[DOT] Explosive (Class 1) defined
Jerry Irvine
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 49, Volume 2]
[Revised as of October 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 49CFR173]
[Page 444-477]
TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER I--RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PART 173_SHIPPERS_GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND
PACKAGINGS--Table
of Contents
Subpart C_Definitions, Classification and Packaging for Class 1
Source: Amdt. 173-224, 55 FR 52617, Dec. 21, 1990, unless otherwise
noted.
[[Page 445]]
Sec. 173.50 Class 1--Definitions.
(a) Explosive. For the purposes of this subchapter, an explosive
means any substance or article, including a device, which is designed to
function by explosion (i.e., an extremely rapid release of gas and heat)
or which, by chemical reaction within itself, is able to function in a
similar manner even if not designed to function by explosion, unless the
substance or article is otherwise classed under the provisions of this
subchapter.
==
Given the term "extremely" this cannot apply to mere slow burning
propellant especially those that burn under 10mm/s.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv
Anthony Cesaroni
What part of "extremely rapid release of gas and heat" is repugnant or has
anything to do with burn (deflagration) rate? Am I missing your point or
does rocket propellant release gas and heat slowly? :-)
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-15FF91...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Irvine
"Anthony Cesaroni" <aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> What part of "extremely rapid release of gas and heat" is repugnant or has
> anything to do with burn (deflagration) rate? Am I missing your point or
> does rocket propellant release gas and heat slowly? :-)
It releases it slowly.
Let me cite:
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/FS-holygrail.jpg
Furthermore, that is if you see it as an "article".
One could argue even reloads are "substances".
NOT enclosed.
This is a shipping hazard issue NOT an ATF issue. A box of propellant
even if it ignites "cannot detonate or function by explosiion".
Just Jerry
Anthony Cesaroni
propellant. The result of a box of APCP in an unconfigured shipping state
releases sufficient heat and gas to meet the defined criteria of an
explosion. Detonation does not even need to be taken into account to
qualify. It's an explosive and there is no wiggle room on that fact I'm
afraid.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-E22DF0...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Irvine
"Anthony Cesaroni" <aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote:
> Slowly? The miracles of science. It's amazing that it even makes such a good
> propellant. The result of a box of APCP in an unconfigured shipping state
> releases sufficient heat and gas to meet the defined criteria of an
> explosion. Detonation does not even need to be taken into account to
> qualify. It's an explosive and there is no wiggle room on that fact I'm
> afraid.
Depends entirely on the jurisdiction and the criterion.
For Canada, of course I agree.
Nuff said.
Anthony Cesaroni
Anthony.
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-1CCFE0...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Irvine
"Anthony Cesaroni" <aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote:
> Beers are on you. :-)
That's an understatement.
hmasmmb
(1) Explosive; explosive compositions for the purpose of this class are
those containing both a fuel and sufficient oxygen or an oxidizer so that,
upon initiation, they are capable of undergoing a chemical change at a
relatively high rate of speed, or a speed approaching instantaneous,
resulting in the production of usable force through chemical change in the
composition to produce gaseous products and usually heat, and are used for
blasting, firearms, jet propulsion of rockets, vehicles, etc., rapidly
filling automotive passenger-restraining gas-bags
http://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/uspc060/defs060.htm#C060S205000
However having used explosives most of my life ( Military stuff) I disagree
with this definition being used for rocket fuel and I cite the line that
states almost instantaneous. Det cord (PETN) burns at about 22000fps I would
but the KNO3/Dextrose burns a lot slower. How ever Black Powder Burns at
about 300 fps ( from memory) but it does convert more than 95% of its mass
to gas. So the definition can be bent a lot just like statistics.
Just a thought.
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-34794E...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Irvine
"hmasmmb" <I'm@home> wrote:
high rate of speed
a speed approaching instantaneous
Perfect post.
This should be in the FAQ.
Joel Corwith
> In article <4021bff8$0$1729$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> "hmasmmb" <I'm@home> wrote:
>
> > Found this at the Us Patents office website.
> >
> > (1) Explosive; explosive compositions for the purpose of this class are
> > those containing both a fuel and sufficient oxygen or an oxidizer so
that,
> > upon initiation, they are capable of undergoing a chemical change at a
> > relatively high rate of speed, or a speed approaching instantaneous,
> > resulting in the production of usable force through chemical change in
the
> > composition to produce gaseous products and usually heat, and are used
for
> > blasting, firearms, jet propulsion of rockets, vehicles, etc., rapidly
> > filling automotive passenger-restraining gas-bags
> >
> > http://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/uspc060/defs060.htm#C060S205000
> >
> > However having used explosives most of my life ( Military stuff) I
disagree
> > with this definition being used for rocket fuel and I cite the line that
> > states almost instantaneous. Det cord (PETN) burns at about 22000fps I
would
> > but the KNO3/Dextrose burns a lot slower. How ever Black Powder Burns at
> > about 300 fps ( from memory) but it does convert more than 95% of its
mass
> > to gas. So the definition can be bent a lot just like statistics.
Did he just tell the ATF to get bent?
Joel. phx
> >
RayDunakin
but the KNO3/Dextrose burns a lot slower. How ever Black Powder Burns at about
300 fps ( from memory) but it does convert more than 95% of its mass to gas.>>
According to at least one source, a detonation is defined as having a
supersonic flame front which moves at a rate of kilometers per second.
Deflagration is defined by a rate of meters per second.
In contrast, APCP in even the fastest hobby motors burns at a rate of only
millimeters per second.
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
( Ray says, while missing every opportunity to CITE )
- iz
Anthony Cesaroni
burn with intense heat or light. There isn't a velocity component in the
definition. Energetic compounds either deflagrate or detonate.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"RayDunakin" <raydu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040205024657...@mb-m20.aol.com...
Phil Stein
posts meaningless.
Take a lesson from Ray & try English once in a while.
Leonard Fehskens
> In article <GjgUb.4976$ZN1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Anthony Cesaroni" <aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote:
>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> What part of "extremely rapid release of gas and heat" is repugnant
>> or has anything to do with burn (deflagration) rate? Am I missing
>> your point or does rocket propellant release gas and heat slowly? :-)
>
> It releases it slowly.
Can you cite a figure for volume/time? Isn't the "slow release" of gas
incompatible with the production of thrust?
len.
Leonard Fehskens
news:20040205024657...@mb-m20.aol.com:
> According to at least one source, a detonation is defined as having a
> supersonic flame front which moves at a rate of kilometers per second.
> Deflagration is defined by a rate of meters per second.
>
> In contrast, APCP in even the fastest hobby motors burns at a rate of
> only millimeters per second.
And this is our strongest arguing point. The fact that, if confined,
burning propellant can overpressurize the containing vessel, does not
make it an explosive, any more than water is an explosive because boilers
sometimes "explode".
"Real" explosives do not require any confinement to "work".
len.
Leonard Fehskens
news:YmrUb.1950$kg3....@news20.bellglobal.com:
> Deflagration comes from the Latin term deflagrare which means to burn
> or burn with intense heat or light. There isn't a velocity component
> in the definition. Energetic compounds either deflagrate or detonate.
Right, deflagration is about thermal energy release. Can anyone cite the
values of thermal energy release (say, in kcal/sec) of a burning log and
an equivalent mass of sport rocketry APCP?
Explosion is about kinetic energy release. Again, can anyone cite figures
for ordinary combustion (our friend the fireplace log), deflagrating sport
rocketry APCP, and, say, detonating dynamite or C4?
len.
Jerry Irvine
Leonard Fehskens <len.fe...@hp.com> wrote:
That's why designing motors is a pain in the ass.
David Weinshenker
There's a lot of difference between "fast enough to produce thrust"
and "so rapidly that the entired stored energy of the contained
active charge is effectively delivered at a single moment".
-dave w
default
the message. By contrast, Ray (as stubborn as he is) keeps his messages
concise and to the point. Quite often Ray doesn't even dissagree, but
rather challenges the poster to either lead, follow, or get the heck out of
the way.
steve
"Phil Stein" <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote in message
news:phl420ln918qd03u3...@4ax.com...
Anthony Cesaroni
APCP meets the criteria of a blasting agent. This is about a shipping hazard
classification. The radiation, gas release and thermal effects are
consistent with a class 1 material (explosive sub-class 3 or 4) as defined
by DOT and UN. Thermal energy release is all about kinetic energy in this
regard. The total potential and kinetic energy available and most
importantly, it's conversion determines the effect.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"Leonard Fehskens" <len.fe...@hp.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94866627760FE...@16.105.248.153...
Leonard Fehskens
> If I understand this thread correctly, this isn't about whether or not
> the APCP meets the criteria of a blasting agent. This is about a
> shipping hazard classification.
Point made. I overlooked the subject line.
len.
Bob Kaplow
Jerry, please note that what Ray just posted was correct!
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
> Excessive & inappropriate use of CITES (and snipes) is what makes your
> posts meaningless.
huh?
- iz
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
> I agree, Phil. It adds a degree of pompassity that lessens the impact of
> the message.
ahem!
cites validate
statement, esp. regarding LAWS, which lack cites lacks validation
snips of prior posts are used to show contrast between what Ray is
representing as having been said, and what was ACTUALLY said
a beacon cutting through the fog, is what it is
- iz
Jerry Irvine
kapl...@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
Unfortunately, that discredits it!
default
"Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed" <iz...@acceptable-gains.net> wrote in message
news:3mxUb.180252$4F2.22...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Because quite often you quote them as if they were an end all, definitive
and authoritive source of accurate imformation. And we all know too well
that rocketry is sub-regulated by several overlapping organizations. It's
too easy to cite one source to back up your claim, when a equally relevant
source is not mentioned.
steve
default
> default wrote:
>
> > I agree, Phil. It adds a degree of pompassity that lessens the impact
of
> > the message.
>
> ahem!
>
> cites validate
>
> statement, esp. regarding LAWS, which lack cites lacks validation
>
>
I disagree, especially the way you use them.
Jerry Irvine
"default" <unava...@thenet.com> wrote:
> "Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed" <iz...@acceptable-gains.net> wrote in message
> news:NqxUb.180253$4F2.22...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > default wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, Phil. It adds a degree of pompassity that lessens the impact
> of
> > > the message.
> >
> > ahem!
> >
> > cites validate
> >
> > statement, esp. regarding LAWS, which lack cites lacks validation
> >
> >
>
> I disagree, especially the way you use them.
>
> Because quite often you quote them as if they were an end all, definitive
> and authoritive source of accurate imformation.
Do you have something to add?
Anything to add?
Is add in your vocabulary?
>And we all know too well
> that rocketry is sub-regulated by several overlapping organizations. It's
> too easy to cite one source to back up your claim, when a equally relevant
> source is not mentioned.
>
> steve
>
>
--
Jerry Irvine
> "Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed" <iz...@acceptable-gains.net> wrote in message
> news:NqxUb.180253$4F2.22...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > default wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, Phil. It adds a degree of pompassity that lessens the impact
> of
> > > the message.
> >
> > ahem!
> >
> > cites validate
> >
> > statement, esp. regarding LAWS, which lack cites lacks validation
> >
> >
>
> I disagree, especially the way you use them.
>
> Because quite often you quote them as if they were an end all, definitive
> and authoritive source of accurate imformation.
Do you have something to add?
Anything to add?
Is add in your vocabulary?
>And we all know too well
> that rocketry is sub-regulated by several overlapping organizations. It's
> too easy to cite one source to back up your claim, when a equally relevant
> source is not mentioned.
>
> steve
>
>
--
Larry Lobdell, Jr.
> > Can you cite a figure for volume/time? Isn't the "slow release" of gas
> > incompatible with the production of thrust?
> >
> > len.
>
> There's a lot of difference between "fast enough to produce thrust"
> and "so rapidly that the entired stored energy of the contained
> active charge is effectively delivered at a single moment".
>
> -dave w
"Fast enough to produce thrust" applies to SU & assembled motors, or a
rocket with such a motor could not fly.
But unconfined propellant grains burn too slowly to produce thrust,
and are much less "hazardous" to ship.
So there should be different DOT classifications for each. Maybe an
assembled motor should be 1.3 or 1.4 but a reload kit is at most a
flammible solid.
To put both assembled motors and reload kits into the same DOT hazard
shipping classification is a denial of reality.
Larry Lobdell Jr.
You detonate the 50 pounds of black powder at 15 paces and I'll ignite
the 50 pounds of APCP reloads. You go first.
Jerry Irvine
llobd...@afo.net (Larry Lobdell, Jr.) wrote:
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<40226BFD...@earthlink.net>...
> > > Can you cite a figure for volume/time? Isn't the "slow release" of gas
> > > incompatible with the production of thrust?
> > >
> > > len.
> >
> > There's a lot of difference between "fast enough to produce thrust"
> > and "so rapidly that the entired stored energy of the contained
> > active charge is effectively delivered at a single moment".
> >
> > -dave w
>
> "Fast enough to produce thrust" applies to SU & assembled motors, or a
> rocket with such a motor could not fly.
> But unconfined propellant grains burn too slowly to produce thrust,
> and are much less "hazardous" to ship.
> So there should be different DOT classifications for each. Maybe an
> assembled motor should be 1.3 or 1.4 but a reload kit is at most a
> flammible solid.
> To put both assembled motors and reload kits into the same DOT hazard
> shipping classification is a denial of reality.
Would someone please bring this to the attention of DOT and UN?
Besides the other MAJOR, MAJOR factor is typical reload/SU shipments are
in cardboard boxes (little pressure confinement), and in SMALL
quantities (25kg or less).
The rules assume FULL TRUCKLOAD and RAIL CAR quantities.
BS
We need an INTERNATIONAL 25KG or 50KG QUANTITY exemption.
Print the UN number and common name on the outside of the box for
DISCXLOSURE.
Just Jerry
Hello? Can you hear me?
"Sanity is determined by how well you can pretend to fit in with those
around you."
- nek
> Larry Lobdell Jr.
> You detonate the 50 pounds of black powder at 15 paces and I'll ignite
> the 50 pounds of APCP reloads. You go first.
--
Brad Hitch
Yup. In contemporary combustion science parlance the distinction
between deflagration and detonation has to do with combustion that
propagates through a mixture at subsonic speed versus combustion
intimately coupled with the supersonic propagation of a shock wave,
respectively. I have usually found good agreement between calculated
Chapman-Jouguet detonation velocities and measured detonation wave
speeds, so I think we have a pretty good understanding of the physics
involved. Obviously, a Latin root probably has little to do with the
modern science - like using "c" for the speed of light from the Latin
"celeritas".
If APCP had a higher burn rate you wouldn't have to compensate with a
larger burning surface area by coring the grain. You can't get
standard APCP in sizes used by hobbyists to propagate a detonation
even when it is driven by a detonation from a true explosive.
Attempting to use APCP to blast coal would be like putting kerosene in
your car. It won't go. APCP isn't an explosive, it's a hot gas
generator. (like rmr? :)
<http://members.aol.com/victec/AIAAIM.pdf>
<http://www.astronautix.com/articles/comlants.htm>
Brad Hitch
Anthony Cesaroni
criteria is, the material on it's own, is incapable of raising the pressure
of a constraining vessel to the point of rupture (heat, gas and radiation
effects aside). APCP will not meet that criteria so it remains in class 1.
Whether it is propulsive or not is not the primary determining factor for
class but only sub-class depending on the configuration.
Also, I'm not sure that 50 pounds of black powder is the critical mass for
DDT although it may be under the right conditions. We conduct routine
propellant burn offs here and I would be very hesitant about standing 15
paces from 50 pounds of APCP fuel grains going up at once. Fire ball aside,
they also tend to leap to freedom when burned on mass and we have a steel
safety grate on the burn pit to mitigate that or at least we did. It may
have melted.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"Larry Lobdell, Jr." <llobd...@afo.net> wrote in message
news:71df7235.04020...@posting.google.com...
Jerry Irvine
"Anthony Cesaroni" <aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote:
> Flammable solid? That's class 4. In order to qualify for class 4, one of the
> criteria is, the material on it's own, is incapable of raising the pressure
> of a constraining vessel to the point of rupture (heat, gas and radiation
> effects aside). APCP will not meet that criteria so it remains in class 1.
Not at DOT.
> Whether it is propulsive or not is not the primary determining factor for
> class but only sub-class depending on the configuration.
>
> Also, I'm not sure that 50 pounds of black powder is the critical mass for
> DDT although it may be under the right conditions.
BP is "non-detonable".
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
hi...@tda.com (Brad Hitch) wrote:
This should be in the FAQ.
Anthony Cesaroni
advertised. See
http://www.dynonobel.com/NR/rdonlyres/0FF09F42-879F-426E-A194-4EA5141440A7/0/BlackpowderVer11_E.pdf
This will most likely wrap so you may have to cut and paste. 1.1D in bulk, 1
pound can exemption aside.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
EDWINDE
>to gas.
More like 55-60%. See Ellern, Military and Civilian Pyrotechnics section on
black powder.
Ed
EDWINDE
>
>Anything to add?
>
>Is add in your vocabulary?
>
This was an addition?
EDWINDE
>your car. It won't go. APCP isn't an explosive, it's a hot gas
>generator. (like rmr? :)
Agree on the rmr gas generator, but perchlorates have often been used in
blasting and "demil" APCP is being used as an additve in several blasting agent
mixes today. See T.L. Davis, "Chemistry of Powder and Explosives" Chapter VII,
"Dynamite and Other High Explosives", subsection "Chlorate and Perchlorate
Explosives" Some of the issues in the past few years of The ISEE
(International Society of Explosives Engineers) magazine, "Explosive
Engineering should have an article or two on the inclusion of APCP "demil"
propellant in blasting agents.
EDWINDE
>the 50 pounds of APCP reloads. You go first.
This is getting old. To compare them equally, either the APCP reloads should
be granulated to a size similar to the black powder or the black powder should
be compressed into the same shape and volume at a density of about 0.069 lb/cu
in and have the same surfaces inhibited as the APCP reloads. This will give a
closer approximation of apples to apples and (to most rmr posters) surprising
results.
Ed
Anthony Cesaroni
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"EDWINDE" <edw...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040205213250...@mb-m02.news.cs.com...
RayDunakin
should be granulated to a size similar to the black powder or the black powder
should be compressed into the same shape and volume at a density of about 0.069
lb/cu in and have the same surfaces inhibited as the APCP reloads. >>
But that's not its common and intended purpose, nor is it meant to be used that
way. The point is that APCP motors and reloads don't behave like BP or high
explosives without completely altering it. And if you're going to call
something an explosive because it can be reduced or converted to something
else, then you might as well call flour and coal dust "explosives" and treat
them the same as BP or dynamite.
baDBob
<aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:01rocket-15FF91...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> [Code of Federal Regulations]
>> [Title 49, Volume 2]
>> [Revised as of October 1, 2003]
>> From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
>> [CITE: 49CFR173]
>>
>> [Page 444-477]
>>
>> TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION
>>
>> CHAPTER I--RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
>> TRANSPORTATION
>>
>> PART 173_SHIPPERS_GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND
>> PACKAGINGS--Table
>> of Contents
>>
>> Subpart C_Definitions, Classification and Packaging for Class 1
>>
>> Source: Amdt. 173-224, 55 FR 52617, Dec. 21, 1990, unless otherwise
>> noted.
>>
>> [[Page 445]]
>>
>> Sec. 173.50 Class 1--Definitions.
>>
>> (a) Explosive. For the purposes of this subchapter, an explosive
>> means any substance or article, including a device, which is designed to
>> function by explosion (i.e., an extremely rapid release of gas and heat)
>> or which, by chemical reaction within itself, is able to function in a
>> similar manner even if not designed to function by explosion, unless the
>> substance or article is otherwise classed under the provisions of this
>> subchapter.
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Given the term "extremely" this cannot apply to mere slow burning
>> propellant especially those that burn under 10mm/s.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>Jerry,
>
>What part of "extremely rapid release of gas and heat" is repugnant or has
>anything to do with burn (deflagration) rate? Am I missing your point or
>does rocket propellant release gas and heat slowly? :-)
>
>Anthony J. Cesaroni
>President/CEO
>Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
>http://www.cesaronitech.com/
>(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
>(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
Are we talking the propellant alone or an assembled motor?
Bob
Leonard Fehskens
> Is add in your vocabulary?
Yeah, didn't he say something about that SBC "add" with
the rocket that crashes into the car and blows up?
len, just stirring things up...
Leonard Fehskens
news:d99c50fc.04020...@posting.google.com:
> "celeritas".
I've seen celery in a Bloody Mary. Is this what you get when
you put a stick of celery in a Margarita?
len (who took four years of Latin, knows how to pronounce it
properly).
Ed
Should have been "More like 55-60% solids."
Ed
I believe the point is that if materials etc. were only used for their
common and intended purposes or in the way they were meant to be used,
it would be a much different world than it really is.
Ed
RayDunakin
common and intended purposes or in the way they were meant to be used, it would
be a much different world than it really is. >>
That's right. In a perfect world, no one would use gasoline or matches for
arson, for example. But in this world, that happens all the time yet those
materials are not subject to the ridiculous constraints placed on hobby rocket
motors.
baDBob
<aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote:
>Deflagration comes from the Latin term deflagrare which means to burn or
>burn with intense heat or light. There isn't a velocity component in the
>definition. Energetic compounds either deflagrate or detonate.
>
>
>Anthony J. Cesaroni
>President/CEO
>Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
>http://www.cesaronitech.com/
>(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
>(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
>
>
Please define "intense"
Bob
Anthony Cesaroni
propellant. Intense heat and light are the operatives.
"Intense"
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin intnsus, stretched, intent,
from past participle of intendere, to stretch, intend. See intend.]
1.. Possessing or displaying a distinctive feature to an extreme degree:
the intense sun of the tropics.
2.. Extreme in degree, strength, or size: intense heat.
3.. Involving or showing strain or extreme effort: intense concentration.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
--
"baDBob" <pag...@bellnorth.net> wrote in message
news:3l782058e0tlr1kq0...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:13:10 -0500, "Anthony Cesaroni"
> <aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote:
>
> Please define "intense"
>
> Bob
>
>
baDBob
Kaplow) wrote:
>In article <20040205024657...@mb-m20.aol.com>, raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) writes:
>> << Det cord (PETN) burns at about 22000fps I would
>> but the KNO3/Dextrose burns a lot slower. How ever Black Powder Burns at about
>> 300 fps ( from memory) but it does convert more than 95% of its mass to gas.>>
>>
>> According to at least one source, a detonation is defined as having a
>> supersonic flame front which moves at a rate of kilometers per second.
>> Deflagration is defined by a rate of meters per second.
>>
>> In contrast, APCP in even the fastest hobby motors burns at a rate of only
>> millimeters per second.
>
>
>Jerry, please note that what Ray just posted was correct!
>
>
> Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
Are you saying "first time for everything"?
Bob
Anthony Cesaroni
the primary class determining factor. See my previous post.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"baDBob" <pag...@bellnorth.net> wrote in message
news:fdv620h4o52qbsghc...@4ax.com...
baDBob
So what is the comparison for "intense"?
Is it hotter than boiling water? Cooler than the face of the sun?
Brighter than a candle?
Bob
Anthony Cesaroni
this. 84% solids, APCP looks something like this.
Article weight 1.4Kg
Article density 1700 kg/m3
Article surface area 0.042 m2
Results
Flame temperature 2851 K
Radiative energy from propellant surface 5.12E+06 W
Radiative energy at 15 m distance 1.81E+03 W/m2
I'd say that's intense even when translated from SI to English units. To
answer your question though, I guess we really need to find something that's
not intense to compare it to in order to be sure. :-)
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"baDBob" <pag...@bellnorth.net> wrote in message
news:s5j82057s44199sb5...@4ax.com...
Dave Grayvis
Does that mean it's hotter than boiling water? ;)
David Weinshenker
>
> The propeller heads here just happen to have irradiance data to quantify
> this. 84% solids, APCP looks something like this.
>
> Article weight 1.4Kg
> Article density 1700 kg/m3
> Article surface area 0.042 m2
>
> Results
>
> Flame temperature 2851 K
> Radiative energy from propellant surface 5.12E+06 W
> Radiative energy at 15 m distance 1.81E+03 W/m2
>
> I'd say that's intense even when translated from SI to English units. To
> answer your question though, I guess we really need to find something that's
> not intense to compare it to in order to be sure. :-)
I guess the real question is at what threshold such combustion
is considered to be "explosive" - road flares, for example,
"produce high flame temperatures and intense radiative energy
by combustion with oxidizer contained in the material" - i.e.,
they certainly "deflagrate", but I doubt that anyone would use
this fact to characterize the behavior of a burning road flare
as an "explosion"!
-dave w
Anthony Cesaroni
Whether it goes boom or not doesn't necessarily determine if it's an
explosive in that regard. Heat, gas and thermal effects are also taken into
consideration to determine class/sub-class. Next time your at the library,
look up the UN test criteria publication for classification of hazardous
materials. It explains everything quite clearly. I can give you the
publication numbers if you need them.
BTW, what is the shipping classification for most commercial road flares?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:40253B43...@earthlink.net...
Jerry Irvine
"Anthony Cesaroni" <aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote:
> Shipping hazard classification and effects that qualify for class 1 again.
> Whether it goes boom or not doesn't necessarily determine if it's an
> explosive in that regard. Heat, gas and thermal effects are also taken into
> consideration to determine class/sub-class. Next time your at the library,
> look up the UN test criteria publication for classification of hazardous
> materials. It explains everything quite clearly. I can give you the
> publication numbers if you need them.
>
> BTW, what is the shipping classification for most commercial road flares?
>
1.4S I believe?
> Anthony J. Cesaroni
> President/CEO
> Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
> (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
> (410) 571-8292 Annapolis
>
>
> "David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40253B43...@earthlink.net...
> >
> > I guess the real question is at what threshold such combustion
> > is considered to be "explosive" - road flares, for example,
> > "produce high flame temperatures and intense radiative energy
> > by combustion with oxidizer contained in the material" - i.e.,
> > they certainly "deflagrate", but I doubt that anyone would use
> > this fact to characterize the behavior of a burning road flare
> > as an "explosion"!
> >
> > -dave w
>
>
--
David Schultz
(United States) use only. The international classification is 1.4S, Signal
Devices, Hand (EX-9209001).
from Orion MSDS: http://www.orionsignals.com/safetydata/fuseehighway.pdf
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz
Jerry Irvine
David Schultz <ab...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> Road flare example: DOT class is NA1325 (Fusee, UN 4.1) which is for domestic
> (United States) use only. The international classification is 1.4S, Signal
> Devices, Hand (EX-9209001).
>
> from Orion MSDS: http://www.orionsignals.com/safetydata/fuseehighway.pdf
>
And this seeming discrepency is why despite AC's actual expertise I take
a decidedly US centric approach and cling like a banshee to the
principal that once a material "falls out" of Class 1 consideration,
that for DOMESTIC purposes (90% of the worldwide market in civilian
rockets) it is an "unregulated plastic".
Merely wacky Jerry
Dave Grayvis
> In article <40259233...@127.0.0.1>,
> David Schultz <ab...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
>>Road flare example: DOT class is NA1325 (Fusee, UN 4.1) which is for domestic
>>(United States) use only. The international classification is 1.4S, Signal
>>Devices, Hand (EX-9209001).
>>
>>from Orion MSDS: http://www.orionsignals.com/safetydata/fuseehighway.pdf
>>
>
>
> And this seeming discrepency is why despite AC's actual expertise I take
> a decidedly US centric approach and cling like a banshee to the
> principal that once a material "falls out" of Class 1 consideration,
> that for DOMESTIC purposes (90% of the worldwide market in civilian
> rockets) it is an "unregulated plastic".
>
> Merely wacky Jerry
>
Tell me Mr. wacky, is your "unregulated plastic" more or less energetic
than say, road flares?
Marcus Leech
> Deflagration comes from the Latin term deflagrare which means to burn or
> burn with intense heat or light. There isn't a velocity component in the
> definition. Energetic compounds either deflagrate or detonate.
>
>
You know, it always amuses me when this thread comes up, every few weeks.
The constant bickering about whether APCP is, or is not, an explosive.
In many *other* countries in the world, there's not an argument. Any substance
that has any kind of (even vague) tendency to burn on its own, producing
copious heat/light/gas is considered under the reasonable purview of
the countries explosives regulations.
In Canada, everything that is (roughly) oxidizer+fuel is considered an
explosive for purposes of the Explosives Act. HPR hasn't ceased to
exist here. In fact, every year, it gets bigger and bigger. We'll
soon (when "soon" is defined in the frame of reference of government
bodies and legislators) have legal EX activity up here. Our main
rocketry organization, CAR, has worked *with* the legislators to establish
the right balances between public safety and freedom to enjoy this hobby.
I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but I find the cooperative approach
we use up here to be vastly more productive than the constant gnashing
of teeth, extreme pedanticism, and adversarial attitude permeating
the hobby in the U.S. In most of the rest of the world, APCP would
be considered an explosive. Get over it.
Tim
I'd like to trade our BATFE for your Mounties. I guess I'd have to
throw in sunny Florida to sweeten such a sour trade.
Phil Stein
Leech) wrote:
With all due respect, we do what we want. You get over it!
Phil Stein
Anthony Cesaroni
number and ground transport only restriction. Most signaling devices along
these lines are intrinsic 1.4 (G to S sub-class). The exception are some
larger military type flares that are 1.3. Getting a domestic exemption from
1.4S (safety explosive) is not a terrible leap of faith and there is at
least one small model rocket motor example (with restrictions) that comes to
mind. Getting an intrinsic 1.4 C/G to 4.1 exemption is not impossible but
significantly more difficult. Now getting an intrinsic 1.3 material such as
APCP to a 4.1 exemption is going to require some very expensive and
sophisticated shipping configurations. There are ways to ship 1.1D (HE)
along these lines using an explosafe container for example. The container
will set you back $25K or $250 a day to rent. This is an extreme example but
having looked into doing this with 1.3 materials, it suggests costs in the
range of several hundreds of dollars per box to meet 4.1.
The MSDS sites the OSHA class not DOT BTW (moot). Mind you it's just sawdust
and a poor oxidizer with a bit of sulfur to lower the ignition temperature.
APCP it's not but in reality, it's still intrinsic class one with a
restricted exemption to class 4.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"David Schultz" <ab...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:40259233...@127.0.0.1...
Anthony Cesaroni
unfortunately. :-)
Well over it.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
(410) 571-8292 Annapolis
"Phil Stein" <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote in message
news:9kad20dq4qcm4b9n5...@4ax.com...
> On 8 Feb 2004 13:17:39 -0800, >
Phil Stein
Phil Stein
Jerry Irvine
Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2004 13:17:39 -0800, sa...@propulsionpolymers.com (Marcus
> Leech) wrote:
>
> >"Anthony Cesaroni" <aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote in message
> >news:<YmrUb.1950$kg3....@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> >> Deflagration comes from the Latin term deflagrare which means to burn or
> >> burn with intense heat or light. There isn't a velocity component in the
> >> definition. Energetic compounds either deflagrate or detonate.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You know, it always amuses me when this thread comes up, every few weeks.
> > The constant bickering about whether APCP is, or is not, an explosive.
> >
> >In many *other* countries in the world, there's not an argument. Any
> >substance
> > that has any kind of (even vague) tendency to burn on its own, producing
> > copious heat/light/gas is considered under the reasonable purview of
> > the countries explosives regulations.
> >
> >In Canada, everything that is (roughly) oxidizer+fuel is considered an
> > explosive for purposes of the Explosives Act. HPR hasn't ceased to
> > exist here. In fact, every year, it gets bigger and bigger. We'll
> > soon (when "soon" is defined in the frame of reference of government
> > bodies and legislators) have legal EX activity up here. Our main
> > rocketry organization, CAR, has worked *with* the legislators to establish
> > the right balances between public safety and freedom to enjoy this hobby.
You know what? Your regulators are more cooperative and common sense
than ours. Fact. I would LOVE to sit down at a table with reps from DOT
in a non-adversarial way and have a conversation among humans (leading
to better treatment of all) I would give my left nut for that.
Can you hear me DOT?
Same with Explosive permit issuers.
Jerry
God save the queen!
USA = gotcha-ville
> >
> >I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but I find the cooperative approach
> > we use up here to be vastly more productive than the constant gnashing
> > of teeth, extreme pedanticism, and adversarial attitude permeating
> > the hobby in the U.S. In most of the rest of the world, APCP would
> > be considered an explosive. Get over it.
>
>
> With all due respect, we do what we want. You get over it!
>
> Phil Stein
:)
Jerry Irvine
"Anthony Cesaroni" <aces...@cesaroni.net> wrote:
> Indeed. Avoiding getting thrown in jail these days is the hard part
> unfortunately. :-)
I sooo agree.
>
> Well over it.
>
> Anthony J. Cesaroni
> President/CEO
> Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
> (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
> (410) 571-8292 Annapolis
>
>
>
> "Phil Stein" <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote in message
> news:9kad20dq4qcm4b9n5...@4ax.com...
> > On 8 Feb 2004 13:17:39 -0800, >
> > With all due respect, we do what we want. You get over it!
> >
> > Phil Stein
>
>
--
Dave Grayvis
> You know what? Your regulators are more cooperative and common sense
> than ours. Fact. I would LOVE to sit down at a table with reps from DOT
> in a non-adversarial way and have a conversation among humans (leading
> to better treatment of all) I would give my left nut for that.
>
> Can you hear me DOT?
>
Jerry, why don't you try the phone. The DOT is staffed by normal
humans, who are unable to receive mental telepathy.
Phil Stein
side is suppoed to be out? 8-)
Phil
Dave Grayvis
> Maybe his phone doesn't work when he's wearing that foil hat. Which
> side is suppoed to be out? 8-)
>
> Phil
>
Shiny side out, keep the voices out!
Shiny side in, something something chickin!
Randy
"Dave Grayvis" <davegr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:7HAVb.4582$_m1....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> Shiny side in, something something chickin!
Ask Kurt. He'll know.
Randy
RayDunakin
use up here to be vastly more productive than the constant gnashing of teeth,
extreme pedanticism, and adversarial attitude permeating the hobby in the U.S.
>>
We've accomplished much with a cooperative approach, but the current management
of ATF has been decidely uncooperative in the past few years. In order for
cooperation to produce acceptable results, both parties must be willing to
compromise. ATF has rejected all cooperation and compromise.
Kurt Kesler
says...
I'm still trying to get this screwdriver out of my leg...
--
Kurt Kesler
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
> I'm still trying to get this screwdriver out of my leg...
the rusty one?
- iz ;)
Mario Perdue
Why is his leg rusty?
Mario Perdue
NAR #22012 Sr. L2
for email drop the planet
http://roci.indyrockets.org
"X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded."
John Stein
"Mario Perdue" <mpe...@L4software.com> wrote in message
news:a3of20hbtp93vjv1a...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:47:07 GMT, Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
> <iz...@acceptable-gains.net> wrote:
>
> > Kurt Kesler wrote:
> >
> > > I'm still trying to get this screwdriver out of my leg...
> >
> > the rusty one?
>
> Why is his leg rusty?
>
Must have NOT used the stainless steel screwdriver. :-)
John
Leonard Fehskens
> To answer your question though, I guess we really need to find
> something that's not intense to compare it to in order to be sure. :-)
Our friend the fireplace log seems to be the standard of comparison.
len.
Dave Grayvis
> "Mario Perdue" <mpe...@L4software.com> wrote in message
> news:a3of20hbtp93vjv1a...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:47:07 GMT, Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
>><iz...@acceptable-gains.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kurt Kesler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm still trying to get this screwdriver out of my leg...
>>>
>>>the rusty one?
>>
>>Why is his leg rusty?
>>
>
>
> Must have NOT used the stainless steel screwdriver. :-)
>
If he had used some DOW 111 or 112 screwdriver removal would have been a
snap!
Leonard Fehskens
@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
> Shiny side in, something something chickin!
Tender juicy?
len.
John Stein
I thought it was snap rings that were a snap. Silly me.
John
Randy
"Mario Perdue" <mpe...@L4software.com> wrote in message
news:a3of20hbtp93vjv1a...@4ax.com...
> Why is his leg rusty?
He's been out in the chicken yard.
Randy
Bob Kaplow
> Anthony Cesaroni wrote:
>>
>> The propeller heads here just happen to have irradiance data to quantify
>> this. 84% solids, APCP looks something like this.
>>
>> Article weight 1.4Kg
>> Article density 1700 kg/m3
>> Article surface area 0.042 m2
>>
>> Results
>>
>> Flame temperature 2851 K
>> Radiative energy from propellant surface 5.12E+06 W
>> Radiative energy at 15 m distance 1.81E+03 W/m2
>>
>> I'd say that's intense even when translated from SI to English units. To
>> answer your question though, I guess we really need to find something that's
>> not intense to compare it to in order to be sure. :-)
>
> is considered to be "explosive" - road flares, for example,
> "produce high flame temperatures and intense radiative energy
> by combustion with oxidizer contained in the material" - i.e.,
> they certainly "deflagrate", but I doubt that anyone would use
> this fact to characterize the behavior of a burning road flare
> as an "explosion"!
Ditto sparklers and Oxy-Acetylene torches. Not to mention the gasoline I
just filled my tank with this morning...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Bob Kaplow
> Maybe his phone doesn't work when he's wearing that foil hat. Which
> side is suppoed to be out? 8-)
The outside :-)