DAllen

For the love of all that is my rocketry world please oh please tell me someone is going to be selling these at LDRS27.

ME WANT.

-DAllen

jadebox

Not only will they be available, but they are being offered at a special price:

http://www.amwprox.com/content/view/77/99/

-- Roger

JRogers

Don't forget this as well

http://www.amwprox.com/content/view/78/99/



Joel "Zoo insider"

H_rocket

Yo Zookeepers...

Where can we get things like thrust curves and rocksim files.

JRogers

http://www.rocketryplanet....2549/SK-G69-14-121NS.pdf

3stoogesrocketry

hey Joel , am I reading the charts wrong for the 1 and 2 grain motors , or is the G only producing 151 and 256 PSI?

ddmobley

Looks like NAR S&T and TMT are trying to take the G sparky out of the model rocket flier's hands:



The price of having the first sparky model rocket motor. I guess we would rather poison the model rocket crowd with barium...

rrocket

For all those concerned about Cars lack of sending data.
That problem has been corrected TODAY, alsong with their appology, and explanation of their thoughts.

Knob ON.

For the record.

AMWPro-X will not be selling these to Kids, over the counter, nor to all the doom sayers out there.

If I recall correctly??any G reloadable motor cannot be sold to those under 18 years of age??
I might need some help here, as it's been a lot of years.


There is a VERY GOOD reason, why we have not expanded the Green propellants into the Model rocketry community.

Look up the MSDS on Barium, and Soluable Barium Salts!!

You think some fine particles of Ti is bad!!

ddmobley

Sending the data is one thing, having the fearmongers in the US motor testing groups approve it for reciprocity is another entirely. Be sure and let us know when they get around to approving these motors for U.S. use.

heada

Further reading of Bill's post shows that not only are these G motors being restricted by age but also by distance. Since these motors produce sparks they fall under HPR rules for safe distances. A minimum of 50 feet is what was discussed but if you follow NFPA to the letter I think it would be restricted to 100 feet.

At least the ATF can't restrict these based on current rules.

-Aaron

ddmobley

What kind of a bizzaro world is it that we live in when fliers everywhere rejoice in the release of new model rocket motors but the testing agencies trip over themselves to try and find ways legally to restrict if not outright ban the sales and flights of these motors? I have seen a lot of backroom antics before, but the exchanges I have seen on this topic are beyond comprehension. To discuss rolling back years of certifications is ... well ... bizarre! A conspiratorial theorist could have a field day with the timing of these conversations.

billspad

I'm sure you would and you'd be wrong.

I really don't think NFPA 1125 could be much clearer on this. They fall outside the definition of model rocket motors. They are within the definition of high power rocket motors so that's what they are.

I've read way too much email on this subject in the last few days and haven't seen anything that even hints at any concerns other than safety.

ddmobley

I'm sure you would and you'd be wrong.

But seriously, Bill. This took you 42 minutes to type? I'm discouraged...

billspad

No, I started and remembered that I had flashbulbs that needed wires and decided to do that while I was still awake. The ones I do when I'm about to nod off don't seem to work as well.

Just as a point of reference, did you believe the bigfoot story before they found out it was a rubber monkey suit?

ddmobley

Nice dodge. By the way, how do you feel about barium?

billspad

But you didn't answer my question.

My only experience with barium is the barium sulfate they made me drink for a CT scan. Based on that experience I'm totally against it.

I'm not a chemist and don't know anything about barium.

This is not taking me a long time to type. I just Googled barium and I'm amused to find out the barium sulfate is what's used to make a green flame. Considering how I felt after drinking it, this makes perfect sense.

I guess what you're really getting at is do I think it's dangerous. Probably, right along with a lot of other chemicals that are in the motors we use. Do I think it should be banned? I'll leave that for the experts.

ddmobley

You're just the motor test monkey, right?

Maybe I should pose my question differently: A year ago, NAR S&T was kinda caught with its pants down, pushing a little too hard trying to get certain certifications done in time for LDRS and ended up labeled as favoritists for temporarily reducing the number of motors required for those certs. Is this year's actions to instead stifle new motor certifications in time for LDRS a knee jerk reaction to that event or should we be concerned that it's competitive manufacturers that are now the current target?

My point being that last year you bent, no, even broke rules, to accomodate certifications so they could be announced at LDRS, but this year, we are doing the exact opposite, where not even a starved mouse can slip in under the door. Why is that?

billspad

The would be correct. I'm the S & T secretary. I do not make policy but I have been know to loudly voice my opinion.




Adding a couple of paragraphs after the the original post was made is not a nice thing to do if you really expect an answer.

No one at S & T is going to argue the point that we screwed up last year. We tried to accommodate a manufacturer's deadline and pretty much fumbled the whole thing. We learn from our mistakes and that won't happen again.

You should check your sources as to who instigated the insistence that CAR follow the rules that the rest of us follow. It wasn't NAR S & T but we supported it. The NAR maintains the Combined List as a service to it's members and to the TRA and CAR members to avoid duplication of effort. We shouldn't be trashed for trying to keep it accurate.

Anthony Cesaroni

Bill,

Many barium compounds are highly toxic. Particularly the ones generally used as a green colorant in sport rocketry motors and more than many other chemicals employed as you suggest. Barium sulfate is one possble exception. You cite its use in radiology and some pyrotechnic examples, the latter being less common. Barium sulfate is not considered toxic at least under normal conditions in its basic form but its combustion products can very well be. As far as pyrotechnics are concerned, it is generally used in high temperature pyrotechnic compositions due to its high decomposition temperature.

The various barium compounds that are commonly used in composite rocket propellants do pose a serious health risk from a number perspectives starting with occupational health and safety at the manufacturing level. Inhalation, skin contact, exposure to mucous membranes or ingestion of soluble barium even at low levels can cause nervous system, respiratory, cardiac, kidney and skin damage. Higher levels of exposure can result in long term damage and can be fatal. Handling, mixing as well cutting and coring operations if employed, can expose employees to these materials unless stringent operational procedures are followed. Burning operations and testing can also produce toxic chemicals such as barium oxide, barium hydroxide and other byproducts placing employees at risk while releasing barium into the environment. Because these are localized releases, concentrations increase over time due to repeated operations. I am aware of at least one accident involving barium that occurred during propellant manufacturing. The exposure was brief but the effects were almost immediate. The symptoms persisted for several months even with therapy. I suspect there have been other incidents that have occurred in the pyrotechnic industry.

When manufactured as fireworks, consumers are generally not exposed by direct contact to the material as it is supplied packaged in the finished product. Reloadable rocket motors are different in this regard as the consumer handles the propellant directly and soluble barium is present at the surface of the composition. If included in model rocket motors, the material is potentially in the hands of minors. Nonetheless, all of these configurations eventually result in combustion and release barium in one form or another.

A number of regulatory agencies cite barium as a hazardous material and have imposed restrictions or have banned its use or discharge. There are clearly occupational health and safety, product liability and environmental concerns associated with its use yet I’m not aware of any documentation including MSDS’s offered with any rocketry related products indicating its presence or the potential health risks at this time. Our company has been carefully evaluating the inclusion of these materials in our sport rocket products until these issues can be addressed. The issue of “public perception” and safe distances in regards to titanium seeded APCP, especially in small motors seems trivial in comparison. Why hasn’t the NFPA addressed barium colorants with the same scrutiny, especially when these are available to minors? This too becomes a much more critical issue with smaller motors as the safe distances are much shorter and not only is there more potential for exposure to the users, but also the uninformed public spectators. I’m not sure what the CSPC response would be if barium colorants got on their radar screen considering the issues.


Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

ddmobley

What should you be trashed for, Bill? Nothing? NAR S&T is innocent? Lily white? It doesn't look that way. It was NAR S&T who instigated the sparky HPR conversation, wasn't it? It appears like a witch hunt. When the NAR S&T chairman isn't copied on the emails, it looks like a collaborative between certain individuals who appear to favor one manufacturer over others. Should you be trashed for that? Most people who look below the surface see something they don't like, but no one is supposed to say anything because you are just a bunch of volunteers dedicated to a hobby, right? That's bullshit.

CAR didn't have any intentions of not following the rules. The man said the mistake was his, he claimed it, apologized for it, and moved on, giving you the information you needed. Now can you just approve the certs, put up your precious combined list and get back to protecting your manufacturer so we can get back to flying rockets?

shockwaveriderz

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahah

you crack me up Darrell!

terry dean

shockwaveriderz

This doesn't seem to have slowed down AT's push of their Green motors into the model rocketry community.

G motors are Model Rocket motors by defintion. I guess its okay to poison those over 18 but not under 18.

But then we all know that modelers under the age of 18 that want these G motors can simply have mom and dad purchase them for them. wink wink nod nod.

terry dean

daveyfire

I don't understand how this is a conspiracy?

The sparky limitation is in NFPA 1125. The motor can (and will, I'm assuming) still be certified in the US for certified consumer use, just as a G75J or G79SS currently is. The current delay in States-side certification was caused by a paperwork slip-up. I don't see how, in this case, S&T is "stifling motor certifications", and I don't understand how a judgement error last year makes S&T forever beholden to any manufacturer. How can you make that judgement call without being personally involved in their daily operations?

Who knows... spend more time "flying rockets" instead of "protecting your manufacturer", and then maybe everything wouldn't be such a "witch hunt". Most of us consumers don't have commercial interests which are directly related to this discussion.

ddmobley

David, I don't expect you to understand what's going on without all of the facts. In fact, it makes you look a little ridiculous spouting off about stuff you have no idea of. I could care less about whether sparky motors are a model rocket motor or a high power motor, people are going to buy and use them anyway. But since you don't know the whole story, you can't possibly begin to understand why the actions looked like the American motor testing groups were stifling new certs, and I don't expect them to explain it to you either.



Translation: We really don’t care about how this all happens as long as we get our drugs, they are cheap and nobody breaks the Prime Directive. When a key motor testing person says we must protect one manufacturer over all the others, because while other manufacturers may come and go this one must always be here for the sake of the hobby, then we have a problem. That is the Prime Directive.

If you think me hosting and building a website for any manufacturer disallows me to ask for objective performance from our volunteers, then you are dead wrong. In fact, doing so has opened my eyes to a lot of tom foolery going on. If you don't like that, you are free to leave.

daveyfire

Then I guess I'm not clear on why this is taking place in a thread discussing whether sparky motors are model rocket motors or high power motors.


Given the freely available facts of this particular situation, I feel like I have a pretty good idea of why the cross-certification recognition didn't happen the day after the CAR paperwork appeared on AMW's website. Maybe I'm wrong because I "don't know the whole story". What *is* the whole story, then? It seems to be important, as it's brought up in even remotely-related threads.

(It should be branched from this thread, though, as it likely has little to do with Paul's excellent new product. Maybe move it here?)


Thank you for your patronizing tone. Where in this particular situation has S&T, TMT, or CAR said that we need to "protect one manufacturer over all the others"? Undisclosed e-mails don't count, as remember, I'm only basing my posts on what I know. I don't have access to inside information. Maybe you could write an exposé on the issue if it's important.

I'll echo what I said in the e-mail I sent you. Remember that, for us consumers, it's just a hobby. As long as we have motors to fly and people interested in flying them, consumers are in a good position. Your "translation" of my words seems to stem from either your commercial involvement with a company who might be affected by these decisions, or (as Randall Munroe put it) because it bothers you when "someone is wrong on the internet." I'm not sure which is right, so I'm considering all options.


I wasn't questioning your ability to ask for "objective performance" from a group of scientists. I simply wanted to add another point of evidence to the discussion -- even though it was already here -- that I believe may have an effect on the nature of your line of thinking, especially when you are mocking others who are NOT commercially involved as "lily white". Am I not allowed to do the same? Does my line of thinking not make sense?

Maybe I should take my ball and go home. I seem to be much happier if I spend less time on the internet echo chamber. It'd be a lot of work getting my picture (and my pictures) out of a significant number of your page header graphics, though :: ducks for cover ::

billspad

I'm not going to waste my time typing a long rebuttal since Daveyfire pretty much covered everything I would have said. But there's one point I'd like to stress. No one in NAR S & T is favoring any manufacturer. I can't speak for TMT but from the email I've seen I'm pretty damn sure they aren't either. The manufacturer that YOU are clearly biased towards was always treated fairly by NAR S & T even to the point where I thought we were on the verge of going too far. I believe I've seen him post things on this forum. I challenge him to say otherwise.

billspad

Thanks for the explanation.

I think the titanium and barium issues are two separate matters.

Personally (NOT NAR S & T) I don't see the need for increased safe distances for sparky motors. While we don't allow them at CMASS launches because we feel the additional fire risk isn't worth it, there are certainly many places where they can be flown safely. I do agree with calling them high power motors because I'd just as soon not see them on the shelf at the local hobby store.

Your description of the damage caused by barium is sobering. I'm glad we haven't been asked to test any of these at East Coast NAR S & T because we do it inside and the test cell's ventilation system is less than perfect. I have no idea why NFPA hasn't addressed barium and other colorants. Perhaps it would be a good idea for someone like you to ask them to look into it.

ddmobley

Perhaps you need to relook at the title of the thread then as it's a thread about CAR certifying two new reloads and has absolutely NOTHING to do with sparky motors being either model or high power.


Apparently that is not enough from stopping a flood of opinions though.


Again, not having the whole story is not enough to reserve your opinion.


And like I told you in my resposne to you, I have *no commercial involvement* with a company who might be affected by these decisions. Just because my name is listed as the technical contact for a domain name is no evidence of fact. They do that for free when you register a domain for someone.


You haven't added anything to the discussion, certainly not "another point of evidence". All you have done is shown that I registered a domain name and the site is hosted on my server. Does that make me an owner or something? For the record, I didn't make a penny off of the domain name registration, the site's hosting or the site's design and construction. So find another drum to beat, you are sounding like a Frank drone.



If you'll tell me which ones are your's I'll delete them immediately.

ddmobley

That's your tale, I sit on mine.


I am not biased, whether clearly or not, toward one manufacturer over another. I favor all manufacturers and use all manufacturers products. Were you aware my most recent flight was on a J350 that I used to certify L2 again with? I certainly wouldn't have picked a motor of that manufacturer for my certification flight if I was biased against them.

It's the actions I see that I am biased against. I'll say it again, last year NAR S&T bent, no broke, rules to rush certifications for LDRS. That had to benefit the manufacturer. This year, there is an effort to stall certifications while discussions take place over distance setbacks, cross reciprocity and whether a motor is a model rocket motor or a high power motor, which could delay the certs past LDRS. Timing is everything. You've got the CAR certs, what is the hold up? The very act of slowing down the certifications to take those actions is counter-intuitive to previous actions to rush things through for announcement at LDRS.

Take the players out of it entirely and just look at the actions. It doesn't make sense, no matter who the players are, and I would be saying the same thing if it were Ellis Mountain, Loki and Gorilla Motors at the center. If you replaced their names with the same actions, it would be just as nonsensical.

But most people don't care. Give them available propellant and they are happy as clams, drug references aside, it's an APCP fix.

It's funny that you reference NAR S&T being good to this manufacturer you think I am so fond of. If I recall, your other NAR S&T partner, Jack Kane, has pretty much been neutered for his relationship with Paul, and was noticeable absent on the CC: list of any of the communications regarding this issue. I know you are familiar with the mushroom treatment, where you feed people shit and keep them in the dark, but I was unaware you did it to you own people. Apparently he really pissed someone off with his overly 'fair treatment' as it cost him half his seat.

billspad

You really need to take off the blinders. As far as the NAR is concerned those motors were certified as soon as we received a notification from CAR and received the data. LDRS is a Tripoli event and I believe their reciprocal certification requirements are a little more strict. They reserve the right to ask for more data. My understanding is that in this case they are happy with what they have. The model/high power question didn't hold up anything. NFPA 1125 is crystal clear on this. They're high power motors and will be listed as such. By the way, I'm not entirely positive NAR S & T received the data on those sparky motors. We either have to get the data directly from someone at CAR or we can take it off their website once we've told us it's there. I've got to dig through a pile of email on Sunday and look for it.




That is not the reason a co chairman was added. I was at the NAR Board meeting. Were you?

If you look at the email that you evidently have copies of you'll see that one of the addresses is an S & T admin mailing list. The person sending the email did not realize that the list will not accept mail from anyone who is not on the list. Since John L. was also copied on that email he caught it and forwarded it. That's how it got to me so I know that Jack has seen everything that I've seen if not more.

You can continue put us down but I know the facts and I feel quite comfortable that we've handled this exactly the way we should have.