Ellis Mountain G35

jerry, It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact.

single

No, though it's technically possible.

Why would they be illegal?

Ooh, do I get to pick? I say they can remove you, if they haven't already.

What makes you think there was anything illegal going on? Even if one buys into your theory that an E motor must be sold only to certified high power flyers simply because the CSFM used the same stamp as they use for high power motors, you'd still have to prove that the motors were sold to non-certified flyers.

CPSC insisted on it.

Jerry, I was there the day that the BLM told you that you were supposed to have a permit for launches on BLM land. Rather than pay, you just moved the launch 100 feet onto private land. All prior launches you held on the original spot lacked BLM permits.

waivers.

I'm curious... why is it so important to you that he post his name, since you already know who he is?

Correct.

However my launches were not on BLM land.

Fact.

I offered to pay. They declined in light of the below.

That one launch some of the people PARKED on BLM land. I adjusted a bit in procedure later to make sure no more than 50 people were on BLM land.

That particular launch was so big almost 100 people had parked waayy to the South because sooo many people were there.

LTR-USR launches had crowd control issues. No doubt about that.

The conversation with the BLM guy was cooperative not adversarial.

The same cannot be said for TRA at Lucerne. I called the BLM on normal business early that next week after LDRS and he volunteered to me what happened with LDRS and his attitude could best be described as "livid".

I never made any authority "livid".

Jerry

CPSC did not insist on anything in excess of their regulations. Their regultions restrict unsupervised access to minors. That's all.

It was NAR/TRA that went beyond that, not CPSC.

JHerry

Let's focus first on if the initial conditions are true. Your judgement on conclusions cannot be trusted, so a simple reading of the regs will have to be controlling.

It's me Phil Stein

jerry, don't you think 5:45 am is awfully early for glue sniffing, even for you.

In article snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Jerry Irvine at snipped-for-privacy@gte.net wrote on 5/15/05 11:03 AM:

IIRC, as part of the NAR's Blue Ribbon Commission project investigating the expansion of the scope of model rocketry into the 'G' motor range in the '80's, it was determined that limiting the average thrust of all model rocket motors to 80 N would minimize their potential for misuse as weapons.

Gary

Which was a solution without a problem.

It also killed the 120G125-BT you make and several other useful MR motors such as the 24mm F101 and others.

It has served no useful purpose and should be killed ASAP.

Thanks for the first hand report.

Jerry

Considering 6:59 am was not too early for you to post THIS crap?

The thrust limit comes from CPSC. Back in 1985-1994, when we changed the definition of a model rocket from 453g/F to 1500g/G the CPSC didn't budge.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

You seem to have a thing for posting legal documents and aking for money from Jerry. Could you post the document that shows that "Jerry Irvine" owes "Dave Grayvis" money, and how much?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

That' my -hought - who came up with the idea that there was a potential for "misuse as weapons" that needed to be "minimized"?

-dave w

Since I've already asked why the Ellis E12 is labelled as if it was CSFM Classified as a High Power Rocket Motor, I should aslo ask why the Aerotech G33 is labelled as if it is classified as a Model Rocket Motor. Per N.F.P.A. it should be a HPR motor (over 62.5 grams of propellant.)

What's on the F101 label?

Thanks.

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

MR is defined differently by:

CSFM CPSC NFPA NAR TRA ATF

There is no consistency.

He NEVER answers that!!