Problems with Aerotech Reloads?
Rocket Dude
rumors about the Aerotech reloads for LDRS having problems. What is up
with this?
Gary C. Rosenfield
ta...@northwich.net wrote on 6/11/02 8:22 PM:
AeroTech has been receiving reports of one or more competitors spreading
rumors questioning the legality of AeroTech products that have been
manufactured with the assistance of contract labor. AeroTech has
investigated their claims and has found them to be without any factual
basis.
Gary
Gary Rosenfield
AeroTech, Inc.
www.aerotech-rocketry.com
Jerry Irvine
What is the basis of the contractural loads being legal, and why is that
any different than, say the USR/ACS arrangement TRA refuses to recognize?
Jerry
I have not been spreading rumours, but have posted my positions to rmr.
I feel all of the examples above are legal but the difference is how TRA
interfaces with them.
>
> Gary
>
>
> Gary Rosenfield
> AeroTech, Inc.
> www.aerotech-rocketry.com
>
--
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.
Gary C. Rosenfield
Irvine at 01ro...@gte.net wrote on 6/12/02 11:52 AM:
> In article <B92CDE70.DA5D%ga...@powernet.net>,
> "Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
>
>> In article hffdguscqe92177lj...@4ax.com, Rocket Dude at
>> ta...@northwich.net wrote on 6/11/02 8:22 PM:
>>
>>> The VP for the Austin Area Rocketry Group has mentioned the control of
>>> rumors about the Aerotech reloads for LDRS having problems. What is up
>>> with this?
>>>
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rocketry-austin/message/16010
>>
>> AeroTech has been receiving reports of one or more competitors spreading
>> rumors questioning the legality of AeroTech products that have been
>> manufactured with the assistance of contract labor. AeroTech has
>> investigated their claims and has found them to be without any factual
>> basis.
>
> What is the basis of the contractural loads being legal,
49 CFR §173.56 (a)(1) & (2), 49 CFR §107.3. You do the math. ;-)
> and why is that
> any different than, say the USR/ACS arrangement TRA refuses to recognize?
Without knowing the all the details of the "USR/ACS arrangement", I cannot
comment. It seems that TRA representatives would be better qualified to
respond.
> I have not been spreading rumours, but have posted my positions to rmr.
> I feel all of the examples above are legal but the difference is how TRA
> interfaces with them.
You are not among those of whom we are aware that are spreading these
rumors.
Rocket Dude
<ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
>>AeroTech has been receiving reports of one or more competitors spreading
>>rumors questioning the legality of AeroTech products that have been
>>manufactured with the assistance of contract labor. AeroTech has
>>investigated their claims and has found them to be without any factual
>>basis.
Shouldn't these new Aerotech reloads be recertified since there is a
new builder, new facilities and new tooling?
Jerry Irvine
Rocket Dude <ta...@northwich.net> wrote:
That is a matter of TRA or NFPA or NAR policy/rules, NOT law.
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
They seem to be designed to make a later claim of "unclean hands" in
your LVFD lawsuit. I am convinced you, despite our personal
disagreements have made every reasonable hunmanly possible effort to be
legally compliant, and as usual any shortage was likely caused by
negligence or intentional misrepresentation by AUTHORITIES of what
permits might have been required. I for one know and believe your
operation to be spotlessly compliant to the best of my knowledge, and
that of the authorities that inspected you at all times prior to the
fire.
Jerry
Yes you can quote me on that too.
>
> Gary
>
>
> Gary Rosenfield
> AeroTech, Inc.
> www.aerotech-rocketry.com
>
References:
173.56(a)
(a) Definition of new explosive. For the purposes of this subchapter a
new explosive means an explosive produced by a person who:
173.56(a)(1)
(1) Has not previously produced that explosive; or
173.56(a)(2)
(2) Has previously produced that explosive but has made a change in
the formulation, design or process so as to alter any of the
properties of the explosive. An explosive will not be considered a
``new explosive'' if an agency listed in paragraph (b) of this section
has determined, and confirmed in writing to the Associate
Administrator, that there are no significant differences in hazard
characteristics from the explosive previously approved."
The 107.3 reference is too vague or in error.
http://63.141.231.101/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?infobase=netdot&softpage=Doc_F
rame_Pg42
107.3 Definitions.
All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 5102 are used in their statutory
meaning. Other terms used in this part are defined as
follows:
Unless you mean to refer to:
Person means an individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, company,
association, joint-stock association, including any
trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative thereof, or
government, Indian tribe, or agency or instrumentality of
any government or Indian tribe when it offers hazardous materials for
transportation in commerce or transports hazardous
materials in furtherance of a commercial enterprise, but such term does
not include:
And you mean to infer Ellis is an assignee. Which I would agree with.
Gary C. Rosenfield
ta...@northwich.net wrote on 6/12/02 2:53 PM:
No, AeroTech is still the entity manufacturing and selling the product in
accordance with AeroTech drawings, specifications, formulations and
processes.
Rocket Dude
<ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
>>No, AeroTech is still the entity manufacturing and selling the product in
>>accordance with AeroTech drawings, specifications, formulations and
>>processes.
Excellent. Looking forward to LDRS. It's too bad that so many aren't
coming due to the lack of firm commitment to the amount of motors
available. Couldn't you guys have sent e-mails to all your dealers
asking how many pre-orders they had and then comparing this to what is
currently in stock with Bob Ellis? Maybe you could then tell us that
you have currently 70% of the orders filled. Next week tell us the new
number.
Just an idea. Right now planning for LDRS sucks.
Jerry Irvine
"Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> No, AeroTech is still the entity manufacturing and selling the product in
> accordance with AeroTech drawings, specifications, formulations and
> processes.
I agree, but does TRA?
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
Rocket Dude <ta...@northwich.net> wrote:
> Just an idea. Right now planning for LDRS sucks.
Considering the fire and relocation (both argueably caused by NV
authorities), you are damn lucky Gary is a rocket zealot and has your
rocket flying interests at heart and will likely successfully service
over 70% of the variety of needs at a national launch. I personally
find it kinda amazing.
Rocket Dude
wrote:
>>Considering the fire and relocation (both argueably caused by NV
>>authorities), you are damn lucky Gary is a rocket zealot and has your
>>rocket flying interests at heart and will likely successfully service
>>over 70% of the variety of needs at a national launch.
70%... is this an official number of motors available? That's my
point. No one knows with less than a month to go.
Jerry Irvine
Rocket Dude <ta...@northwich.net> wrote:
Especially not Gary!
Jerry
"Rocket gods make better lovers." - Jerry Irvine's women
Joel Corwith
> > I have not been spreading rumours, but have posted my positions to rmr.
> > I feel all of the examples above are legal but the difference is how TRA
> > interfaces with them.
>
spreading these
> rumors.
Should this be in the FAQ?
Joel. phx
;)
Rocket Dude
wrote:
>>Especially not Gary!
Gary doesn't know how many reloads Bob Ellis has completed?
RayDunakin
builder, new facilities and new tooling? >>
No. Not if they're made under contract to AT and according the same
specifications. The fact that the workers, building, or tools have changed is
irrelevant. Otherwise, they'd have to recertify their entire line everytime
they hired a new employee, moved to a new building, or replaced old equipment.
Mark Simpson
Mark Simpson
NAR 715023 Level II
Mark Simpson
What'd you do, go to work for AT? You sure change your tune awfully
fast.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
Art Fuldodger
> "Rocket gods make better lovers." - Jerry Irvine's women
"BAAAAAAAAA! BAAAAAAAAAA!" - Jerry's sheep. ;O)
buf...@thisaddress.com
TMT Secretary
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:18:17 GMT, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:
>In article <B92D1F97.DA93%ga...@powernet.net>,
Neil Tarasoff
Game, set, match. There are NO problems with Aerotech Reloads. Now can
we put an end to this thread
or is everyone going to beat it to death?
This will be my ONLY post on this subject.
Neil Tarasoff
Rocket Dude
wrote:
>>This will be my ONLY post on this subject.
How many reloads are currently available as of June 12, 2002? Is this,
like, a mystery or something?
Neil Tarasoff
I could tell you (How many reloads are currently available as of June
12, 2002), but then I would have to kill you.
Neil Tarasoff
Jerry Irvine
buf...@thisaddress.com wrote:
> Yes, we do!
>
> TMT Secretary
Is this an anon address you are using ir is it real?
Jerry Irvine
Neil Tarasoff <neilc...@attbi.com> wrote:
> People,
>
> Game, set, match. There are NO problems with Aerotech Reloads. Now can
> we put an end to this thread
> or is everyone going to beat it to death?
How can you beat a subject that NOBODY disagrees with?
Jerry
>
> This will be my ONLY post on this subject.
>
> Neil Tarasoff
>
> buf...@thisaddress.com wrote:
> >
> > Yes, we do!
> >
> > TMT Secretary
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:18:17 GMT, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <B92D1F97.DA93%ga...@powernet.net>,
> > > "Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> No, AeroTech is still the entity manufacturing and selling the product in
> > >> accordance with AeroTech drawings, specifications, formulations and
> > >> processes.
> > >
> > >I agree, but does TRA?
> > >
> > >Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine
Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Jerry,
> What'd you do, go to work for AT? You sure change your tune awfully
> fast.
I do not believe in monopolies. Especially "neutral trade association"
enforced ones.
But the truth is the truth. They allegedly got burned out largely by
LVFD and asked to leave town by a $20,000 state fee (in Nevada of all
places), and they were the most compliant motor manufacturer in consumer
composite rocketry by a good margin. If it can happen to errortech, it
can happen to anybody.
This industry needs more support for new business growth.
Jerry Irvine
"Joel Corwith" <rep...@thegroup.pls> wrote:
GCR:
> > You {Jerry Irvine} are not among those of whom we are aware that are
> spreading these
> > rumors.
>
> Should this be in the FAQ?
:) Or gold plated and framed.
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
Rocket Dude <ta...@northwich.net> wrote:
Not enough. And the likelyhood of the ones that DO exist being
distributed perfectly to maximize the particular flights in the
particular oorder is zero.
BUT if errortech brought several boxes of liners, reload parts, grains
and essentially assemble reload kits to demand at or for right before
the launch, it might work bettter than average.
Jerry Irvine
Neil Tarasoff <neilc...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Rocket Dude,
>
> I could tell you (How many reloads are currently available as of June
> 12, 2002), but then I would have to kill you.
Since they are made and discharged in TX even the ATF lovers must agree
that unlisenced individuals can operate them in their own name, right?
Jerry
>
> Neil Tarasoff
>
> Rocket Dude wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 03:51:56 GMT, Neil Tarasoff <neilc...@attbi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>This will be my ONLY post on this subject.
> >
> > How many reloads are currently available as of June 12, 2002? Is this,
> > like, a mystery or something?
--
Rocket Dude
wrote:
>>Rocket Dude,
>>
>>I could tell you (How many reloads are currently available as of June
>>12, 2002), but then I would have to kill you.
Yeah hide it from the customer. Good business.
www.pro38.com gets my $$$ if this keeps up.
Rocket Dude
wrote:
>>Since they are made and discharged in TX even the ATF lovers must agree
>>that unlisenced individuals can operate them in their own name, right?
Bob Ellis is NOT an Aerotech dealer hence he can't distribute the
reloads without pissing off a slew of legit AT dealers.
Jerry Irvine
Rocket Dude <ta...@northwich.net> wrote:
Doesn't matter who. It's an in-state transaction and ATF has no
intra-state jurisdiction.
Jerry
David Weinshenker
> BUT if errortech brought several boxes of liners, reload parts, grains
> and essentially assemble reload kits to demand at or for right before
> the launch, it might work bettter than average.
It seems like they're going in that direction...
At Dairy Aire (May Tripoli Central CA launch) Rocket Motion
had some of the new (Ellis-made) propellant... the 38mm grains
were bulk-packed in boxes of 12, to be sold in the quantity
required with a given nozzle-liner pack. (I think most of the
White Lightning ones went for J350's...)
Incidentally, there appears to be a 38/120 (single grain)
casing size in the works: The list of motor types on the
WL propellant box lable included everything from "H123W (uses
2 grains)" to "J350W (uses 6 grains)"... and also listed a
motor I'd never heard of before: "G61W (uses 1 grain)".
-dave w
Jerry Irvine
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> motor I'd never heard of before: "G61W (uses 1 grain)".
>
> -dave w
It;s an intended use case for the bulk pack of grains.
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/38probulk.htm
RayDunakin
www.pro38.com gets my $$$ if this keeps up. >>
Call the motor vendors and ask how many they have on hand. That's how many are
available right now. Duh.
Give AT a break, I'm sure they're not enjoying this situation anymore than you
are. Probably a lot less, actually since for us it's just a hobby, and for them
it's a living.
Mark Simpson
qualifier "allegedly"? Surely, if "the truth is the truth", you
wouldn't need the qualifier. ;-)
And "being the most compliant motor manufacturer in consumer composite
rocketry by a good margin" ignores both the past AND the present.
Remember, there's a new kid in town that has been 100% above board
since starting in this business, CTI. They spent the money to get
"real" UN shipping classifications, not exemptions, have had EVERY one
of their consumer motors certified above-the-board and not
"dry-labbed", etc., etc.
I do agree that competition is important and healthy for the hobby,
but let's not get too wrapped up in hyperbole. The "facts" don't
support it.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message news:<01rocket-63F8B9...@news.bellatlantic.net>...
Mark Simpson
decision? Is the equipment that Ellis uses identical to AT's? Are the
exact raw materials used?
Is the manufacturing process identical? I know that Gary responded
that drawings, specs, formulations and processes were AT's but just
what does that mean? I deal with several manufacturing sites making
the same products and I know that no two are "identical". What level
of difference is acceptable?
While you may think that the answer to these is not relevent to the
discussion, I think it would be helpful to someone like me who would
like to propose a new certification process that: streamlines the
process, establishes "real" QC testing and relies more on control of
the process rather than the calendar when determining the need for
recertification.
You can e-mail me the response if you think it wouldn't be of interest
to the group as a whole.
Thanks,
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
buf...@thisaddress.com wrote in message news:<f35ggukunmchlmol2...@4ax.com>...
Jerry Irvine
mark.s...@home.com (Mark Simpson) wrote:
> Out of curosity, what criteria did you use for coming to that
> decision? Is the equipment that Ellis uses identical to AT's?
No.
> Are the
> exact raw materials used?
Probably yes because this is a critical aspect.
> Is the manufacturing process identical?
Probably not "idetical" but the same formula, series of steps, step
goals, step qc, and final product spec.
> I know that Gary responded
> that drawings, specs, formulations and processes were AT's but just
> what does that mean? I deal with several manufacturing sites making
> the same products and I know that no two are "identical". What level
> of difference is acceptable?
The stated criteria is same ballistics, or in other words product
performance. I can certify if the chemicals and formula are the same
and the process is "similar" the ballistics ARE almost identical.
But identical is not the standard.
> While you may think that the answer to these is not relevent to the
> discussion, I think it would be helpful to someone like me who would
> like to propose a new certification process that: streamlines the
> process, establishes "real" QC testing and relies more on control of
> the process rather than the calendar when determining the need for
> recertification.
Certify the propellant, the DESIGN of the motor, casing, delay, and let
any FORM FACTOR of that design be allowed.
Once a motor is certified, it should be for life. Occasional random
testing of in production batches just to keep the mfg honest would be
fine.
> You can e-mail me the response if you think it wouldn't be of interest
> to the group as a whole.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark Simpson
> NAR 71503 Level II
>
> buf...@thisaddress.com wrote in message
> news:<f35ggukunmchlmol2...@4ax.com>...
> > Yes, we do!
> >
> > TMT Secretary
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:18:17 GMT, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <B92D1F97.DA93%ga...@powernet.net>,
> > > "Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> No, AeroTech is still the entity manufacturing and selling the product
> > >> in
> > >> accordance with AeroTech drawings, specifications, formulations and
> > >> processes.
> > >
> > >I agree, but does TRA?
> > >
> > >Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine
> Jerry, if "the truth is the truth" then why did you have to add the
> qualifier "allegedly"? Surely, if "the truth is the truth", you
> wouldn't need the qualifier. ;-)
> And "being the most compliant motor manufacturer in consumer composite
> rocketry by a good margin" ignores both the past AND the present.
> Remember, there's a new kid in town that has been 100% above board
> since starting in this business, CTI. They spent the money to get
> "real" UN shipping classifications, not exemptions, have had EVERY one
> of their consumer motors certified above-the-board and not
> "dry-labbed", etc., etc.
> I do agree that competition is important and healthy for the hobby,
> but let's not get too wrapped up in hyperbole. The "facts" don't
> support it.
That's not entirely ffair. I have been known to criticize Gary for
SPECIFIC things loudly, consistently, and over time. I have had alot
more to complian about with regard to how TRA interfaces with them vs me.
Aerotech's "exemptions" are only "domestic use" and are indeed of no
benefit to other countries (which should be changed). But they are
indeed significant. They allow for example the shipment of 25kg (or
whatever) of 1.3C classified material as 1.4C. One example DOT-E-10996.
The underlying material is classified. The laziest and cheapest
classification to be sure, but a classification. CTI burned up over 400
pounds of finished product to get their natural 1.4C classicication.
Gary is too damn cheap to ever consider such a thing. Heck if he could
figure a way to reuse drillings, he would.
Gary's dry lab certs are TRA's fault not his because they probably told
him as they did me they tested the motors prior to cert. I admit he
probably did not demand to see the curves and data because he was just
happy they were certified at all. When I did I was harassed. So don't
do that!
There are still HUGE barriers to competition starting in Orem, Utah.
Jerry
>
> Mark Simpson
> NAR 71503 Level II
>
> Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:<01rocket-63F8B9...@news.bellatlantic.net>...
> > In article <3D08014E...@comcast.net>,
> > Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Jerry,
> > > What'd you do, go to work for AT? You sure change your tune awfully
> > > fast.
> >
> > I do not believe in monopolies. Especially "neutral trade association"
> > enforced ones.
> >
> > But the truth is the truth. They allegedly got burned out largely by
> > LVFD and asked to leave town by a $20,000 state fee (in Nevada of all
> > places), and they were the most compliant motor manufacturer in consumer
> > composite rocketry by a good margin. If it can happen to errortech, it
> > can happen to anybody.
> >
> > This industry needs more support for new business growth.
--
buf...@thisaddress.com
anonymous address. If you have TMT business, I'm always reachable
through the Tripoli web site and/or Mark Clark, the chair.
Paul
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 04:10:28 GMT, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:
>In article <f35ggukunmchlmol2...@4ax.com>,
Gary C. Rosenfield
mark.s...@home.com wrote on 6/13/2002 5:44 AM:
> Jerry, if "the truth is the truth" then why did you have to add the
> qualifier "allegedly"? Surely, if "the truth is the truth", you
> wouldn't need the qualifier. ;-)
> And "being the most compliant motor manufacturer in consumer composite
> rocketry by a good margin" ignores both the past AND the present.
> Remember, there's a new kid in town that has been 100% above board
> since starting in this business, CTI. They spent the money to get
> "real" UN shipping classifications, not exemptions, have had EVERY one
> of their consumer motors certified above-the-board and not
> "dry-labbed", etc., etc.
> I do agree that competition is important and healthy for the hobby,
> but let's not get too wrapped up in hyperbole. The "facts" don't
> support it.
>
> Mark Simpson
> NAR 71503 Level II
Let's talk about "facts".
You have been insinuating hyperbole and disinformation about this for some
time now.
AeroTech's 29 & 38mm reloads have always been shippable as division 1.4 via
"REAL" UN numbers, not by an exemption. AeroTech has spent plenty of "MONEY"
in the process of obtaining its EX-numbers over the years.
In addition, AeroTech's 29 & 38mm reloads are shippable as division 1.4
without a limit on propellant weight per outer box.
But even if you were right so what.
The exemptions that AeroTech uses are for the occasion when <62.5 gram
motors and reloads are shipped as flammable solids (division 4.1, DOT-E
7887) and for the shipment of >62.5 gram motors and reloads as division 1.4
(i.e., Restricted Access, DOT-E 10996).
BTW the 10996 exemption revolutionized high power rocketry. Until 10996 was
granted large motors and reloads were almost impossible to ship
economically, and this "fact" held back the growth of the sport. Even Jerry
will admit that. Check out the number of parties to this exemption that have
taken advantage of it.
We don't hide these "facts". They're posted on the AeroTech website for all
to see.
Kurt Kesler
says...
>
> AeroTech's 29 & 38mm reloads have always been shippable as division 1.4 via
> "REAL" UN numbers, not by an exemption. AeroTech has spent plenty of "MONEY"
> in the process of obtaining its EX-numbers over the years.
Are the EX numbers location specific?
--
Kurt Kesler
Gary C. Rosenfield
See my post to Simpson re: exemptions.
Actually the 7887 exemption (obtained by Estes as you are aware) can be used
for international shipment if the foreign entity authorizes it.
Re: "cheap". We've probably spent more in classifying product than anyone
else in the hobby rocket business. And I am sure AeroTech has tested more
motors for certification than anyone else as well. But there is a difference
between spending "smart" and "dumb".
I don't know what you are talking about when you say "dry lab certs". Seems
to me that Tripoli has required "real" motors to be tested every time
AeroTech wanted one certified. Maybe you're talking about something TMT did
in the distant past.
Gary C. Rosenfield
> While you may think that the answer to these is not relevent to the
> discussion, I think it would be helpful to someone like me who would
> like to propose a new certification process that: streamlines the
> process, establishes "real" QC testing and relies more on control of
> the process rather than the calendar when determining the need for
> recertification.
You keep talking about doing this, why not "just do it!"
Gary C. Rosenfield
As I've said before, EX-numbers are company or "person" specific.
Jerry Irvine
"Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> In article 2ada0da.02061...@posting.google.com, Mark Simpson at
> mark.s...@home.com wrote on 6/13/2002 5:55 AM in part:
>
> > While you may think that the answer to these is not relevent to the
> > discussion, I think it would be helpful to someone like me who would
> > like to propose a new certification process that: streamlines the
> > process, establishes "real" QC testing and relies more on control of
> > the process rather than the calendar when determining the need for
> > recertification.
>
> You keep talking about doing this, why not "just do it!"
I agree with Gary. The most assured way to succeed is to start.
Certification fees would cover costs and experience would develop
standards.
Jerry
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Rosenfield
> AeroTech, Inc.
> www.aerotech-rocketry.com
>
--
Jerry Irvine
"Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> BTW the 10996 exemption revolutionized high power rocketry. Until 10996 was
> granted large motors and reloads were almost impossible to ship
> economically, and this "fact" held back the growth of the sport. Even Jerry
> will admit that. Check out the number of parties to this exemption that have
> taken advantage of it.
>
> We don't hide these "facts". They're posted on the AeroTech website for all
> to see.
Admit? More like screamed loudly and offered to make a presentation at
LDRS, which I still offer to do.
10996 is a tremendous thing.
Jerry Irvine
"Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> In article MPG.177277f73...@news-east.giganews.com, Kurt Kesler at
> new...@keslers.removetosend.net wrote on 6/13/2002 7:35 AM:
>
> > In article <B92DF80E.ECA0%ga...@powernet.net>, ga...@powernet.net
> > says...
> >
> >>
> >> AeroTech's 29 & 38mm reloads have always been shippable as division 1.4
> >> via
> >> "REAL" UN numbers, not by an exemption. AeroTech has spent plenty of
> >> "MONEY"
> >> in the process of obtaining its EX-numbers over the years.
> >
> > Are the EX numbers location specific?
>
> As I've said before, EX-numbers are company or "person" specific.
DOT agrees. TRA does not.
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Rosenfield
> AeroTech, Inc.
> www.aerotech-rocketry.com
>
--
Brian Elfert
>Out of curosity, what criteria did you use for coming to that
>decision? Is the equipment that Ellis uses identical to AT's? Are the
>exact raw materials used?
>Is the manufacturing process identical? I know that Gary responded
>that drawings, specs, formulations and processes were AT's but just
>what does that mean? I deal with several manufacturing sites making
>the same products and I know that no two are "identical". What level
>of difference is acceptable?
Two plants can make the exact same thing. If you buy a Hostess Twinkie in New York City and
another one in L.A., I'll bet they look and taste identical.
I can pretty well guarantee Hostess Twinkies sold in L.A. are not made in the same plant as
the Hostess Twinkies sold in New York City.
Brian Elfert
Gary C. Rosenfield
Right. Of course, no two motors manufactured on the same production line are
absolutely identical. But for all practical purposes they are the same. The
key is that they are made to the same manufacturing tolerances.
Fred Shecter
Madison" line of products?
-Fred "I want a big classic Ring Ding" Shecter NAR 20117
(BONOMO would be nice, too)
--
Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
Brian Elfert <bel...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Uf5O8.3434$y8.12...@ruti.visi.com...
Kevin Rezac
"One of life's great big No-No's
He was reaching for his Ho-Ho's
When he died with his Ding-Dong in his hand..."
From a Williams & Ree tune
(The indian & the white guy)
> I'm trying to figure out when Hostess started making Zingers! Did they
absorb the "Dolly
> Madison" line of products?
>
> -Fred "I want a big classic Ring Ding" Shecter NAR 20117
> (BONOMO would be nice, too)
>
> > Two plants can make the exact same thing. If you buy a Hostess Twinkie
Mark Simpson
inquiries about key product characteristics, key process
characteristics or appropriate QC procedures. It's impossible for me
to "divine" the needed information about AT's motor production. I
would think that you'd embrace an effort to streamline certification
and not have to recertify every three years, but so far, all I've
gotten from you is air. Now, I realize that you are busy getting back
up to speed, but my offer was first made well over a year ago.
I have had to pursue other avenues, such as my response below, to help
gain a better understanding of the critical parameters and process
differences that are trivial vs significant because you haven't come
to the plate with any info.
If you truly want me to "just do it", give me the necessary info to do
so. My offer still stands.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
"Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote in message news:<B92DFE98.ECB1%ga...@powernet.net>...
Gary C. Rosenfield
Nice diversion. We're not going to reveal proprietary information to you,
nor is that necessary to improve the certification procedure. Instead,
follow through with what you've offered and work with the two certifying
agencies to develop your certification plan. After all it has to work for
all motors tested, not just AeroTech's.
Regarding your comment that I should "embrace an effort to streamline
certification and not have to recertify every three years", I proposed
changes to the certification process at LDRS-20, including the elimination
of recertification, and they are being considered. I didn't see you there.
BTW it doesn't take "divination" to figure out the nature of the major
variables that need to be controlled in a rocket motor manufacturing
process.
Kevin Trojanowski
<...useful info snipped...>
> We don't hide these "facts". They're posted on the AeroTech website for all
> to see.
Dunno about anybody else, but *I* appreciate the fact that you've got it
all there. I've used those documents as a basis for digging through
regulations, etc, and having them readily available has certainly made
my life easier!
-Kevin
Kevin Trojanowski
> Yeah hide it from the customer. Good business.
Accusing them of hiding such information from the customers is, I think,
grossly unfair. I'm quite confident that Gary and company are doing
everything they possibly can to get their operation up and running as
quickly as possible.
Besides the fact that Gary loves to burn propellant, too, you must also
keep in mind that when they're not making motors, they're not making
money. Their ability to generate revenue went up in flames along with a
lot of other things.
> www.pro38.com gets my $$$ if this keeps up.
Buy CTI because you think they're a good product. That's why *I* buy
them, but I'm also keeping my Dr Rocket 38mm hardware and will continue
to use it, as well.
-Kevin
Mark Simpson
> Nice diversion. We're not going to reveal proprietary information to you,
> nor is that necessary to improve the certification procedure. Instead,
> follow through with what you've offered and work with the two certifying
> agencies to develop your certification plan. After all it has to work for
> all motors tested, not just AeroTech's.
Geez, GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler trust me with their proprietary
information, but AT doesn't. Poor me.
In order for someone to determine the common factors, one has to know
WHAT factors have influence. Be generic, I can handle that.
> Regarding your comment that I should "embrace an effort to streamline
> certification and not have to recertify every three years", I proposed
> changes to the certification process at LDRS-20, including the elimination
> of recertification, and they are being considered. I didn't see you there.
And you won't see me at a TRA BOD Meeting because I chose not to join
the organization...mainly because of the manipulation of the
organization by its leaders and cronies. Sound familiar?
> BTW it doesn't take "divination" to figure out the nature of the major
> variables that need to be controlled in a rocket motor manufacturing
> process.
I don't remember anywhere on my resume that I wrote "rocket propellant
expert". Let's see, I've had training in ISO9000, QS9000, Six Sigma,
QES, 5S, Multivariate Statistics, DOE...nope, no rocket propellant
training, sorry. ;-)
Or do you think that the new procedure should be nothing more than
smoking mirrors, fluff with no substance?
The ball's in your court.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
> Gary
>
Mark Simpson
You're comparing apples and oranges. Rocket propellant is a polymeric
substance. Anyone that tells you that they can make an identical polymer
in two different reaction vessels is a liar. Monomers just aren't that
easy to polymerize into cookie-cutter molecular weight fractions. Stir
rates, mixer geometry, addition points, temperature gradients, even the
vessel configuraion itself all affect a polymer's chemical and physical
properties.
For example, I've been working with a polymer manufacturer for two years
that has been trying (unsuccessfully to date) to replicate a particular
polymer and its chemical properties....and they're a multi-billion
dollar global chemical company.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
Mark Simpson
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
"Gary C. Rosenfield" wrote:
some deleted
Bill Rossi
>What'd you do, go to work for AT? You sure change your tune awfully
>fast.
>
>NAR 71503 Level II
If ya can't beat em..........join em.
.........Bill
\\\///
(O)(O)
--oOO----(__)--------------
: I WILL WORK FOR :
: ROCKET MOTORS :
:-------------------oOO-----:
|__| |__|
|~| |~|
ooO Ooo http://members.aol.com/BULLPUPP/index.html
Jerry Irvine
"Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> Right. Of course, no two motors manufactured on the same production line are
> absolutely identical. But for all practical purposes they are the same. The
> key is that they are made to the same manufacturing tolerances.
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Rosenfield
> AeroTech, Inc.
> www.aerotech-rocketry.com
>
I would qalso like to say everyone NOTICES and APPRECIATES when you take
the time to post here.
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> And those manufacturing tolerencse would be........?
In case he is too busy to reply . . .
I have found that two motors made essentially identically can have
variances between static firings of over 3%.
I have found that the ingredients of manufacture can be made within
about 2-3% of required weight each, and ballistics are noticeably
modified by variances of 6-7% depending on chemical (AP lower, Iron
oxide higher).
I have found propellant length cutting is the area of greatest
manufacturing variance. Even though it is typically under 5% it ALWAYS
varies. Even some of the nicest machines we have made still vary grain
length (under 3:1 aspect ratio) by 5% or so. Grain length = total
impulse.
Materials lengths genrally do not matter such as casings, but delays for
example are CRITICAL and even with a company which has reasonable delays
such as CTI, USR, AT, HT have fairly wide delay variance due to minor
length errors, ignition variance, firing temperature differences, and
slight grain length variances. The delay variance due to these elements
on an APCP motor is "over 1 second".
Jerry Irvine
Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Brian,
> You're comparing apples and oranges. Rocket propellant is a polymeric
> substance. Anyone that tells you that they can make an identical polymer
Stop saying IDENTICAL. Kill that word from any sentence involving
rocket motors. Impossible. Similar, close, approximate, maybe.
> in two different reaction vessels is a liar. Monomers just aren't that
--
Jerry Irvine
"Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> Regarding your comment that I should "embrace an effort to streamline
> certification and not have to recertify every three years", I proposed
> changes to the certification process at LDRS-20, including the elimination
> of recertification, and they are being considered. I didn't see you there.
CAR recently stated 5 years is their standard.
>
> BTW it doesn't take "divination" to figure out the nature of the major
> variables that need to be controlled in a rocket motor manufacturing
> process.
But if he is ignorant or killfiling my replies on substance, he will
always be screwed.
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Gary C. Rosenfield" wrote:
>
> > Nice diversion. We're not going to reveal proprietary information to you,
> > nor is that necessary to improve the certification procedure. Instead,
> > follow through with what you've offered and work with the two certifying
> > agencies to develop your certification plan. After all it has to work for
> > all motors tested, not just AeroTech's.
>
> Geez, GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler trust me with their proprietary
> information, but AT doesn't. Poor me.
> In order for someone to determine the common factors, one has to know
> WHAT factors have influence. Be generic, I can handle that.
I did, for him. Did you ignore it?
> And you won't see me at a TRA BOD Meeting because I chose not to join
> the organization...mainly because of the manipulation of the
> organization by its leaders and cronies. Sound familiar?
Hard to argue with that!
> I don't remember anywhere on my resume that I wrote "rocket propellant
> expert". Let's see, I've had training in ISO9000, QS9000, Six Sigma,
> QES, 5S, Multivariate Statistics, DOE...nope, no rocket propellant
> training, sorry. ;-)
I for one have offered to cooperate fully, have posted in reply each
time you brought it up with specific criterion. Wake up and ignore
errortech!
Bj|rn Augustsson
>
>For example, I've been working with a polymer manufacturer for two years
>that has been trying (unsuccessfully to date) to replicate a particular
>polymer and its chemical properties....and they're a multi-billion
>dollar global chemical company.
Pepsico?
/August, feeling silly.
--
Wrong on most accounts. const Foo *foo; and Foo const *foo; mean the same: foo
being a pointer to const Foo. const Foo const *foo; would mean the same but is
illegal (double const). You are confusing this with Foo * const foo; and const
Foo * const foo; respectively. -David Kastrup, comp.os.linux.development.system
Mullen
> For example, I've been working with a polymer manufacturer for two years
> that has been trying (unsuccessfully to date) to replicate a particular
> polymer and its chemical properties....and they're a multi-billion
> dollar global chemical company.
>
> Mark Simpson
> NAR 71503 Level II
>
Is it FMC?
Just curious?
Todd
Alan Jones
<ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
>In article ilgfgu09tl52nov7t...@4ax.com, Rocket Dude at
>ta...@northwich.net wrote on 6/12/02 2:53 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:18:08 -0700, "Gary C. Rosenfield"
>> <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> AeroTech has been receiving reports of one or more competitors spreading
>>>> rumors questioning the legality of AeroTech products that have been
>>>> manufactured with the assistance of contract labor. AeroTech has
>>>> investigated their claims and has found them to be without any factual
>>>> basis.
>>
>> Shouldn't these new Aerotech reloads be recertified since there is a
>> new builder, new facilities and new tooling?
>
>No, AeroTech is still the entity manufacturing and selling the product in
>accordance with AeroTech drawings, specifications, formulations and
>processes.
And I presume that AeroTech is doing quality control on the entity's
product, or has at least certified the entity and trusts them to do
proper quaity control to assure that the above is and continues to be
true.
Alan
Gary C. Rosenfield
Yep. We have a company representative on-site.
Wolf
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 04:07:31 GMT, Neil Tarasoff <neilc...@attbi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Rocket Dude,
>>>
>>>I could tell you (How many reloads are currently available as of June
>>>12, 2002), but then I would have to kill you.
>
>Yeah hide it from the customer. Good business.
>
>www.pro38.com gets my $$$ if this keeps up.
Dumbass....
Wolf
RayDunakin
substance. Anyone that tells you that they can make an identical polymer in two
different reaction vessels is a liar. Monomers just aren't that easy to
polymerize into cookie-cutter molecular weight fractions. Stir rates, mixer
geometry, addition points, temperature gradients, even the vessel configuraion
itself all affect a polymer's chemical and physical properties. >>
Hmm, in the previous post to Gary you said you're not a propellent expert, but
now you're claiming to know for a fact that propellent mixed in different bowls
is not the same propellent simply because propellent is a polymer. No offense,
but if you're not a propellent expert, then you don't know for a fact that
these infinitesimal differences in production will have any effect at all on
the finished propellent, regardless of your experience with non-propellent
polymers.
David Weinshenker
> Hmm, in the previous post to Gary you said you're not a propellent expert, but
> now you're claiming to know for a fact that propellent mixed in different bowls
> is not the same propellent simply because propellent is a polymer. No offense,
> but if you're not a propellent expert, then you don't know for a fact that
> these infinitesimal differences in production will have any effect at all on
> the finished propellent, regardless of your experience with non-propellent
> polymers.
I think this sort of question is behind Mark's request for more detail...
these variations do occur: how much effect do they really have?
Jerry, Mark - I get the impression that the two of you have had your
differences in the past, but I think the two of you ought to bury the
hatchet and sit down and do some lab work... "Tickle" the process
in varying ways (particle sizes, mix/cure variables, formula tolerances,
etc.), cast up some sample motors, and test-burn 'em. Get us some representative
data on the process sensitivity: how these "input" changes affect (or don't affect)
the "output" parameters such as thrust curve and shipping safety characteristics.
(What do you actually have to do to make APCP propellant so sensitive that it's not
fit to ship as 1.3C or milder? Would it be feasible to run the DOT/UN tests
on a "boundary set" of sample formulas that effectively "bracket" the range of
compositions useful in sport rocketry practice, such that any propellant formulas
falling within those parameters could be "classified and approved" by composition,
rather than requiring formula-by-formula testing?)
-dave w
Joe Pfeiffer
Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> writes:
> "Gary C. Rosenfield" wrote:
<snip>
> Geez, GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler trust me with their proprietary
> information, but AT doesn't. Poor me.
> In order for someone to determine the common factors, one has to know
> WHAT factors have influence. Be generic, I can handle that.
If you've got a PIA with the automakers, then you should understand
that it's only because they're convinced that you offer them something
that makes it worth their while to give you that information. I
haven't seen you offer any such thing to AT (and if I'm reading Gary
correctly, he thinks so too -- though, obviously, if I'm misreading
him I apologize in advance).
>
> > BTW it doesn't take "divination" to figure out the nature of the major
> > variables that need to be controlled in a rocket motor manufacturing
> > process.
>
> I don't remember anywhere on my resume that I wrote "rocket propellant
> expert". Let's see, I've had training in ISO9000, QS9000, Six Sigma,
> QES, 5S, Multivariate Statistics, DOE...nope, no rocket propellant
> training, sorry. ;-)
> Or do you think that the new procedure should be nothing more than
> smoking mirrors, fluff with no substance?
> The ball's in your court.
No, it's in yours (and the whole notion of a new procedure is your's,
not Gary's, so you shouldn't be asking rhetorical questions of him
which assume the new procedure). Come up with a real procedure, in
enough detail to be taken seriously, and you will be. Broad claims
that you're working on it, and you need what sounds like a complete,
detailed description of ``how to build an AT reload'' to finish it,
isn't going to get you either credibility or AT's information.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair
John Gordon
> > BTW it doesn't take "divination" to figure out the nature of the major
> > variables that need to be controlled in a rocket motor manufacturing
> > process.
>
> I don't remember anywhere on my resume that I wrote "rocket propellant
> expert". Let's see, I've had training in ISO9000, QS9000, Six Sigma,
> QES, 5S, Multivariate Statistics, DOE...nope, no rocket propellant
> training, sorry. ;-)
> Or do you think that the new procedure should be nothing more than
> smoking mirrors, fluff with no substance?
> The ball's in your court.
>
> Mark Simpson
> NAR 71503 Level II
>
For the sake of the argument, Mark, assume you were going to QC/test plain
old gunpowder. You mean to tell me that you can't design a system for
testing it's properties without knowing the exact formulation?
I wouldn't need any propellant training to test the burn rate, ignition
temp, or the power. I wouldn't care how much carbon is in it, either.
I'm just trying to understand your argument from your point of view. Maybe
you mean you would need more training to know what properties should be
testing for?
Gary is coming off here to me as being much more reasonable, if a bit
frustrated with you.
John Gordon
TRA#9206
Phil Stein
Mark said Polymer you interpreted it as Propellant. They are not the
same thing. A Polymer is just one ingredient in the recipe for
Propellant.
Sounds like Mark knows a lot about Polymers. But then again maybe my
hearing is bad. 8-)
Phil Stein
Jim Meyers
Having some experience in manufacturing quality control, I'll chime in and
say that Mark does need to know specifics of the manufacturing process -- if
he intends to author a traditional ISO-like quality control process that is
truly detailed enough to both satisfy auditors and/or a certifying
committee, and to ensure a quality product.
The philosophy behind QC programs like ISO9000, is that the manufacturer has
mature, repeatable, processes with an institutionalized feedback mechanism
to ensure constant improvement and self-correction. Thus, what Mark is
suggesting is not that we find a new way to test motors per se, but that we
use a new paradigm (pardon the use of the word) for QA. Implementation of
that paradigm at a vendor's plant _does_ require intimate knowledge of the
processes involved in manufacturing.
I think that the real problem with this thread, is that Mark is offering to
author a global, least-common-denominator, QC plan for all motor
manufacturers. To do that, he needs details. However, Gary would prefer a
more generalized approach as he, understandably, has intellectual property
to protect.
Mark is looking to get details because he wants to author a solid process
suitable for third-party certification. The reason he wants to do this is
because programs like ISO9000 don't actually require that you produce a
quality product -- they only require that you are consistent in what you
disclose. That means that if you don't document a key piece of your process,
then the certifying committee will overlook it -- and you will be free to
vary wildly in your execution of that piece of the process. ISO is
basically, "say what you do, and do what you say". So, most companies make
an effort to say very little when seeking certification. Mark wants to make
sure that doesn't happen. This is very important because TMT does not test
every batch of motors, so if the process has variation, the motors will not
be likely to test consistently between batches.
Solution?:
IMHO, the simplest approach to the dilemma would be to require that motor
manufacturers get ISO certified (or something similar) all on their own.
Only two requirements need be placed on vendors from TRA/NAR -- 1) that all
new products are tested in conjunction with TRA/NAR to produce a published
spec and tolerance; and 2) that a vendor's QC process includes a self-test
of some percentage of their finished product to those published specs and
tolerances. If they do that, the third-party certifying committee will be
able to police them from there -- and Mark (or anyone else) need not know
anything about a vendor's process (unless the vendor wants to hire him as a
consultant).
Can it be that simple? I think so.
--Jim
NAR# 77786 L2/TRA# 8361 L3
"John Gordon" <g0...@cabarrus.com> wrote in message
news:3d09d...@vienna7.his.com...
Phil Stein
In addition to what you mentioned, I think a non-disclosure
agreement between Mark & the manufacturers would make this more
palatable to the manufacturers.
Phil Stein
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:38:26 -0400, "Jim Meyers" <j...@megapathdsl.net>
wrote:
Jerry Irvine
"Jim Meyers" <j...@megapathdsl.net> wrote:
> The philosophy behind QC programs like ISO9000, is that the manufacturer has
> mature, repeatable, processes with an institutionalized feedback mechanism
> to ensure constant improvement and self-correction.
Then let me propose we install an emergency system of this nature for
the U.S. Government in regulatory matters. !!!
> basically, "say what you do, and do what you say". So, most companies make
> an effort to say very little when seeking certification. Mark wants to make
> sure that doesn't happen.
Why should errortech be forced to disclose things other corporations get
away with all the time. From what I have read here ANY ISO9000 plan no
matter how imperfect allows you claim to be an "ISO9000 shop"! Making
that claim is the reason for having it. Nobody really thinks they need
an ISO9000 plan on its own merits. If they needed that, they would make
a similar plan with internal guidelines exactly tailored to their
business and ignore all the ISO9000 rules tailored for generalization.
Jerry Irvine
raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
Perfectly stated, and incidentally, 100% correct.
Jerry Irvine
Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsuks.net> wrote:
> Mark said Polymer you interpreted it as Propellant. They are not the
> same thing. A Polymer is just one ingredient in the recipe for
> Propellant.
Which makes it substantially less relevent to the finished product.
>
> Sounds like Mark knows a lot about Polymers. But then again maybe my
> hearing is bad. 8-)
>
> Phil Stein
>
>
--
Jerry Irvine
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
THAT IS A SENSATIONAL IDEA. THE FOLKS AT CHINA LAKE HAVE DONE
SENSITIVITY STUDIES BUT ONE MIGHT CONCLUDE THOSE STUDIES ARE CLASSIFIED,
NOT DUE TO THE RESULTS, BUT DUE TO THE FORMULAS IN OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS
USED FOR THE STUDIES. A BASELINE "PUBLIC" STUDY WOULD BE A FIRST AND I
WOULD BE HAPPY TO HELP DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT SUCH A PROGRAM AND WITH THE
MYRIAD OF AM/EX ROCKETEERS COMING UP TO SPEED THESE DAYS A SETI LIKE
APPROACH COULD FIULL IN A FAIRLY COMPLEX MATRIX OF TESTS.
JERRY
PARDON MY CAPS, I WAS INSANE AT THE TIME. AND ACCIDENTALLY HIT CAPSLOCK.
>
> (What do you actually have to do to make APCP propellant so sensitive that
> it's not
> fit to ship as 1.3C or milder? Would it be feasible to run the DOT/UN tests
> on a "boundary set" of sample formulas that effectively "bracket" the range
> of
> compositions useful in sport rocketry practice, such that any propellant
> formulas
> falling within those parameters could be "classified and approved" by
> composition,
> rather than requiring formula-by-formula testing?)
I once suggested TRA do this and now I am advocating ieas.org do it and
there they have some positive feedback to the idea for future
implementation.
>
> -dave w
Jerry Irvine
"Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> Yep. We have a company representative on-site.
> Gary Rosenfield
> AeroTech, Inc.
I think that closes the issue and terminates the debate as to if they
have done all that is legally required. The only issue now is if people
(read TRA) viewing the facts will consistently apply the law and their
own policies not only to errortech, but to ACS-Reaction Labs. Can you
say, "snowballs chance in hell"?
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsuks.net> wrote:
> Thanks Jim - That makes a lot of sense.
>
> In addition to what you mentioned, I think a non-disclosure
> agreement between Mark & the manufacturers would make this more
> palatable to the manufacturers.
I doubt it. You don't see them patenting their formulas either. They
just keep it secret!
Phil Stein
Phil
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:08:17 GMT, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:
Jerry Irvine
Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsuks.net> wrote:
> Agreed - less relevent but not irrelevent.
Practically irrelevent 100%
Technically irrelevent 99.5%
You make the judgement call.
I already long since have.
Jerry
--
Jim Meyers
there is a small risk of IP leakage, but it is a small risk -- auditors do
not take any information off-site. Of course, they are also bound by NDAs
and have lots of motivation (and insurance) to protect themselves from IP
theft lawsuits.
However, ISO certifications and audits (or other third-party programs -- I'm
not fixated on ISO as the only viable certifying body) do provide a sound
basis for process consistency. That process consistency, when combined with
regular batch testing, is a highly effective means of end-product QA.
Unfortunately, if you remove the audit of process consistency (i.e. you only
require the vendor to test batches), then you need to test a very high (i.e.
very costly) percentage of batches to establish a strong statistical level
of confidence that the finished product performs to published specifications
and within published tolerances.
--Jim
NAR# 77786 L2/TRA# 8361 L3
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-ABC451...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Phil Stein
information. NDAs are nice if you trust each other - otherwise
forget it. It's not an ironclad garantee.
Phil
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:24:50 GMT, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:
>In article <4btjguscvnjskmuqg...@4ax.com>,
Jerry Irvine
"Jim Meyers" <j...@megapathdsl.net> wrote:
> That process consistency, when combined with
> regular batch testing, is a highly effective means of end-product QA.
As a long time friend of Gary, and his first dealer (yes ironic is it
not), I can certify he has perhaps the best process consistency of
anybody I have ever observed. He does some batch testing but frankly
perhaps not enough since I have seen rare but extreme examples of total
crap emminating from errortech.
Overall his propellant process is superior and his reload kit assembly
process is in serious need of upgrading.
Jerry
I can disagree with Gary on (many) specific points without having an
enemy for life.
Gary C. Rosenfield
Irvine at 01ro...@gte.net wrote on 6/14/2002 7:15 AM:
> In article <B92EBE24.ED87%ga...@powernet.net>,
> "Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
>
>> Yep. We have a company representative on-site.
>> Gary Rosenfield
>> AeroTech, Inc.
>
> I think that closes the issue and terminates the debate as to if they
> have done all that is legally required. The only issue now is if people
> (read TRA) viewing the facts will consistently apply the law and their
> own policies not only to errortech, but to ACS-Reaction Labs. Can you
> say, "snowballs chance in hell"?
>
> Jerry
I think Jerry for your comparison to be valid you would have to make only
those motors and propellants that were originally produced by ACS and
disclosed to the DOT, with the same formulations and specifications, and you
would have to sell the product as ACS, not USR, DPS, etc. Then hire Don
Carter as your production manager :-).
Do that and you have a case.
Stephen Woolhead
"Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote in message
news:B92DFE98.ECB1%ga...@powernet.net...
> In article 2ada0da.02061...@posting.google.com, Mark Simpson at
> mark.s...@home.com wrote on 6/13/2002 5:55 AM in part:
>
> > While you may think that the answer to these is not relevent to the
> > discussion, I think it would be helpful to someone like me who would
> > like to propose a new certification process that: streamlines the
> > process, establishes "real" QC testing and relies more on control of
> > the process rather than the calendar when determining the need for
> > recertification.
>
> You keep talking about doing this, why not "just do it!"
>
Why not scrap the whole certification program.
We do fine without one over here in the UK.
Stephen.
Jerry Irvine
"Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> In article 01rocket-A105E8...@news.bellatlantic.net, Jerry
> Irvine at 01ro...@gte.net wrote on 6/14/2002 7:15 AM:
>
> > In article <B92EBE24.ED87%ga...@powernet.net>,
> > "Gary C. Rosenfield" <ga...@powernet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Yep. We have a company representative on-site.
> >> Gary Rosenfield
> >> AeroTech, Inc.
> >
> > I think that closes the issue and terminates the debate as to if they
> > have done all that is legally required. The only issue now is if people
> > (read TRA) viewing the facts will consistently apply the law and their
> > own policies not only to errortech, but to ACS-Reaction Labs. Can you
> > say, "snowballs chance in hell"?
> >
> > Jerry
>
Disecting the well stated position:
> I think Jerry for your comparison to be valid you would have to make only
> those motors and propellants that were originally produced by ACS and
> disclosed to the DOT, with the same formulations and specifications,
Yes it is true.
> and you
> would have to sell the product as ACS,
ACS relabeled as whatever such as AT relabeled as USR, PML, Apogee, etc.
> not USR, DPS, etc. Then hire Don
> Carter as your production manager :-).
I want them to work. That's why the "person", in this case the company"
is continuous, but the employees have changed.
>
> Do that and you have a case.
It seems I have a case. But even if TRA said yes now they are so
spoiled by politics it would be a risk to associate with them. If only
NAR would see the light you just did, all would be well.
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Rosenfield
> AeroTech, Inc.
> www.aerotech-rocketry.com
>
--
Gary C. Rosenfield
Irvine at 01ro...@gte.net wrote on 6/14/2002 11:50 AM:
> Disecting the well stated position:
>
>> I think Jerry for your comparison to be valid you would have to make only
>> those motors and propellants that were originally produced by ACS and
>> disclosed to the DOT, with the same formulations and specifications,
>
> Yes it is true.
>
>> and you
>> would have to sell the product as ACS,
>
> ACS relabeled as whatever such as AT relabeled as USR, PML, Apogee, etc.
>
>> not USR, DPS, etc. Then hire Don
>> Carter as your production manager :-).
>
> I want them to work. That's why the "person", in this case the company"
> is continuous, but the employees have changed.
>
>>
>> Do that and you have a case.
>
> It seems I have a case. But even if TRA said yes now they are so
> spoiled by politics it would be a risk to associate with them. If only
> NAR would see the light you just did, all would be well.
Cool. Remember the relabeled motors were still manufactured by AeroTech. In
your case it would be "USR motors manufactured by ACS". The business
structure needs to remain intact. Was ACS a corporation? If not, you may
have a problem. If ACS was Don Carter/Mark Weber (i.e., a proprietorship or
partnership), the "structure" is gone. You could solicit a letter from the
DOT to confirm that the EX-numbers could still be used in that situation,
but no guarantee of success there.
I think if you articulated this in a level-headed manner it would work.
Don't give up so quickly.
RayDunakin
Read it again. He said: "Rocket propellant is a polymeric substance."
<<They are not the same thing. A Polymer is just one ingredient in the recipe
for Propellant. >>
I agree, in fact that was part of the point I was trying to make. Simply
because it contains a polymer doesn't mean that making propellent is as
difficult or complicated as making a polymer.
Phil Stein
Phil
Jerry Irvine
raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
It's more difficult to make a filled polymer than a polymer. However
small variances in polymer performance batch to batch or equipments is
minor indeed.
Jerry
Steve Wolfe
Simply
> > because it contains a polymer doesn't mean that making propellent is
as
> > difficult or complicated as making a polymer.
>
> It's more difficult to make a filled polymer than a polymer. However
> small variances in polymer performance batch to batch or equipments is
> minor indeed.
I see visions of Jerry in a former life, working in an oil refinery,
cracking the crude, with wild ideas about how the "free energy" industry
was out to kill him and ruin his business...
steve
Bob Kaplow
>> Shouldn't these new Aerotech reloads be recertified since there is a
>> new builder, new facilities and new tooling?
>
> That is a matter of TRA or NFPA or NAR policy/rules, NOT law.
But those policies would seem to indicate that they should...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
NIRA: http://www.nira-rocketry.org NAR: http://www.nar.org
We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible
resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII.
26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy
Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
Bob Kaplow
> I agree, but does TRA?
Jerry, by now you should know that it doesn't matter. TRA will always do
"what is convenient" instead of "what is right".
Mark Simpson
> Speaking as somebody on the outside, and watching this exchange:
> Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > "Gary C. Rosenfield" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Geez, GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler trust me with their proprietary
> > information, but AT doesn't. Poor me.
> > In order for someone to determine the common factors, one has to know
> > WHAT factors have influence. Be generic, I can handle that.
>
> If you've got a PIA with the automakers, then you should understand
> that it's only because they're convinced that you offer them something
> that makes it worth their while to give you that information. I
> haven't seen you offer any such thing to AT (and if I'm reading Gary
> correctly, he thinks so too -- though, obviously, if I'm misreading
> him I apologize in advance).
Sorry Joe, but you're dead wrong. AT has lots to gain from my efforts.
If a new procedure is adopted that eliminates AT's need to recertify
every 3 years, they will save plenty.
> >
> > > BTW it doesn't take "divination" to figure out the nature of the major
> > > variables that need to be controlled in a rocket motor manufacturing
> > > process.
> >
> > I don't remember anywhere on my resume that I wrote "rocket propellant
> > expert". Let's see, I've had training in ISO9000, QS9000, Six Sigma,
> > QES, 5S, Multivariate Statistics, DOE...nope, no rocket propellant
> > training, sorry. ;-)
> > Or do you think that the new procedure should be nothing more than
> > smoking mirrors, fluff with no substance?
> > The ball's in your court.
>
> No, it's in yours (and the whole notion of a new procedure is your's,
> not Gary's, so you shouldn't be asking rhetorical questions of him
> which assume the new procedure). Come up with a real procedure, in
> enough detail to be taken seriously, and you will be. Broad claims
> that you're working on it, and you need what sounds like a complete,
> detailed description of ``how to build an AT reload'' to finish it,
> isn't going to get you either credibility or AT's information.
You haven't been paying attention. Gary said that he proposed changes
to the current procedure at LDRS 20, so obviously, someone else is
interested in changing the status quo.
As for coming up with a procedure in a vacuum, I'm not THAT good. I
like to have a few facts in order to complete a DFMEA. As I mentioned
previously, I am NOT a propellant expert, Gary is. If he's worried
that he'd have to give away the farm in order for a process to be
developed, then he could provide more generic parameters that can be
tailored to eack manufacturer's process. DFMEAs (Design Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis) are proprietary documents that are kept by the
manufacturer, but viewable by the certifying body, but if he or you
were familiar with the process, you'd have known that.
DTKNOWLES
>just keep it secret!
>
>Jerry
>
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The cost for litigating
patent, PIA or NDA violations is high. Just protect your information and stay
out of the courts.
Tim