OSHA'S Take On AP....

What's OSHA's take on APCP? I should probably look myself, but it's been a loooooooong day. :-\

Chuck

>

They reference DOT's classifications and methods for testing. A novel idea that the BATFE should follow. They used to refer to DOT classification for modroc motors in the exemptions in the ATF code, but 'accidentally' removed it a couple revisions ago. Aerotech has a letter from the BATF saying they never intended to remove the exemption, hence 'easy access' is still there. At least until/if/when the NPRM goes through sometime next year.

-John DeMar

All manufacturers who want to ship their motors have to have the propellant type tested by an approved DOT testing lab. Several $1K expense for the manufacturer.

I'm not sure if independent testing by the NAR or Tripoli would serve any purpose. The scientific literature and military experts have the facts but the BATFE and certain Senators don't seem to care about science or truth or current law.

-John

Bill Bahus wrote:

I found this to be interesting;

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)

In 1975 BATF published an explosive materials list which contained AP. Based on industry and DOD test data received, BATF concluded in April, 1976 that AP having nominal particle size less than 15 microns is an explosive material. Before April, 1976, BATF used 45 microns as the cutoff.

SO it appears from this passge that the BATFE did indeed classify APCP as an explosive due to "industry and DOD test data received"........ I wonder where this test data is today? I also find it instructive that the BATF changed its classification of which form of AP was explosive , ie 45 micron to 15 micron....Isn't our APCP around 200 Micron? I wonder if, when the BATFE change dtheir definition of what size particles denotes an explosive AP, if they did a NPRM? They certainity haven;t done one that I am aware of that points to our 200+ micron APCP........

THe powers that be, need to follow up on the information provided in this OSHA report so that we can use it against teh BATFE in future battles...

thats right, I"M BAAAACCCCCKKKKK....

shockie B)

1st post NARAM45 posting.....

This appears to apply to the raw powdered oxidizer, ammonum perchlorate ("AP") itself (which can indeed be an explosion hazard under certain circumstances, especially if powdered extremely fine) - it doesn't provide a basis for listing mixed composite propellant ("APCP") as an "explosive material".

-dave w

"shockwaveriderz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Do you see the difference between these two statements?

len.

You should seek out as many references as possible and original documents as possible because this is the smoking gun for taking our AP off the explosives list.

SMOKING GUN.

The minimum particle size in common use is 90 microns and even very high burning rate propellants like USR Buttkicker have an average particle size above 90 micron.

YOU are the powers that be. *I* am the powers that be. Izzy and IEAS amd others are the powers that be on this topic.

You can be absolutely certain both NAR and TRA would do the wrong thing or misuse the information.

Jerry

It was a good one!

not um

µ

It is theoretically possible to make inhibited APCP that can theoretically explode (#8 blasting cap, hammer test).

However not even the more agressive DoD, NASA and other military APCP formulas are explosives as tested because they need enough inhibitor (binder, HTPB) for processing and pouring purposes so there is far too much for stoichiometric operation or sensitive issues.

Just Jerry Irvine which is why TRA and NAR ignore it so severely and powerfully and compulsively.

I have posted the results numerous times of course.

Jerry

Nope. They can have it approved "by analogy" to other existing similar products in lieu of the testing process.

That is how AT APCP got the same classifications as Estes BP motors even though APCP is not an explosive as defined or as tested. And NAR and TRA have followed errortech down the yellow brick road for decades all the way to hell.

Oz was on the other road.

Jerry

Neither do NAR or TRA. So politics is universal.

Mike asked:

Mike,

Actually, it's mu, the Greek m. Which helps explain why it's used for micro- and micron.

In this case, it's the lower case mu. Upper case mu is M. Now, with a fair amount of imagination, you can almost see how they get the lower case mu from M.

Many fonts include characters not supported on the keyboard. Inside your Windows folder is a program called Charmap.exe . You can use it to copy these characters and paste them into your typing.

Also, you can sometimes use the alt key to enter them. R can be entered using alt-8-2, for example. (But I got | when I entered alt-18-1 for mu.) Cctrl-v works fine: µµµµµµµµ

Doug In the case of Microsoft fonts, with charmap, you will see the the non-keyboard characters plus characters supported only by Microsoft. Standards, we don't need no stinkin' standards...

Doug,

Thanks for the computer lesson. :)

Mike

I was NOT even considering different additives.

I was strictly talking about particle size and binder percentage.

For example if you made a APCP formula with an average particle size of

20µ (as opposed to maybe 250µ for errortech) and a binder of 9% (as opposed to maybe 20% for errortech), you could possibly have an explosive mixture, albiet a poor one.

Or you could mix 9% PVC powder with 91% AP as loose powder and get an explosive powder. Or you could mix 50% AP and 50% Al by volume and get flash powder and be sure to put it in a vessel or container less than

50% full.

Keycaps application on the mac allows you to press the option and shift and control keys and see what pops up and guess what? It was there in the default font for monospaced usente posts.

How handy is that?

Get a Mac :)

Or copy/paste the one I gave everyone for free :)

Jerry

***GONG***

AP \= APCP

Under FOIA, NAR asked for the data used to classify APCP as an explosive. The official response they got was "there is none". The classification was pulled out of a bodily orfice.

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

AND BASED ON AP THAT IS UNDER 45 MICRON IN SIZE. SO IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN AN AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE UNDER 45 MICRON (OR 10 BY ANOTHER BASIS ATF ITSELF RECOGNIZED) THEN IT IS NOT THE EXPLOSIVE VARIETY OF APCP EVEN BY THEIR STANDARDS.

NOT A PART OF THE NAR SUIT.

DUH.

Jerry

"Trust us, we are experts, have lots of overpaid attorneys, and legislative reps." - National Association of Rocketry (might as well be national association of moronic leaders)

And more than that, the elapsed time from the day that APCP was proposed for addition to the list of explosives until it was published was 17 days. This, from an agency that cannot collectively agree on the direction to the bathroom in under 3 months.

Due process? Hardly.