Plugging silver streak motors

I have never seen one of these motors, but IIRC they are large black powder motors. If they are blowing through, then there is a defect and sealing the front end will make the casing fail (not "explode", but it will be loud). Here is the cut&pasted cato explanation that i usually post or e-mail folks in PDF format.

Here is why temperature cycling can cause Catastrophic failures (CATOs). The nozzle, propellant and the casing all expand and contract at different rates. Since the motors are so small, this is only a problem if the temperature that the motor "sees" swings between wide extremes. When this happens, we see several effects:

1) The propellant and the clay nozzle develop a crack at their interface. This actually results in *Lower* peak pressure and peak thrust because the motor can begin the end-burning earlier than it should (never forming the "big dome" of burning surface area that we should get at normal peak thrust). 2) The casing and the propellant can de-bond. They aren't really bonded in a "glue" sense, but the mechanical bond is weakened from the stretching and contraction. (For wet rammed motors, there may be a tiny glue-like "bonding", but the cycling will break that bond). The flame can propagate along the entire inside of the casing and propellant interface and result in a huge overpressure. This leads to a casing split (if the delay is still "grabbing" the casing tightly) or a "blow through" which is like a Roman Candle. The two of these can combine to form different CATO scenarios: a) Blow through at ignition or just after ignition (on the pad/rod). Clearly a sign of a nozzle/propellant interface crack allowing the flame front to reach the debonded casing to propellant interface at or just after ignition. b) CATO above the pad (like 50 feet up). Clearly there was no crack along the propellant/nozzle interface and the flame front had to wait until it naturally reached the casing wall and then propagate up the de-bonded propellant/casing interface. A final scenario is the cracked propellant grain. These can go BLAM (or KA-PLOW) quite spectacularly since they really overpressurize the casing big-time and can happen with a perfect casing to propellant bond. A defective tool used to form the centerbore of the propellant can cause these. The C5-3 had such a problem when a tool was mis-manufactured. I believe the root cause was a lack of radius on the tip, which formed a sharp edge, which led to cracking. Motors also could be cracked if any contaminant got on the tool or in the propellant during ramming, but dropping or rattling will not cause a crack! As for the temperature cycling - avoid firing a motor at a temperature 75 degrees F lower than the highest temperature it has ever seen. If fired while too cold, the propellant will be contracted away from the casing and it will probably fail. Folks launching in cold weather can do so if they store their motors in their warn car or in their toasty parka inside pockets. (Is that an F100 in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?) Why would a normally stable rocket fly unstable when using a motor that it flew stable with before? Did you look at the nozzle? We have had several VERY scary "flights" where the rocket had little thrust and/or veered into cruise missile mode. After crashing and putting out the brush fire, we examine the nozzle and find that it is either too wide (wider than normal at the throat) or it is eroded asymmetrically. The asymmetric erosion is bad and you can clearly see the exhaust residue all over the missing area of the nozzle indicating that it disappeared at ignition or shortly thereafter. All unstable flights with Estes motors from years "A" and "B" and maybe "C" need to be inspected and if the motor/nozzle is the cause, a M.E.S.S. form filled out and the manufacturer notified. The least that will happen is a package of replacement motors and a kit. The most that will happen is an improvement in materials used in manufacturing and a product that performs like we remember for decades and decades. I hope this info helps folks.

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

Yes, I have plugged them & want to use them for a future project. I have yet to launch them though.... Years ago I successfully used to plugged F101 Silver Streaks that were plugged. You might have caught the video on ABMR. Use a good brand epoxy, either Bob Smith 30 min.or West systems.

Good Luck,

JD

Wasn't that Magnum flight was it?

It is VERY unlikely that a Silver Streak will ahve a casing failure. THey are made from the same T6061 aluminum as reload casings!

Same-2-U!

F100s were amazingly reliable once I started doing what the Rocketflite guys told me to do, which was ignite them at the nozzle end like a regular BP motor, instead of at the top of the core like a composite.

And to answer the original question, I would contact the Rocketflite folks and ask them directly. And realize that this is a no longer certified motor, then modified, thus not usable at any NAR or TRA event.

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

Yes, it was.... Don't ask me how the igniters were setup , because someone else did them for me...

JD

Heard ages ago that if the ignitor was inserted all the way in, like a composite motor, that the Silver Streaks would be guarantee'd to cato. IIRC you were s'posed to light the tail end like a questes.

Anyone confim that?

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

JDcluster wrote:

You can do pretty much everything with big BP motors you can do with small.

Plug them with epoxy, flash pan ignite, drop-stage, piston launch, tandem, etc.

FSI F100's were also suggested for mid-core ignition. That seems a commonality.

Jerry

Isn't it about time 6-10 additional brands of AVAILABLE motors be readily certified and made more widely available??

Remember, personal delivery **IS** DOT legal and they are "not for commerce" until the moment one exchanges a motor from a "personal collection" to an interested user.

Jerry

Does anyone know where I can find the famous FSI F 100 CATO photo or video???. It was on the the net a couple of years ago...Now after 3 computers & several reformats later I can't find it anywhere...

JD

Ask me in email.

jerry, that's BS.

That makes YOU in massive vioation, then, and admitted.

Jerry

Please explain in detail, so that I can laugh My ass off.

us rockets, aka jerry irvine, was the sole distributor for the motors manufactured by powertech. jerry irvine was an equal partner of powertech at the time. jerry irvine took possession of all completed motors and sold them on his web site. More often, he would just sell them out of the trunk of his car.

jerry irvine, to this day, has never paid a single penny to powertech, for any of the motors he received and subsequently sold.

jerry, Do you have My money?

In hindsight Teeling Technologies (laugh) was, against all contracts and sworn testimony.

YOU took the first and only "production run" and sold them. Where's MY money?

Jerry

Jerry Irvine wrote:

ROBERT L. WEISS, ESQ. BAR #118796

1001 Partridge Drive, Suite 105, Ventura, CA 9 3 003 (805) 650-1717

Attorney for: Plaintiff, Franklin Kosdon Bob Kloss, Brian Teeling, & John Lee

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA

FRANKLIN KOSDON; BOB P. KLOSS;) Case No. 117435 ) JUDGMENT BRIAN TEELING; and JOHN LEE ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) JERRY IRVINE, individually, ) and dba U.S. ROCKETS; ) JERRY IRVINE, dba POWERTECH; ) DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE ) Defendants , ) This action came on regularly for trial on July 10, 1996 in Department 22 of the California Superior Court, County of Ventura, before the Honorable Burt Henson, presiding. The plaintiffs Franklin Kosdon, Brian Teeling, Bob P. Kloss, and John Lee (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs"), and cross-defendants Brian Teeling, Bob P. Kloss, and John Lee (hereinafter collectively "Cross-Defendants") appeared by their attorney of record, Robert L. Weiss. The defendant and cross-complainant, Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, appeared by his attorney of record, Grant Kennedy. And Related Cross Actions ) A jury of 12 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn.

KosdonVjudgment Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict consisting of the special issues submitted to the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury, which said verdict was in words and figures as follows as to each of the respective claims. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract, the jury found that defendant Jerry Irvine breached a contract with each of the Plaintiffs and that each plaintiff was damaged in the respective amounts as follows for the breach of contract: Franklin Kosdon in the amount of $1,3 00.00, Brian Teeling in the amount of $1,399.84, Bob P. Kloss in the amount of $400.00, and John Lee in the amount of $3,500.00. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for conversion, the jury found that Jerry Irvine interfered with the money and profits of Powertech as to each of the Plaintiffs; that a portion and share of the money and profits of Powertech interfered with by defendant Jerry Irvine, was a portion and share which was owned, due or should have been fairly distributed to each of the Plaintiffs; that defendant Jerry Irvine took the money and profits of Powertech exclusively for himself without sharing it with his partners, and without sharing it each of the Plaintiffs; that the interference by defendant Jerry Irvine was a substantial interference as to each of the Plaintiffs; the interference by Jerry Irvine with the money and profits of Powertech was an intentional interference as to each of the Plaintiffs; that the damages suffered as a result of defendant Jerry KosdonVjudgment Irvine's interference with the money and profits of Powertech were such that the interference was a substantial factor in causing such damages as to each of the Plaintiffs; and that the amount of the damages caused by defendant Jerry Irvine's conversion of money and profits of Powertech as to each of the Plaintiffs was respectively as follows: as to Franklin Kosdon, in the amount of $4,847.50; as to Brian Teeling, in the amount of $4,847.50; as to Bob P. Kloss, in the amount of $4,847.50; and, as to John Lee, in the amount of $9695.00. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for fraud and deceit, it was stipulated and agreed that as to each of the Plaintiffs, that cause of action would proceed on the basis of false promise as opposed to misrepresentation, and the jury found that defendant Jerry Irvine made a promise as to a material matter to each of the Plaintiffs; that at the time that defendant Jerry Irvine made the promise, that Defendant Jerry Irvine did not intend to perform it as to each of the Plaintiffs; that the Defendant made the promise with an intent to defraud each of the Plaintiffs; that each of the Plaintiffs, at the time each Plaintiff acted, was not aware of the Defendant's intention not to perform the promise; that each of the Plaintiffs acted in reliance upon the promise made to them; that each of the Plaintiffs was reasonably justified in relying upon the promise by the Defendant; and that Defendant's promise did cause damage to each of the Plaintiffs; and, that at the point in time that the promise was made as to each Plaintiff and their reliance, no dollar amount of damages had been suffered. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, the jury found that Jerry Irvine was guilty of fraud, malice and KosdonXjudgment ~ .3

oppression by clear and convincing as to each of the Plaintiffs on the tort causes of action, and determined to award punitive damages against Defendant Jerry Irvine in favor of each Plaintiff as follows: as to Franklin Kosdon, in the amount of $2,000.00; as to Brian Teeling, in the amount of $2,000.00; as to Bob P. Kloss, in the amount of $2,000.00; and, as to John Lee, in the amount of $2,000.00. With respect to Cross-Complainant Jerry Irvine's claim for breach of contract, the jury found that no Cross-Defendant breached their contract with Jerry Irvine. With respect to Cross-Complainant Jerry Irvine's claim for conversion, the jury found that no Cross- Defendant converted property belonging to Jerry Irvine. With respect to Cross-Complainant's claim of Unfair Competition, Cross-complainant dismissed said cause of action during trial. With respect to the accounting issues and the partnership personal property, the Court found that the items were of negligible value, and determined that those items currently in the possession of Brian Teeling, John Lee, and Bob Kloss, be returned to Jerry Irvine at such time that Jerry Irvine satisfies the Judgment made herein. As to Franklin Kosdon, it was determined that an arson fire had destroyed those items that had been in his possession and that Franklin Kosdon was absolved of any obligation to return such items. The court further diminished the award in favor of Franklin Kosdon on the breach of contract cause of action to zero and reduced the damages on the conversion cause of action down to $2,847.50 by virtue of the prior small claims judgment obtained by Franklin Kosdon against Jerry Irvine. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Franklin Kosdon, is entitled to judgment against Kosdon\judgment ~f» ~~ Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 4,847.50. 1

2 It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Bob P. Kloss, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, 3 Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 7,247.50. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Brian Teeling, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 8,247.34. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, John Lee, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 15,195.00. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Cross-Defendants are entitled to Judgment in their favor against Cross-Complainant, Jerry Irvine, and therefore that said Cross- Complainant take nothing by way of his cross-complainant. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That Plaintiff Franklin Kosdon have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract reduced to zero, and for conversion in the amount of $2,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $4,847.50. That Plaintiff Bob P. Kloss have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $400.00, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $ 7,247.50. That Plaintiff Bob P. Kloss have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for Kosdon\(udgment

breach of contract in the amount of $400.00, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $7,247.50. That Plaintiff Brian Teeling have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $1,399.84, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum -of $8,247.34. That Plaintiff John Lee have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $3,500.00, and for conversion in the amount of $9695.00, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $ 15,195.00. That Cross-defendants Brian Teeling, John Lee and Bob P. Kloss have judgment in their favor as and against Cross-complainant Jerry Irvine. Further that Cross-complainant Jerry Irvine take nothing by way of his cross-complaint. It is further ordered and decreed that at such time Defendant Jerry Irvine pays the judgments as set forth above, Brian Teeling, Bob Kloss and John Lee shall return to Jerry Irvine the partnership assets currently in their possession and control. Dated: Honorable Burt Henson, Judge of the Superior Court Kosdonjudgment

Where does it say you get any money, for what?

Are you denying it now? This should be interesting.

Jerry

.

Correct. The ignitors came with a band marked STOP!.

The same truick made the FSI F100, E60 et al VERY reliable as well!

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