This will be a bit long, so if ya gotta pee or get a drink, go now.
I spent more years than I like to think, trying to teach students (who often didn’t want to learn) that chemistry terms are quite definite and precise. Theory, substance, acid, formula: all have very specific meanings in science. In fact, I use "formulation" rather than "formula" when speaking of APCP because of that specific meaning.
And when they’re used incorrectly it can cause more than just minor misunderstanding. Consider the HUGE debates and even legal issues that have arisen when “it’s just a theory” is used as though it means “something you came up with last night while drunk”.
Which brings me to the rocketry connection. In years gone by we’ve referred to the thingadoos that we shove up the nozzle as “igniters”. A motor you made yourself was “experimental”. Fine…except that those terms mean one thing to us, and something rather different to BATFE and FAA.
An igniter is a regulated item, no ifs, ands, or buts. A motor starter...that’s kind of a gray area at the moment. But I’d bet good money that BATFE is somewhat sick-n-tired of dealing with rocket folk who have a tiny box of these items (or ematches) in a large storage space that's been built to withstand a small nuclear weapon. And if we, the rocket community, begin to insist that the devices we use are NOT igniters but are solely for the purpose of starting rocket motors—hence the name—perhaps we’ll need to worry less about the constant argument of ‘is this legal?’ The point is especially important when one considers that many of these devices are used to start APCP motors—which are SPECIFICALLY exempted from BATFE regulation. (If the motor is unregulated, and the motor starter uses a type of APCP, then is the whole thing unregulated?)
By the same token, the FAA gets a shiver down its collective back when it hears “experimental”, because in FAA-speak that means something entirely different from a homemade motor. That is why we switched to “Research”.
Point being: these names have been changed to protect the innocent, namely us rocket folk. Please, try to get in the habit of using them. It’s a little awkward at first, I know. But maybe it will give us some legal benefits in the future. Certainly it can’t hurt.
Happy New Year to all,
Terry
PS: How about "ejection charge initiators"? Maybe they're unregulated...
I spent more years than I like to think, trying to teach students (who often didn’t want to learn) that chemistry terms are quite definite and precise. Theory, substance, acid, formula: all have very specific meanings in science. In fact, I use "formulation" rather than "formula" when speaking of APCP because of that specific meaning.
And when they’re used incorrectly it can cause more than just minor misunderstanding. Consider the HUGE debates and even legal issues that have arisen when “it’s just a theory” is used as though it means “something you came up with last night while drunk”.
Which brings me to the rocketry connection. In years gone by we’ve referred to the thingadoos that we shove up the nozzle as “igniters”. A motor you made yourself was “experimental”. Fine…except that those terms mean one thing to us, and something rather different to BATFE and FAA.
An igniter is a regulated item, no ifs, ands, or buts. A motor starter...that’s kind of a gray area at the moment. But I’d bet good money that BATFE is somewhat sick-n-tired of dealing with rocket folk who have a tiny box of these items (or ematches) in a large storage space that's been built to withstand a small nuclear weapon. And if we, the rocket community, begin to insist that the devices we use are NOT igniters but are solely for the purpose of starting rocket motors—hence the name—perhaps we’ll need to worry less about the constant argument of ‘is this legal?’ The point is especially important when one considers that many of these devices are used to start APCP motors—which are SPECIFICALLY exempted from BATFE regulation. (If the motor is unregulated, and the motor starter uses a type of APCP, then is the whole thing unregulated?)
By the same token, the FAA gets a shiver down its collective back when it hears “experimental”, because in FAA-speak that means something entirely different from a homemade motor. That is why we switched to “Research”.
Point being: these names have been changed to protect the innocent, namely us rocket folk. Please, try to get in the habit of using them. It’s a little awkward at first, I know. But maybe it will give us some legal benefits in the future. Certainly it can’t hurt.
Happy New Year to all,
Terry
PS: How about "ejection charge initiators"? Maybe they're unregulated...
