Is this the future?

I think the ATFE should investigate! Where's their magazine?

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Rocketflt) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m16.aol.com:

Well, at least until the BATFE regulates water. Water can be used in conjunction with materials easily purchased in any hardware store (e.g., Sterno cans) to make explosive devices (known as "boilers").

len.

SHHHHHH!

observing my god-given right to be anal, I checked the NFPA codes, just in case

(NFPA codes excerpted for editorial review)

NFPA 1127, 2002 Ed.

1.3.5 This code shall not apply to model or toy rockets propelled by pressurized liquid.

this was ammended from the 1997 Ed., which previously had the clause now in NFPA 1122 as follows:

NFPA 1122, 2002 Ed.

1.1.6 This code shall not apply to model or toy rockets propelled by pressurized-liquid rocket motors containing less than 250 ml (8.45 fl oz) of water.

however, this statement is inconsistent with the Report on Proposals regarding this code

NFPA 1122-02-ROP

1122- 2 - (1.3 Definitions ): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following definitions: Cold-Propellant Model Rocket Motor Hybrid Model Rocket Motor Liquid-Propellant Model Rocket Motor Pressurized-Liquid Model Rocket Motor Steam Model Rocket Motor. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 1122 is intended for model rocket motors that are pyrotechnic devices. The current code does not provide for any requirements or specifications for rocket motors using non-pyrotechnic propellants. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 31 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27 NOT RETURNED: 4 Bulifant, Council, Hartmann, Kitchens

AFAICT pressurized-liquid rocket motors 250 ml (8.45 fl oz) or more of water should not be subject to the code as they are non-pyrotechnic, despite the statement in 1.1.6

just another glitch

- iz

Greg,

I have no problem with that being part of the future of rocketry. It looks fun, even!

Just as long as it's not the only part.

Zooty

Realize that if the rocket has more than 8oz of water it's HPR and requires a waiver!

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

dhmo.org

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

Not even if the pressurized liquid is dihydrogen monoxide? That's dangerous stuff!

We'll just have to substitute dihydrogen dioxide, I guess!

-dave w

After checking that link out, it seems there are several large rockets in my office and one full of change in my daughter's room.

Randy

This just adds fuel to the fire. Dihydrogen Monoxide MUST be strictly regulated and controlled.

Well, it isn't usually a fuel, it it? (At least with most common oxidizers... something like chlorine trifluoride is another story!)

-dave w

how can the BATFE be wasting time on non-explosive APCP, when Dihydrogen Monoxide if readily available to any terrorist group?

You may not believe this, but I have it on good authority that large stores can be found in every major city if you just know where to look! Why right here in NYC I have personally witnessed trucks transporting DM through the middle of this densely populated area without any escort, albeit with some harzard beacons on the vehicles.

- iz

Definitely the hot trend in compliance in a facist state.

If it has more than 4.4 oz and is not defined as HPR in a NFPA state, it is a destructive device. :)

I thought a rocket had to be a "poison gas, incendiary, or explosive rocket" that was "designed or equipped to be used as a weapon" before it got to be a "destructive device"? (At least that's what I remember from the BATF cites I've seen?)

Where does it say that a rocket is an illegal "destructive device" _unless_ it's specifically regulated as an HPR? Are you saying there's a code interaction that says "any type of rocket not otherwise specifically regulated is forbidden altogether"?

Since NFPA seems to be saying that the 1122/5/7 codes apply to MR/HPR propelled by commercially manufactured "pyrotechnic devices" (which sounds like they use it as a generic term for "item containing solid oxidizer/fuel mixture, and intended to function by being set on fire") and _not_ by "pressurized liquid", it sounds like we need something like NFPA-1128 "Safety code for solid-propellant rockets" [whose scope would be all such rockets _except_ those specifically regulated by NFPA-1122/5/7] and NFPA-1129 "Safety code for rockets propelled by pressurized liquids", just so amateur rocketry doesn't get left out of this "permission by being specifically regulated" gig... (Or did those two numbers get used up for something else?)

-dave w

I said :)

Sorry.

Jerry

Hey people DO believe everything I say. As they should sans :)

Nobody pays any attention to water rockets anyway. And nobody flying water rockets pays any attention to the NFPA codes.

Fact.

+McG+

Are you saying it is yet another "non-enforcement zone"?

Don't ask, don't tell?

Hard to do with TRA codifying water rockets against their will!!