ATFexempt.comment.txt From: "Chris Taylor Jr" Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Subject: Re: [PUBLIC NOTICE] http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFexempt.htm Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 01:36:41 GMT If he information is incorrect fine so be it but your say so with a taunt of jibe does not make it so. Put up or shut up. IS he wrong or not and if so SPECIFICALLY how. If his information is complete them Rocket Motors should be totally unregulated as they are today. If his info is not complete then enlighten us. But merely TROLLING this forum does NONE of us any good. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ "Balsa Boy" wrote in message news:7Jjx9.16029$7W2.15012@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > "Jerry Irvine" <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > > > http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFexempt.htm > > ...and you don't have to pay any federal income tax, either. > > == From: "Chris Taylor Jr" Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Subject: Re: [PUBLIC NOTICE] http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFexempt.htm Replies intersperced below > "Them" rocket motors? ;O) ?? yes ! > BATF: BATF does not recognize rocket motors as "propellant actuated devices". It is not up to batf. by there definition it is a PAD they have no choice in the matter HENCE the lawsuit. > Hence the NAR/TRA lawsuit. > > USPS: Hazardous materials are defined as "Any solid material... or that can be > ignited readily and, when ignited, burns so vigorously and persistently as to create > a serious transportation hazard." Only the "ignited readily" part here would be open > to debate, and USPS's judgement will ALWAYS fall on the conservative side. They can NOT be ignited readily but also they are most DEFINATELY hazard once they "are" ignited. this I agree with. > "its oxygen is consumed by ITS combustion. Therefore it is not a hazardous substance." I am confused on this one. probably my lack of full understanding of the terminology. but APCP is not an oxidizing substance. it does not "oxidise" anything else besides itself from what I understand. What am I missing here ? > These are all self-serving statements, an attempt by Jerry to get everyone to jump > off the cliff with him. Basically, it's bullshit which would be laughed out of any court > of law. Jerry knows this, but it gives him fodder to bitch, moan and whine about > being unfairly treated. Self Serving does not make them wrong. that is why I asked for proof. > There are equally convincing arguments in place out there, which stipulate that you > don't have to pay any federal income tax. Many of these arguments convey individual > facts which are independently verifiable, and which in the minds of some, add up to the > conclusion that paying federal income taxes is not mandatory. > > Most of us, however, live in the real world. QED. Yes in the real world Federal Taxation is unconstitutional so they just threw away that part of the constitution. Grrrr Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ == In article <01rocket-BD4DC7.19035003112002@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > In article , > "Balsa Boy" wrote: > > > USPS: Hazardous materials are defined as "Any solid material... or that > > can be > > ignited readily and, when ignited, burns so vigorously and persistently as > > to > ^^^ > > create > > a serious transportation hazard." Only the "ignited readily" part here > > would > > be open > > to debate, and USPS's judgement will ALWAYS fall on the conservative side. > > Comment? > > > > > Finally, examine one of Jerry's arguments AGAINST classifying APCP as an > > "oxidizing substance": > > > > "its oxygen is consumed by ITS combustion. Therefore it is not a hazardous > > substance." > > > > These are all self-serving statements, > > APCP is a non-stoichometric combustion that is fuel rich. Ask ANY APCP > manufacturer, researcher, student or analyst. > > > > an attempt by Jerry to get everyone to > > jump > > off the cliff with him. Basically, it's bullshit which would be laughed > > out > > of any court > > of law. Jerry knows this, but it gives him fodder to bitch, moan and whine > > about > > being unfairly treated. > > This has not been tested in court. Because there is no need ot. It is > obvious to the casual observer the abundant variety of code saying > essentially the same thing 10 different ways. > > off-topic rant snipped. > > Jerry > > or should I say "god just jerry"? == In article , "Chris Taylor Jr" wrote: > Clearly my knowledge in this area is limited but I took it to mean that AP > by itself was VERY sensitive and unstable ?? is this not right ? > > but by making it into APCP you remove that instability and sensitivity. it > is now much harder to light and thefore far less dangerous than just AP by > itself. > > ?? > > Chris Taylor > http://www.nerys.com/ == Imagine table salt then add 15-25% molasses. Not very hazardous unless you IGNITE it. Then it burns and smokes. Avoid breathing exhaust generally. == In article <20021103221306.02540.00002273@mb-fv.aol.com>, mfreptiles@aol.com (Mfreptiles) wrote: > >disagree and find your post highly counterproductive< > > Any discussion that goes against our campaign against the BATF is > counterproductive. In fact, it may very well introduce arguments that they > have not even considered. Then they could use this in court against us. > > The ATF does monitor several of our forums, this is known. > > Mike Fisher > Binder Design > http://binderdesign.com == In article <20021103231750.02492.00002525@mb-fv.aol.com>, mfreptiles@aol.com (Mfreptiles) wrote: > >By citing LAW? > > > >Just Jerry > > Citing law is perfectly fine. If we can fit our propellant into an exempt > category, even better. Rocketeers arguing that our propellant does not > deserve > an exemption (by their own interpetation) are shooting themselves in the > foot. > > This is one of the arguments of the lawsuit. Submit the argument and let the > judge decide. > > Mike Fisher > Binder Design == In article , "shockwaveriderz" wrote: > C=Cartridge P=Propellant > CAD/PADs are specialized work performing components used in many modern > weapon systems. The cartridges use precisely measured > propellant and explosive mixtures of varying compositions and burning > characteristics that perform a wide variety of jobs within the > weapon systems. They range in cost from about $1 to over $10,000 and may be > purchased one at a time or by the thousands. The > aerospace sector is the major user of CAD/PAD items. Many are used in life > saving applications under emergency conditions. Major > uses include aircrew ejection seats found on high speed aircraft, chaff and > flare ejectors used as countermeasures to anti-aircraft > missiles, bomb rack and missile releases, and missile fuel ignitors. > Commercial use has increased rapidly, especially with the > advent of automotive airbag initiators, which are being phased in as a > mandatory Federal safety requirement. Other commercial uses > have also increased. These include mining and oil field development devices, > emergency cutting tools, and fire extinguisher > actuators. > > "Jerry Irvine" <01rocket@gte.net> wrote in message > news:01rocket-83B3DF.20092003112002@news.bellatlantic.net... > > In article , > > "Balsa Boy" wrote: > > > > > "shockwaveriderz" wrote: > > > > > > > BB: > > > > I'm not sure I consider a rocket motor a "Propellant actuated > > > > device".... > > > > I always thought a PAD was like those .22 caliber propellant actuated > > > > hammers thingies > > > > shockie B) > > > > > > Bingo! > > > > > > Tell that to Jerry. > > > > > > > > > > In case you didn't know ammunition is a different catagory altogether. == In article <20021104042640.18068.00000093@mb-cd.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << All the more reason that mainstream rocketry should disassociate itself > from > self-proclaimed "legal experts" without a whit of merit, who try to promote > their own interpretation of the law in a way which clearly defies common > sense. > >> > > Many of Jerry's assertions do have merit, and some even mirror what we are > trying to prove in court. > > << It doesn't exactly HELP the HPR hobby when certain wackos on the fringes > boldly proclaim that regulatory authorities have no right to interfere in > "their" affairs, or come up with creative ways to interpret regulations and > then try to persuade the community to follow along with such schemes and > violate the laws en masse. >> > > The only real problem with most of Jerry's positions regarding regulations is > not that he is technically incorrect, but rather that he ignores the fact > that > the ATF and/or other agencies disagree with his (or our) view of the > regulations, and are actively enforcing their view. We know that APCP is not > an > explosive, even by the ATF's own definitions. But until they acknowledge > that, > what matters is what is being enforced. > > Pointing out what is technically or legally correct should not get anyone in > trouble. Ignoring the government's position _can_ get you in trouble, > regardless of what is technically or even legally correct. Yes, you could > allow > yourself to be busted and then try to defend your position in court, but > that's > not something most people are willing or able to do. == * == In article <20021104041446.18068.00000092@mb-cd.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << I'm not sure I consider a rocket motor a "Propellant actuated > device"....>> > > "Propellent actuated device" is virtually the definition of a rocket motor. > > < hammers > thingies >> > > Unfortunately, the ATF feels the same way. Until we can get a court to force > them to admit the truth, we're stuck with their inaccurate definition. == In article , "Joel Corwith" wrote: > It is very clear in this matter. > > It says: > "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated > devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools > manufactured, imported, or distributed for their > intended purposes." > > PAD and PAID are listed separately. See? A bammer (.22) is a PAID. If > they meant PAD for a bammer, they wouldn't have listed PAID. > > You don't have to like Jerry's argument, you only have to agree with him. > Otherwise examine the orange book and determine where other (common use) > motors fit in (hint: PA{blank}). > > AND then there is the question,... what happened to question 13 of the > questions and answers? > "13. Is the rocket propellant in model rocket kits considered to be an > explosive? > No. [§55.141]" > > Joel. phx == "You don't have to like Jerry's argument, you only have to agree with him." - Joel == In article , "shockwaveriderz" wrote: > joel: > Well I don't agree with Jerry anymore than I agree with the ATF or our FEDGOV > on a number of things....I do tell you one thing > though.....The ATF is the least of our worries....I have been looking at > various states explosives laws and they ALL define > Propellant Actuated Devices as EXPLOSIVES.... so even if the NAR/TRA wins > with that definition against the ATF on a federal level, > you are still gonna have to get a state explosives license...... > Assuming of course the ATF agrees with Jerry that rocket motors used for > recreational purposes are PADS.......there is an entire > industry that manufacturers CADs/PADs etc and that industry doesn't even > aknowledge that theres any such thing as a recreational > rocket engine.... > and as far as trying to SHUT ME UP for implying that I'm arguing the case for > the ATF in public, I doubt very seriously that the ATF > is monitoring this newsgroup for pointers on how to try their case.....I've > noticed on several occasions where if people take an > opposing view to the majority viewpoint they are flamed or labeled as > sleeping with the enemy.... > > IT amazes me that Jerry is almost universally **** in this newsgroup but > when he says that motors are PADS, some people are > willing to believe it...... > > shockie B) == http://www.v-serv.com/usr/launching.htm == In article , kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote: > In article , Leonard Fehskens > writes: > > raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote in > > news:20021104041446.18068.00000092@mb-cd.aol.com: > > > >> "Propellent actuated device" is virtually the definition of a rocket > >> motor. > > > > Except for the fact that the combination of words "propellant actuated > > device" has a widely understood meaning. It's not just a fortuitous > > combination of words. The BATF used is to mean a specific class of > > devices, not anything that anyone felt met their own interpretation of > > the words. > > Actually, Len, PAD is defined by the DOT, not the BATF. And the definition > EXACTLY describes a model rocket motor. > > Of course we could assume that a PAD is whatever the BATF wants to call a > PAD, kust like we've got them calling an explosive anything they feel like > calling an explosive, regardless of whether or not it "boom"s. > > By the same logic we could call a cow a train. == In article <20021104151754.18068.00000094@mb-cd.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << Except for the fact that the combination of words "propellant actuated > device" has a widely understood meaning.>> > > Widely understood by whom? Just because some regulatory bureaucrat suddenly > decides one day that its meaning is limited, doesn't make it so. If it was > meant to have limited meaning, that should have been spelled out in the law. > > < a > specific class of devices, not anything that anyone felt met their own > interpretation of the words. >> > > As someone else pointed out a couple messages ago, they have exemptions for > both PADs _and_ propellent actuated industrial tools. Clearly then, those > tools > are not the definition of a PAD. > > Of course, all of this is in addition to the fact that ATF is legally allowed > to regulate only materials which function by explosion, and propellent is not > an explosive. ATF should not be regulating propellent regardless of whether > or > not rocket motors are PADs. == In article <01rocket-B08737.12394304112002@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > In article <20021104151754.18068.00000094@mb-cd.aol.com>, > raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > > > << Except for the fact that the combination of words "propellant actuated > > device" has a widely understood meaning.>> > > > > Widely understood by whom? Just because some regulatory bureaucrat suddenly > > decides one day that its meaning is limited, doesn't make it so. If it was > > meant to have limited meaning, that should have been spelled out in the > > law. > > You might as well stop arguing aout the definition of a Propellant > Actuated Device (PAD) > > From 27 CFR 55.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special > mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a > propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant > charge." > > And in a rare event, actual content will be posted to rmr. > > CA > Group 18. Explosives and Pyrotechnics > Article 113. Explosives and Pyrotechnics > > §5237. Definitions. > > "Explosives." Any substance or combination of substances that is > commonly used for the purpose of detonation or rapid combustion which > upon exposure to any external > force or condition is capable of relatively instantaneous release of gas > and heat. > > "Explosives-Actuated Power Devices." Any tool or special mechanical > device which is actuated by explosives, but not to include propellant > actuated power devices. > Examples of explosive actuated devices are jet perforators, shaped > charges and similar devices. > > "Propellant." Solid propellant, commonly called smokeless powder, used > in small arms ammunition, cannon, rockets, propellant-actuated power > devices, and similar > devices. > > "Propellant-Actuated Power Devices." Any tool or special mechanical > device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant, or > which releases and directs work > through propellant charge, such as powder-actuated construction devices > in the form of stud, bolt, and nail drivers. > > http://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/5251.html > > Subchapter 7. General Industry Safety Orders > Group 18. Explosives and Pyrotechnics > Article 114. Storage of Explosives > > §5251. Storage--General Requirements. > > Exceptions: This shall not be construed as applying to: > > (1) Class C explosives such as explosive power packs in the form of > explosive cartridges or explosive-charged construction devices, > explosive rivets, explosive bolts, > explosive charges for driving pins or studs. > > (2) Cartridges for explosives actuated power devices when in quantities > of less than 50 pounds net weight of explosives. > > (3) Stocks of small arms ammunition, propellant-actuated power > cartridges, small arms ammunition primers in quantities of less than 750 > pounds, and smokeless propellant in > quantities of less than 750 pounds. > > (4) Fuse lighters and fuse igniters. > > (5) Safety fuses. > > Note: The above materials shall be kept in the shipping container. > > Just Political Jerry > > > < > mean > > a > > specific class of devices, not anything that anyone felt met their own > > interpretation of the words. >> > > > > As someone else pointed out a couple messages ago, they have exemptions for > > both PADs _and_ propellent actuated industrial tools. Clearly then, those > > tools > > are not the definition of a PAD. > > > > Of course, all of this is in addition to the fact that ATF is legally > > allowed > > to regulate only materials which function by explosion, and propellent is > > not > > an explosive. ATF should not be regulating propellent regardless of whether > > or > > not rocket motors are PADs. == propellants of insensitive materials seem exempt. Only as low as black powder is regulated by description. == In article <01rocket-759957.12352704112002@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > In article , > kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote: > > > Actually, Len, PAD is defined by the DOT, not the BATF. And the definition > > EXACTLY describes a model rocket motor. > > > > Of course we could assume that a PAD is whatever the BATF wants to call a > > PAD, kust like we've got them calling an explosive anything they feel like > > calling an explosive, regardless of whether or not it "boom"s. > > > > By the same logic we could call a cow a train. > > Precisely. Put THAT in the lawsuit. > > Jerry == In article , "Fred Shecter" wrote: > I strongly suspect that a PAD does not normally use the exhaust gas to > produce the work > (via 'action/reaction'). > > I think it is more like a 'retractor' that we use on the C-17. There are > pyrotechnics that > blow hatches in the top of the plane and eject canisters with rafts, etc. in > them. It > starts with an initiator, travels along the "SMDC" (shielded mild Detonating > Cord) and > reaches the shaped charges (Flexible Liner Shape Charge - FLSC) that cut the > hatches and > also the "Retractors". The retractors used to be class C and the other stuff > was class B. > The retractors are now 1.4, the FLSC is 1.1. Anyway, the "retractors" are > pyrotechnic > (containing fuel & oxidizer) and they are like a super fast hydraulic > actuator, except > instead of hydraulic fluid, they use the gas from the propellant. When fired, > they pull in > a rod with a cable attached and the cable pulls/pivots/ejects the life rafts > from the top > of the plane. It is a Propellant Actuated Device all right, but it does not > operate by > 'action/reaction'. > > Here is an excerpt: > 2. EXPLOSIVE CLASSIFICATION > > A. Ammunition and explosives are included in Class 1 of the nine classes > of hazardous materials. Class 1 is divided into four divisions which > show the types of hazards expected: > > 1. Class/Division > 1.1 Mass Detonating Materials > 1.2 Non-Mass Detonating Materials > 1.3 Mass Fire > 1.4 Moderate Fire No Blast > > B. Mass Detonating Explosives are principally a blast hazard and may be > expected to mass detonate when a small portion is initiated by any > means. Example of this type of explosive is the FLSC (Flexible Liner > Shape Charge) use on the C-17šs FEDS system for hatch cutting. > > C. Non-Mass Detonating Explosives are items whose principal hazard is > fragments but have an associated blast hazard. Examples of this type of > explosive are mines and hand grenades. > > D. Mass Fire explosives are of the burning nature and considered a > flammable hazard. Examples of this type of explosive are rocket motors > and large thrusters. > > E. Moderate Fire ­No Blast Explosives present minimum hazard, but > will still cause serious injury or death. Examples of this type of > explosive are the Shielded Mild Detonating Chord (SMDC), Arm Fire > Initiators (AFI) used in the FED system on the C-17 aircraft. > > I do not think any rocket motor is a PAD. > > BUT, none of that has any bearing on if the propellant is an explosive or > not. That silly > "boom" thing... > > However, there is "detonation" and then there is "deflagration". Both are > bad. > "Jerry Irvine" <01rocket@gte.net> wrote in message > > You might as well stop arguing aout the definition of a Propellant > > Actuated Device (PAD) > > > > From 27 CFR 55.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special > > mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a > > propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant > > charge." > > "Propellant-Actuated Power Devices." Any tool or special mechanical > > device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant, or > > which releases and directs work > > through propellant charge, such as powder-actuated construction devices > > in the form of stud, bolt, and nail drivers. == In article <01rocket-4CCA7D.14195904112002@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > In article , > "Fred Shecter" wrote: > > > I strongly suspect that a PAD does not normally use the exhaust gas to > > produce the work > > (via 'action/reaction'). > > It does not specify. > > On purpose. > > The only good way to look at explosives laws is to go back to when they > were written by need, not by bureaucratic inertia for more rules. > > Jerry == In article <01rocket-AF1618.15265504112002@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > In article , > "shockwaveriderz" wrote: > > > For example lets take a look at Minnesota, > > > Subd. 5. Exceptions. This section does not apply to: > > 3) propellant-actuated devices, or propellant-actuated > > industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for > > their intended purpose; > > > 7500.0100 DEFINITIONS > > > > Subp. 11. Propellant-actuated device. > > "Propellant-actuated device" means a tool or special mechanized > > device or gas generator system that is actuated by a smokeless > > propellant or that releases and directs work through a smokeless > > propellant charge. > > > Heres the problem as I see it......even if we win against the ATF.....we > > will > > still have to get NFPA 1127 > > Erase current 1127, add the PAD exemption by reference, and do all the > current material by club guideline and test, not law. > > Jerry > > > (at a minimum) accepted for > > law in all 50 states for HPR to be legal as is model rocketry.....Most > > states > > exempt model rockets from their fireworks laws but > > have no idea that HPR exist....... == pool == In article <20021104202546.18068.00000099@mb-cd.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << as far as trying to SHUT ME UP for implying that I'm arguing the case for > the ATF in public, I doubt very seriously that the ATF is monitoring this > newsgroup for pointers on how to try their case....>> > > The ATF has acknowledged that they monitor the rocketry forums. It's a sure > bet > that they _will_ turn over any potentially damaging info to their legal team. > > < when he says that motors are PADS, some people are willing to believe it... > >> > > I don't care who says it. The truth is the truth, regardless of the source. > What amazes me is how someone can be more willing to believe the ATF's lie > rather than the truth. > > A rocket motor IS a Propellent Actuated Device. The ATF can write a million > regulations claiming it isn't, but that doesn't change the facts. Would you > believe the Earth is flat if the ATF declared it to be?? == Yes. (LEMP holder), else no. == In article <20021104201608.18068.00000098@mb-cd.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << Of course we could assume that a PAD is whatever the BATF wants to call a > PAD, kust like we've got them calling an explosive anything they feel like > calling an explosive, regardless of whether or not it "boom"s. > By the same logic we could call a cow a train. >> > > Exactly! The ATF just decides to regulate any damn thing they feel like, and > justifies doing so by calling it an "explosive". Igniters and Thermalite are > two more examples of this. They neither detonate nor deflagrate, yet ATF > regulates them as an "explosive". The only real difference between an igniter > and a common match is that one is initiated electrically, and the other by > friction. == In article <20021104201026.18068.00000097@mb-cd.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << D. Mass Fire explosives are of the burning nature and considered a > flammable > hazard. Examples of this type of explosive are rocket motors and large > thrusters.>> > > This is typical of the ATF's circular reasoning. They make up some irrational > regulation which refers to propellent as an explosive, and then point to that > regulation as "proof" that propellent is an explosive. == In article <3DC7372E.A7E164A5@earthlink.net>, David Weinshenker wrote: > Balsa Boy wrote: > > BATF does not recognize rocket motors as "propellant actuated devices". > > And the US Attorney General does not expressions of concern about > loss of constitutionally guaranteed liberties as a result of the New > Domestic Security Regime as legitimate free speech, but describes it as > "playing into the hands of The Terrorists"... > > ... do you believe _everything_ the federal government says?? > (You might really feel more at home in Singapore...) > > -dave w == In article , David Wallis wrote: > Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> writes: > > > In article , > > kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote: > > > > > The classic PAD is the powder actuated nail gun. The expanding gasses push > > > the piston that drives the nail. > > > > Nope. > > > > The classic EXPLOSIVE actuated device is a nail gun. It requires a > > SUDDEN force to frive the nail or pin. > > > > The classic PROPELLANT actuated device is an APU. A propellant driven > > electrical generator to help start a jet engine or utility emergency > > device. > > Nope. Nail guns are actuated by cartridges that use smokeless > powder. Smokeless powder is classified as a propellant, not an > explosive (even though it goes bang). == In article <20021105142137.23211.00002464@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << You just don't get it, do you. I doubt anybody in this forum "believes > the > ATF's lie rather than the truth". The simple fact is that it doesn't matter > what we believe, what matters is what the ATF believes.>> > > Yes, when it comes to enforcement that is what matters. Doesn't mean we have > to > parrot their lies though. > > <> > > I never said it would. The regulations would be wrong, but they would still > exist until someone forced them to change. This is where I often disagree > with > Jerry. His approach seems to be, "the regulations are wrong so just ignore > them." My approach is, "The regulations are wrong, and we need to say so, > loudly and often, until they are changed." The guy posting as > "shockwaveriderz" > seems to take a third position: "The truth is whatever the ATF says it is, so > don't contradict them." == I thought posting the law, and examples of its implementation and enforcement, WAS precisely following the law with no interpretation. Jerry == In article , "shockwaveriderz" wrote: > david: > not to assume you agree with me 100%, but thanks for the kind words....8) > As Jerry pointed out to me, back in the 50's the movers and shakers of model > rocketry that got laws passed to exempt model rocketry > from the fireworks and explosives laws, also saw fit to get laws passed that > effectively made hpr/amateur rocketry illegal....A > number of states see rockets with 4oz or greater propellant as destructive > devices and or explosive > devices.......(Minnesota,Georgia,Arizona and Indiana, just being the 4 I have > identified so far).... In fact 3 of those states > specifically list APCP as an explosive!............And that was my point, > even if we win the ATF suit and I assume we will win it > ( not on the PAD point, but on the fact that the common purpose of APCP is to > NOT function as an explosive) then we will still have > to go through most if not all of the 50 states to get current laws overturned > to allow HPR...or at least modified to recognize NFPA > 1127 for HPR.....as they currently recognize NFPA 1122 for model > rocketry........ == In article <20021105143730.23211.00002467@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << This absurd tangent notwithstanding, *BATF does not recognize rocket motors > as "propellant actuated devices".* >> > > Duh. We know that. The point remains that they _are_ propellent actuated > devices, regardless of what the ATF believes and enforces. Going online and > telling everyone that rockets aren't PADs plays right into the ATF's hands. == In article <20021105143044.23211.00002465@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << I've never heard anybody disagree with the need for participants in our > hobby to be legal. So what's the point of blasting someone who's trying to > find > out what that requires?>> > > Because often such inquiries lead to more active enforcement than is > currently > in place, or even the creation of new regulations where none existed before > as > the authorities suddenly become aware of the hobby. This has happened time > and > time again. Not long ago someone decided to take it on themselves to get a > definitive answer from the ATF, and ended up pushing them into doing > something > that could hurt us in the long run. > > > << And, his point is very valid. Even if we win the ATF case (and I'm not > suggesting that we should drop it), in *many* states, it'll still be either > illegal to fly HPR, or so onerously regulated as to make it impossible to do > legally. >> > > Getting APCP removed from the ATF's list of explosives will go a long way > toward making it easier to fight such state restrictions. == lobby == TRA contacted the ATF and volunteered all of their members to seek LEUP ATF permits for rocket motors that are NOT requirted by law, code, practice, tradition, or common sense. You have Bruce Kelly and Charles E. Rogers to thank for that. == In article <20021105145112.23211.00002469@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << I don't agree with the BATF. But I'm not going to provoke them by > flaunting > that disagreement. >> > > No one says you should. What you should do is what we're doing -- publicly > stating the fact that their regulations and definitions are contrary to > reality. We do still have that right, you know. They haven't regulated that > -- yet. == In article <20021105144858.23211.00002468@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << They write the regulations, they get to interpret them. Again, you are > free > to be civilly disobedient and provoke your own arrest to challenge this > unjust > interpretation. >> > > Haven't you been paying attention? I've said over and over that there is a > difference between the truth about APCP, and what the ATF enforces. I'm not > telling anyone to ignore the ATF. I'm NOT saying they won't bust you. I'm > just > saying that we should not repeat the ATF's lies as if they were truth. APCP > is > NOT an explosive. Rocket motors ARE propellent actuated devices. Those are > scientific facts, and we can and should be free to state those facts. Those > facts are a major part of our defense. > > Everytime someone takes the ATF's side and parrot their erroneous > interpretation of regulation as if it were scientific fact, they are stabbing > the hobby in the back. == In article <01rocket-2DCEE8.18043705112002@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > In article <6YZx9.28289$7W2.3875@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, > "Balsa Boy" wrote: > > > "Dave" wrote: > > > > > Ahh, but wasn't that the part of the lawsuit that was thrown out on the > > > basis of 'timeliness'? APCP has been on the list so long that it can no > > > longer be challenged? > > > > Yup. > > > > But try telling that to the crowd who still insist on beating their heads > > against the wall. > > > > It's not an explosive. No doubt about that. But anyone who thinks they > > can > > pull > > a fast one on BATF by pretending they have no right to classify it as such, > > and > > therefore the rules can be ignored, > > The exemption trumps the list. It addresses a narrow subset of declared > safe items. > > Jerry > > > is going to get reamed hard. And guess > > what? > > JI's not going to be backing you up and offering to pay your legal bills. == exemption trumps pool == In article <20021105220300.23211.00002542@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << But anyone who thinks they can pull a fast one on BATF by pretending they > have no right to classify it as such...>> > > The ATF does NOT have the right to classify non-explosives as explosives. > > <<...and therefore the rules can be ignored, is going to get reamed hard.>> > > So far, only Jerry is recommending that the rules be ignored. I'm only saying > that we should call a spade a spade, and not act as if the ATF's definitions > have any basis in scientific fact. == In article <20021105215803.23211.00002541@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << Ahh, but wasn't that the part of the lawsuit that was thrown out on the > basis of 'timeliness'? APCP has been on the list so long that it can no > longer > be challenged? >> > > Nope. They part that was ruled against us was that there was never a comment > period, as required by law, prior to adding APCP to the list. The statute of > limitations has passed on that particular issue. That does NOT mean we can't > challenge them on the grounds that APCP rocket motors and reloads are not > explosives. == In article , Bob wrote: > Jerry Irvine wrote: > > [snipped...] > > > If you follow any range safety rules EXCEPT NAR/TRA you will certainly > > feel ALL of your rockets far better. Even a J or K can be pretty > > impressive if you are not 1/4 mile away at launch. > > Or as someone at the last EARS launch found out a Pro38 I can be pant > filling if you plug your ignitor clips into the wrong holes in your > controller and thus cause the ignitor to pop as you conect it to the > controller, while standing about a meter away... And note that at merely one meter he wat injured in any way. Rockets are too safe. Jerry == proximate == In article <20021106162912.23211.00002638@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << And what actions do you specifically recommend?>> > > I recommend that people do not state that rocket motors are not PADs, when > they > very clearly are. > > < fact"? >> > > Those who keep insisting that rocket motors are not PADs, simply because the > ATF says so. What they should be saying is: "Rocket motors _are_ PADs, but > the > ATF currently doesn't accept this fact." == In article <20021106212440.23184.00003136@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << We seriously need some clarification on these issues >> > > The last thing we need is someone going off half-cocked in search of > "clarification" and making things worse than they are. == In article , "default" wrote: > "Fred Shecter" wrote in message > news:H57ruy.8to@news.boeing.com... > > Attention children: > > > > Here is a website that will explain in simple terms so that "you'll learn > the difference > > between work, energy, and power": > > > > http://www.exploratorium.edu/theworld/energy/joules.html > > Excellent link, Fred. Thanks for posting that. > > steve == But when physicists talk about work, they are talking about something very specific that they call mechanical work. A physicist defines work (W) as the force (F) multiplied by the distance (d) over which it is exerted. This is expressed as W = F x d. Work is measured in units called joules (pronounced "jools"). == In article <01rocket-78BB32.10323507112002@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > In article , > "Fred Shecter" wrote: > > > I reiterate that a pyrotechnic retractor is a PAD, but a rocket motor is > > not. > > Wrong. it does not HINGE on that. > > > "Jerry Irvine" <01rocket@gte.net> wrote in message > > > > From 27 CFR 55.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. *ANY* tool OR special > > > mechanized > > > device OR gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant OR which > > > releases and directs work through a propellant charge." > > Tool OR > special mechanized device OR > gas generator system > > Actuated by propellant OR > releases and directs work through a propellant charge > > And the relevent portion of the link: > > But when physicists talk about work, they are talking about something > very specific that they call mechanical work. A physicist defines work > (W) as the force (F) multiplied by the distance (d) over which it is > exerted. This is expressed as W = F x d. Work is measured in units > called joules (pronounced "jools"). > > A rocket motor delivers force over distance. > > Lb-f > > Jerry == scientific and logical proof exemption applies. == In article <20021107152750.23211.00002782@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << I reiterate that a pyrotechnic retractor is a PAD, but a rocket motor is > not. >> > > Technically, it might be more accurate to say that a rocket is a PAD, and the > rocket motor is akin to the cartridges in a nailgun or the propellent in a > retractor. == In article , Mike Poulton wrote: > On 07 Nov 2002, David Wallis said: > > > Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> writes: > >> The work a flare produces is light and noise. It is "work". > >> If the flare has an oxidizer it is a propellant. A candle is a fuel > >> not a propellant. It also does "work". > > > > The technical definition of work is, "a force applied over a > > distance." My kids' definition is, "anything I don't want to do and > > does not involve TV or video games." I have no idea where your > > definition came from. > > The work the flare does is the thrust*flight distance. Granted, this > work is not done on anything but the flare itself, but it *does* do > work. == In article <01rocket-D76500.14214207112002@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > In article , > David Wallis wrote: > > > Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> writes: > > > > > In article , > > > Leonard Fehskens wrote: > > > > > > > Dave wrote in > > > > news:3DCA79AE.137AEE0E@last.invalid: > > > > > > > > > Ahh, I see now. You changed the subject. > > > > > > > > No, I did not change the subject. No need to borrow Jerry's > > > > irrelevancies. > > > > > > > > > You started out saying this was not a PAD because it used fuel, > > > > > not propellant. > > > > > > > > No I said it was not a PAD because it was a flare. It does no work. It > > > > > > The work a flare produces is light and noise. It is "work". > > > If the flare has an oxidizer it is a propellant. A candle is a fuel not > > > a propellant. It also does "work". > > > > The technical definition of work is, "a force applied over a > > distance." My kids' definition is, "anything I don't want to do and > > does not involve TV or video games." I have no idea where your > > definition came from. > > > Good point. It MAY be even MORE broad. I agree. > > Jerry == In article , Rick Dickinson wrote: > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 21:22:52 GMT, "Fred Shecter" > is alleged to have written: > > >I strongly suspect that a PAD does not normally use the exhaust gas to > >produce the work > >(via 'action/reaction'). > > > >I think it is more like a 'retractor' that we use on the C-17. There are > >pyrotechnics that > >blow hatches in the top of the plane and eject canisters with rafts, etc. in > >them. It > >starts with an initiator, travels along the "SMDC" (shielded mild Detonating > >Cord) and > >reaches the shaped charges (Flexible Liner Shape Charge - FLSC) that cut the > >hatches and > >also the "Retractors". The retractors used to be class C and the other stuff > >was class B. > >The retractors are now 1.4, the FLSC is 1.1. Anyway, the "retractors" are > >pyrotechnic > >(containing fuel & oxidizer) and they are like a super fast hydraulic > >actuator, except > >instead of hydraulic fluid, they use the gas from the propellant. When > >fired, they pull in > >a rod with a cable attached and the cable pulls/pivots/ejects the life rafts > >from the top > >of the plane. It is a Propellant Actuated Device all right, but it does not > >operate by > >'action/reaction'. > > Sounds to me, just from your description, that it does "operate by > 'action/reaction'". In fact, I think I would be hard pressed to think > of any examples of machines of any description which do not. > > Newton's laws of motion are pretty darn near universal. Unless you're > building machines that rely on relativistic effects, or depend on > quantum-mechanical processes, Sir Isaac generally can explain things > pretty darn well. > > - Rick "PADs at the speed of light" Dickinson == In article , "Fred Shecter" wrote: > OK, I meant that the work was performed by 'pure' action re-action and not a > gas "pushing" > on another object (pressurizing a chamber and forcing a piston or whatever to > move). > > As much fun as these word games are, at some point a judge will turn to our > folks and > either say 'you're correct" or "you folks have got to be kidding if you think > a rocket > motor is a PAD". > > Someone will have to come up with a much better proof. > > Then lets see why pouring a tube full of black powder and calling it a > 'homemade Model > Rocket ejection charge' is allowed under our current regulations..... > > -Fred Shecter NAR 20117 == In article <01rocket-9DDE10.14422408112002@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > In article , > "Bill Bahus" wrote: > > > "Mario Perdue" wrote in message > > news:79aosugfpt3cdppik4l64ojh28ahgndh9l@4ax.com... > > > All devices are "energy-losing" otherwise we'd have perpetual motion > > > machines. > > > > > > Mario Perdue > > > NAR #22012 Sr. L2 > > > > Ok, you got me there. But you understand what I mean. > > Bill > > > > > > A rocket motor is a tool for a job. The job of school projct > propulsion. The job for America's Challenge Teams. Whatever. Tools > they are. > > Jerry == In article <01rocket-C060AB.19585208112002@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> wrote: > In article , > "Chris Taylor Jr" wrote: > > > Ok I kind of figured that. now what about when its in propellant form ? > > > > Nope. OXYGEN GENERATORS are potentially harmful because they can > accelerate an existing fire. > > Propellant CONSUMES its oxygen fully and leaves excess fuel. It is far > safer. > > > Chris Taylor > > http://www.nerys.com/ > > > > "Leonard Fehskens" wrote in message > > news:Xns92BC8BCB19C7DLenNewsgroupID@16.105.248.153... > > > "Chris Taylor Jr" wrote in > > > news:Ixlx9.99$9c.12038@news2.voicenet.com: > > > > > > > Clearly my knowledge in this area is limited but I took it to mean that > > > > AP by itself was VERY sensitive and unstable ?? is this not right ? > > > > > > No. It's because AP is a very powerful oxidizer. I.e., it will happily > > > provide lots and lots of oxygen to *anything* that wants to burn. E.g., > > > you want to make flash paper? Soak some paper in a solution of AP and let > > > it dry. Then light it, but don't hold it in your hand. > > > > > > So, AP makes ordinary combustibles potentially very dangerous, especially > > > in places like aircraft cargo holds. > > > > > > len. > > > > > > len. == In article <20021108224154.23184.00003612@mb-mt.aol.com>, raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: > << Although the motor does do "work" the rocket is neither a tool or special > mechanized device. >> > > Sure it is. It's a vehicle. A flight and recovery device. As such it could > (and > should) be considered a mechanized device. It is powered ("actuated") by a > propellent. > > << Does the BATF have regulatory authority over rocket motors? Yes. Legally? > >> > > Not legally they don't. That's very clear. The law which gives them > regulatory > power over explosives states flat out that it is limited to materials which > function by explosion or whose common purpose is to explode. Rocket motors do > neither of these. > > Whether the court will do the right thing or not is another story. Judges > have > been known to ignore the law in favor of a political or social goal. Let's > hope > that won't be the case here. > > << Are rocket motors haz-mat? Yes.>> > > The question here is to what degree? They should be treated as flammable > solids, not as explosives. > > < shipment? Yes. >> > > Of course they do. I've never claimed they didn't. == == == ==