[F-FT] RMS delay question/comment

No.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...
-----snip redux-----
A little light on the reading skills tonight, Ray ? I thought I had clearly defined my recommendation: an independent testing authority receives samples from a manufacturer, tests them according to the manufacturer's claims and provides a test report. Who said anything about a standard ? If I should choose to submit a new RMS powered with Draino and Tang which I claim has an impulse of ten million Newton-seconds per 50 grams of propellant, then they should test it to see if it in fact produces that power level. Should their testing determine the motor in fact produces absolutely no thrust, then that is what they should report.
-----snip-----
No you can't. In my experience hobby organizations are run by a small clique of members who push the organization in the direction which they belive it shoud go according to their own personal agendas. Again I cite the recent, regretable decisions made by the AMA Board of Directors.
An independent agency which simply tests and reports results would be a much better system in my opinion.
-----snip-----
Seems to me you are advocating intentional violations of the Safety Code.
I believe it would be a waste of innocent electrons to continue this discussion with you.
John
Reply to
John Bonnett
And also very, very expensive. An independent testing lab would not be run by volunteers, but expensive, "for profit" lab and employees.
That is why the orgs do their own testing.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
He successfully influenced AT this week. It is working.
I wonder if he is going to advocate yet another proposal of mine and get it approved nearly instantly?
Jerry
They are?
The members voted to maintain the financial rip-off we all know and love called HPR magazine?
Tripoli Board of Directors Meeting Summary Teleconference of October 5, 2004 Present: Ken Good, Pat Gordzelik, Bruce Lee, Bob Schoner, Terry McCreary, Derek Deville, Bill Davidson, Dick Embry, Chuck Rogers Absent: none Proxies: none Executive Session Summary: The purpose of the call was to examine the current situation with HPR magazine deliveries and decide required actions. During 2003, approval had been given to HPR to move to a twelve-issue per year production scheme, along with other earlier changes that simplified the accounting of HPR subscription funds received through TRA memberships. Ken Good presented the Board an assessment that showed as of September 30, 2004, only four of the promised twelve 2004 issues had been confirmed as dis- tributed, with a fifth in the process of currently being distributed. The Board expectation is that nine of the twelve should have already been pro- duced, and it was apparent that the twelve-issue per year commitment could not be met. Extensive e-mail on this topic had been exchanged among the Board, and Ken and other Board members had been in com- munication with Bruce Kelly to ascertain what options were available to get HPR on track. Decision Outline: o HPR Publisher Bruce Kelly was unable to assure the Board that 12- issues could be produced in 2004, although it appeared that several other issues could be produced by year's end. o Options available to the Board were to sever the relationship with HPR or re-evaluate the relationship and find a way to continue with HPR, while enabling ongoing performance and no default of what subscribers had paid for. o Severing the relationship results in no immediate magazine alter- natives, money owed to subscribers, and a problem of finding/creat- ing a replacement publication. o While 12-issues per year is not realistic, a lower number, like the previous 9-issue scheme looks feasible.. o A detailed proposal for the Board to consider that would permit HPR to continue was presented by Chuck Rogers, based on previous Board e- mail input/concerns. This was discussed and largely adopted. The final proposal that was unanimously supported includes: o HPR reverts to a nine (9) issue per year production cycle. o HPR may increase subscription rates to $5.50 per issue as the reg- ular delivery discount rate for TRA members. This will permit the magazine to retain reasonable profitability, and thus enable the publisher to remain in business. o All subscribers who paid for twelve issues would still receive twelve, and the publisher will be required to extend their subscription peri- ods to ensure this occurs.. o Since no formal contract or agreement had ever been executed between TRA and HPR after it was spun off to Bruce Kelly many years earlier (and much difficulty and misunderstanding had result- ed in recent years because of this), a formal contract will be drafted and executed between the parties. Pat Gordzelik will draft the con- tract, and it will be signed by Ken Good and Bruce Kelly. Submitted by Ken Good, TRA President
Agreed.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Why not.
You are wrong about almost EVERYTHING else, why not this?
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
manufacture
Ok, so explain the obvious contradiction in your statements. On the one hand you say the ATF does not require permits for manufacturing/selling APCP rocket motors, and that all we have to do is "live the lifestyle" and they'll go away. You even say that you were told this by an ATF agent. On the other hand, you say that if anyone tries to verify your claim, the ATF will "stir up trouble" for the hobby. How can that be?
e
Reply to
raydunakin
-----snippage maximo-----
Why do you leap to the assumption that a "for profit" lab needs to be involved ? The good Doc is already providing excellent material testing reports on his re-born site. Why can't motor testing and certification be handled the same way ? I'm not insisting on having NIST traceability (although it _would_ be nice).
However, to save a few hundred thousand packet hops, I'll agree with you, provided the orgs agree to test *everything* submitted to them and publish the results without injecting editorial bias into the reports.
In other words, regardless of whether or not the organization in question regards a new technology as appropriate for recreational model rocketry, they are required to test any and all materials submitted to determine whether or not they meet the manufacturer's claims.
Common sense needs to be injected here...they should be free to reject my submission of a uranium hexaflouride / NO2 hybrid motor. But, they should be required to test my submission of delay grains whose delay can be shortened by one second per 1/32nd inch of drilling.
John
Reply to
John Bonnett
manufacturer's
standard ?
Yeah, I read your recommendation, I just don't believe it would work that way in real life. Just because the testing authority is "independent" is no guarantee that they'd be more flexible than the existing orgs.
Directors.
So you're judging the rocketry orgs based on actions taken by the board of an entirely different organization, in a different hobby??
You're entitled to your opinion. Who would run this agency, and how would it be paid for? In what way would it be considered "independent"? Even if it doesn't answer to the hobby orgs, it would still answer to someone, and be subject to the "agenda" of whoever runs it.
Reply to
raydunakin
receives
manufacturer's
standard ?
produces that
No he didn't. That was David Erbas-White. Here's the link:
formatting link

I wonder if you'll ever stop trying to take credit for other people's efforts and ideas?
Yes. As you are well aware, members do not vote on issues, they vote for representatives. The representatives carry out the will of the members, and if the members don't like the way things are run, those representatives do not get reelected.
m
Reply to
raydunakin
In a MEMBERSHIP corporation they do. Just like TRA used to.
Then the BOD unilaterally changed it some say illegally.
That is a "republic".
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
In this case "flexible" might be a bad thing if the rules flex depending on who shows up.
Volunteers.
Test fees (but not magazine fees for undelivered magazines)
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
I did NOT say that.
YOU are the contradiction.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
It is CRITICAL for him to improperly recharacterize the debate as a unsuccessful means to either "win" or "make you lose".
It is dishonest and bipolar, but a pattern and practice.
Jerry
> The good Doc is already providing excellent material testing > reports on his re-born site. Why can't motor testing and > certification be handled the same way ? I'm not insisting on having NIST > traceability (although it _would_ be nice). > > However, to save a few hundred thousand packet hops, I'll agree with > you, provided the orgs agree to test *everything* submitted to them and > publish the results without injecting editorial bias into the reports. > > In other words, regardless of whether or not the organization in question > regards a new technology as appropriate for recreational model rocketry, > they are required to test any and all materials submitted to determine > whether or not they meet the manufacturer's claims. > > Common sense needs to be injected here...they should be free to reject > my submission of a uranium hexaflouride / NO2 hybrid motor. But, they > should be required to test my submission of delay grains whose delay > can be shortened by one second per 1/32nd inch of drilling. > > John
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Until it became unrealistic and impractical. Having the members vote on every single issue that comes up might work for a club consisting of a few members all in the same area. It doesn't work at all for an organization with hundreds or thousands of members scattered across the country.
A change which was ratified by a vote of the members -- but of course, you knew that.
Just you and your sock puppets.
Very good Jerry, you get a gold star on your vocabulary test.
s
Reply to
raydunakin
,
manufacturing/selling
lifestyle"
Yes you did. Want me to google it up for you? On many occasions you've said that an ATF agent told you that you don't need ATF permits to make or sell motors. On many more occasions, you've told people to stop getting ATF permits and "live the lifestyle".
Reply to
raydunakin
testing
and
I don't know, why don't you try setting up an independent testing lab and see how it works out? Oh, let me guess... you're another one of these folks who has lots of big ideas, but expect someone else to impliment them.
them...
Define "everything".
reports.
What "editorial bias" has ever been injected into a motor test report? Please cite a specific example.
rocketry,
determine
Why should hobby orgs have to waste time testing materials which are inappropriate for their specific field?
reject
Why? Are you saying that one of those technologies is inappropriate for recreational model rocketry, and the other one isn't? What gives you the right to make that determination, and not the orgs?
=E2=97=8A
Reply to
raydunakin
You could always fly a modified motor as an "amateur" rocket at an "amateur" launch.
Reply to
raydunakin
Why? It's not as though this *hypothetical* testing organization is going to be given the power to authorize any new devices for use. They'll report to the authorizing organization that "After testing X random units of device Y, we find that it (meets / does not meet) the manufacturers' stated claims of safety, reliability, and useage." It would still be up to the authorizing organization to say "Okay - we'll allow it to be used at our events."
Isn't that the idea, though...? The Safety Code is still a voluntary set of 'rules', which we abide by because we think they're reasonable and useful.
If we didn't we'd still be lighting motors by fuses and matches, on rockets built of steel tubing, with mice (or the neighbours' cat...) as passengers, on home-made M motors, in our backyards. ;-)
>> John
Reply to
Len Lekx
John -
From what you say, I get the feeling that you haven't been around much. Are you a member of any of the organizations we are talking about? If so which ones? Have you discussed this with anyone inside the organization that is responsible for testing? How long have you been involved with HPR?
I'd just like to know where you're coming from. Your assertations lead me to believe that maybe you need to dig a little deeper before coming to these conclusions.
>
>> John B>>
>> > >> >>John B>> >>
>> >>> >> >>>>John B>> >>> >-----snippage maximo----- > >> And also very, very expensive. An independent testing lab would not be >> run by volunteers, but expensive, "for profit" lab and employees. >> >> That is why the orgs do their own testing. > >Why do you leap to the assumption that a "for profit" lab needs to be >involved ? The good Doc is already providing excellent material testing >reports on his re-born site. Why can't motor testing and >certification be handled the same way ? I'm not insisting on having NIST >traceability (although it _would_ be nice). > >However, to save a few hundred thousand packet hops, I'll agree with >you, provided the orgs agree to test *everything* submitted to them and >publish the results without injecting editorial bias into the reports. > >In other words, regardless of whether or not the organization in question >regards a new technology as appropriate for recreational model rocketry, >they are required to test any and all materials submitted to determine >whether or not they meet the manufacturer's claims. > >Common sense needs to be injected here...they should be free to reject >my submission of a uranium hexaflouride / NO2 hybrid motor. But, they >should be required to test my submission of delay grains whose delay >can be shortened by one second per 1/32nd inch of drilling. > >John
Reply to
Phil Stein
Cut Jerry a break - he was the first one to hijack LUR from AT. He was also the first in rocketry to get nabbed by the DOT.
Reply to
Phil Stein

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.