Hyertek GSE GOX supply

Does anyone know the flow and quantity of GOX needed to ignite Hypertek hybrids?
I know it's at 80-100 psi, but I can't find flow rate or total quantity figures.
Thanks

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
It depends on how long you hold down the fire button -- the GOX is flowing when the button is down.
-Kevin

Kevin Trojanowski wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
HyperTek don't like you to hold the button down for too long, 5 seconds seems to be the maximum recommended by Anthony although that isn't mentioned in the user guide.
If I knew the rate, I could work out the maximum quantity that might be used.

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
So attach a round (or whatever shape you like) balloon to the output, hold the button for a period of time, measure the balloon and approximate the flow rate.
-Kevin

The quantity is very low. Get the smallest O2 tank you can find(the disposable ones dont have enough pressure) and it will last you several years of flying before refilling. I would hazard a guess of 100 flights.
RDH8
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
That's about what the guy who gave the Hybrid talk at NARCON said. You don't use much.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered -- Lyndon Johnson, former President of the U.S.

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
I was just following up on that talk and doing some research. The presenter (Scott?) mentioned that hybrid motor average thrust ratings are somewhat misleadingly low due to their long thrust tails when they switch from using liquid N2O to gas. So I went to the TMT site to see the curves. I couldn't find ANY thrust curves there. The few motors with links are broken. What's up? Where are the thrust curves?
For that matter, most of the motors don't have expiration dates listed, and of course the last time TMT released any delay accuracy information was when John Cato was running things.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
We must have faith in our democratic system and our Constitution, and in our ability to protect at the same time both the freedom and the security of all Americans.

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I want that treatment! Then ""my"" motors would never expire and I could change them anytime I want (like AT, AT by EM, AT by RCS, AT by in-field-users J350)!!.
Jerry
"Personally, I wouldn't build anything with Ellis Mountain motors in mind -- we've seen a VERY high CATO rate at our launches, and I rather doubt anyone in our club will be buying any more of them." - Kevin Trojanowski, Tripoli webmaster
  Quoted Text Here  

Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I forwarded your comments to the person who maintains the motor test data portion of the site.
-Kevin

(Bob Kaplow) writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
If you are looking for hybrid thrust curves, try www.canadianrocketry.org - there are thrust curves for ProPoly and WCH motors.
SkyRipper have got thrust curves up on their site - http://www.skyrippersystems.com/documents/index.html
RATTWorks thrust curves can be found at www.rattworks.com
All of these show the thrust tail-off very well, though the SkyRipper graphs tend to be distorted by large transients at ignition.
There is also http://www.thrustcurve.org/cgi-bin/search.pl?manufacturer=HyperTek&class=%28all%29&diameter=%28all%29&organization=%28all%29&sort=class
I don't know how far I trust the data there though - the HyperTek K240 is listed as ~1450Ns, while all other data I've seen (including the HyperTek official site) suggests less than 1300Ns fo that motor (regardless of tank, the TC data is all from the old 81mm tank).
HTH,

  Quoted Text Here  
http://www.thrustcurve.org/cgi-bin/search.pl?manufacturer=HyperTek&class=%28all%29&diameter=%28all%29&organization=%28all%29&sort=class
Thanks!
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
"For as adamant as my country has been about civil liberties during peacetime, it has a long history ... of failing to preserve civil liberties when it perceived its national security threatened." -- former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan

Odd you should mention that. I just noticed it as well.
Rant mode on.
The usefullness of the Tripoli Motor Testing web pages has decreased from its already abismal level.
There is a note stating that manufacturer certification dates have been removed because they are "irrelevant to the certified list". I suspect that the real reason is that too many people were questioning the large number of motors with dates indicating that they were past due (some way past due) for recertification testing. Rather than fix the problem (do the required testing and get the data posted), TMT decided to hide it.
A side effect of this change is that what little testing data was available was linked off of these dates and is now gone. No thrust curves or performance figures from the official certification letter anymore.
To make matters worse, the links that did take you to a RASP compatible motor file all provide "404" file not found errors. Or at least all the ones I tried before giving up.
So now the TMT certified motor list which was rarely up to date has even less information.
I just wish that TMT would take a look at the NAR pages. They have many useful things that TMT does not:
1) Each and every motor has a link to a document with detailed performance information from the certification test: total impulse, average thrust, measured delay times, a thrust curve, and RASP data.
2) Perhaps most usefull, an archive of S&T certification announcements. Certifications, decertifications. What happened and when.
Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Thank you Kevin Trojanowski!!
  Quoted Text Here  
Exactly correct.
  Quoted Text Here  
I told you so.
  Quoted Text Here  
TMT is null. Has been for decades!
  Quoted Text Here  
Point.

  Quoted Text Here  
<snip>
Dave,
I agree with you in sentiment, but I also wonder whose ultimate responsibility it is. Frankly, the AT site ought be a lot better, too. For example, I'd like to see tables with links to cert docs, thrust curves, RASP files and dimensioned motor drawings (24x70 is not enough; it doesn't include the delay/ejection well (for example)). In fact, I think every motor vendor should have such tables. Ideally, each table could be sorted on demand for impulse family, motor diameter, etc.
Having all that combined on one site would be awesome. Thrustcurve.org was an attempt at that but I think they lost their mojo, and I suspect that's what happened at TMT.
It's a herculean task. To do it right requires a professional effort. I've looked at the site several times, and each time I do, it strikes me as an ovewhelming task to clean it up.
So I wonder whether it's fair to ding TMT with that. It's basically a motor vendor marketing tool, a central repository of information for rocketeers. The motor vendors, who are paying for the tests, are the ones who need to step up and tell TMT to fix it, and then likely put some money in the kitty to pay for it. At the same time, they all have legitimate grounds for griping when they've paid for tests and cert's without getting RASP files, proper entry in the (TMT) web tables, correct information, etc.
I see undisciplined data gathering and sloppy documentation as the first things that need fixing. Each test summary should contain the same info. It's frustrating to see missing and wrong info in the TMT motor tables because somebody didn't bother to measure and record the motor's dimensions or propellant weight. That's pretty sloppy test engineering.
Once constistently good motor files are produced, then the web tables will be much easier to maintain. It's a GIGO thing.
Another thing the motor vendors should ping TMT on is motor designations. If I develop and test an G47, and I know the average thrust is indeed within tolerance of 47N, then by dangoes I expect TMT to list it as a G47 and not a G41 or G56. I'm paying for it, and I have an investment to protect. People considering buying my motor and taking the time to research it need to be able to find it without guessing what it's supposed to be on TMT's site. I know TMT lists both designations, but they also have incorrectly listed the dimensions and vendors, so it's real easy to lose confidence in the info.
If the customer doesn't trust the info, he won't buy the motor. The motor vendors must push TMT to provide quality data. It helps us, and it helps them.
Doug

In article
  Quoted Text Here  
At Aerotech they should be able to do it then.
At Tripoli they have professionals "volunteering' to do it, and FAILING miserably.
  Quoted Text Here  
Huh? TMT is the ISSUING AUTHORITY (they BEGGED to have that authority to the NFPA)
Of course they should have EVERY certification ever issued listed as of the effective date of that certification.
  Quoted Text Here  
They want it to be vague so the uncertified motors they openly sell can be flown at TRA launches due to CONFUSION.
  Quoted Text Here  
Point.
Exactly.
Not going to happen with TRA sycophants.
Jerry

  Quoted Text Here  
<SNIP>
FWIW CAR seem to have got it right....

  Quoted Text Here  
No, TMT is a testing authority and their responsibility is to provide accurate unbiased information on all of the motors they certify. They are failing in that duty. Either they need to do the job, or pass it on to some other body that can do it right.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
We need to ensure that actions by our government uphold the principles of a democratic society, accountable government and international law, and that all decisions are taken in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Or do what they do now. Fail, lie about it, keep all activities secret, and every time a TMT chair gets tough, fire them FAST!
Jerry
  Quoted Text Here  
Our enemies are never villains in their own eyes, but that does not make them less dangerous. Appeasement, however, nearly always makes them more so. - Don Dixon

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Do you have any credible evidence of this? You have said it MANY times in that past and have NEVER presented any credible documentation to PROVE IT!
Try posting something rocketry related for once. Everyone is tired of your many years old personal vendettas. If you can't do that, at least make up some new stories.

  Quoted Text Here  
A former TMT chair most certainly did.
You denying it changes nothing.
Determining this from PUBLIC TMT output is also practical and has been done right here on rmr. Feel free to review the log. Many PROVEN examples in there.
Again your being myopic about it means nothing. Less than nothing actually.
I am not demanding you take my word for it, but my word is affirned by fact.
Jerry