ROL NEWS--AeroTech Endorses Consumer Adjustment of RMS Delays

His membership was not revoked (for refusing to cooperate) to "close that loop hole"?

See, I have learned TRA lackey language.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

how did NAR S&T handle CTI with its adjustable delays? Or did CAR do the testing and the NAR just accepted it ?

after I asked the above I looked at the NAR combined list and discovered that all of the CTI motors are either CAR or TRA certified. None have been specifically NAR certified. SO it appears the NAR accepted the CAR/TRA certs in this case.

I'm not sure what that means.....

shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

CTI posted the info... Basically, those of TRA (Sue) required a bunch of motors of each type, so they could test a few different delays for each

Also, the "delay tool" had to be changes to "fixed stops" so that it wasn't infinitely variable (this may have been a NAR requirement, to accept certification).

Gary and what is now RCS got a free pass with the Ellis J350 mess. Heck they got a free pass when changing companies and moving to a different state! I just hope the cert folks don't give him the ability to establish new policy by issuing a press release, as this make S&T and TMT nothing more than a rubber stamp these days (the testing of variable delays is an established policy of TMT, per the case with CTI... It's not Sue anymore, but the policy is there...)

Reply to
AZ Woody

I'll use most of your own words to learn you.

CAR/TRA did the testing and the NAR just accepted it.

BTW is there some sort of psychological benefit to start authoring a post, look it up, finish the post, and leave the first bad part in?

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

In this case it was vetted by Bundick in advance. That matters.

And NEVER FORGET, it was an IRVINE PROPOSAL.

:)

Positive for errortech and negative for Kosdon and Irvine.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

It was more like 3 tests for each delay setting on the DAT. Multiply that by the number of grain configutations ( 1 grain through 6 grains) and it equals a bunch o motors.

Reply to
Phil Stein

who is Mike Dennett? The reason I ask is the CAR Motor cert manual from 2002 has his name on it. Is he the CAR Motor Test Cert Chairman? Or did he "just" write the CAR test procedure manual for the CAR? Doesn't he also work for CTI in some capacity? Is this a potential conflict of interest?

I mean thats akin to Jack Kane from NAR S&T writing the NAR S&T cert procedure policy and then going to work for AT/RCS ....

I don't know thats why I am asking....

shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

-----snip-----

Which leads me to reiterate my belief that having multiple certifying bodies simply opens us up to needless confusion. Our motors consist of specific chemical compositons which should perform the same regardless of whose test apparatus they are mounted on (waving hands about temperature and humidity or air pressure differences).

My recommendation still stands; pool the currently fragmented testing resources into a single, central motor testing authority. A certified motor is a certified motor regardless of whose launch it is used at. Conversely unless decertified for safety reasons (like a high CATO rate) 'orphaned' motors whose manufacturer has stopped production of a particular size should be allowed to be used for sport launches. The only 'certification' an organization should be permitted is to 'certify' whether or not a motor may be used in competition launches.

Competion rules belong solely (as they should) to the owning organization and its nobody else's business what should or should not be allowed.

That way, when something new like Gary's delay drilling procedure comes along, one ruling from one testing authority will put the issue to bed for all of us.

John

Reply to
John Bonnett

It would be if he had the same ethics as Bruce Kelly.

As it turns out Mr Dennett has more ethics than that to the degree nobody has found a single complaint.

Bruce has hundreds of complaints.

Aerotech authored or voted on the vast majority of NFPA-1125, including several exclusionary rules.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Have you actually READ the manual? It's not pro-CTI, or pro-anyone else. It's fair.

CAR Motor Testing took advantage of the willingness of a knowledgable individual to write the manual for them. He just happens to be an employee of CTI.

-Kevin

Reply to
Kevin Trojanowski

In article snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Jerry Irvine at snipped-for-privacy@gte.net wrote on 4/16/05 7:23 PM:

Don't get me started...

Here we go again.

The NFPA committees have a balanced membership, i.e., there is a prescribed percentage of representation each from manufacturers, enforcers, users and/or user groups and "special experts". The intent is that no one interest dominates the committee. There are about 30 members in the Pyrotechnics committee at present, and I have one vote.

As long as I have been on the committee (since 1984), nothing has been written into 1125 to "exclude" anyone.

BTW if a person decides that they do not want to comply with the provisions of the code, that's not called "exclusion" (like refusing to obtain an ATFE explosives license).

Gary

Reply to
Gary C. Rosenfield

Gary,

With all due respect, previous matters are between you and Scott Dickson. Mike was an employee at Vulcan at the time and this is all water under the bridge. Please leave Mike out of it. Contact Scott if you still have issues.

Regards,

Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

formatting link
887-2370 x222 Toronto (410) 571-8292 Annapolis

Reply to
Anthony Cesaroni

Start.

Okay. So which one authored and proposed that the propellant mixers be limited to shakers?

Be specific.

Thank you in advance.

What is it called?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

GFL.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

It is called a business decision.

Reply to
Tad Danley

Tripoli is an AHJ.

Errortech is a business.

U.S. Rockets is a hobby :)

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I feel I have more to complain about than Gary.

I was sent Kosdon by Dixon.

Dixon catoed a major commercial contract.

So did errortech, several times.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

This, from "big fraud irvine"!

jerry, do you have My money?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Anthony,

With the same due respect, I believe my family, business partner, the 18 or so employees that were laid off, the dealers and other manufacturers in the industry that were damaged or destroyed would disagree with you.

This is a matter that you have little personal knowledge of. I recommend that you gather more information before you formulate a firm opinion.

None of the perpetrators involved have ever apologized for what they did to them or us. I think such an apology, public or private, would go a long way toward putting this behind us and truly make it "water under the bridge".

Gary

In article 8EB8e.300$ snipped-for-privacy@news20.bellglobal.com, Anthony Cesaroni at snipped-for-privacy@cesaroni.net wrote on 4/17/05 4:43 PM:

Reply to
Gary C. Rosenfield

Swapping delay elements is a PITA, and that's assuming the dealer carries all the delay elements you need. Expensive too, since you have to keep multiple delay columns on hand to get whatever delay you want in any motor you want to use. You have to keep all those delays sorted, labeled and cross-referenced.

Drilling the delay is cheap, fast, simple, painless and about as foolproof as you can possibly get.

Reply to
raydunakin

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.