Re: Regarding Aerotech RMS motor delays

http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/Instructions/RDK_Instructions/rms_delay_mod_inst.pdf

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/Instructions/RDK_Instructions/rms_delay_mod_inst.pdf
Sweet ! Hat tip to David and Gary. Quoting David quoting Bruce, this now represents a manufacturer-approved modification to shorten delay times and is legal to use on RMS from RCS and AT at NAR-sponsored launches, no ?
Next question...will Dr. Rocket need to publish similar instructions (if he so chooses) for use with his cases ? Unless and until the good Dr. does so, drilling one of his delay grains remains beyond the pale according to the Safety Code, yes ?
John<==come on Anthony and Mike...publish instructions and make life good ! (Please please please please please please please please please)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nope. The cases are the same (for cert purposes). It's the propellant and delay that affects it. In this case just the delay.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is reload manufacturer specific.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Dr Rocket only makes hardware. All the reloads are made by Aerotech.
Is the AT adjustment release going to be publicly posted somewhere?
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except to encourage attendance in Christian churches; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except to require prayer in schools; or abridging the freedom of speech, except for those questioning the Bush administration; or of the press, except that not owned by Rupert Murdoch; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, except those protesting pre-emptive wars; and to petition the government for a redress of grievance, except those we don't like." -former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd sure wait for a call from S&T and TMT on this one. (not Bunny, but S&T)
If you read the post from CTI on their adjustment tool, seems there was a cert impact. We're only hearing from Gary, formerly of AT, now of RCS, that it's ok....
Gary got away with the Ellis j350 thing without a recert, but that may have been the last of his chits. The user mod there was to drill out the core of the grain, as the motor was made in different environmental conditions (NV vs. Texas). That was cato city for a few months, and the motors should have been recalled.
Remember folks, a delay is only certified to be +/- 20%, so a 10 sec delay might be only 8 sec without any modification, so if you drill out 2 more seconds, it could be a 6!
If you want a "true" delay" use electronics! Don't use an inaccurate method to mod an inaccurate delay time!
Phil won't like this, but I'll say that using electronics is a valid way to adjust the bird's motor delay! "adjust the bird and not the motor"

http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/Instructions/RDK_Instructions/rms_delay_mod_inst.pdf
he
!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Certainly true, and that make the modification of the delay useless...

method
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have no problem with that and don't really consider it to be adjusting the bird. As you said if you want accurancy, use electronics.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or it could be a 12 and you've now made it a 10. Adjustable delay or not, that's why it's critical that TMT stop hiding the results of the delay tests they perform. Even without the just announced delay mods, there are probably MANY cases where a user could make a better selection if htey had the actual test data instead of trusting that S M L is 6 10 14 and totally infallable.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Vulcans believe peace should not depend on force. -- Amanda, "Journey to Babel," stardate 3842.3
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

And, once again, I point out that this entire discussion took place regarding NAR acceptance of delay modification on the AeroTech reloadable motors. If you want to extrapolate it to TRA, go right ahead -- but neither you nor I are a member of the organization.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

tests
probably
actual
infallable.
-----snip-----
Which underscores my thesis that motor testing and certification should be independent of the national organizations. The manufacturer's submit their products for testing and the results are posted in a central repository.
Then an organization can decide, according to its own agenda, whether or not to authorize use of the product(s) at launches they sponsor. It would be the responsibility of the members of the organization to decide as a group what principles their authorizations should adhere to.
No muss, no fuss, no hidden data. No need to be concerned about relying on another organization's test results because everybody would be using the same data set.
John<==toss in FAI recognition and its a global standard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To be effective you would still need a "treaty" between the existing orgs if you wanted cross-certification pending the day your efforts took over certs entirely since they are better and more accesable.
allegedly.
There is every indication that existing orgs are open to such treaties.
In fact, given the widely publicized limitations of the Tripoli cert efforts in particular, it seems they have very low standards for treaty now.

Yea team.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Bonnett wrote:

There's barely enough 'work' out there for this to take place on a 'volunteer' basis. So, who's going to pony up to make this a 'business'? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
The system 'works', such as it is. If people become angry enough at any perceived problems with any of the organizations, they will either a) work to change the organization, b) form their own organization (as you suggest), or c) work to make the organization irrelevant.
While I understand your desire to have this 'perfect world' scenario, this isn't a 'perfect world', and we all work to get the most out of life with the least expenditure of resources. IMHO, the least number of resources are expended by trying to work with the existing organizations to get any needed changes in place -- while understanding that working with volunteer organizations is a whole different beast than working with an organization that you are paying (and that is dependent upon your money).
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well Said David !
many don't understand all the unpaid work behind the curtains already
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<blink>
Two different (or is it three) organizations are currently certifying motors and it ain't free. What I am proposing, quoting Jerry, is a 'treaty' whereby manufacturer's would submit their products to a single testing entity.
The monies currently paid to the various organizations would instead be used to support a single, central testing authority. I'm not advocating someone take on this onerous burden out of good faith because sooner or later even the best of spirits will begin to lag at performing an un-paid service.
What does it take to perform motor certifications ? I can only think of three prerequisites:
1) a test stand and data-logging system (hopefully NIST traceable) 2) permits from the AHJ to burn lots of motors 3) time to perform the tests and enter the results in a web page
I'm not advocating a volunteer operate the motor certification system without compensation (although he probably shouldn't quit his day job) instead I am suggesting that the currently fragmented testing efforts be brought together at a single location for consolidation. I'm advocating that we establish a single, common, national testing center (probably should work with the EX guys). Manufacturer's would bring samples of their product to the testing facility and conduct certification testing under the watchful supervision of representatives from the national organizations. At the end of a round of tests all parties would sign off on the test results and either certify, or reject, the product for use within their organization.
John<==that's how the rocket scientists do it
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most of the cert fees now are "donations" to the club. If they were paid to a team of two testers, they would be making over $20.00 per hour each.

I have offered to DONATE the equipment to any such effort.

There was extensive discussion of this on the email list that led to the formation of ieas.org.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Bonnett wrote:

How does that differ from what we have now? In fact, we now have 'competition', but what you're suggesting is 'monopoly'. As it stands now, I could (in theory) submit my motors to either TRA or NAR for certification. If either organization wanted to give me a 'discount' for a bulk test, they could do so. However, if this all went to one non-volunteer, and there were no other options, he could set his own price and there would be nothing anyone could do except pay it.
What I WOULD be in favor of would be (here's a thought) a certification program put together by the organizations that would allow people who have passed the certification (and who have the requisite equipment) to perform the certification testing.
I'd even consider doing this kind of thing myself -- not because I have a great deal of experience with testing motors per se, but I have decades of experience with doing both high and low speed data acquisition and analysis.
If something like this were approved, it would even simplify certain aspects even more -- if there were a 'certifier' in Cedar City, Aerotech could conceivably have 24-hour turn-around on tests, for example -- or be able to offer a 'retainer' to a local certifier.
But I don't see this idea of having a 'single-point' certifier as offering anything that the current system doesn't - except for the potential of abuse -- and worse abuse than folks are currently accusing some of doing.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The main problem with NAR and TRA now is they simply do not follow the rules as written. Ie NFPA-1125.
An independent effort or even a revised NAR or TRA effort where any product that actually meets the STATED (NFPA-1125) standards be tested would solve the problem.
There are mods I would like to see to the rules, but the rules as written do not for example exclude USR by "manufacturer" motors.
Only motors submitted by or designed by or resembling older motors by Jerry Irvine are refused, independent of paperwork or manufacturer.
The rules are interpreted as needed to exclude them.
This impacts about a half dozen vendors interested in entering the market.
That represents testing fees well exceeding $10,000
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

And just who would those "half dozen" be?
Why would they try to certify motors that you made, if indeed they are manufacturers?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

you owe ME more than that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.