Terry:Do you have a reference or link to the '1000 page document' of proof
mentioned?
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 7:46 AM Joshua Carr <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Terry,
The next step I am about to take is to purchase your book from
aeroconsystems.com.
Is this the best place to buy it?
Also, I would like to ask your opinion on something, I hope you don't mind.
Given your chemistry background, do you have any recommendations for
understanding ignition and chemical reactions?
After a lot of reading (and a uni course or two) I still haven't found a
decent explanation of what is happening at the fundamental level.
The same is the case for binders and diisocyanate or curing agents ect.
I have learnt a bit about this process, such as bond types, from expanding
foam and rubber making.
But it seems a lot of books on rocketry leave these things out.
Anyway just a thought of mine, if you are reading thanks for your time and
hope to speak again soon.
Kind regards,
*Joshua Carr*
---- On Fri, 29 May 2020 00:19:56 +0930 *Terry McCreary
<tmccreary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <tmccreary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>* wrote ----
Hello Joshua and the rest of the list, I was on the TRA BoD during most of
the BATFE lawsuit. If memory serves (sometimes it doesn't anymore...:-\)
that suit consumed a bit more than two-thirds of a million dollars over a
10+ year period.
Initially Judge Reggie Walton ruled that BATFE had deference to classify
(as an explosive) virtually any material they chose. TRA+NAR appealed, the
appeals court didn't buy the "due-deference" argument, and the suit went
back to Walton.
At some point BATFE decided that the burn rate of safety fuse was a guide
to classification; anything that burned faster than that was to be
classified as an explosive. A 1000+ page document was submitted, "proving"
that APCP burned at tens of meters/second and was therefore an explosive.**
TRA+NAR provided just a couple dozen pages which included citations from
actual peer-reviewed publications by actual rocket scientists. Within
those publications were some ballistic properties of a few hundred
propellant mixtures, most having burn rates @1000 psi on the order of 1
cm/s, and none exceeding about 3 cm/s.
Following Judge Walton's ruling in favor of TRA+NAR, a request for
recovery of fees was made. The amount recovered was well under $100K... oh
well, we WON!!
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2400163/tripoli-rocketry-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco/
?
Best -- Terry
**BATFE's legal team apparently went to the W.C. Field's School of Law and
Heavy Machinery Operation: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance,
baffle them with bulls++t." And somewhere in their submitted document was
proof...that if a rocket motor was clamped tightly enough to a steel rod,
upon ignition the case would rupture and undergo RSD---rapid spontaneous
disassembly. ;-)
On 5/27/2020 10:34 PM, Joshua Carr wrote:
In Australia we need a full on explosives license to do what you fellas in
the USA take for granted.
Sure Tripoli and the rest of you guys went to fight for APCP a while back,
but it would be great to share some wisdom to us Aussies down under (the
industry ain't exactly booming here).
Regards,
*Joshua Carr*
--
Dr. Terry McCreary
Professor Emeritus
Murray State University
Murray KY 42071