Re: The AT auction

Go read what I posted to Ray... it evidently applies to you too.

~ Duane Phillips.

Your perception that DOT classifies shippers vice materials. Do you agree the material in question was tested by a DOT approved agent, hence by DOT (not the current shipper here, the _material_ in question to be shipped...)?

That first and simple step seems to be hard to swallow. Forget who owns it right now. The classification of a material does not die merely because the owning company did. The classification is permanent, regardless of ownership. It is the material being shipped, not the owner. It is ridiculous to think that a material somehow loses or changes its' properties when ownership changes... not only that, the manufacturer is the expert on the material made. Again, Fred, this isn't about Jerry. It is about the classification of a substance as tested. All the rest of the arguments are just political wrangling and control issues... all of which can be worked out.

~ Duane Phillips.

Nonsense! APCP was placed on the list in the mid- to late 70's. High power didn't become an issue in NAR until a few years later, IIRC. (And APCP isn't solely used for high power motors, so what makes you think NAR would have written it off as a "high power" issue?) What's more, at the time ATF officially considered all rocket motors to be exempt, so apparently no one felt any need to contest the listing.

No, having membership that is orders of magnitude greater than TRA/NAR combined is what gives them the political clout to get and keep the BP exemption.

Wrong again, Duane. I am fully aware of that.

Your opinion Ray, not based in fact. Others have provided examples where the terms are used to different effect.

Legally accepted _where_ is more the question.

You type as if making a clarification, when it was you who in fact made the original un-useful observation about being outside the scope of NAR activity.

You are holding that these terms are globally defined in this thread, for this argument. I don't agree with you. I have seen these defined here, and elsewhere with definitions of various scope.

"They" are asking people to commit to following "NAR" Model Rocketry and etc... activities (in other words, the NAR definition of Model Rocketry activities and etc...) as stated in opinion, but not yet printed as fact on the requisite documentation.

Why are you so bent on saving a variance in definition between what is verbally promulgated, and what is actually printed?

~ Duane Phillips.

It sure seems hard to argue against the notion that _someone_ took some commercial rocket propellant into Dr. Chang at the Bureau of Explosives - i.e., the guy at DOT/RSPA who actually _does_ their "Examining and Classifying of New Explosives" - who tested it and reported that the stuff was "just barely 1.3" - "don't even worry about it unless you have a good-sized hunk of the stuff".

Notably, this conclusion was reached after what appears to be a relatively small subset of the first standard test series: try a search on the r.m.r subject line: "just test it" for a full list of tests that someone posted. (Evidently, in this case, the first few tests indicated that nothing too exciting might be expected of the rest of them.)

The question of whether this tested material was either related to, or representative of, any propellant Jerry ever came up with is a whole separate affair. Admittedly, the composition of the material has been "redacted" out of the test report copy we've seen, and it is identified only by what appears to be an arbitrary customer part number - this all may indeed be quite legitimate for one reason or another (I can think of a couple), but it certainly does make comparison rather difficult!

-dave w

Sorry Ray... too late at night for me... Use your imagination... Try thinking, "How might it possibly work?" and come up with some ideas.

~ Duane "I'm off to bed" Phillips.

And you think that happened over night...

(And APCP isn't

Apparently...

WHICH IS WHY I ASKED YOU where they would be if they would have had a split...

NAR would be ORDERS of magnitude larger had it been more responsive to change...

Really? Where are your retractions of claims that Jerry needs to wake up and get permits that were in fact wrong for him to get? Your clarion cry was shutup and get legal... by your WRONG interpretation of what legal was. You give NAR and TRA the only credit about being right about PADs, yet NEITHER organization has officially changed stance yet about requiring un-needed governmental docs for motor certifications... which they should have never required to begin with.

I don't believe you care about the hobby at all. Only about defending perceived turf... especially with the wide range of topics you refuse to see any alternative on.

~ Duane Phillips.

Obviously DOT has a different interpretation than your position; your problem to solve. As someone mentioned in a previous post, "Fred looks at it from a consumer and managers prospective, not that of a manufacture or dealer". A very perceptive observation

Fred

I agree and Jerry should get busy and work it out. His problem with DOT, you or I can't solve it.

Fred

Hence, the problems Jerry must address, and only he can do it.

Fred

Fred has posted the phone number of the guy at DOT. Why don't you contact him & get an authoritative answer to this?

Why are we arguing over this. It's Jerry's problem. If he wants to, he can clear this up with the Feds. By clearing it up I mean he can get the stuff classified again or get them to 'bless' the paperwork he already has.

NAR was founded in 1958.

The statute of limitations to CHANGE it (in the original draft) was 7 years later.

NAR has been aware of ATF and DOT and NFPA and CPSC for many moons now.

RDC motors were 1968. Enerjet motors were 1971.

It's never too late to start!

How about today!

Which it didn't.

The ATF can tell you the PAD exemption is not valid too.

The REGULATIONS are the determining factor, not verbal rulings obtained by biased non-expert Tripoli supporters.

Jerry

Then go away.