BATFE submits APCP test results to court in TRA/NAR lawsuit

Home / Archives / BATFE submits APCP test results to court in TRA/NAR lawsuit

2006 Archived News by Planet News

Saturday, October 14, 2006

WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA -- In preparation for Tuesday's status conference in United States District Court before Judge Reggie B. Walton, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) have filed with the court the results of their tests relating to the explosive nature of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP).

Previously, the United States Court of Appeals had remanded the case back to the District of Columbia Circuit Court for reconsideration of whether or not APCP was truly an explosive. APCP had been included on the original List of Explosives that Congress from 1971 mandated to the BATFE for oversight, and a cornerstone of the Tripoli Rocketry Association vs BATFE case in front of Judge Walton was that APCP wasn't an explosive by definition and should not be regulated.

The Court of Appeals found that there was no scientific basis in the determination that APCP was an explosive and earlier this year, the Judge Walton instructed the BATFE to conduct a series of tests to reconsider APCP's explosive classification.

The tests, conducted by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, compared the burn rate of APCP to safety fuse, a product referenced in federal law as an 'explosive.' The definition of Explosives used for making this determination is contained in 18 U.S.C., Chapter 40, Section 841(d): "'explosives' means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters."

BATFE developed the testing protocols for their comparison that would be "repeatable and consistent." Safety fuse was classified as a "typical low explosive" where the reaction/burning rate for safety fuse was approximately 7.5 millimeters per second, claiming "though there are special use low explosives that react at rates slower than 7.5 millimeters per second."

Original ATF graphic submitted to U.S. District Court

According to these tests, ordinary bond paper burned more rapidly than safety fuse, and nearly as fast as APCP. Safety fuse was obviously chosen for this laboratory comparison because it is referred to specifically by name in the federal law as an explosive but displayed burn rate characteristics that were less than APCP. This result would seem to indicate that safety fuse is also mis-categorized as an 'explosive' or that perhaps 'bond paper' should be reconsidered in a future act of rulemaking as an 'explosive.'

ATF data reset with normal, non-logarithmic perspective applied to burn rate data points

If you look at the data reconfigured on a chart with normal, non-logarithmic perspective between the data points, you can see the burn rate difference of true explosives (black powder) and non-explosives (APCP, safety fuse and bond paper). To the non-analytic observer, perhaps even to the judge, the original ATF graphic gives the impression that APCP is half as explosive as black powder. But when viewed in this normal, non-logarithmic perspective, the burn rate of APCP becomes almost a "non-event."

While these results were completely expected under the circumstances, Tuesday's status conference is certain not to produce any immediate relief for hobby rocketry enthusiasts across the country. With the latest BATFE rule change that took effect on October 10th, rocketry enthusiasts found the popular "Easy Access" exemption laid to rest, effectively ending the decade-long practice of motors and reload kits with APCP propellant grains containing less than 62.5 grams of propellant being exempt from federal oversight. For years, hobbyists were able to fly up to "J" impulse class motors without a federal permit. After the latest rule change that took effect on the 10th, this level was capped at the "G" impulse class.

The test results were filed in United States District Court Friday, October 13th, 2006. With the filing of these documents, the BATFE's official position remains that APCP is properly classified as an explosive. The court filings have been included here as Adobe PDFs.

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF AGENCY DECISION (PDF - 26K)
MEMORANDUM: AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE COMPOSITE PROPELLANT EXPLOSIVES CLASSIFICATION (PDF - 863K)

Reader comments:

Only the ATF could come up with "fuzzy math" where half of 9615 is 143!

Judging from the graph they submitted in their report, their intent to deceive is very clear. It is an insult to the presiding judge in this case that they think he is an idiot, evidenced by there attempt to pull this stunt in his court room.

crontab on 10-15-2006 08:10 PM

Thank you for the updated chart.

Keep in mind the "range" of APCP burn rates are INCONSISTENT with my 35 years of PROFESSIONAL experience.

For 500 psi firings (intended use) burning rates range from 0.11 to 0.62 ips for both consumer and commercial propellants we (companies I interface with) use.

The ambient burning rates are between 2 and 10 mm/s.

SO, the ATF is a lying sack of s%it.

The DOT was too, so no surprise. Manganise dioxide my ass.

Just Jerry!

P.S. "propellant fragments". Hmmm. Do they mean unignited/extinguished whole grains? They do. Liars extreme. Is that "extreme rocketry"??

P.P.S. The ONLY AP which is explosive (list) has a particle size of UNDER 15 micron. Adding rubber further DESENSITIZES APCP!!!!!!!!!!!

Just Jerry on 10-15-2006 10:41 PM

I really liked the way that the BATFE interpreted the order...

Instead of going to the lab (Air Force or otherwise...) and saying "We need you to determine whether or not APCP is an explosive", to which the lab would set up their own protocols and experiments, they HANDED the lab the protocols and experiments to run.

The term "Garbage In - Garbage Out" comes immediately to mind...

Len_Lekx on 10-16-2006 09:33 AM

Jerry,

Did you notice that in one paragraph the BATF states that not all APCP formulations can be classifed as explosive under their protocols. But then they do not reveal the formulations that they tested.

That makes the whole report unsound. They could have used APCP formulations with additives such as RDX which, as I understand, would greatly increase the burn rate. In order for the report to meet even half of the appelate court's order they would have had to limit testing to hobby formulations and reported what they were.

Of course you can not expect the BATF to be either fair or truthful in their reporting.

Ken Holloway

kgholloway on 10-16-2006 03:24 PM

For anybody who's taking LSATs to get into law school this semester while simultaneously complaining about having to learn logarithms and the meaning of "powers of 10"... I'll show them this graph.

(My roommate is one of them...)

For the data they gathered, the presentation is scientifically accurate but horribly misleading. If shown the plots on a linear scale, suddenly their data doesn't seem so conclusive...

daveyfire on 10-16-2006 05:18 PM

daveyfire hit it right on the mark. logarithmic scales are very misleading. I just hope that everyone who sees this graph realizes the significance.

xman on 10-16-2006 08:27 PM

Quote:

They also could have used APCP where the fuel is a POWDER such as PVC.

Just Jerry

Just Jerry on 10-16-2006 10:55 PM

Quote:

For the data they gathered, the presentation is scientifically accurate but horribly misleading. If shown the plots on a linear scale, suddenly their data doesn't seem so conclusive...

Actually, NO. The presentation is NOT accurate. Look at the ATF graph again.

On the lower bound of APCP, they state the burn rate is 36mm/sec. On the graph, the APCP lower bound falls between the "10" and the "100" mm/sec placement. If you use logic to determine that halfway between 10 and 100 is arrived at by subtracting 100-10=90. 90/2=45. 45+10=55. Therefore halfway between 10 and 100 on the lower bound of APCP is 55. The lower bound of APCP the ATF has charted on the graph is charted as slightly more than halfway between 10 and 100, yet it labeled as 36. 36 <> 55.

If I were to logarithmically chart 36mm/sec on the chart, it would be EVEN CLOSER to the "10" end of the scale.

The data is inaccurate no matter how you look at it.

ddmobley on 10-17-2006 07:14 PM

The graph is accurate. Log10(36) = 1.56, log10(55.8) = 1.75, log10(143) = 2.16

If that isn't convincing, here is an electronic sample of log paper.

http://polymer.bu.edu/ogaf/image/fig22.gif

There is nothing wrong with the graph with the possible exception of the choice of a log scale.

UhClem on 10-17-2006 07:40 PM

#10

Leave it to me to invert the process.

But it's illogical.