Trojan Hybrids.....

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by bobkrech
From the DOT website attached is a list of the Current SP-10996 signatories and their permit expiration date.

I forgot the attachment.

Anthony Cesaroni · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by bobkrech

Contrails and/or D.B.A Trojan Motors may or may not be required to obtain EX numbers for their propellant grains. If like some other hybrids, the Contrails/Trojan fuel grains are simple unboosted polymers such as PVC, ABS, Polyethylene, Polypropolyene, or other plastic polymers, then EX numbers are not necessary because polymers of this type are not explosives. If the fuel grain is a composite with an oxidizer or other burn rate enhancing additives, a DOT certified classification may be and probably is required. If the classification test data results in a 4.1 flamable solids clasification, then an EX number is not required. If the classification test data reveals the fuel grain is a class 1 material, then the data must be submitted to DOT for an EX number assignment before the motors can be sold and/or shipped.

I have to believe that TRA TMT would not certify Contrail motors without insuring that Contrails/Trojan manufacturing and motor designs meet the necessary NFPA 1125 Sections 4.2 permitting and Section 7.5 design requirements, so there must be a paper trail somewhere.

Bob Krech

We analyzed at least one fuel composition using ion spectrometry and did not detect oxidizers or energetic compounds. The initial question does not concern the fuel however but the thermite composition supplied in the packaging as an igniter. The packaging at the time was labeled ORM-D and after inquiring, it was determined that the manufacturer had made this determination without application to the DOT. The determination was based on interpretation of a exemption cited by the manufacturer. The AHJ had a different interpretation regarding shipping classifications for thermite compositions.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
https://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by Anthony Cesaroni
We analyzed at least one fuel composition using ion spectrometry and did not detect oxidizers or energetic compounds. The initial question does not concern the fuel however but the thermite composition supplied in the packaging as an igniter. The packaging at the time was labeled ORM-D and after inquiring, it was determined that the manufacturer had made this determination without application to the DOT. The determination was based on interpretation of a exemption cited by the manufacturer. The AHJ had a different interpretation regarding shipping classifications for thermite compositions.

Is the thermite composition shipped in a mixed state or as separate components?

Anthony Cesaroni · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by garoq
Is the thermite composition shipped in a mixed state or as separate components?

Mixed and assembled with two resistor initiators in a plastic bag.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
https://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Nate · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by garoq

Originally posted by rdh8

Why someone would want to "hijack" the original document for their own ego is beyond me.

Your guess is as good as mine

Robert

Click to expand...

Probably the same reason that they had "concerns" about Warp-9.

you mean the document exploded at LDRS?

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by bobkrech
If the classification test data results in a 4.1 flamable solids clasification, then an EX number is not required.

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by Nate
you mean the document exploded at LDRS?

That's the one.

troj · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by garoq
Attachment

Just to clarify, this is the DOT documentation for APCP, correct?

-Kevin

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by troj
Just to clarify, this is the DOT documentation for APCP, correct?

-Kevin

You like that, huh?

ddmobley · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by DumasBro2
still watching.

Lest you think I stopped watching, I AM STILL WATCHING THIS THREAD VERY CLOSELY! Just because my original response was deleted by a moderator...

Still watching! :kill:

bobkrech · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by Anthony Cesaroni
We analyzed at least one fuel composition using ion spectrometry and did not detect oxidizers or energetic compounds. The initial question does not concern the fuel however but the thermite composition supplied in the packaging as an igniter. The packaging at the time was labeled ORM-D and after inquiring, it was determined that the manufacturer had made this determination without application to the DOT. The determination was based on interpretation of a exemption cited by the manufacturer. The AHJ had a different interpretation regarding shipping classifications for thermite compositions.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
https://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Sounds like the same issue Quickburst is having. According to the current interpretations of the BATFE regulations, you need a LEMP to manufacturer igniters, and according to DOT you need to have an approved classification performed on the material. It the classification indicates that it is a class 1 article, it also needs a DOT EX number.

Bob

Anthony Cesaroni · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by garoq

Ah yes, the qualification test to determine if it falls out of class 1. Test results anyone? Even if a test was done why was the package labeled ORM-D and not 4.1? As for your UPCO reference, I just happen to have a box full and it's not thermite, it's APCP. See attached and notice the labeling. Oh and BTW, those rods (grains) are over 64.5 grams. How they got 4.1 is beyond me seeing how it burns. That one slipped through the cracks in more ways than one.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
https://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by Anthony Cesaroni
Ah yes, the qualification test to determine if it falls out of class 1. Test results anyone? Even if a test was done why was the package labeled ORM-D and not 4.1? As for your UPCO reference, I just happen to have a box full and it's not thermite, it's APCP. See attached and notice the labeling. Oh and BTW, those rods (grains) are over 64.5 grams. How they got 4.1 is beyond me seeing how it burns. That one slipped through the cracks in more ways than one.

I was aware of that, it was one of the exhibits we submitted to the DOT is support of a reclassification of AeroTech APCP to 4.1 (which they initially promised they would grant).

Anthony Cesaroni · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by garoq
I was aware of that, it was one of the exhibits we submitted to the DOT is support of a reclassification of AeroTech APCP to 4.1 (which they initially promised they would grant).

What do you suppose changed their minds?

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
https://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by rdh8
In the past the document was always written with the grantees listed in alphabetical order.
So when Aerotech went away AMW was the next in line.

So when "Centuri Corporation" became "Estes-Cox Corporation", AMW should have been "next in line" for DOT-E 7887?

rrocket · Oct 4, 2006

For the record!!

AMW Inc. did NOT in any way, thru any means, have anything to do with the fact that the DOT changed the Grantee on 10996..

As per the norm, (sadly) suspicious attitudes still prevail..

Take it up with DOT

Paul Robinson
AMW Inc.

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by Anthony Cesaroni
What do you suppose changed their minds?

bobkrech · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by garoq
So when "Centuri Corporation" became "Estes-Cox Corporation", AMW should have been "next in line" for DOT-E 7887?

Gary

AMW is a signatory to SP-7887. Hell, even my company is a signatory to SP-7887 (see attachment). It ain't that difficult and it ain't anything special if you can legally ship hazmat and have the appropriate Federal, State and local permits.

Go here to find who's on what special permit. https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/SPSearch/

What point are you trying to make?

Bob

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by rrocket
AMW Inc. did NOT in any way, thru any means, have anything to do with the fact that the DOT changed the Grantee on 10996..

I believe you, Paul. I'm sorry if I inferred otherwise.

I am curious though, if AMW was "next in line" for 10996, why not for 7887?

I know, talk to the DOT...

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by bobkrech
From the DOT website attached is a list of the Current SP-10996 signatories and their permit expiration date.

And your point is...?

ddmobley · Oct 4, 2006

U.S. Government:

"We're sorry, your 'explosives' are not explosives, but for the purposes of justifying our jobs they will be classified as 'explosives'. While one division of the federal government may believe that your 'explosives' are not explosives and may in fact treat them as a non-explosive, our division firmly feels that your non-explosive really is an 'explosive'. So for the purposes of dealing with the United States, your 'explosives' are not explosives except when we say they are 'explosives' although it has been shown that these 'explosives' do not explode. We hope this clarifies things.

Thank you,
JBGT"

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by bobkrech
Gary

AMW is a signatory to SP-7887. Hell, even my company is a signatory to SP-7887 (see attachment). It ain't that difficult and it ain't anything special if you can legally ship hazmat and have the appropriate Federal, State and local permits.

Go here to find who's on what special permit. https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/SPSearch/

What point are you trying to make?

Bob

I think my point was clear enough.

Garoq · Oct 4, 2006

Originally posted by ddmobley
U.S. Government:

"We're sorry, your 'explosives' are not explosives, but for the purposes of justifying our jobs they will be classified as 'explosives'. While one division of the federal government may believe that your 'explosives' are not explosives and may in fact treat them as a non-explosive, our division firmly feels that your non-explosive really is an 'explosive'. So for the purposes of dealing with the United States, your 'explosives' are not explosives except when we say they are 'explosives' although it has been shown that these 'explosives' do not explode. We hope this clarifies things.

Thank you,
JBGT"

ROFL.

Trojan Hybrids.....

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wielder Of the Skillet Of Harsh Discipline

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!