having a supersonic flame front which moves at a rate of kilometers per second. Deflagration is defined by a rate of meters per second.

In contrast, APCP in even the fastest hobby motors burns at a rate of only millimeters per second.

Reply to
RayDunakin

( Ray says, while missing every opportunity to CITE )

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Excessive & inappropriate use of CITES (and snipes) is what makes your posts meaningless.

Take a lesson from Ray & try English once in a while.

Reply to
Phil Stein

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Can you cite a figure for volume/time? Isn't the "slow release" of gas incompatible with the production of thrust?

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m20.aol.com:

And this is our strongest arguing point. The fact that, if confined, burning propellant can overpressurize the containing vessel, does not make it an explosive, any more than water is an explosive because boilers sometimes "explode".

"Real" explosives do not require any confinement to "work".

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

"Anthony Cesaroni" wrote in news:YmrUb.1950$ snipped-for-privacy@news20.bellglobal.com:

Right, deflagration is about thermal energy release. Can anyone cite the values of thermal energy release (say, in kcal/sec) of a burning log and an equivalent mass of sport rocketry APCP?

Explosion is about kinetic energy release. Again, can anyone cite figures for ordinary combustion (our friend the fireplace log), deflagrating sport rocketry APCP, and, say, detonating dynamite or C4?

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

That's why designing motors is a pain in the ass.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I agree, Phil. It adds a degree of pompassity that lessens the impact of the message. By contrast, Ray (as stubborn as he is) keeps his messages concise and to the point. Quite often Ray doesn't even dissagree, but rather challenges the poster to either lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way.

steve

Reply to
default

There's a lot of difference between "fast enough to produce thrust" and "so rapidly that the entired stored energy of the contained active charge is effectively delivered at a single moment".

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

"Anthony Cesaroni" wrote in news:3UtUb.5271$ snipped-for-privacy@news20.bellglobal.com:

Point made. I overlooked the subject line.

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

Because quite often you quote them as if they were an end all, definitive and authoritive source of accurate imformation. And we all know too well that rocketry is sub-regulated by several overlapping organizations. It's too easy to cite one source to back up your claim, when a equally relevant source is not mentioned.

steve

Reply to
default

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.