I disagree, especially the way you use them.
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
Unfortunately, that discredits it!
Do you have something to add?
Anything to add?
Is add in your vocabulary?
Do you have something to add?
Anything to add?
Is add in your vocabulary?
"Fast enough to produce thrust" applies to SU & assembled motors, or a rocket with such a motor could not fly. But unconfined propellant grains burn too slowly to produce thrust, and are much less "hazardous" to ship. So there should be different DOT classifications for each. Maybe an assembled motor should be 1.3 or 1.4 but a reload kit is at most a flammible solid. To put both assembled motors and reload kits into the same DOT hazard shipping classification is a denial of reality. Larry Lobdell Jr. You detonate the 50 pounds of black powder at 15 paces and I'll ignite the 50 pounds of APCP reloads. You go first.
Would someone please bring this to the attention of DOT and UN?
Besides the other MAJOR, MAJOR factor is typical reload/SU shipments are in cardboard boxes (little pressure confinement), and in SMALL quantities (25kg or less).
The rules assume FULL TRUCKLOAD and RAIL CAR quantities.
BS
We need an INTERNATIONAL 25KG or 50KG QUANTITY exemption.
Print the UN number and common name on the outside of the box for DISCXLOSURE.
Just Jerry
Hello? Can you hear me?
"Sanity is determined by how well you can pretend to fit in with those around you."
- nek
Flammable solid? That's class 4. In order to qualify for class 4, one of the criteria is, the material on it's own, is incapable of raising the pressure of a constraining vessel to the point of rupture (heat, gas and radiation effects aside). APCP will not meet that criteria so it remains in class 1. Whether it is propulsive or not is not the primary determining factor for class but only sub-class depending on the configuration.
Also, I'm not sure that 50 pounds of black powder is the critical mass for DDT although it may be under the right conditions. We conduct routine propellant burn offs here and I would be very hesitant about standing 15 paces from 50 pounds of APCP fuel grains going up at once. Fire ball aside, they also tend to leap to freedom when burned on mass and we have a steel safety grate on the burn pit to mitigate that or at least we did. It may have melted.
Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
Yup. In contemporary combustion science parlance the distinction between deflagration and detonation has to do with combustion that propagates through a mixture at subsonic speed versus combustion intimately coupled with the supersonic propagation of a shock wave, respectively. I have usually found good agreement between calculated Chapman-Jouguet detonation velocities and measured detonation wave speeds, so I think we have a pretty good understanding of the physics involved. Obviously, a Latin root probably has little to do with the modern science - like using "c" for the speed of light from the Latin "celeritas".
If APCP had a higher burn rate you wouldn't have to compensate with a larger burning surface area by coring the grain. You can't get standard APCP in sizes used by hobbyists to propagate a detonation even when it is driven by a detonation from a true explosive. Attempting to use APCP to blast coal would be like putting kerosene in your car. It won't go. APCP isn't an explosive, it's a hot gas generator. (like rmr? :)
Brad Hitch
Not at DOT.
BP is "non-detonable".
Jerry
This should be in the FAQ.
It detonates just fine and 300~600 m/sec is the standard velocity advertised. See
Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
But that's not its common and intended purpose, nor is it meant to be used that way. The point is that APCP motors and reloads don't behave like BP or high explosives without completely altering it. And if you're going to call something an explosive because it can be reduced or converted to something else, then you might as well call flour and coal dust "explosives" and treat them the same as BP or dynamite.
Are we talking the propellant alone or an assembled motor?
Bob
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.