SARASOTA, Florida USA — After several months of planning and discussion, Cesaroni Technology Incorporated (CTI) and Animal Motor Works (AMW) will begin cooperative production of their respective product lines and new product development. 

The product production and marketing merger will make AMW/Pro-X® the industry's largest manufacturer of high power rocketry motors and reloads. The product merger will also accelerate AMW's production transition from its previous New Hampshire location.  Some of the new products will include a new line of propellants that will be marketed under the Kryptonite™ brand name.

These new propellants will be manufactured on CTI's state of the art manufacturing equipment.  The product line will include high performance colors and effects formulations in addition to classic favorites that will be certified for use in AMW, Pro-X® as well as Brand A hardware systems. 

In April of this year, CTI received DOT and ERD 1.4C shipping classifications for its 75mm and 98mm moon burner line as well as a new series of 54mm, long burn reload systems. Smoky Sam propellant is also included in this approval. 

Initial production and pre-certification testing of color and effects propellants is currently underway.  All propellants produced by CTI are ferrocene and catocene free, ensuring long life, stability and safety while maintaining predictable ballistics due to associated migration and sublimation issues.

In addition to the traditional reload configurations that have been previously available, the AMW line plans to offer Pro-X style, drop-in, modular reloads for some of its existing hardware cases. Both companies are also planning 24mm and 29mm systems that will include Brand A compatibility as the product line expands. 

Production of single-use model rocket motors is also being considered for 2008 once the new line has been established.  Previously, CTI limited production of small single-use rocket motors to commercial and defense R&D applications.

Certification of new products will also include California State Fire Marshall approval so California flyers will have access to the entire AMW/Pro-X line. Manufacturing and distribution is planned from both Canadian and U.S. locations with certifications and the first new product releases scheduled for this fall.

Click on the following logos to visit their respective websites.

08-14-2007 04:42 PM  #1
k3td Earth-bound misfit   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 64	consolidation The free market at work - best of luck to AMW and CTI!

08-14-2007 06:45 PM  #2
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	This is great news. In the long thread on AMW and Kosdon by AT Spud raised the question of AT and AMW entering into a cooperative business agreement. This is even more delicious and the depth of products, from 24 on up, to fit AT cases (that is how I understood it) has me eager to try these new loads. Also, I love the use of the name Kryptonite, coming as it does on the heels of the flap about that!

08-14-2007 07:11 PM  #3
k3td Earth-bound misfit   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 64	Kryptonite Steve, I really like the Kryptonite name too! I have two favorite shirts to wear at launches; the first is a black 'High Power Rocketry' shirt with the green '13.1 Kryptonite K Planet Krypton Fragments' placard on the back that I got at LDRS XV, and the second is a white Rocketry Online shirt with the 'old' new logo that I received in 1997 from Darrell Mobley. I'm going to an AARG launch this weekend near Austin, and I'm hoping both shirts still fit because with 100 degree temps I will need 2 shirts to make it through the day!

08-14-2007 08:07 PM  #4
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: Steve, I really like the Kryptonite name too! I have two favorite shirts to wear at launches; the first is a black 'High Power Rocketry' shirt with the green '13.1 Kryptonite K Planet Krypton Fragments' placard on the back that I got at LDRS XV, and the second is a white Rocketry Online shirt with the 'old' new logo that I received in 1997 from Darrell Mobley. I'm going to an AARG launch this weekend near Austin, and I'm hoping both shirts still fit because with 100 degree temps I will need 2 shirts to make it through the day! Just don't put them both on at once...

08-15-2007 01:13 PM  #5
Eagle3 New Member   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 3	Kryptoknob... remember, you heard it here first.

08-15-2007 02:50 PM  #6
StuBarrett Certified Level Eleven   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 100	Tad, I too have a 13.1 Kryptonite t-shirt. I remember seeing a guy at a grocery store one day that had another DOT shirt. He was a pryo, and his shirt had 1.3 (I think). I caught up with him and said my shirt was 'badder' than his (I had a big grin on) and when he saw my 13.1 he was speechless Don't think I'll be wearing any short sleeve shirts/pants at the launch; I need to protection of long sleeves!! Stu Quote: Steve, I really like the Kryptonite name too! I have two favorite shirts to wear at launches; the first is a black 'High Power Rocketry' shirt with the green '13.1 Kryptonite K Planet Krypton Fragments' placard on the back that I got at LDRS XV, and the second is a white Rocketry Online shirt with the 'old' new logo that I received in 1997 from Darrell Mobley. I'm going to an AARG launch this weekend near Austin, and I'm hoping both shirts still fit because with 100 degree temps I will need 2 shirts to make it through the day!

08-15-2007 03:04 PM  #7
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Anyone want to discuss the merit (or lack of) of this announcement? A lot of people have expressed concern over the applicability of the manufacturer's warranty on the hardware in the event of a mishap. Brand A is obviously going to warranty his hardware if a mishap occurs with a Brand A reload, but the general concensus is that Brand A would not warranty his hardware if a mishap occurred while using a Brand B (or C) reload. What does this spell for the hardware market? Why is the discussion of warranties coming up after the genie is out of the bottle? Should this have been discussed prior to NAR opening Pandora's Box with the certification of AeroTech reloads in Animal Motor Works hardware? Is there reason to be concerned about the pressure capabilities of various motor hardware? Do you have any concerns about the warranty? What other considerations are there? Will the wide availability of all these additional reloads over the established hardware spectrum cause difficulty for vendors in their ability to adequately inventory all of the reloads? Or will it make it easier for a vendor? All topics of good discourse... With the exception of warranty issues for the hardware, it appears the consumer wins in this situation.

08-15-2007 03:45 PM  #8
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	I think the hardware manufacturer is off the hook in most cases. I don't have official statistics, but my experience has been that when a motor fails, it is usually caused by an error on the flyer's part in assembling the motor, such as nicking or forgetting an o-ring. That should not be covered by warranty. The second most common cause of failure is probably a fault in the reload components, such as a void or crack in a grain. The manufacturer of the reload should be on the hook in that case, not the case manufacturer. I cannot remember a time when I concluded that hardware failed because of anything other than human error (including mine) or faulty reload components. I suggest that we, the consumers, should carefully consider the reload manufacturers' warranty terms when deciding which reloads to buy.

08-15-2007 05:43 PM  #9
CF-105 Certified Level Two   Joined: May 2007 Posts: 43	The AIR-2 (Genie) was out of the bottle when CTI introduced "Brand A" compatible reloads back in 2001 or 2002 Frankly, I'm very happy with this news. I'll be even happier if CTI's involvement means that all the new motors will get ERD approval!

08-15-2007 06:13 PM  #10
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: Frankly, I'm very happy with this news. I'll be even happier if CTI's involvement means that all the new motors will get ERD approval! I agree that would be nice. We would have a larger assortment at RocLake next year.

08-15-2007 06:57 PM  #11
k3td Earth-bound misfit   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 64	hardware warranty "In God we trust ... all others bring data" I don't have any data by the way, I just like the Deming quotation. But I seem to remember seeing data a while ago (can't recall who compiled it) related to Certified vs. Research/EX motor failures. The conclusion was that at least with respect to larger motors (K and up as I recall) Certified motors had a higher failure rate. Of course there were more variables at play; such as might Research/EX flyers be more competent at assembling motors and selecting hardware than non-Research/EX flyers? Bottom line is I don't think the hardware warranty issue will be a big hurdle for those who are competent and confident at selecting hardware and reloads, and those who are less competent or confident may chose to fly hardware and reloads from the same manufacturer to get a warranty for 'defects in materials and workmanship'. All in all, not a bad thing.

08-15-2007 07:07 PM  #12
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: might Research/EX flyers be more competent at assembling motors and selecting hardware than non-Research/EX flyers? I agree. I think that most of the errors that I have seen happen when people first start working with a new (to them) type of motor. I have had this conversation a couple of times with the TARC kids: Steve: There is no front o-ring in here. Kid: It must have burned up. Steve: Why don't all the o-rings burn up then? I agree also that cross-compatible reloads are a good thing. And I doubt that any of the propellant manufacturers who are selling their cross compatible reloads will have any problem with providing warranty service.

08-15-2007 08:31 PM  #13
k3td Earth-bound misfit   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 64	short or long sleeves Quote: Don't think I'll be wearing any short sleeve shirts/pants at the launch; I need to protection of long sleeves!! Stu Thanks for the reminder Stu! With the long wet Spring we had I wasn't thinking properly. See you Saturday!

08-16-2007 10:19 AM  #14
heada Certifiable   Joined: Apr 2007 Posts: 594	This is something that has bugged me for quite a while. I live in a state that has not adopted NFPA and explicitly states that NFPA is not law or enforceable in the state. What does this mean to the testing groups for motors produced in this state? They test to NFPA standards, but I'm not held to those standards in my state. Do they have to follow NFPA even though it isn't law and isn't enforceable in the state? Sorry for hijacking the thread. The state, by the way, is Indiana. As for an on-topic comment, I think that this development could be either very good for everyone in that you'll pick your case type and your propellant type and just fly what you like regardless of who makes what -or- it will be very bad for everyone in that it will start a price war and a pissing contest (more so than already exists) and could lead to one or more vendors dropping out of the hobby business. As the blessing/curse goes: May you live in interesting times. -Aaron

08-16-2007 10:55 AM  #15
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 727	Quote: Jerry, Because I am not that familiar with NFPA-1125, would you please explain why the use of vertical mixers is not approved by NFPA-1125. Thanks, NFPA-1125 which was largely authored by Gary Rosenfield of Aerotech specifically calls for shakers to mix propellant. This language was entered in with the active input and approval of BOTH TRA and NAR reps on the "Sport Rocket Caucus" of the NFPA committes, which proposes new code to the NFPA committee itself once fully hashed out in caucus. The approval process is typically a rubber stamp at that point, unless a "recognized" member of the committee raises to object to a rule approved by the caucus. I have actually seen that happen once. Dane Boles raised to object to a rule specifically allowing consumers to have up to 50 pounds of propellant and igniter materials in residences including high density housing. The provision at issue here is the one that specifies that a mixer shall have no moving parts in contact with the propellant (ie a shaker). I have lost my links to NFPA-1125 online, but perhaps someone with a electronic "review copy" could post the relevent text. NFPA is not enforced in many states, and so far neither NAR or TRA has added this question to their qualifying questions for new manufacturers. It is another example of bad code, like the minimum launch site dimension being CHANGED to 1/2 the expected altitude when a 3 decade safety record was already established with existing rules of 1/4 the expected altitude, and the technology of dual deployment making 1/8 the expected altitude very practical. That provision was added by Mary Roberts of Estes to further limit "powerful rockets". I was there. As for discussions between AMW and CTI, I am personally aware of production cooperation discussions without co-location as far as 3 years ago. I suspect the AMW relocation site was driven by the location AC @CTI had already chosen for his new home after the approval of his US citizenship. Congrats AC! Just Jerry History matters.

08-16-2007 11:05 AM  #16
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: This is something that has bugged me for quite a while. I live in a state that has not adopted NFPA and explicitly states that NFPA is not law or enforceable in the state. What does this mean to the testing groups for motors produced in this state? They test to NFPA standards, but I'm not held to those standards in my state. Do they have to follow NFPA even though it isn't law and isn't enforceable in the state? -Aaron Aaron, There are three elements to this. They are state law, NAR requirements, and testing procedures. NFPA covers a lot of ground. When a state adopts NFPA and incorporates it into law that is done usually for other reasons than NFPA 1123, 1125, and 1127, which are the three that govern rocketry. The NFPA codes might include standards to which artificial Christmas trees are fire resistant and things like that, designed to reduce the chance of fires occuring. If a state does not adopt some or all of the NFPA codes they probaby have something similar in either law or rules. Whatever is there you will have to determine in order to know what you are allowed to do by law. Separate from that, NAR has (as I understand it) recently adopted certain NFPA codes as guidelines for certifying motors rather than their own rules. That means that in order to NAR certify a motor (regardless of which state it is created or tested in) it must be tested to NFPA guidelines. This is a NAR requirement and not at all related to the laws of your state. Finally, the procedures and equipment used for testing motors depends primarily on where the results must be used. If they are collecting data for NAR certification purposes they would have to follow or exceed the requirements of NFPA. If it is just one guy trying to characterize his propellant and the testing is being done in a non-NFPA state, then NFPA does not have to be followed, but state and local fire codes would be in effect. Crontab has studied the whole NFPA/NAR history way more than I have. Maybe he will add some comments. Steve

08-16-2007 12:36 PM  #17
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Quote: NFPA-1125 which was largely authored by Gary Rosenfield of Aerotech specifically calls for shakers to mix propellant. The provision at issue here is the one that specifies that a mixer shall have no moving parts in contact with the propellant (ie a shaker). Like the Mary Roberts insertion meant specifically to limit hobby rocketry to the lower end of the spectrum, the propellant mixer parts of 1125 were done to allow paint shakers (seriously) to be used instead of the vertical mixers more commonly used in professional propellant manufacturing. This has been my problem all along with private clubs and entities with vested interests drafting code that will become state law — they are using the regulatory environment as their workplace to draft laws that entrench themselves into this hobby while attempting to shut the door on open competition from others. If you want to build a better mousetrap, then go do so. But stop spending membership dues and tax dollars making laws that produce nothing but monopolies — it is detrimental to the overall hobby in the long run. Does anyone really think Cesaroni Technology Incorporated's motors aren't safe because they were made using vertical mixers? Even the most average individual can see through that smoke screen once the information around 1125's development is known.

08-16-2007 12:49 PM  #18
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: Like the Mary Roberts insertion meant specifically to limit hobby rocketry to the lower end of the spectrum, the propellant mixer parts of 1125 were done to allow paint shakers (seriously) to be used instead of the vertical mixers more commonly used in professional propellant manufacturing. This has been my problem all along with private clubs and entities with vested interests drafting code that will become state law — they are using the regulatory environment as their workplace to draft laws that entrench themselves into this hobby while attempting to shut the door on open competition from others. If you want to build a better mousetrap, then go do so. But stop spending membership dues and tax dollars making laws that produce nothing but monopolies — it is detrimental to the overall hobby in the long run. Does anyone really think Cesaroni Technology Incorporated's motors aren't safe because they were made using vertical mixers? Even the most average individual can see through that smoke screen once the information around 1125's development is known. Thanks to you and Jerry for these last two posts. They help me understand a lot better why you both feel the way you do about NFPA/NAR/TRA.

08-16-2007 01:17 PM  #19
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 727	Quote: Like the Mary Roberts insertion meant specifically to limit hobby rocketry to the lower end of the spectrum, the propellant mixer parts of 1125 were done to allow paint shakers (seriously) to be used instead of the vertical mixers more commonly used in professional propellant manufacturing. This has been my problem all along with private clubs and entities with vested interests drafting code that will become state law — they are using the regulatory environment as their workplace to draft laws that entrench themselves into this hobby while attempting to shut the door on open competition from others. If you want to build a better mousetrap, then go do so. But stop spending membership dues and tax dollars making laws that produce nothing but monopolies — it is detrimental to the overall hobby in the long run. Does anyone really think Cesaroni Technology Incorporated's motors aren't safe because they were made using vertical mixers? Even the most average individual can see through that smoke screen once the information around 1125's development is known. Exactly. I shy away from "me too" posts, but this is such a critical issue it resulted in a 90% reduction in national HPR participation BEFORE BATFE over-regulated us. Also some of these NFPA rules, authored by rocketry industry leaders themselves, was the motivating factor for ATF selecting the arbitrary break points they did. Before NFPA, the only basis for 62.5g was DOT-E-7887 where DOT Class C (later 1.4S up to 25.4g) could be applied to DOT Class B up to 62.5g per unit (allowing FSI F100's BTW). I believe this was spearheaded by GH Stine (deceased) and Lonnie Reese (deceased), who I flew rockets with at NARWIN-1 in Phoenix and set an F alt record of 1041m with E60 to F100. Now CTI for example has had "monolithic" moonburning L motor grains (~2500g) approved as "natural" 1.4C (former Class C). http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms...if/auth-list/explo2a.pdf Just Jerry History matters

08-16-2007 01:22 PM  #20
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: The provision at issue here is the one that specifies that a mixer shall have no moving parts in contact with the propellant (ie a shaker). I have lost my links to NFPA-1125 online, but perhaps someone with a electronic "review copy" could post the relevent text. Of course NFPA protects themselves with copyrights, etc., but I looked it up and it is pretty much as you say. The specific rule in NFPA-1125 2007 is 5.1.1(2) and basically echos what you said about "no moving parts in contact with the propellant" (quoting you, not NFPA). Hand mixing is also permitted. For those who want to view it online go to www.nfpa.org and use their online viewing service. Although I copied it by hand for my own purposes, I will not post it here out of respect for copyright law and to avoid putting Darrell in a bad position.

08-16-2007 04:55 PM  #21
CF-105 Certified Level Two   Joined: May 2007 Posts: 43	Quote: Let's speculate, since that's all we have to go on. AMW announced in January that they would be moving from their NH production site. At that point, they would have been considering all options. Apparently one of those options was partnering with CTI. Let say they meet, discuss, find common ground and decide to dance together. That does not mean they made a decision early in the dance to let genies out of bottles. The specific decision to make reloads for other manufacturer's hardware could have come after the KBA announcement, which could have been the push over the top needed to cement the deal, so they decided to retaliate in like kind after the fact. In other words, just because they were in discussion for several months does not mean all of the stuff announced in the news release was decided on several months ago. Sometimes things have a way of getting added at the last moment. Oh, I think it goes back much farther than that. It's rather vague now, but I think I recall not long after the cross-compatible reloads hit the market, there was a round of motor testing at CTI that included a number of "interested parties" from the US, including at least one other motor manufacturer. There was talk at that time about doing more "compatible" motors across brands, and AT was invited to be included. Can't remember where I saw it... might have been an issue of HPR. So I'd say the groundwork was laid a long time ago.

08-16-2007 06:15 PM  #22
jsdemar NAR/TRA L3   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 321	Quote: This is something that has bugged me for quite a while. I live in a state that has not adopted NFPA and explicitly states that NFPA is not law or enforceable in the state. What does this mean to the testing groups for motors produced in this state? They test to NFPA standards, but I'm not held to those standards in my state. Do they have to follow NFPA even though it isn't law and isn't enforceable in the state? Sorry for hijacking the thread. The state, by the way, is Indiana. If the insurance requires it, you need to follow the code regardless of whether the state has adopted it or not. That's what I've been told. -john

08-16-2007 06:53 PM  #23
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 727	Quote: If the insurance requires it, you need to follow the code regardless of whether the state has adopted it or not. That's what I've been told. -john Liability insurance insures "persons", natural and fictitious, against liability in their areas of "disclosed" activity. An insurance company would not get down to the detail of the details you state unless it made you somehow an "illegal actor", or if you were stupid enough to overtly add that limitation to yourself in the application or underwriting. Since NFPA codes are "building codes" and not "criminal codes per se", unless you were charged and convicted of a related crime, for example leaving hazardous Kryptonite in a commercial building, you would be covered. Just Jerry

08-16-2007 11:40 PM  #24
jsdemar NAR/TRA L3   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 321	Quote: Liability insurance insures "persons", natural and fictitious, against liability in their areas of "disclosed" activity. An insurance company would not get down to the detail of the details you state unless it made you somehow an "illegal actor", or if you were stupid enough to overtly add that limitation to yourself in the application or underwriting. Since NFPA codes are "building codes" and not "criminal codes per se", unless you were charged and convicted of a related crime, for example leaving hazardous Kryptonite in a commercial building, you would be covered. Just Jerry Entertaining, if nothing else! If a person BELIEVES they are being insured for their activity, based on false assumptions, neither your opinion or that of any other third party will matter in the end. If the policy requires conforming with the safety codes, as does the NAR's and TRA's, then you have to follow the referenced codes (based on NFPA 1122/1127) to file a claim, regardless of whether they've been adopted as local or state law.

08-17-2007 03:20 AM  #25
rrocket New Member   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 6	AT Paint Shakers The old code had two parts. Mfg. Limited, and Un-Limited MGF. Under the Mfg. Limited-One was prohibited from making any batch over 16kg, and it had to be done on a Paint shaker.Or non contact mixer??? As far a Professional equipment, like the Government uses, then you have to follow the rules of a full blown Mfg. AND YES you can use vertical planatary mixers, Just like the SRB's are made!! Paint shakers were originally thought to be safer for the SMALL home brew, and back yard companies, or so was claimed? Yet they didn't require explosion proof motors or switches?? Dbl Planatery Vacuum mixers produce a much higher density propellant, and have the potential for much better ISP, to say Nothing about reliability I wonder how many Government motors are made on your typical Home Depot Paint Shaker?? Which limit batch sizes to about 6500-7500 grams. Now Gleen Mills does make a quality Explosion proof tri axis unit, which is much better than a paint shaker, BUT they are priced from about 30K and up for a used one.And not in the 500Lb capacity!!! They still can't match the performance of a 500lb professional vacuum mixer. I have used both types. As a matter of fact, just sent one of my Ross mixers to CTI to help speed up the development testing..of our new product lines... No grass growing underfoot!! Paul

08-17-2007 07:58 AM  #26
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: Like the Mary Roberts insertion meant specifically to limit hobby rocketry to the lower end of the spectrum, the propellant mixer parts of 1125 were done to allow paint shakers (seriously) to be used instead of the vertical mixers more commonly used in professional propellant manufacturing. This has been my problem all along with private clubs and entities with vested interests drafting code that will become state law — they are using the regulatory environment as their workplace to draft laws that entrench themselves into this hobby while attempting to shut the door on open competition from others. If you want to build a better mousetrap, then go do so. But stop spending membership dues and tax dollars making laws that produce nothing but monopolies — it is detrimental to the overall hobby in the long run. Does anyone really think Cesaroni Technology Incorporated's motors aren't safe because they were made using vertical mixers? Even the most average individual can see through that smoke screen once the information around 1125's development is known. I agree that neither NAR nor TRA should suggest or support NFPA rules that are unfair to competition between manufacturers. However, looking at the list of voting members of NFPA, I see David S. Shatzer of the ATF and various other members of fire departments and municipalities. Our clubs simply must maintain voting membership in order to have a voice in creating or amending 1122, 1125, and 1127. If our representatives (Bruce Kelly, TRA, with Scott Bartel as alternate and J.P. Miller for NAR with Mark Bundick as alternate) do not perform, then the members of our organizations need to be writing letters to the leaders. If that doesn't help, then we need to elect new leaders, but to withdraw all representation from NFPA would guaranteee that we had no vote.

08-17-2007 01:15 PM  #27
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1819	Quote: The old code had two parts. Mfg. Limited, and Un-Limited MGF. Under the Mfg. Limited-One was prohibited from making any batch over 16kg, and it had to be done on a Paint shaker.Or non contact mixer??? As far a Professional equipment, like the Government uses, then you have to follow the rules of a full blown Mfg. AND YES you can use vertical planatary mixers, Just like the SRB's are made!! Paint shakers were originally thought to be safer for the SMALL home brew, and back yard companies, or so was claimed? Yet they didn't require explosion proof motors or switches?? Dbl Planatery Vacuum mixers produce a much higher density propellant, and have the potential for much better ISP, to say Nothing about reliability I wonder how many Government motors are made on your typical Home Depot Paint Shaker?? Which limit batch sizes to about 6500-7500 grams. Now Gleen Mills does make a quality Explosion proof tri axis unit, which is much better than a paint shaker, BUT they are priced from about 30K and up for a used one.And not in the 500Lb capacity!!! They still can't match the performance of a 500lb professional vacuum mixer. I have used both types. As a matter of fact, just sent one of my Ross mixers to CTI to help speed up the development testing..of our new product lines... No grass growing underfoot!! Paul Early this morning when I first saw your post I reviewed NFPA 1125 again. This is the most attention I have ever given it, but I cannot claim to have any kind of mastery of it. Section 5 is still labeled "Mfg. Limited", but I did not find a section that discussed or even defined unlimited mfg. However, 1.3 specifically says that nothing in 1125 shall prevent equivalent or better techniques, equipment, etc. from being used. It should be noted also that 1125 does not apply to individuals making propellant for their own use. Congratulations to you and CTI on your cooperative agreement. I believe that it will be a good thing for the hobby, resulting in more motors to fly and more interesting propellants. I hope it also means better prices, but I think that existing prices are not slowing our hobby down as much as the regulatory uncertainty that exists while we await news in our lawsuit. A lot of us are eager to try some of the new products. Finally, thank you for posting on this forum. I can only speak for myself, but the information that is communicated whenever our vendors post is valuable. That goes for posts from any other rocketry vendor who shares their news with us as well. True news has value; speculation doesn't.

08-17-2007 02:37 PM  #28
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 727	Quote: Entertaining, if nothing else! If the policy requires conforming with the safety codes, as does the NAR's and TRA's, then you have to follow the referenced codes (based on NFPA 1122/1127) to file a claim, regardless of whether they've been adopted as local or state law. Yes but as I said, making that a requirement is silly since liability insurance is regularly issued for general activities, rocket activities included, without that provision. This probably boils down to "how you ask" for the policy to be issued, not the "willingness" of a company to cover a broad range of risks, as usual. How does the insurer deal with the publicly disclosed non-conformances of TRA and NAR to the policy provisions? Do they send you frequent cancellation notices? Or are they blissfully ignorant of the frequent violations? Just Jerry