[F-FT] RMS delay question/comment

specify exact
Big deal -- your unlicensed, non-DOT-approved motors can't be certified at all, regardless of the delays.
Variable delays were available from SynerJet way back in the early 90's.
And yet no one at CTI is bitching about it, "just Jerry".
t
Reply to
raydunakin
Loading thread data ...
You've been asked to prove that claim before, and failed to do so. All it would take is the name of the agent who told you that you don't need ATF permits.

Reply to
raydunakin
You've been asked to disprove the claim and failed to do so.
The proper attorneys have that data.
Now what?
You didn't expect me to post it to rmr so the cacophony could call up the ATF "for me" and stir up yet more trouble did you?
I hope not. That would just be irrational!
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
What attorneys? For who?
What makes you think anybody needs any names to call the ATF and inquire about you?
What makes you think the ATF isn't already investigating your web site?
you mean like intentionally and criminally mislabeling 200 pounds of HazMat as "model airplane parts"?
Yes that was extremely irrational.
But more importantly, it was incredibly STUPID.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
It might be early to rule that out. You know a lot of people here would like to help you put this discussioin to an end by getting the official word from the FEDS.
You wouldn't be taking liberties with the truth this time would you?
Reply to
Phil Stein
Don't you ever fly at TRA launches?
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Isn't that the case for you folks from mid-fall through mid-spring :-)
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
,
Which attorneys? When did you give it to them?
Prove it. We all know your word is worthless.
How could anyone "stir up trouble" for you if you are/were operating legally? Currently, you say you're not making or selling motors, so from an ATF standpoint you're not even in operation anymore, right?
Reply to
raydunakin
I don't think the trouble would be for me. I surrendered.
The trouble will be for rocketry at large.
Remember the ATF?
NAR even said on the record DOT is next. I was just the first ultra-tiny skirmish (and casualty) in that battle. The war is about to begin.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
-----snip-----
I won't know how accurate the sim is until I count the altimeter beeps after the first flight. Up to now RockSim has been quite accurate in its simulations of other rocket's I've flown. Part of the enjoyment I get from rocketry is designing a rocket, running simulations and then flying to see how accurate my simulation and construction skills turn out...and if I am still restricted to only those delay times available through the use of the DAT for my Pro38 I will certainly be ejecting the streamer at apogee using channel one of the altimeter.
Quite to the contrary, we have evidence that CTI's initial approach to variable delay setting was rejected by TRA (anecdotally because ONE individual opposed the concept). I'm advocating something similar to Consumer Reports or Good Housekeep testing. They don't have any agenda, they simply test and report. Manufacturer's invent something new, submit it to the testing authority and await the results. The testing authority tests to see if the product reliably meets the manufacturer's claim.
Then, the hobby associations can individually decide whether or not to allow that technology to be used at launches they sponsor.
But that's not my point. What I am driving at here is I *should* be allowed to modify a delay grain and still be within the Safety Code (which itself need to be overhauled to match the technologies currently in routine use.
Nope. This is no conspiracy. They do have separate agendas, that is why there are TWO organizations in the US instead of just one. For the record I declined to renew my AMA membership when that organization began moving in a direction I didn't think was appropriate. Now I understand they are trying to sell movies on DVD to their membership. What does THAT have to do with model airplanes ?
Yes, I do declaim nicely, don't I ?
Try Section Two of the Safety Code. Here it is for your reading pleasure:
MOTORS: I will use only commercially-made, NAR-certified model rocket motors in the manner recommended by the manufacturer. I will not alter the model rocket motor, its parts, or ingredients in any way.
See the fine print "not alter the model rocket motor" ? It's printed on the instruction sheet that come with every pack of motors.
I agree with that statement. Now we need to implement it by changing the Safety Code, certification rules and attitudes.
John
Reply to
John Bonnett
I love how you "get it" and are not disuaded by the massive follow-on rmr banter TRYING to distract you from the truth.
Jerry
> I'm advocating something similar to > Consumer Reports or Good Housekeep testing. They don't have any > agenda, they simply test and report. Manufacturer's invent something > new, submit it to the testing authority and await the results. The testing > authority tests to see if the product reliably meets the manufacturer's > claim. > > Then, the hobby associations can individually decide whether or not > to allow that technology to be used at launches they sponsor. > > But that's not my point. What I am driving at here is I *should* be > allowed to modify a delay grain and still be within the Safety Code > (which itself need to be overhauled to match the technologies currently > in routine use. > > > > > > > > NAR and TRA each have their > > > own agend as. > > > > Oh great, another conspiracy theorist. > > > > Nope. This is no conspiracy. They do have separate agendas, > that is why there are TWO organizations in the US instead of > just one. For the record I declined to renew my AMA membership > when that organization began moving in a direction I didn't think > was appropriate. Now I understand they are trying to sell movies > on DVD to their membership. What does THAT have to do with > model airplanes ? > > > > > > For myself, I say a pox on both their houses when they > > > artifically restrict our abilities to build and fly rockets which are > > > *fully* optimized. > > > > How melodramatic! > > > > Yes, I do declaim nicely, don't I ? > > > > > > When I design a rocket which requires an 11 second delay when flown > > with > > > a 260 N motor I should be able to adjust the delay grain... > > > > Who's stopping you from adjusting the delay? Do you fly with Kaplow's > > club? > > Try Section Two of the Safety Code. Here it is for your reading pleasure: > > MOTORS: I will use only commercially-made, NAR-certified model rocket > motors in the manner recommended by the manufacturer. I will not alter the > model rocket motor, its parts, or ingredients in any way. > > See the fine print "not alter the model rocket motor" ? It's printed on the > instruction sheet that come with every pack of motors. > > > > > Frankly, I think a better argument in favor of adjustable delays is to > > reduce costs, both for the consumer and for the manufacturer. Only one > > delay grain needs to be manufactured for each motor, and only one needs > > to be purchased. One of the great things about the ProXX motors is that > > I never have to worry about whether I have one with the correct delay > > or not. Even with AT motors, I always buy the longest delay available > > because I know it's a simple matter to adust it shorter if necessary. > > > > > > I agree with that statement. Now we need to implement it by changing > the Safety Code, certification rules and attitudes. > > John
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
The associations are always looking for members that want to volunteer their efforts. You can do so and make a difference.
What's the big deal? It was discussed and acted upon. Maybe not in one shot.
The associations recognise each other's testing. I think that is as good as your Consumers Reports idea. Also, I think changing that becomes a NFPA thing.
Reply to
Phil Stein
operating
Let's see if I have this straight... you say the ATF isn't a problem, all we need to do is "live the lifestyle" and they'll go away. You also claim that the ATF told you that no permits are required to manufacture or sell APCP rocket motors. Yet now you say that if anyone tries to verify your claims, that it will "stir up trouble" for the hobby. Sure sounds to me like you think ATF really IS a problem, and that they will not back up your claim.
Next, in that we'd like to reduce the restrictions on shipping motors. So if things go well for us in the suit against ATF, then we can concentrate on DOT. But it may be harder to get any concessions out of them now that you've been busted for shipping illegal motors with false labeling.
Reply to
raydunakin
something
manufacturer's
More likely, an independent testing authority would simply turn down anything that didn't fit the existing standard.
currently
But you can influence the organizations to make any changes you feel are necessary. Remember, the orgs are run by the members, for the members. Of course, that still doesn't mean you will _always_ get your way. But you'd have no chance at all to influencing an independent testing authority.
I think it would be more accurate to say that they each have their own focus. Their agendas are dictated by the members, and by the realities of insurance and regulatory issues.
Kaplow's
The safety code is stopping you? How? Seems to me, you're stopping yourself.
available
necessary.
Ok, so have you contacted the orgs and discussed making the changes you desire?
> John
Reply to
raydunakin

Site Timeline

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.