Yes, I do understand. I just think you'd be just as injured if you got hit a quantum rocket as a phenoilc one. A 'frangible' rocket might not fragment too well if it hit something soft, like a person. Either way, I would not want to find out.
I know.
What I meant is we fly from a large field with high waivers, lots of open space. Offset distances in relation to motor impulse are observed. Sure dangers exist in HPR, I don't deny that. Everything is done to make it as safe as possible.
Agreed. You just described how our launches are conducted. :-)
Guys like you suck. You were the safety monitor in grade school and you grew up trying to push others around with quotations of rules about safety. Rocketry has an outstanding track record no thanks to dweebs like you.
Get a life dude. Rocketry is safe. I don't follow your lead about safety because I think you're an irritating person. There are guys like you at every launch. You're not liked there and you're not like here.
The Ultimate isn't poop pipe - it's phenolic. I like the poop pipe because as others have said, it can really take a pounding (or core sample) & still survive.
A) I've done enough stuff in life to get on a first-name basis with the emergency room staff, up to and including sky-diving. Don't recall ever being safety monitor, though...
B) This thread all started because some idiots simply don't understand that's it's rational to not want smoking near flammable material at a high-power launch, not because anybody is trying to 'ruin' it for you.
If you can't comprehend B) above, then you don't follow my lead because you haven't the mental capacity to do so...
like eating shellfish? like stopping at a light with your windows open in New Yoik? [speaking as a native here] like eating blowfish?
I saw a show on cable last week that said that there are over 100 deaths annually in Japan from the toxins contained in Blowfish. That is after the goverment set up a licensing program to insure that cooks are properly trained in its preparation.
Geez, sitting at a baseball game there's more chance of someone getting a broken nose from a flyball entering the stands, than there is of a rocketeer or spectator getting hit by a rocket.
In this country we choose to accept manageable risks in virtually every aspect of our lives, and this is no where more true than in our sports and leisure activity - like skateboarding, skiing, rollerblading, etc, etc, etc.
I'm not against reasonable precautions (like redundancy in recovery electronics), but lets keep them reasonable so we don't limit the hobby to test dummies and stunt [wo]men.
Obviously I need to state/restate something here...
I'm all for high-power. I'm against government intervention. I want the hobby to be conducted in a reasonably safe manner.
The KEY word (for me) in the above is the word REASONABLE.
To me, it is REASONABLE to want a rocket to be as strong as it needs to be, and perhaps a little stronger (we're not NASA, after all), but beyond that level, you're decreasing safety.
I agree that there is inherent danger in many acts, and that people need to make REASONED choices about them (and to accept the consequences, as well).
I believe (and obviously, it is ONLY a belief) that the average non-participant spectator at a high-power launch expects that the above is true (i.e., that the rocket is about as strong as it needs to be, and not massively stronger than that). We've been led to believe that for years, because that's the way virtually every product we use is made (they're generally 'just' good enough to do their designed job--we don't have any truly robust designs that last for generations anymore). Given that 'belief', they have made a REASONED choice based on what may be a faulty bit of data.
To me, there is a VERY simple solution to much of this: either A) make rockets more frangible as part of the safety code, and actually enforce it, (along with possible other REASONABLE items, such as enforcing no-smoking near flammable materials), or B) lay out the REAL aspects of the hobby to the non-participants, and have them sign a waiver of responsibility accepting such.
Again, it boggles my mind that something as simple as paintball requires this (and people accept the risks, so why wouldn't they for HPR?), but HPR guys don't. All it will take is ONE person suing someone in the hobby, who claims they weren't aware of the dangers, to kill this hobby stone-cold dead.
Izzy, can you honestly explain how this is UNREASONABLE???
I've looked at it, and it is exactly what I'm talking about. Other than one or two typos (), this is by far one of the 'better' liability documents that I've seen (BTW, IANAL).
My only 'complaint' (and it's relatively minor) is that while it is a great liability document, it doesn't do much towards 'informing' the prospective participant as to the 'probable' problems. For example, a probable problem at a NASCAR event is that a wheel comes flying towards the spectators. A probable problem at an Amateur Rocketry event is a CATO, lawn-dart, etc. Not that NASCAR spells things out, I'm simply giving my comments (I don't like one-sided contracts, and often they're not enforceable--remember, the term is 'informed' consent).
All that having been said, and assuming that everyone signs such a document, how to you feel about 'rules' such as not smoking in the prep area?
- the inhalation of the products of tobacco combustion is irrational and pathological.
- all tobacco companies should be liquidated and the assets used to provide mandatory substance abuse rehanilitation for all tobacco users.
- the manufacture with intent to distribute tobacco products should be a felony.
- its use should be punishable on a escalating scale based on number of repeat infractions.
- smoking in the proximity of another person constitutes willful endangerment, and should incur criminal and civil penalty - and that includes parents of unborn children.
conversely, I think
- cannibis sativa and its derivatives, and natural hallucinogenics such as mescaline and psilocybin, should be legalized for use in theosophical and ontological settings
and I also think that
- private citizens have the right to "bear arms" sufficient to overthrow an unjust government, as per the Declaration of Independence:
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
now that I have totally polarized the entire RMR viewing audience, let me resume my socially-adjusted way of being
Can't disagree here...except that it is also pleasurable, and this often (even 'usually') trumps 'rational.'
The US government is unlikely to do so, as they are the beneficiaries of huge amounts of tax revenue on tobacco products at all levels.
That's arguably defensible on technical grounds but as you've seen with other recent events, it's not the technology, it's the politics. See my remarks on tax revenues.
I have no objection, so long as users stay away from activities that cause danger to non-participants while under the influence.
My reading of 'original intent' is much the same on this issue. It would be a curious fault in parallelism if the Second Amendment alone referred to a corporate right, while the first, fourth, and fifth, in particular, are virtually universally held to be individual rights.
You're entitled to your opinion. I may not agree with you on all points but I support your right to hold and express it.
mj part-time curmudgeon and occasional political realist my opinions are my own.
all I know is, a frangible bullet does more damage to humans then a non-frangible one. but that has nothing to due with rockets. and at 5 pounds I don't think the frangible thing does either.
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (AlMax714) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:
The ammount of energy dissipated "franging" a frangible model rocket falling unretarded from 1000 feet is probably a small fraction of its total energy.
The idea is not to get hit, not to make getting hit "less lethal".
the whole point of this section was to justify the insurrection of the colonies, and would not have had much teeth with constraints on the number of muskets or bore size of cannon
viewed in this light, should "the people" deem the current government destructive of the posited inalienable rights, the use of any means necessary would be in order to abolish said government, including but not limited to citizens bearing fighters, bombers, aircraft carriers and space-based particle beam weapons
thats what it says, doesn't it?
[ for the benefit of our lurkers, I am US citizen by birth, and a USAF veteran with absolutely no seditious intent whatsoever. Despite the fact that I exercise my Constitutional Right to disagree with national and international policy from time to time, I am not aware of a superior nation in existence in the present day, and do not wish to experiment with either creating or resurrecting one ]
- iz
Mark Johns>>- private citizens have the right to "bear arms" sufficient to overthrow
I have completed much of the temperature testing. I tested Quantum tubing, a completed piston, G-10 fin material, a plywood centering ring and a nose cone. The results are awsome. Some of it predictable, some supurising.
I was going to upload the data to abmr but someone decided to post over
6,600 file parts, so that won't work for some time.
I'll try to get it up on my rocketmaterials.org site ASAP.
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.