Igniters

[Iceman1979]

Ok guys, I'm confused. With the new court ruling I've seen some talk about igniters mixed in with all the fuss.

When I go to a launch and I see a comercially packaged motor reload I see an igniter in the package. I see online store like ApogeeRockets.com selling igniters as well as other online stores too.

What is the regulation on these igniters I'm hearing about? Can I not legaly buy extra igniters in case the supplied igniter does not work?

Thanks
John

[powderburner]

Confused--join the club.

Apparently.....and I am not a lawyer, and this is the best I can understand the situation.....apparently, the ATF has inserted itself into this matter because they CLAIM that Estes-type, electrically-powered igniters are the number one choice of bomb-makers, and therefore "igniters" must be controlled. They then appoint themselves guardians of the universe, call out igniters, and pronounce them to be the same as explosives.

Now, I cannot tell you the precise difference between Estes (and Quest) igniters and "big" igniters for mid- and high-power rocket motors, the difference that makes the smaller ones become excluded from the definition, but the ATF says the small ones are not igniters. Seems to have something to do with the quantity (and composition?) of incendiary agent that is dabbed onto the tip? Anyway, the bottom line is that Estes igniters (which are not igniters) are OK, but big igniters require a LEUP and an explosives locker and a paperwork trail and all the rest.

Here is where I choke, and I don't even use "big" igniters: If the low-power Estes ones are the type of igniters that get mis-used for criminal activities, and if the ATF wants to rule....pardon me, I mean control the overall situation, and if the ATF is going to let low-power igniters off the hook (so as not to interfere with Estes' sales, I'm sure), why bother continuing to control and classify the big igniters as explosive? It's not like if the ATF removed the controls, the big igniters would be available for sale on every street corner, the things are (relatively) rare and for all practical purposes, UNAVAILABLE as it is.

So the ATF goes merrily on its way, outlawing-but-not-really the low-power igniters that the criminals use, and outlawing-no-kidding the big igniters that we use.

Who wants to put any money on stepped up enforcement of these rules (since they can't come after rocket motors now)?

[Iceman1979]

Thanks for that reply.

You know, It burns me up inside when I read stuff like this. Double standards, arbitrary rules, and self proclaimed godism. I think I'm going to go work on something productive now and get my mind off of this lol.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain that to me.

John

[quickburst]

Here are a few facts.

This applies to commercial igniters only ...

ATF rules and regs:
1. You must possess a "Manufacturer of Low Explosives Permit" from the ATF in order to manufacture igniters.
2. You must have storage and maintain proper records of manufacture and distribution.
3. You can not distribute igniters to an individual that does not have a permit.
4. Igniters and E-Matches are one and the same.

DOT Regs:
1. Your product (igniters) must be approved by DOT for transport.
2. Packaging regulations have to be met.
3. Igniters and E-Matches are one and the same.

USPS Regulations:
1. You must have a "Letter of Authority" issued by the Office of Mailing Standards to in order to ship "igniters" via US Mail.
2. Igniters and E-Matches are one and the same.


If any company or individual is doing any of the things above without proper authority, they are breaking the law, plani and simple as that. There are no exceptions and there are no exemptions. Igniters that come with unregulated motors are not exempt, they are still igniterts and they are still regulated.

The Victory yesterday did not change any of this. Black Powder and Igniters are still on the ATF list of explosives and they are still regulated.

Period.

Read the letter for yourself.
http://www.quickburst.net/Letter%20From%20ATF.pdf

The ATF is selective with enforcement of the law and most agents/inspectors don't know an igniter from an atom bomb. Don't throw your LEUP away yet.


I for one hope the ATF is relieved to get rid of us.

[UhClem]

Apparently.....and I am not a lawyer, and this is the best I can understand the situation.....apparently, the ATF has inserted itself into this matter because they CLAIM that Estes-type, electrically-powered igniters are the number one choice of bomb-makers, and therefore "igniters" must be controlled. They then appoint themselves guardians of the universe, call out igniters, and pronounce them to be the same as explosives.
No. Igniters are among the things that Congress explicitly declared are explosives at 18 USC 841(d) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000841----000-.html):

Except for the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of section 844 of this title, “explosives” means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters. ...
Unfortunately, Congress did not provide a definition of igniter.

Now, I cannot tell you the precise difference between Estes (and Quest) igniters and "big" igniters for mid- and high-power rocket motors, the difference that makes the smaller ones become excluded from the definition, but the ATF says the small ones are not igniters. Seems to have something to do with the quantity (and composition?) of incendiary agent that is dabbed onto the tip? Anyway, the bottom line is that Estes igniters (which are not igniters) are OK, but big igniters require a LEUP and an explosives locker and a paperwork trail and all the rest.

The only thing I have ever seen on this subject is from 1997 (http://www.nar.org/1997/02/nar_board_discusses_batf_issue.php):

While many HPR issues were created by the BATF's announcement, Pat Miller pointed out the extraordinary effort to which BATF staffer worked to avoid any adverse impacts on the model rocket hobby. He reported BATF would leave unregulated any igniters with 35-50mg of pyrogen each. That amount would be determined by averaging over 30 igniters. AP-based single-use and reloadable motors with less than 62.5 grams total propellant weight remain unregulated.
The problem is that the ATF has never published an official ruling or regulation on this exemption so they are free to change, ignore, or pretend they never said it.

[powderburner]

Are those the rules for commercial manufacture of igniters, for commercial sale?

Do those rules apply to individuals who make their own igniters for their own use?

[shreadvector]

As explained in the previous (now unavailable) version of TRF and on other online forums, if an exempt motor manufacturer makes and sells igniters with or as replacements for the igniters sold with the exempt motor, they are exempt.

If you simply make igniters and sell them and you do not make them or sell them to go with an exempt motor that you make, then the igniters are indeed "igniters" and regulated.

Estes, Quest and Aerotech (and other motor manufacuters) must still follow all the shipping regulations that apply.

[quickburst]

As explained in the previous (now unavailable) version of TRF and on other online forums, if an exempt motor manufacturer makes and sells igniters with or as replacements for the igniters sold with the exempt motor, they are exempt.

If you simply make igniters and sell them and you do not make them or sell them to go with an exempt motor that you make, then the igniters are indeed "igniters" and regulated.

Estes, Quest and Aerotech (and other motor manufacuters) must still follow all the shipping regulations that apply.

Fred

You are wrong.

Show me the exemption. There ain't one.

Show me the law that backs your statement up.

[quickburst]

Are those the rules for commercial manufacture of igniters, for commercial sale?

Do those rules apply to individuals who make their own igniters for their own use?

Are those the rules for commercial manufacture of igniters, for commercial sale?
Yes.

Do those rules apply to individuals who make their own igniters for their own use?
No.

[quickburst]

Fred

You are wrong.

Show me the exemption. There ain't one.

Show me the law that backs your statement up.

Further (from the Orange Book):

May a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer distribute explosive materials to nonlicensees
and nonpermittees?
No. Every person who receives explosive materials must first obtain a Federal explosives license or permit. Distribution of explosive materials to persons who do not hold a license or permit is unlawful. Also, see 18 U.S.C. 845 and 27 CFR 555.141 for exemptions. [18 U.S.C. 842(a), 842(b); 27 CFR 555.26(a), 555.106]

Read it and weep.

[jadebox]

Obviously, "igniter" in the law refers to igniters that are used to ignite things defined as explosives by the law. Otherwise, a number of things that just happen to have "igniter" in their name would be regulated such as propane igniters.

This would explain why igniters for small rocket motors were not regulated in the past. The "exempt" motors weren't explosives, so neither were the igniters for them. Since all APCP motors are essentially exempt now, the BATF should not be regulating our igniters at all.

Of course, this is just my opinion and no one should act on it.

We definitely need our legal counsel to look into this for us.

-- Roger

[quickburst]

Obviously, "igniter" in the law refers to igniters that are used to ignite things defined as explosives by the law. Otherwise, a number of things that just happen to have "igniter" in their name would be regulated such as propane igniters.

This would explain why igniters for small rocket motors were not regulated in the past. The "exempt" motors weren't explosives, so neither were the igniters for them. Since all APCP motors are essentially exempt now, the BATF should not be regulating our igniters at all.

Of course, this is just my opinion and no one should act on it.

We definitely need our legal counsel to look into this for us.

-- Roger

As David S pointed out. The Feds never bothered to define "igniter".

[shreadvector]

Fred

You are wrong.

Show me the exemption. There ain't one.

Show me the law that backs your statement up.

When I last typed this in the previous version of TRF, I said that I may have the wording slightly wrong, but that it is what I remember being explained by a motor manufacturer. The post was followed-up with one from Gary who said that I essentially had it correct.

I do not have anything to back it up in writing and I am not a manufacturer of motors, so everything I tell you (and everything everyone else posts here) is to be ignored. If someone with actual facts wishes to post them here with something to prove them as facts, great. If not, we can all keep posting what "we think we know" or what "we think we remember hearing from someone". Judges love that.....:rolleyes:

[shreadvector]

Let's save time.

Simply read this entire thread including responses to see all of the thoughts expressed in the past. Some are actually backed up with logic.

http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/2294/95/

[jadebox]

As David S pointed out. The Feds never bothered to define "igniter".

Yes, that's why I offered a definition that seems consistent with (most of) the BATF's past actions.

-- Roger

[Iceman1979]

Here are some things I found

(b)] It shall be unlawful for any licensee or permittee to knowingly distribute any explosive materials to any person other than—
(1) a licensee;
(2) a holder of a user permit; or
(3) a holder of a limited permit who is a resident of the State where distribution is made and in which the premises of the transferor are located.



(c) “Explosive materials” means explosives, blasting agents, and detonators.
(d) Except for the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of section 844 of this title, “explosives” means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters. The Attorney General shall publish and revise at least annually in the Federal Register a list of these and any additional explosives which he determines to be within the coverage of this chapter. For the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, the term “explosive” is defined in subsection (j) of such section 844.

Hope this helps

[jadebox]

..."explosives" means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters.

That's probably where the confusion (within the BATF) started. They may have interpreted that to mean that all igniters are regulated. But, by the above definition, only igniters that "function by explosion" as their "primary or common purpose" are "explosives."

-- Roger

[bobkrech]

As David S pointed out. The Feds never bothered to define "igniter".
Dave

As I reread this thread and reread the statute, I believe that a rocket motor igniter is excluded from the definition of explosives by 844(j) and can not classified as an "explosive igniter", and therefore should be exempt from BATFE regulation.

Now that APCP has been declared as not an explosive, and not to be included on the explosives list, a rocket motor igniter, which burns (they do not explode) is itself not an explosive, and by use, function and purpose is not activating an explosive, so logically if it does not function by explosion and is not activating an explosive or explosive device, is should not be a regulated device.

844 (j) For the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of this section and section 842 (p), the term “explosive” means gunpowders, powders used for blasting, all forms of high explosives, blasting materials, fuzes (other than electric circuit breakers), detonators, and other detonating agents, smokeless powders, other explosive or incendiary devices within the meaning of paragraph (5) of section 232 of this title, and any chemical compounds, mechanical mixture, or device that contains any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients, in such proportions, quantities, or packing that ignition by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion, or by detonation of the compound, mixture, or device or any part thereof may cause an explosion.

I would argue from the above section that rocket motor igniters are: a.) are electrically activated incendiary devices that do not function by explosion and b.) are manufactured, sold and used to initiate the combustion of a non-explosive material. As such they should not be regulated.

Bob

[jadebox]

I would argue from the above section that rocket motor igniters are: a.) are electrically activated incendiary devices that do not function by explosion and b.) are manufactured, sold and used to initiate the combustion of a non-explosive material. As such they should not be regulated.

Exactly ... but, Dave is going to need more than just our interpretation before he drops the LEUP requirement to purchase his igniters. Since he probably can't afford an attorney (and removing the restrictions on igniters is a benefit to us all), I think the attorneys for the NAR and Tripoli should give their opinion on the matter and advise us on the next step.

-- Roger

[davel]

Assuming (and I know at this time it is a big assumption) we succeed in recovering some of our legal expenses, perhaps it would be a good use of those funds to take care of things like this. Use our experienced legal team to get the definition of 'ignitor' clarified to our benefit, ect.

[UhClem]

As I reread this thread and reread the statute, I believe that a rocket
motor igniter is excluded from the definition of explosives by 844(j)
and can not classified as an "explosive igniter", and therefore should
be exempt from BATFE regulation.


There are two problems here.

The first is that the definition at 18 USC 844(j) has strictly limited scope (as detailed within 844(j)) and has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of explosives at 18 USC 841(d) which covers the rest of 18 USC Chapter 40. So even if you could argue that igniters do not meet the definition at 844(j) it has no impact on their regulatory status.

The second is that igniters do in fact meet the definition at 844(j) (so does APCP) because it "may" cause an explosion. This is quite different from the "primary and common purpose of which is to function by explosion" standard at 841(d) but is a problem only if you commit one of the listed crimes using these materials. (murder, arson, and other assorted mayhem)

[jadebox]

There are two problems here.

The first is that the definition at 18 USC 844(j) has strictly limited scope (as detailed within 844(j)) and has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of explosives at 18 USC 841(d) which covers the rest of 18 USC Chapter 40. So even if you could argue that igniters do not meet the definition at 844(j) it has no impact on their regulatory status.

As I mentioned before, our igniters don't fall under the defintion in 18 USC 841(d) either since their "primary and common purpose" is not to "function by explosion."


The second is that igniters do in fact meet the definition at 844(j) (so does APCP) because it "may" cause an explosion.

With that broad of an interpretation, party balloons and sweaters would meet the definition. Together they can produce sparks of static electricity that "may" cause an explosion in the right environment.

-- Roger

[UhClem]

As I mentioned before, our igniters don't fall under the defintion in 18 USC 841(d) either since their "primary and common purpose" is not to "function by explosion."

It matters not the tiniest little bit how they function because they are explicitly listed as being explosives:

...the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters

It is clear that there are at least two classes of igniters: those like the Estes Solar that are for some reason exempt, and others that are not. The ATF has published no guidance on what divides the two groups. That is the problem.


With that broad of an interpretation, party balloons and sweaters would meet the definition. Together they can produce sparks of static electricity that "may" cause an explosion in the right environment.
Of course. But the definition is only applicable to a short list of crimes. If it ever becomes an issue you have bigger problems.

[jadebox]

I still don't accept that the statue, as it reads in English, explicitly defines all igniters as explosives either linguistically or logically, but I've been told that in legal parlance that is what it does.

Nevertheless, since our "motor starters" have nothing to do with explosives, the BATF has no justification for regulating them.

-- Roger

[quickburst]

I guess this tells the tale.

"Fourth, this Court decision did not change the regulated status of other sport rocketry items such as black powder, some kinds of igniters, etc. To the extent that any of these items previously required licenses and magazine storage, nothing has changed. Nor does the decision affect licensing and regulation by other federal, state or local government agencies."

"Some igniters" ?? I suppose this means self manufactured igniters are legal.

Doesn't matter. As long as the ATF continues to practice "selective enforcement" my goose is cooked. I will still require permits to purchase some of my products.

[Iceman1979]

Yeah, I'd say don't risk it. Thanks for the update.

[kramer714]

be careful here...

Logical does not = legal

Could someone formally ask Tripoli and/or NAR for a legal interpretation of the laws clearly laying out;

1) can I posses an igniter with pyrogen on it?
2) Is there a limit to how much pyrogen an igniter can have on it?
3) Can I make igniters for personal use without a permit?
4) do I have to store them in a 'special manner'?
5) Can i transport them to a launch without any permits?
6) can I cross state lines with them?
7) Can I modify a commercially available igniter?
8) Can I share igniters with some one else, not for money (give em away)?
9) Can I sell an igniter that I made myself?
10) are there any limits on how many igniters I can have?
11) is there a demarcation in size (how defined?) that determines if an igniter is regulated?
12) Are there certain formulas for igniters that are restricted?
13) Can I buy igniters from a licened manufacturer if I don't hold a permit?


Please!!! I am not looking for opinions on any of these questions, what I am looking for is a letter from a lawyer from NAR/ Tripoli, and / or statement from NAR/Tripoli, BATFE giving yes no answers.

With the letter (and yes I know this is not something I could use in Court most likely), I have at least a guideline I can follow, and a piece of paper I can hand a cop / fireman, if I am asked what I am doing with igniters.

simple eh?

Mike Kramer
NAR level 3

[powderburner]

I would like to see those answers too (from an authoritative "legal" source)

I'm not holding my breath, though, because I'm not sure that these answers exist. It is my understanding that you (and I) would be asking for more definition than was provided (or even thought about?) when the laws were written.

I don't like to proceed using my own best understanding of the law; I fully realize how much weight that would hold in front of a judge. But since no one else seems able to provide answers to qstns such as those you posed, it would indeed seem wise to get these things resolved.

[jadebox]

Please!!! I am not looking for opinions on any of these questions, what I am looking for is a letter from a lawyer from NAR/ Tripoli, and / or statement from NAR/Tripoli, BATFE giving yes no answers.


That's what I've been asking for, also. I think it's ridiculous that the BATF can arbitrarily decide to regulate some things that are called "igniters" while not regulating others. And I can't believe it was the intent of Congress for the BATF to regulate everything that can be labelled an "igniter."

It's my opinion that you have to define "igniters" in the statute in context to mean "igniters used for igniting explosives." After all, you have to define the phrase "black powder" in context. If you don't read it in the context of "things that go boom," then the statute would apply to any black powders ... and iron filings would be regulated by the BATF.

And things have now changed. In light of the APCP ruling, our igniters are no longer used to ignite explosives.

But, my opinion doesn't mean much. I'd like to hear the opinion of our legal team - not only about whether they agree with any of our interpretations of the laws and rules, but about what we might be able to do to get some relief on this issue.

Hopefully, we'll be able to recover our legal costs from the current case so we can use the money for efforts such as finding a way for use to legally acquire and use igniters without excessive regulation.

-- Roger

[privateer]

No. Igniters are among the things that Congress explicitly declared are explosives at 18 USC 841(d) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000841----000-.html):



Without being an expert or even studying the subject, I think it is pretty clear that the common sense interpretation of the law is "igniter" as something to "set off" the explosive proper; for example a blasting cap. Not that a common sense reading counts for anything. :)

Otherwise, a spark of electricity can "ignite" the dust in a grain elevator. Does that make a spark an "ignitor"?

[Ez2cDave]

Dave

As I reread this thread and reread the statute, I believe that a rocket motor igniter is excluded from the definition of explosives by 844(j) and can not classified as an "explosive igniter", and therefore should be exempt from BATFE regulation.

Now that APCP has been declared as not an explosive, and not to be included on the explosives list, a rocket motor igniter, which burns (they do not explode) is itself not an explosive, and by use, function and purpose is not activating an explosive, so logically if it does not function by explosion and is not activating an explosive or explosive device, is should not be a regulated device.

844 (j) For the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of this section and section 842 (p), the term “explosive” means gunpowders, powders used for blasting, all forms of high explosives, blasting materials, fuzes (other than electric circuit breakers), detonators, and other detonating agents, smokeless powders, other explosive or incendiary devices within the meaning of paragraph (5) of section 232 of this title, and any chemical compounds, mechanical mixture, or device that contains any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients, in such proportions, quantities, or packing that ignition by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion, or by detonation of the compound, mixture, or device or any part thereof may cause an explosion.

I would argue from the above section that rocket motor igniters are: a.) are electrically activated incendiary devices that do not function by explosion and b.) are manufactured, sold and used to initiate the combustion of a non-explosive material. As such they should not be regulated.

Bob

BOB,

DISCALIMER: This is merely brought up for discussion and I am not "trolling" or "flaming" in any manner whatsoever.

I agree with your line of thinking . . .

If that logic prevails:

(1) OXRAL & DAVEYFIRE style E-Matches should be unregulated and freely available without an LEUP.

(2) THERMALITE should be unregulated and freely available without an LEUP.

(3) "Commercially-Produced" Rocket Igniters, like "QUICKBURST", for example, should be unregulated and freely available without an LEUP

(4) Only "Explosive Igniters" , which I take to mean "Blasting Caps" & similar devices should be regulated and require a license, since they DO "function by explosion".

EVERYONE'S THOUGHTS AND INPUT ARE WELCOME ! ! !

Thanks,

Dave Fitch

[jadebox]

BOB,

EVERYONE'S THOUGHTS AND INPUT ARE WELCOME ! ! !



Unfortunately, what we think doesn't matter. If the ATF decides to continue regulating our igniters, we probably won't be able to do much about it except, perhaps, file another lawsuit to force them to define what an igniter is. And our case, in that case, wouldn't be as clear-cut as it was with APCP.

Personally, I think we'll have less trouble with igniters now that APCP is unregulated. I doubt the ATF will explicitly say they won't regulate our use of igniters, initiators, motor starters or whatever. But, I don't think they'd go out of their way to enforce regulations on our use of them.

-- Roger

[quickburst]

Since there is no definition of "igniter" then the ATF can call whatever they want an "igniter". Look at the list of explosives, it says "igniter" it does not say "explosives igniter" only igniter.


Relief?
I feel certain that TRA/NAR will explore avenues for relief in the very near future. Hey if TRA/NAR can team up and kick the ATF's a**, then these things aren't to difficult to imagine.

[ben_ullman]

I am going to throw this out there.

2 points

1. Ematches are used in the fireworks industry like dog barf for use thousand (10s of thousands) at a single show. That is how they set off the 1.3g and 1.1g EXPLOSIVE shells.

2. They worded it loosely enough that any court would not fine the ATF liable in any decisions and they could classify whatever they chose.

Therefore with them putting Ematches (used to set off explosive shells) and ignitors (things that burn and are used to set off a variety of things) in the same catagory there is a slim chance they remove the regs.

Unless like bob and uhclem stated we recoup or costs and get them unregulated since its complete and udder cow flowers!!!

Ben

[Bill P]

Since there is no definition of "igniter" then the ATF can call whatever they want an "igniter". Look at the list of explosives, it says "igniter" it does not say "explosives igniter" only igniter.Gee, now I have to dispose of all my Bic lighters and my matches. Now am I supposed to ignite my cigarettes? :confused2:

[quickburst]

I am going to throw this out there.

2 points

1. Ematches are used in the fireworks industry like dog barf for use thousand (10s of thousands) at a single show. That is how they set off the 1.3g and 1.1g EXPLOSIVE shells.

2. They worded it loosely enough that any court would not fine the ATF liable in any decisions and they could classify whatever they chose.

Therefore with them putting Ematches (used to set off explosive shells) and ignitors (things that burn and are used to set off a variety of things) in the same catagory there is a slim chance they remove the regs.

Unless like bob and uhclem stated we recoup or costs and get them unregulated since its complete and udder cow flowers!!!

Ben

As far as the ATF goes, they wouldn't know an e-match from a solar flare.

As far as DOT goes, e-matches and igniters are one and the same. I'm sure the ATF looks at it like DOT does. There is no difference between an e-match and an igniter.

For instance, my e-matches are designated as follows:
UN Proper shipping name and number: Igniters, UN0454
UN Classification Code: 1.4S
Product Designation/Part Number: Igniter with shroud

My Igniters the Twiggy, Slim Gem, Fat Boy and Super Fat Boy are classified exactly the same. The DOT approvals are almost carbon copies.

This is why I say we as rocketeers see a distinct difference between an igniter and an e-match, only because each has a specific purpose (for the most part). DOT and the ATF see no difference at all, they are truly one and the same, "igniters".

I'm hoping TRA/NAR aren't through with the deregulation battle yet, remember, they're on our side. Something else ... TRA/NAR knew that APCP freedom would not include "igniters" and black powder a long time ago.

[blackjack2564]

Here's some food for thought......if one were to leave the pyrogen off the chip, would it still lite Bp? The nicrome gets hot enough to lit the pyrogen, I would certainly think it would fire off the BP. If so, it would no longer be considered an e-match and just maybe fall off regulation. Certainly warrants some testing.

[TheTechAdmin]

I only had the patience to read the first 2 posts. However. If there is going to be a restrictions on igniter purchases. I can teach you guys how to make the SAME exact ones with a paper clip and the right chemicals.

OR use a carbon film resistor. Think of it as a advanced fuse. They are MUCH cheaper than fuses and work all the time ( They also produce an actual flame for about 2 seconds when it's not stuffed in an engine ). Not to mention it stuffs so snug into standard rocket engines, you won't even need that little pink plug.

I recommend buying 1 at your local RadioShack and testing it on what you intent to use it for, before buy the bulk.

$12.99 for 500 of them at Radioshack
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2994585

and here's what they look like ( radioshack lacks a picture )
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=carbon%20film%20resistor&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Hope I helped!!!


-TheTechAdmin

[MysticalRockets]

I only had the patience to read the first 2 posts. However. If there is going to be a restrictions on igniter purchases. I can teach you guys how to make the SAME exact ones with a paper clip and the right chemicals.

OR use a carbon film resistor. Think of it as a advanced fuse. They are MUCH cheaper than fuses and work all the time ( They also produce an actual flame for about 2 seconds when it's not stuffed in an engine ). Not to mention it stuffs so snug into standard rocket engines, you won't even need that little pink plug.

I recommend buying 1 at your local RadioShack and testing it on what you intent to use it for, before buy the bulk.

$12.99 for 500 of them at Radioshack
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2994585

and here's what they look like ( radioshack lacks a picture )
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=carbon%20film%20resistor&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Hope I helped!!!


-TheTechAdmin



That's not really a bad idea, per say. It just wouldn't work with APCP motors. The slot for the igniter in an APCP motor is very thin. Its not a matter of producing a flame. Its a matter of producing a controlled flame at the exact right spot.

[bobkrech]

The use of a carbon resistor as a rocket motor igniter has been know for quite a while. Here's one reference. http://www.aeroconsystems.com/tips/dahlquist_resistor_igniter/dahlquist_igniter1.htm

The reason it has not seen more widespread use is that it requires a CD ignition system what is more expensive to build than the conventional 12 volt systems that we normally use in the hobby.

Bob

[TheTechAdmin]

The use of a carbon resistor as a rocket motor igniter has been know for quite a while. Here's one reference. http://www.aeroconsystems.com/tips/dahlquist_resistor_igniter/dahlquist_igniter1.htm

The reason it has not seen more widespread use is that it requires a CD ignition system what is more expensive to build than the conventional 12 volt systems that we normally use in the hobby.

Bob

What's a CD system?

[shreadvector]

What's a CD system?

Capacitive Discharge

[dave carver]

*sigh* I'm going to stick with making my own motor starters as I have for the last 12 years. I have a large supply of "safe and sane" old formula sparklers, the ones on wire and not the wooden or cane or bamboo or whatever they are made from now. Main component of the sparklers is magnesium (sp?) and some kind of binder. I made a wood morter and pestil and wear my leather welding stuff when I powder it and only grind a little at a time. Then I use super glue on the preped wires and dip, when I need a bigger head I go through the process again. There's not a thing I use thats regulated.

Can the Feds really tell me I need a LEUP to do this? I give them away, not sell them.

[TheTechAdmin]

Wow brilliant!!! I love resourceful solutions. Kutos to you sir.


-TheTechAdmin

[quickburst]

*sigh* I'm going to stick with making my own motor starters as I have for the last 12 years. I have a large supply of "safe and sane" old formula sparklers, the ones on wire and not the wooden or cane or bamboo or whatever they are made from now. Main component of the sparklers is magnesium (sp?) and some kind of binder. I made a wood morter and pestil and wear my leather welding stuff when I powder it and only grind a little at a time. Then I use super glue on the preped wires and dip, when I need a bigger head I go through the process again. There's not a thing I use thats regulated.

Can the Feds really tell me I need a LEUP to do this? I give them away, not sell them.

No, they can not. Unless you sell them.

[powderburner]

quickburst,

I know you are not a lawyer and cannot give "legal" advice, but I am hoping you could share your experience and offer some comments/answers-

Do I, as an individual, need to have a LEUP to make my own igniters for my own use?

Do I, as an individual, need to have a LEUP to store completed igniters that I have made?

Thanks ahead of time for any info you can provide

[Airrocket]

I suggest trying the quick burst kits and make your own. Or check out resistor based igniters

[TheTechAdmin]

I suggest trying the quick burst kits and make your own. Or check out resistor based igniters

I agree. Resistor is one of my personal favorite. My previous post in this thread has the link for buy 500 for only $12.99.
I like them because they deliver the same spark into an engine the same way a legitimate igniter would. However when simply laying out in the open, a resistor will produce an actual flame.


-TheTechAdmin

[ben_ullman]

*sigh* I'm going to stick with making my own motor starters as I have for the last 12 years. I have a large supply of "safe and sane" old formula sparklers, the ones on wire and not the wooden or cane or bamboo or whatever they are made from now. Main component of the sparklers is magnesium (sp?) and some kind of binder. I made a wood morter and pestil and wear my leather welding stuff when I powder it and only grind a little at a time. Then I use super glue on the preped wires and dip, when I need a bigger head I go through the process again. There's not a thing I use thats regulated.

Can the Feds really tell me I need a LEUP to do this? I give them away, not sell them.

Thats interesring you point that out. When APCP was explosive and we made our own you combine completelt unregulated stuff and on 12 hoirs it was then considered an explosive?? Same thing with fire works.Completely unregulared items but when finished turned into an explosive.

Ben

[m85476585]

I agree. Resistor is one of my personal favorite. My previous post in this thread has the link for buy 500 for only $12.99.
I like them because they deliver the same spark into an engine the same way a legitimate igniter would. However when simply laying out in the open, a resistor will produce an actual flame.


-TheTechAdmin

But those are all different values, and only the smallest ones will be suitable to use as igniters. Anything over about 1K will dissipate under 1/8W at 12V, which is not enough to set it on fire. In fact, it takes several times the rated power for a resistor to burst into flames (they are designed NOT to!). I just got a 100 ohm resistor from my 500 resistor kit and hooked it up to 12 volts, and nothing happened. It got hot, but it didn't even smoke (I only left it on for 10 seconds, though). The resistor was dissipating about 1.4 watts. The kit only includes 65 resistors under 100 ohms, and probably not even that many would be usable (like the 82 ohm ones).

I have some 5.1 ohm 1/8W resistors from Mouser Elecronics that work well as igniters. You can get 1000 of them for just $8 or 200 for $3.40. The are smaller than the Radioshack 1/8W resistors, though, so they might not fit in BP motors as well.
Here's the link:
http://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=299-5.1-RC
It looks like shipping is $7 if you use USPS.

If you prefer Digikey, they sell 5.1 ohm 1/6W (but still smaller than the Radioshack 1/8W) for $13/1000
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=5.1EBK-ND
Shipping is a bit cheaper, only $4.80

These 1/4W ones would be the same size as Radioshack 1/8W resistors based on my measurements and the datasheet I would go with about 3 ohm on these so more current is going through them and they light quicker. They are about $10/1000
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=3.0QBK-ND

I was going to order some stuff from Digikey anyways, so I'll also get various resistors and do some tests.

[w9ya]

Here's some food for thought......if one were to leave the pyrogen off the chip, would it still lite Bp? The nicrome gets hot enough to lit the pyrogen, I would certainly think it would fire off the BP. If so, it would no longer be considered an e-match and just maybe fall off regulation. Certainly warrants some testing.

Actually the first igniters that Estes sold were just a piece of nichrome wire. The rocketeer made a coil with a single winding in the middle and then bent this assembly and making sure it did not short, placed this into the nozzle. You kept it in with a piece of wadding. (I used a small piece of balsa.)

I guess this dates me.

[billspad]

Actually the first igniters that Estes sold were just a piece of nichrome wire. The rocketeer made a coil with a single winding in the middle and then bent this assembly and making sure it did not short, placed this into the nozzle. You kept it in with a piece of wadding. (I used a small piece of balsa.)

I guess this dates me.


The first Estes igniters were Jetex wick. They were a pain to light electrically but a match worked (hanging my head in shame).

This may make me older than you but I'm sure I was an infant at the time. Now that I think of it, I could claim to have been one year old at the time and it still makes me old now.

[shreadvector]

Actually the first igniters that Estes sold were just a piece of nichrome wire. The rocketeer made a coil with a single winding in the middle and then bent this assembly and making sure it did not short, placed this into the nozzle. You kept it in with a piece of wadding. (I used a small piece of balsa.)

I guess this dates me.

See attached.

[bobkrech]

The Dahlquist rules of thumb for carbon film resistor igniters are listed below.


In choosing what value of resistor to use, the criteria are:
The resistor must draw enough current so that it dissipates at least 200 times its power rating initially.
The value of the igniter resistor, in ohms, must be at least twice the total of all other resistances in the firing circuit.
For shorter ignition delay, the resistor should dissipate 400 times its power rating when it is hot (assume its hot resistance is half the initial resistance).
For a 12 volt DC launch system using a 1/4 watt resistor, you need to generate at least 50 watts with the resistor (Rule 1.) and ideally want to generate 100 watts of power for a prompt ignition (Rule 3).

Based on Rule 2, Vmin = 8 volts, the required resistance value are.

P = V^2/R so R = V^2/P = 64/50 ~ 1.3 ohms highest value (Rule 1.)

= 64/100 ~ 0.68 ohm (Rule 3) or 0.33 ohm (Rule 3)

Of course you could always use a smaller wattage resistor coated with a pyrogen. A 1 to 2 ohm, 1/8 watt or smaller resistor coated with a pryogen should work.

Bob

[w9ya]

See attached.

Uh, yep... that's the idea !

[w9ya]

The first Estes igniters were Jetex wick. They were a pain to light electrically but a match worked (hanging my head in shame).

This may make me older than you but I'm sure I was an infant at the time. Now that I think of it, I could claim to have been one year old at the time and it still makes me old now.

Yeah your old.

I suppose a wick is technically an igniter, but I never considered it as such. It is crude and not in keeping with the ability to stop a countdown. I guess that's why I forgot about them !!

[powderburner]

Of course you could always use a smaller wattage resistor coated with a pyrogen. A 1 to 2 ohm, 1/8 watt or smaller resistor coated with a pryogen should work.

From what I understand of this mess, adding the pyrogen puts us right back into the category of "ignitors" that require a LEUP, which is what we were trying to get away from in the first place?

[quickburst]

quickburst,

I know you are not a lawyer and cannot give "legal" advice, but I am hoping you could share your experience and offer some comments/answers-

Do I, as an individual, need to have a LEUP to make my own igniters for my own use?

Do I, as an individual, need to have a LEUP to store completed igniters that I have made?

Thanks ahead of time for any info you can provide

I will answer to the best of my knowledge.

Do I, as an individual, need to have a LEUP to make my own igniters for my own use?
No.

Do I, as an individual, need to have a LEUP to store completed igniters that I have made?
I don't think so, you may need to provide legal storage. However this can be disputed, there is always a good argument here. The best answer is make them and use them on site.

These issues are really non existent. The ATF is not going to break your door down and arrest you for making your igniters. The ATF can call anything they want an igniter. They can even call a resistor an igniter if they want. There is no definition so its random. An inspector will enforce the law as he or his supervision interprets it. These laws are written to help prosecute people that are involved in criminal activity, including your neighbors kid making a pipe bomb (example). If they can't stick him for anything else they can get him for the igniter, get it?

Guys, Buy the igniter mix of your choice (I suggest QuickDip (http://www.quickburst.net/quick_dip.htm)) :). Make and use your igniters on site and there is nothing anyone can do to stop you.

[TheTechAdmin]

But those are all different values, and only the smallest ones will be suitable to use as igniters. Anything over about 1K will dissipate under 1/8W at 12V, which is not enough to set it on fire. In fact, it takes several times the rated power for a resistor to burst into flames (they are designed NOT to!). I just got a 100 ohm resistor from my 500 resistor kit and hooked it up to 12 volts, and nothing happened. It got hot, but it didn't even smoke (I only left it on for 10 seconds, though). The resistor was dissipating about 1.4 watts. The kit only includes 65 resistors under 100 ohms, and probably not even that many would be usable (like the 82 ohm ones).

I have some 5.1 ohm 1/8W resistors from Mouser Elecronics that work well as igniters. You can get 1000 of them for just $8 or 200 for $3.40. The are smaller than the Radioshack 1/8W resistors, though, so they might not fit in BP motors as well.
Here's the link:
http://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=299-5.1-RC
It looks like shipping is $7 if you use USPS.

If you prefer Digikey, they sell 5.1 ohm 1/6W (but still smaller than the Radioshack 1/8W) for $13/1000
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=5.1EBK-ND
Shipping is a bit cheaper, only $4.80

These 1/4W ones would be the same size as Radioshack 1/8W resistors based on my measurements and the datasheet I would go with about 3 ohm on these so more current is going through them and they light quicker. They are about $10/1000
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=3.0QBK-ND

I was going to order some stuff from Digikey anyways, so I'll also get various resistors and do some tests.

When I first posted the link, it originally took us to only one result; which was the best one.I guess they moved stuff around and it messed up my result link. Probably because it was search based, they can be very dynamic.


-TheTechAdmin (is learning a lot from this forum! )

[dave carver]

That's what we're here for :)

Actually, quite a few have come here with preconcieved(sp) ideas then after discussing the pro's and con's understand better all that's involved. I can't list the changes that have evolved from this forum more that the others on rocketry because of the brain trust here as opposed to the others. And with that it seems that we have the eyes and ears of most of the major manufacturing business(well, except for maybe Estes :p ) to the point of getting people like Jim Flis and Gary Rosenfeld(the list is long) who listen and follow up on suggestion like when AeroTech added threaded for eye loops enclosures to I think was the 38mm line.

Makes me proud to be a member*sniff*;)

[billspad]

Yeah your old.

I suppose a wick is technically an igniter, but I never considered it as such. It is crude and not in keeping with the ability to stop a countdown. I guess that's why I forgot about them !!


It wasn't supposed to be used like a fuse. The second page (http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes60/60estcat.pdf)shows how it was done. The nichrome was a big improvement.

[m85476585]

The Dahlquist rules of thumb for carbon film resistor igniters are listed below.


In choosing what value of resistor to use, the criteria are:
The resistor must draw enough current so that it dissipates at least 200 times its power rating initially.
The value of the igniter resistor, in ohms, must be at least twice the total of all other resistances in the firing circuit.
For shorter ignition delay, the resistor should dissipate 400 times its power rating when it is hot (assume its hot resistance is half the initial resistance).
For a 12 volt DC launch system using a 1/4 watt resistor, you need to generate at least 50 watts with the resistor (Rule 1.) and ideally want to generate 100 watts of power for a prompt ignition (Rule 3).

Based on Rule 2, Vmin = 8 volts, the required resistance value are.

P = V^2/R so R = V^2/P = 64/50 ~ 1.3 ohms highest value (Rule 1.)

= 64/100 ~ 0.68 ohm (Rule 3) or 0.33 ohm (Rule 3)

Of course you could always use a smaller wattage resistor coated with a pyrogen. A 1 to 2 ohm, 1/8 watt or smaller resistor coated with a pryogen should work.

Bob

I bought some 1/4W 1.6 ohm resistors and tested them today, and they don't work with 12V. At 5V (I'm using an ATX power supply), they burn slowly and make a lot of smoke. At 12V they let out a faint pop, but do not burn or let out any smoke, and they hardly get warm. After connecting them to 12V, they show an open circuit on my ohm meter. It seems like they are almost acting like a fuse and not letting too much current through. 3.3V makes the most smoke, but is obviously the longest burn time. At 3.3V these resistors will smoke for almost a minute.

It could be that my power supply isn't putting out enough current, but I doubt it. 7.5A is required, and although the PSU is rated for just 6A at 12V, I can easily get 8A or more out of it for a short time. It will also shut off if the resistance is too low, which it is not doing here. I'll try a car battery later if I get a chance, but I don't think the results will be too different.

I have some 1/8W 5.1 ohm resistors that work nicely at 12V. They burst into flames quickly and let out a lot of black smoke. Two or more could be used in parallel for more energy assuming the launch system can handle the current. I only have 10 of the 1/8W ones, though, so I can't do much more testing.

[jderimig]

The type of resistor makes big difference. Carbon composition best, metal film worst (the metal film will act more like a fuse).

[m85476585]

The ones I have are carbon film.