Re: Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model aircraft parts"?

NOT every one.

But ones where the analogy fits.

Quite a few I admit.

This message was in reply to a nice guy who took a comment I made probably about his position on ATF (which was moronic) and extrapolating that to mean he was a moron on all things at all times.

Nope.

Logical break.

Jerry

Want an example of fixation? Read several posts from Dave Grayvis, Fred Wallace and Ray Dunakin. THEY are fixated.

snip chaff

So post more about those cool products.

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model aircraft parts"?

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model aircraft parts"?

I'm pretty sure that table salt won't explode under *any* circumstances. Not even in 36" x 3.30" diameter castings.

- Rick "Just a thought" Dickinson

ROFL!

John

Actually, Jerry, you've added a word, there. As you quoted (but with typos fixed and your editorial additi-> It is recommended that the material represented by this sample is

-> described as a Propellant Explosive, Solid and classed as a Class

-> B Explosive when the material is shipped in a cast form with the

-> minimum dimensions of 36.00"h x 3.30"d.

The word "ONLY" does not appear before the word "WHEN".

Thus, while the document specifically states that a propellant slug of at least that size should be classed as a Class B Explosive, it makes no limitations on what to do with smaller slugs.

Was 3.30"d x 36.00"h the exact size of the propellant slugs that ACS-Reaction Labs submitted for testing? Based solely on the careful wording of the document, I suspect that it was. Care to confirm or deny?

Thanks,

- Rick "Astute Reader" Dickinson

Fred,

THese are getting old & repetitious. Can you change them a little? Maybe do some with a mosaic theme?

Phil

There has to be a way to get it to. I'll leave the details to others that know more than I do.

opps, I found this in the on-line encyclopidea. but I don't think it was known ahead of time:

I guess we will have to stop saying our rockets fly. I guess they don't. They assend.

Why don't you sue the DOT for libel?

Scott Orr :)

Point.

Agreed but I marked my comment as editorial.

There is a reason for that. The test showed a THRESHOLD. Above that threshold the material MUST be a Class B (now 1.3). Fine.

But it also meands below that threshold it MUST NOT be Class B (now 1.3).

Since Class C is a subset of Classes A and B, that means it is EITHER

The material PASSES the burning rate threshold for 4.1 so QED!!!

Now we know why the DOT threw down the gauntlet gentlemen.

Nope. The tests were done on sugar cube size samples and the 3.3 comes from the hammer test. The 2nd test showed 2 of 10 samples exploded (popping noise) from a drop height of 3.75". It was the JUDGEMENT of the DIRECTOR of the BOE/AARR that 3.3 would provide a sufficient safety margin. (assuming a dual head-on train wreck with a full load of max size APCP grains!!) 3.3" THICKNESS approved. The 36" length was arbitrary. ACS told them that 36 inch castings is what they anticipated max.

The formula is of course disclosed to those with a legit need to know.

Editorial is just opinion, not fact.

One could certainly _chose_ to interpret it that way, but that would not be a literal reading of it. The document does not use the word "threshold" nor does it say anything else that would indicate that smaller quantities are not hazmat.

Yes, as Class B explosive.

Unfortunately, even IF the tests had proven the material to be harmless, you'd still be out of luck since the DOT says this document is outdated and that the permits you say are yours were never legally transferred to you.