Re: Composite Propellant Methods and Safety class

No, these went through the UN Series 6a,b, and c tests.

6a - put an igniter in one of the articles in a carton. Set on a steel witness plate. Contain with earth for 0.5m on all sides. Ignite. Observe. Based on the feebleness of the reaction, 6b may be waived. Remember that these tests are screening for assignment to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, or 1.4, thus the use of the terminology of explosive effects.

6b - multiple carton version of 6a. 6b determines if the explosive reaction (if observed) in the 6a test is sufficient to propogate the explosive effect to other packages in a stack.

6c - external bonfire test. In the bonfire test they actually do build a "standard" bonfire and put a case on top of it.

"This is a test on packages of an explosive substance or explosive articles, or unpackaged explosive articles, to determine whether there is a mass explosion or a hazard from dangerous projections, radiant heat and/or vilent burning or any other dangerous effect when involved in a fire."

Three vertical witness screes, 2m x 2m by 2mm thick aluminum, are placed at three quadrants, leaving the downwind side open.

Then they film it, observe it etc. The criteria between 1.3 and 1.4 involve such things as projectiles denting a witness plate 2m away, flame lengths, irradiance level, those sorts of things.

At the end of all this you get a recommendation for classification and a test report. The competent authority then reviews it and assigns a classification, normally based on the recommendation made by the testing agency, unless they have some specific objection in which case they can assign a more severe classification.

The details are all in the UN TDG Manual of Tests and Criteria.

Mike Dennett

> As a similar example, it cost us 15 cases (300) of J reloads and $3000 or > so > > in test fees to get our first competent authority approval. Luckily the > > requirements have not been quite so gross since then. > > they really burned all 300 motors on a stand ? > >
Reply to
Mike Dennett
Loading thread data ...

Can you report or think of any such examples?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Mike -

Discussing all these specific facts is going to make Jerry's head explode. Please do it some more. 8-)

Reply to
Phil Stein

You have to pay Fred's consulting fee before Mike is gonna help you out.

Reply to
Phil Stein

On hobby rocket products the closest example I can give is Pro75 and 98 products. The Canadian authorities gave us intrinsic 1.4C, whereas DOT didn't go for it and gave us 1.3C. Big deal, so we ship under E-10996, not the end of the world. Duly filed under "nice try".

On non-hobby products, we have one example on file where NRCan gave us one step more severe a UN classification than recommended by the Canadian test lab. Details "not available" but not relevant here anyway.

The point I make is that, >according to< both the DOT and our NRCan ERD, the competent authority has the final say on whether or not they accept the recommendations from the testing body. Whether that is universally true, or whether it can be challenged, beats the heck out of me. In our case, it was a matter of telling us that more tests needed to be run to satisfy them. So whether there are more concrete examples or not doesn't keep me awake at night.

Mike D.

Reply to
Mike Dennett

But isn't that even precluded for grains over 1.4KG (moonburners)?

Jerry "moon me"

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

tech posts by others snipped

DaveW:

It's NAR and TRA that you should be ragging on, not Jerry - he's not saying "because I said so" on his own behalf, but describing such an (apparent) attitude on the part of the orgs.

Phil is a pure irritant.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Poor Jerry

Reply to
Phil Stein

Taking your claim that you were awarded "all of the assets" at face value, such an award would grant you *nothing* that was not already an asset of the company whose assets you were awarded. Specifically, your next statement:

...is completely meaningless. If there was a patent (or other formal intellectual property right, such as a copyright or trademark), and you were awarded "all assets", then you would own the patent (or copyright or trademark, etc.). If there wasn't one, then you wouldn't magically gain some *new* intellectual property right as a result of the judgement.

The judgement doesn't "expire", but any intellectual property rights that you may have acquired as a result of the judgement are subject to the exact same expiration dates and/or other limitations that they were subject to prior to you acquiring them. A court can't award you anything *from* someone that they didn't own in the first place (except, of course, cash).

- Rick "Not a lawyer, but I play one on the 'net" Dickinson

Reply to
Rick Dickinson

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.