ROL NEWS--AeroTech Files for Chapter 11

TB-700.2

Nice and inspecific... as expected.

~ Duane Phillips.

Specificity KILLED the Gray :)

Huh? What law prohibits them from verifying your documents?

Jerry's original ACS test report, which says that the propellant is so dangerous that you actually need to ship it as class 1.3c if you have a piece any bigger than 3 feet long and 3 inches thick.

-dave w

:)

The BOE test performed by Dr. Chang. That document. It has been posted several times.

~ Duane Phillips.

As you can clearly see MANY on rmr and in the industry have severe learning disabilities WRT to anything I say or do. It's like the cone of silence has been turned into a dunce cap of enormous range :)

Except the :) is a sad :) not a phunnie :)

not again!

- iz

RayDunak> Jerry wrote:

LOL!

who makes 3 foot grains?

- iz

David We> Kurt Kesler wrote:

If you cannot refute with facts or discredit the messenger, just ask the question as if it has NEVER been answered.

Roller coaster anyone? With no off button or exit of course.

Jerry

It has to be (or contain) a 3.3x36" solid cylinder so even this does not trigger the event:

Just Jerry

There is a great deal of variance in possible interpretations of this document. I haven't looked at it for some time, but, if memory serves, some of the numbers look a bit on the dangerous side. Also I'm afraid I wouldn't want to be around one pound of it (around an ignition source) after using a cheese grater to reduce particle size down to something similar to black powder ejection grains. I seriously doubt that anyone can say that this reduction in grain size would result in a safer material, although this has been continually implied many times on this and other forums. Ed

But ACS propellant was *different* from the propellant in USR motors. I've burned both.

Tom

No.

We use the exact formula they classified. I do not know if they produced what they classified. Maybe not.

I share your opinion the differences are obvious.

Jerry

Huh? False.

I like the core design... nice average surface throughout the burn... who would have thought? Very interesting indeed...

~ Duane Phillips.

Well I wonder how many different dangerous things I can do with common household chemicals when I use them in ways NOT as FOR INTENDED USE.

The laws cover that...

Your statement has nothing to do with interpretation of the document, NOR the validity of the document, but it does have everything to do with FUD.

~ Duane Phillips.

Been there, done that.