Not sure if Terry has replied offlist, but his book is a great reference for
many of these questions and is a *must have* if you intend to explore AP
composites. He doesn’t delve too deeply into the detailed chemical mechanisms
involved in the combustion process – you can write separate phone books about
those, but does provide an easy to read practical explanation of exactly what
you need to know to process correctly, safely and competently as well as a
guide to get you in the air without needing exotic ingredients and materials.
Troy
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Joshua Carr
Sent: Monday, 6 July 2020 11:46 PM
To: arocket <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: Making composite APCP in Australia
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 <mailto: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