ROL NEWS--AeroTech Files for Chapter 11

Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

ROFL...

Did I unwittingly give you a plug?

~ Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

Then it is no longer being used as manufactured, nor for its intended purpose.

What you're suggesting is akin to dumping a gallon of gas on the floor of your garage. Sure, it's very dangerous _like that_, but that isn't how it's normally used or stored.

Reply to
RayDunakin

And got 4 different effects from low smoke to Firestarter??

Tom

Reply to
Tom Binford

No

FS is a different classification entirely, as is BK.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

If that were true than how come AMW can't get their Skidmarks approved by the DOT or the NFPA ???

JD

Reply to
JDcluster

No comment. This is NOT free business training.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

To quote from Jerry's jpg:

"Impact Test The sample consistently exploded in the Bureau of Explosives Impact Apparatus under a drop height of 10" and exploded 2 times out of 10 trials under a drop height of 3 3/4""

Under recommended classification the class B designation is only recommended for material in cast form "with the minimum dimensions of

36.00" h X 3.30" d."

I see no mention of classification for material cast or not in any smaller form. As far as I can tell this material has not undergone recent testing and I haven't seen an EX number for it (this I may have missed - if so, would like a link to it?)

Is this any better? Ed

Reply to
Ed

I'm not sure what that translates to in terms of "real world" sensitivity (the Bureau of Mines may just be really good at building machines that make stuff explode by banging on it), but I suspect that if something only goes off consistently on the "high" setting that's considered a relatively moderate hazard. This may be a sort of general screening test - if they had a material that would go off consistently on "low", they might have done a lot more of the tests to determine if it was even safe to ship as "class B" at all.

I think this means that it isn't even classified as "explosives" (for DOT purposes) in smaller pieces (i.e., the "minimum size" represents a threshold above which the stuff is considered to bear a "class B explosives" hazard, and thus becomes subject to the applicable shipping precautions for that category).

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Key word #1 "only" Key word #2 "minimum"

Simply because it is not recommended for a hazard class. Classification by omission. BTW the DOT issued EX numbers in PRECISE conformance with this report.

Key word #3 "issued" Key word #4 "PRECISE"

No.

The issue we agreed to narrow the discussion to was this paperwork and how it relates to the seeming "asset" or "hard proof" that APCP is NOT an explosive "as tested" as well as "as defined in law".

The goal of some on this group is to seek a path to clear. If you do not even share the goal, leave. Now. If you share the goal and have some thing to offer we have missed, that is precisely what this discussion is for. Key word #4.

Happy New Year.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yes.

Yes.

Here is the cite to support that:

BUREAU OF EXPLOSIVES

Proper transportation hazard classification for an explosive, of course, culminates with the assignment of an EX Number. Much more specific than a Hazard Classification, an EX Number applies to a particular explosive formula and its packaging. The two larger pictures of historic regulation of explosives and the present system of classification of all hazardous materials are needed to make clear the EX Number. In the nineteenth century the EX Number was essentially a privately administered classification of the only recognized hazardous material. Today it is administered publicly as part - albeit a special part - of the larger system that regulates hazardous materials.

A specific series of tests determines the hazard classification. The manufacturer's knowledge of the material can, in some cases, substitute for some of the tests in this process. In the absence of assumptions, except a concern that the material is explosive, the material moves through Test Series 1 and 2 in that order. Test 1 looks at output ascertaining if the material exhibits explosive characteristics. If not, then for transportation classification, it exits from Class 1 consideration at this point.

Yes.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

That brings to mind a couple questions: Is new testing required if the standards change? Also, how much can the formula change before new testing is required?

Reply to
RayDunakin

Do you understand the apparatus used in the drop test? It is NOT the material being dropped. It is an impact apparatus intended to create a shock wave through the material. The material in this test is doing just fine.

You might look for Figure 4 on this page for a look at one of the pieces of equipment the BOE may use: Bureau of Explosives 8 lb. Impact Test Apparatus (Figure 4)

formatting link
If code has not been modified, you may also see:

49 CFR 173.53, note 4 (.53 covers Class A and .88 covers class B)

The minimum dimensions are the class threshold.

If the material has not changed, then what is the point of paying excessive new amount$$$ just to get a new date for the same test? (common sense here). The material would stand as tested.

~ Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

Yep that's the one.

As I have said for 8 years it would be TRIVIAL for NAR or [IAR/IEAS] to get one, hell I would donate one, and do the propellant testing themselves. Then as an already recognized AHJ submit the test reports to DOT for shipping approvals on PROPELLANTS.

40 approved supliers. That is my goal. 40 approved suppliers.

40 approved supliers. That is my goal. 40 approved suppliers.

40 approved supliers. That is my goal. 40 approved suppliers.

40 approved supliers. That is my goal. 40 approved suppliers.

40 approved supliers. That is my goal. 40 approved suppliers.

40 approved supliers. That is my goal. 40 approved suppliers.

40 approved supliers. That is my goal. 40 approved suppliers.

40 approved supliers. That is my goal. 40 approved suppliers.

40 approved supliers. That is my goal. 40 approved suppliers.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.