shockwaveriderz wrote: > david: you need to quit being an apologist for the NAR.... I know who > is on the NFPA Pyro Committee and didn't say they control "the > process" nor that they have "control" of the PYRO > committee.........quit putting your words in my mouth........ >
Anyone reading your statement would think that the NAR/TRA has total control of the NFPA process. Which is quite obviously not true.
Note that you say "NAR should appoint/elect a NFPA Committee", not committee members, but the whole committee as though they are in charge. How can I interpret that any other way?
david; I meant the NAR should appoint/elect an NAR NFPA committee or better yet a Regulations committee to interface with the NFPA, not elect the NFPA PYRO Committee...sorry I wasn't clearer there.... I guess I just have a problem with the same people holding multiple positions such that only the same old people have any input "to the process".............the NAR/TRA needs terms limits......
well I would except Consumer members have no voting rights....so the voting members probbaly would care less what they had to say..........AT least is there was say a a couple hundred Consumer members, i assume thwy would be privy to the PYRO Committees wirkungs early on and could alert other Consumers such that they could put pressure on the voting memebrs, at least our voting members......
Tolerances are not well defined but the standard used to be any change. TRA insisted I certify the 54mm SU K500 with phenolic, fiberglass and aluminum cases since all three were used on that motor at one time or another.
The AT F20 at ussue has a "substantially different" casing and a "totally different" delay.
Simply not true. It has "great influence" on the NFPA committee. I have seen them propose things at the meetings that went through item after item with near zero effort or resistence. yet if I proposed something it was handily defeated. Not on the merits of course, but on purely politically motivated grounds. Some later were proposewd by NAR in modified form with substantial restrictions or penalties and then immediately passed. Killing the purpose of the original proposal.
The best recent example is the 0.9 lb limit. NAR "officially endorses" the 0.9 lb limit as a good alternative to the 62.5g limit. The point they miss or har intentionally misdirecting their members about is that there is currently NO federal limit (except for minors) (and the NAR lawsuit agrees), and any limit proipounded by NAR is a consession where one is not needed or appropriate.
Not convinced it is an official position based on the intentional misdirections posted by NAR President Bundick posted right here?
I cite this first hand witness account from NARAM last week:
" ...at NARAM-45 during the association meeting, Bunny had a projector with the following point presented:
ANY EXEMPTION IS BETTER THAN THE CURRENT 62.5g EXEMPTION
He said that both the NAR and TRA have agreed that the 0.9 lb exemption is much better than the 62.5g exemption so they will both support its adoption.
Of course they will not admit this in public since they hope to use this
0.9 lb exemption as a bargaining point to get it even higher. "
I cite 27 CFR 55.141-a-8
The sport rocket caucus recommendations are regularly rubber stamped by the full committee.
Reread what I said. It's true. I have seen it first hand many times. Have you?
Jerry
"People in this hobby seem to make up all sorts of shit just to make themselves look better, kind of what I heard happened to you."
- Shawn Loughary
"By simply addressing these concerns head-on the NAR Level I HPR certification card could become the LEUP alternative of the 21st century."
- Jerry Irvine [check when I originally posted this]
Which is EXACTLY what Gary did. REPORTED to NAR S&T. I was surprised myself to find out it only says reported, and not retested. But I asked the Mfgr first. and hey said the rules had been followed. AND I asked S&T, and they concurred.
I'm not sure I agree with this procedure, but that's what the current rule says.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Bunny is not in the loop. Bruce never should have been. Each has a committee deligated to handle these issues. Let them do their jobs without political interference.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
The NFPA committee speaks with as much intelligence at times as Sen Lautenberger. I've submitted very clear and simple proposals to them, which they "agree in principle", then do exactly the opposite.
And with over two dozen committee members, the closest I can recall to a divided vote is 26-1, or perhaps 25-1-1 (xxx is abstaining on all votes). They get together in their smoke filled room, decide the results, then all vote to support that position. You'd think the ghost of Mayor Daley is running the process. Or Sadaam Hussein.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
I do not doubt S&T agrees with Gary. They also agree to refuse my paperwork on arrival despite the fact it never expires and motors have been certified under it for decades.
1) NAR does NOT endorse the 0.9# limit.
2) The 62.5g/0.9# limit is NOT NFPA. 62.5 is what the BATFE wants to drop it to. 0.9# is what 2 senators offered as a compromise. Neither is law today.
THERE IS NO CURRENT 62.5G EXEMPTION OR LIMIT.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
They ANNOUNCED they do at NARAM. Review the video tape of the Bundick presentation.
62.5g is in CPSC for minors
62.5g is in NFPA-1122 by NAR's insistence
62.5g is in NFPA-1125 by NAR's insistence
62.5g is in NAR's safety code by unilateral stroke of the pen.
62.5g was sourced from DOT-E-7887 which itself was based on UN Class C (1.4G later) limits.
The FAA limit is 113g and with notification 125g (The Irvine limit)
The NAR MR limit is 125g (The Irvine limit)
NAR also added a 62.5g PER MOTOR limit which was NOT part of the proposal for the Irvine Limit nor for the LAW under FAA and is thus a needlessly self imposed per motor limit. It should be killed IMMEDIATELY (I proposed that for the recent NAR BoT meeting of course)
This would make 125g 240H motors NAR MR motors.
The silly minor inspired 80n thrust limit should be killed as well.
Thus instead of being limited to 120G80's we would easily have
240H240's. Perfect for 3.3 pound rockets:
240H240 NAR MR proposed
Chipmunk BASIC v3.5.0
CD TO MACH 10, ALT TO 2,320,000 FT Program name: ORBIT.BAS -COPYRIGHT 1983, 1984, 1986, 1991, 1996 JERRY IRVINE ENTER NAME OF ROCKET (50 OR LESS LETTERS)240H240 NAR MR proposed DO YOU WISH TO RUN ALT2 (SINGLE/BOOSTER STAGE) VERSION OR JERRY (UPPER STAGE) VERSION? (ALT2=1 JERRY=2) 1 THE TIME INCREMENT FOR THE RUNGE-KUTTA CALCULATIONS IS 0.10 SEC DURING COAST. ENTER TIME INCREMENT DURING BOOST (0.01 SEC OR 0.10 SEC) .1
ENTER ROCKET MOTOR BURN TIME (SEC): 1 PROPELLANT WEIGHT (LBS): ENTER ZERO TO INPUT GRAMS 0 ENTER PROPELLANT WEIGHT (GRAMS): 125
ENTER CRITICAL ENDPOINTS OF ROCKET MOTOR THRUST CURVE IN TIME INCREMENTS OF NO LESS THAN0.1 SEC (ROCKET MOTOR BURN TIME MUST BE LESS THAN 40 SEC)
AT TIME=0.0 SEC THRUST=0.0 LBS AT TIME=BURN TIME THRUST=0.0 LBS
ENTER NEXT ENDPOINT ENTER TIME (SEC)= 0 ENTER THRUST (LBS)=54 ENTER NEXT ENDPOINT ENTER TIME (SEC)= 1 ENTER THRUST (LBS)=54 TOTAL IMPULSE POUND-SECONDS = 54 TOTAL IMPULSE NEWTON-SECONDS = 240.192 AVERAGE THRUST NEWTONS = 240.192 AVERAGE THRUST POUNDS = 54 SPECIFIC IMPULSE (LB-SEC/LB) = 195.696
HOW MANY MOTORS (OF THE SAME TYPE) DOES THE ROCKET USE? (IF MORE THAN 1, ENTER TOTAL PROPELLANT WEIGHT OF ENTIRE CLUSTER FOR PROPELLANT WEIGHT OF ROCKET) ENTER NUMBER OF MOTORS= 1 VERIFY THE ENTIRE THRUST CURVE? (YES=1 N0=2) 2 MALEWICKI CHART DATA (ALT v WEIGHT)? (YES=1,NO=2) 1 ENTER LOWEST REALISTIC WEIGHT OF ROCKET VEHICLE (LBS): 0.5 ENTER MAXIMUM LIFT-OFF WEIGHT OF ROCKET VEHICLE (LBS): 3.5 ENTER WEIGHT INCREMENT, DELTA W (LBS) .5 ENTER ROCKET OVERALL REPRESENTATIVE SUBSONIC CD, CDr (THE OVERALL REPRESENTATIVE SUBSONIC CD IS THE AVERAGE OF THE CD VALUES AT REYNOLDS NO. OF 10^6 AND 10^7) .45 ENTER MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF ROCKET (INCHES): 4 ENTER LENGTH OF ROCKET (INCHES): 84 ENTER TEMPERATURE OF AIR AT LAUNCH SITE (DEG F) (SEA LEVEL=59 F, LUCERNE DRY LAKE=80 F) 80 ENTER AIR PRESSURE AT LAUNCH SITE (IN-HG) (SEA LEVEL=29.92, LUCERNE DRY LAKE=27.6575) 28 SPEED OF SOUND AT LAUNCH SITE (FT/SEC)= 1138.822251
240H240 NAR MR proposed (USR Mega-Roc) CDA (IN^2)=5.6547 ORBIT.BAS COPYRIGHT JERRY IRVINE WEIGHT ALTITUDE BURNOUT BURNOUT MACH ALTITUDE COAST (LBS) (FT) ALT (FT) VEL(FPS) MAX (MILES) TIME (S)
ENTER ROCKET OVERALL REPRESENTATIVE SUBSONIC CD, CDr (THE OVERALL REPRESENTATIVE SUBSONIC CD IS THE AVERAGE OF THE CD VALUES AT REYNOLDS NO. OF 10^6 AND 10^7) .45 ENTER MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF ROCKET (INCHES): 5.5 ENTER LENGTH OF ROCKET (INCHES): 58
240H240 NAR MR proposed CDA (IN^2)=10.690917 (LOC Minie-Magg) ORBIT.BAS COPYRIGHT JERRY IRVINE WEIGHT ALTITUDE BURNOUT BURNOUT MACH ALTITUDE COAST (LBS) (FT) ALT (FT) VEL(FPS) MAX (MILES) TIME (S)
ENTER ROCKET OVERALL REPRESENTATIVE SUBSONIC CD, CDr (THE OVERALL REPRESENTATIVE SUBSONIC CD IS THE AVERAGE OF THE CD VALUES AT REYNOLDS NO. OF 10^6 AND 10^7) .6 ENTER MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF ROCKET (INCHES): 7.7 ENTER LENGTH OF ROCKET (INCHES): 60
240H240 NAR MR proposed CDA (IN^2)=27.93893 (LOC Warlok) ORBIT.BAS COPYRIGHT JERRY IRVINE WEIGHT ALTITUDE BURNOUT BURNOUT MACH ALTITUDE COAST (LBS) (FT) ALT (FT) VEL(FPS) MAX (MILES) TIME (S)
ENTER ROCKET OVERALL REPRESENTATIVE SUBSONIC CD, CDr (THE OVERALL REPRESENTATIVE SUBSONIC CD IS THE AVERAGE OF THE CD VALUES AT REYNOLDS NO. OF 10^6 AND 10^7) .45 ENTER MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF ROCKET (INCHES): 1.25 ENTER LENGTH OF ROCKET (INCHES): 18
240H240 NAR MR proposed CDA (IN^2)=0.552217 (USR Microc 1.2) ORBIT.BAS COPYRIGHT JERRY IRVINE WEIGHT ALTITUDE BURNOUT BURNOUT MACH ALTITUDE COAST (LBS) (FT) ALT (FT) VEL(FPS) MAX (MILES) TIME (S)
Nor did they melt. I understand that all your proposals were brought up and discussed during the board meeting. I hope they got all the consideration they deserved. But then there wouldn't have been time to read any of them.
Now I remember what I forgot to do. Make a motion during the association meeting for the BoD to ignore all absurd proposals from Jerry Irvine.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.verizon.net:
Ad hominem attacks certainly advance the quality of discourse.
I could easily interpret Mark's statement as meaning "currently proposed". Without any action, it will indeed become the law. BATFE clearly intends this to be the limit.
So far it has NOT hurt it either, leading to the observation that the current discourse is at base already.
All you have to do is look at HIS EXISTING POLICIES to see how wack (moron, stupid, ad hominum attack inserted here) he is.
NAR official policies inconsistent with federal law:
Manufacturers have to get LEMP. Consumers have to get LEUP for HPR (as defined by NAR no less). Adults may not have motors over 62.5g or over 80n as model rockets. Only motors up to 62.5g can be flown as a model rocket with no FAA waiver.
Need I go on??
Come on. NAR POLICY is wack! NAR President is the profferor of NAR policy. NAR President is therefore WACK!
That seems logical, but it's not what the S&T rule says--it says the manufacturer has to notify the appropriate authorities (S&T) if changes to the engines fall _outside_ manufacturing tolerances. What it doesn't say is what the heck S&T is supposed to do about it, which is where the real problem lies.
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.