What is everyone working on now that its cold and windy?

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:46:31 -0800, David Weinshenker


Assume that you don't need a LEMP to manufacture APCP. What is going to prevent some hack from going into busniess manufacturing APCP in the garage of his row house or condo? Because of the potential harm to uninvolved people, I support the requirement for LEMPs weather a LEUP is needed by flyers or not. I can't imagine why anyone concerned with the safety of the surrounding area being against it.
If anyone disagrees that people manufacturing APCP should have a LEMP, I'd like to know.why. Do not confuse this with weather flyers need a LEUP or not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil Stein wrote:

Well, what the Low Explosives Manufacturing License (and Dealer License) actually authorize is to _sell_ explosive materials into 'Commerce In Explosives' - note that 27CFR555.141(a)(...) grant exemptions from the entirety of 27 CFR part 555 ("this part shall not apply with respect to..."). Note that this places the requirements for licenses-to-sell "explosive materials", as well as the categorization of APCP as an "explosive material" (by virtue of being "listed" as such), under the influence of the same exemptions as would apply to requirements for permits-to-buy such materials.
The situation would be different if APCP were sold in "commerce in explosives" separately from its existence as part of an exempt device - if APCP were something that one bought by the barrel as a generic "explosive material" and then used some of it to make motors out of - but that's not the case: the APCP that we use in our rockets does not exist, as such, until it is created in the process of manufacture of an exempt device. (In fact, since grains are cast to net diameter rather than being carved out of big chunks of propellant, it could be said that the ingredients which will become the propellant are incorporated into a component of an exempt device before they even actually become [in the curing process] "APCP"!)
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Phil Stein is an advocate of INCREASED REGULATION.
Fact.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nope. I'm just against people like you being able to burn my house down.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No willing vendors live near you nor want anything to do with you. You are safe.
Traitor.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I too am against people like you being able to burn my house down. . And to rectify the situation, I call for an immediate federal immediate and seizure of the following items. Users will be permitted to possess these items again once they have successfully obtained a HFPUP (Highly Flammable Product Users Permit).
matches lighters butane refills zippo fluid Propane Propane tanks. kerosene Gasoline Lighter fluid "match light" charcoal Acetone Solvent Adhesives Glues Pool chlorine Plastic cements Cleaning Fluids Denatured Alcohol Enamel Lacquer Oil oils based Paint Paint Remover Petroleum Products Liquid Polishes Shellac Shoe Polish Solvents Stains Turpentine Varnish potassium nitrate brake fluid road flares. coleman fuel
Other dangerous items that may also need to be banned Electricity. Batteries and other producers of electrochemical energy Magnifying lenses Stick rubbing. Dashing stones or steel together.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

To bad Frank didn't have the luxuary of not living near you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong again.
He lives far away.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My point is that possessing a LEMP does not prevent that anymore than possessing a drivers license prevents me from hitting someone with my car.
Sincerely, Philip Doolittle http://www.OdorDestroyer.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Philip Doolittle wrote:

Why? Are you a reckless driver? Do you drive drunk?
Do You have a driver's license? Do you have liability insurance?
Unlicensed drivers cannot get auto liability insurance.
Uninsured vehicles in many states, cannot be registered.
Who would You rather be involved in an accident with?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

See?
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I know. It's #1 tactic of criminal defene attorneys and politicians. When you having nothing to go on, ATTACK. Keep your opponent off balance and unable to successfully rebutt by launching a barrage of attacks that come from every angle imaginable. Whenever you see this tactic being used, you know for certain that your opponent has no facts to fall back onto.
For example: Are you a reckless driver? Do you drive drunk? Do You have a driver's license? Do you have liability insurance?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hence the littany of claims against me over the years on rmr, NONE of which have stuck.
Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Looks as if the $40 gran stuck.. You know, "200 LB of class 1.3C hazmat, shipped as model airplane parts". Are you really that stupid or just a criminal trying to get over?
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"W. E. Fred Wallace" wrote:

No sport rocket APCP actually qualifies as "1.3C" - that classification was a historical administrative dispensation, and overstates the actual hazard of the material.
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Weinshenker wrote:

BS, where do you find such information or is that just your opinion? Even Jerry's alleged paperwork is classed 1.3c.
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"W. E. Fred Wallace" wrote:

See Jerry's message (sometime within the past year or two) to r.m.r, entitled "Apology to Gary Rosenfeld" (or something similar), wherein he disclosed that rather than actually having the propellant tested, he suggested to Gary that they ask DOT if they would "go ahead and let them ship it as 1.3C" (or 1.4C for smaller units) on the basis that it were no more hazardous than BP motors which had been historically thus classified... he said that it seemed like a good idea at the time to them, compared to the cost of actual testing (cheapskates that they both then were) but he subsequently regretted this on the grounds that it established a precedent for over-classifying a material that, on an objective basis, should really not need to be subject to the precautions specified in "Transportation of Explosives".
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Weinshenker wrote:

Obviously, based on DOT's reaction to Jerry's infamous shipment, that opinion didn't pass DOT's muster.
Fred
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They did not classify or review the classification of anything.
They simply claimed a shipment was made without checking the hazmat box, which is clearly true.
Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

What are you talking about?? You did not, repeat; did not, fill out a hazmat declaration, declaring hazmat of any kind, much less check the hazmat box on the shipping company shipper declaration. By not checking the hazmat box on the shipper document, indicating hazmat, one way or another, you violated the law, if your shipment contained hazmat: it did, and you were fined.
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.