I don't think NAR collects or gives enough information to satisfy a
true anal retentive engineer. Think about it - they average 3
samples. You don't know each sample tested out to. How about a 9
second delay where the samples were 9, 7 & 11? You still get an
average of 9.
Quit squirming. You showed disrespect for the members of TRA by
comparing them to sheep. At least have the balls to admit it.
You said "if they choose a wise leader". I'm simply clarifying your
definition of a "wise leader", based on your comments here.
Then what "activists" were you referring to, and why should anyone give
a flying fig whether or not you hold them in high regard?
Yes it does. If it passed, it was within the acceptable level of
variability. Since the acceptable level of variability is given, you
know exactly as much as if you were provided the actual test data. In
other words, a 10 second delay is going to be with 20% of 10 seconds.
If it wasn't, then it would not have passed.
Bob posted that information in this very thread! Haven't you been
paying attention at all??
You've missed the point, probably due to missing Bob's posts on this
issue. They allowed AT to call it a 9 second delay even though it
tested to only 6 seconds. Where is the sense in that? They should have
either failed the motor or required AT to change the designation to
more accurately reflect the true delay time.
Oh, give me a break! Like there's no middle ground between "lighting a
fuse and running away" and "I'd better test the motors myself before I
fly them"??
I know there are many engineers, including rocket engineers, in this
hobby. But so far you're the only one I've heard of who go to the
lengths you described just to fly a certified motor. If the
certification process for consumer sport rocket motors isn't good
enough for you, maybe you should stick to industrial or military grade
motors and leave the hobby stuff to us lowly hobbyists.
More importantly, a 10 second delay could test at 8 seconds or as long
as 12 seconds and it would be within spec.
Consecutive firings of the same motor could vary differently each time.
If You need it more accurate than that, get a timer.
On 14 Jul 2005 20:36:35 -0700, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"
I'm not squirming. You seen to be the one trying to twist my posts
into insults. Sheep are really good creatures. You brought sheep
into the discussion. I used the compact phrase "sheeple", meaning
that that the TRA membership is led by a strong intolerant
administration. By contrast The NAR has weaker administration.
Bundick in particular set up his tenure as a member driven leadership
style. Essentially Mark is just asks the members where they want to
go, and he facilitates membership initiatives. If you feel
dissrespected being a follower in an association with strong
leadership, you could try a different association.
Nobody seems to be flying figs except you. You should just fly
rockets instead.
S&T does not run AT or any other motor producer. S&T certifies motors
for use by members and other consumers, and makes the test data
available so they know the performance of the motors that they may
wish to use. Product labeling is a function of the manufacturer, not
S&T. Naturally S&T wants manufacturers to use clear labeling and
marketing, but they have no control or enforcement tools. All S&T can
do is deprive its membership of the opportunity to fly good but poorly
labeled motors by decertifying them, which is in nobody's interest.
It is the manufacturers responsibility to use motor designations that
accurately reflect the actual delivered performance. You are
assigning fault to S&T when the fault is entirely the manufacturer's.
So mister pass/fail now wants some middle ground? There is not only
middle ground, but a continuous spectrum between irresponsible and
prudent. I don't give breaks, YOU place yourself somewhere in that
range.
There are people who do not fly sport rockets because the motors are
not reliable enough for them. My standards are doubtless higher than
most, but I still fly. I do try to minimize my risks, and that means
that I do not fly with suspect motors.
Alan
Do you really expect anyone to believe that you use of the term
"sheeple" was not derogatory? Everyone I know would consider it an
insult. How about you, would you mind being called a sheeple?
Another derogatory insinuation. Wait, let me guess, now you're going to
say that "intolerant" is a compliment.
I feel disrespected by your snide insinuations that our leadership is
"intolerant" and that we are nothing but mindless sheep. Furthermore
your denials are an insult to my intelligence.
Cute, but evasive. What "activists" were you referring to, and would
anyone care about your regard for them?
The fault is S&T's, because they certified motors that fell outside the
allowable level of variability. Why even bother with certification if
they aren't going to hold manufacturers to the required standards??
Name one, besides youself.
So fly with whatever motors you think are worthy of such an exalted one
as yourself, and leave the hobby stuff to us lowly hobbyists.
It is descriptive. You "feeling" it is derogatory, aside, it is
descriptive.
Are they insulted because they are sheeple and they do not like that
noted?
It is descriptive. You "feeling" it is derogatory, aside, it is
descriptive.
THAT is a "derogatory insinuation".
THAT is a "derogatory insinuation".
So yours are obviously MEANT to be an insult to mine then?
Care to back up that libel with a fact?
Jerry
"I am sorry, but did Bob actually say that? It appears you are quoting
him. If you are not quoting him, then this is an a-hole like manouver. I
mean really. What are you trying to do here? It seems like the ultimate
that a jerk would try to pull off."
- Greg Cisko
"Well maybe there is something to it then. I hate to say it, but
a few in my section tell me Jerry has a point."
- Greg Cisco
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
On 15 Jul 2005 11:55:23 -0700, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"
Fine, consider yourself an insult, or insulted. Nobody cares much
what you and everyone you know considers. I don't mind being called a
sheeple in the appropriate context.
It is not an insinuation. It is a direct statement regarding TRA
management style. See previous posts for supporting development.
TRA leadership IS intolerant. Why are you calling your TRA peers
mindless sheep? I don't deny what I have said, I deny much of what
you misinterpret. I have no need to insult your intelligence, which
is clear enough from your posts.
By "activists" I was referring to leaders and problems solvers, in
contrast to whiners and followers. Nobody should care about my higher
regard for activists, and it is odd that you do.
That is a direct lie.
Geez, just pick names out of a phone book. Or, try your local chapter
of IPMS. These guys are expert modelers who are aghast that we
actually build and fly rare collectors plastic model kits and launch
them with model rocket motors. I know of at least one MR motor
manufacturer who started producing his own lime of motors because the
prior available motors were not reliable enough.
Alan
No, just what I read on RMR. I made a subjective observation. I
don't really have enough contact with TMT to justify that observation.
I do know that there was some turnover on the BoD n recent years.
What have they done within the last three years to make them more
tolerant?
Alan
Turnover on the BoD in recent years has make them more
tolerant. The current people listen and take the opinions of members
into consideration.
Much of the negative you see on rmr is conjecture, people repeating
hearsay and of course the malcontents. I stayed away from TRA for
years. When I joined, I found out it's not so bad. Several people
here on rmr have recently had the same experience. LDRS which is TRAs
annual meeting is going on now. I'm expecting some more improvements
to be instituted and announced at the meeting which is tonight.
I'll buy that. All but one of the problem BOD members is gone. I'll admit I
don't know most of the BOD any more, but the few I do know (other than
Chuck) are good people. But HQ is still in Kelly's house...
Let's hope...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible
resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII.
I meant to say TRA rather than TMT.
My impression was that there not enough of the newer BoD members to
make a substantial, difference. I am pleased to read that "it is not
so bad", and that there is hope for more improvements.
Alan
Not 100% of the people that were already there caused or were part of
the problem. So even though about half the BOD members have changed
in the last 3 years, that doesn't mean the BOD is half bad.
Guess I'm lucky. Last night they announced that they are exercising
their 90 day option to sever their relationship with HPR. Didn't any
of you pals tell you this was coming?
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.