Rocketry terms yesterday and today
- Thread starter prfesser
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Ez2cDave
Well-Known Member
Maybe not the best choice . . .
in·i·ti·a·tor
/iˈniSHēˌādər/
noun
noun: initiator; plural noun: initiators
- a person or thing that initiates someone or something.
- Chemistry
a substance that starts a chain reaction. - an explosive or device used to detonate a larger one.
- Chemistry
I like “initiator” too. To ATF, it doesn’t matter what the dictionary says. It really only matters what the law says, and the law says “igniters”:
“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.
Not elimination, merely using the correct term for each item. An igniter is a regulated device for igniting fireworks or whatever. A starter is a (nonregulated? Remains to be seen) device for starting a rocket motor specifically, frequently an unregulated rocket motor.
Best -- Terry
Ez2cDave
Well-Known Member
Steve,
OK . . . How does BATFE define an "igniter" ?
Dictionary definition :
ig·ni·ter
/iɡˈnīdər/
noun
noun: igniter; plural noun: igniters
- 1.
a device for igniting a fuel mixture in an engine. - 2.
a device for causing an electric arc.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,656
- Reaction score
- 6,309
I understand the goal is to keep model Rocketry off the radar, and if calling the thingies that provide thermal energy to initiate the grey stuff in the casing to make my coned tipped cylinder with dunce cap nose and fins go uppity up, I can go with “starter.”
Seems like however we are going to have to avoid a lot of other terms, however, and I wonder if it is going to make us look even more like “bad guys” talking around a subject than good guys just discussing a hobby.
If we can’t use bee pee or other terms for purr pellent, what? Grey solid pusher stuff. followed by grey solid smoky nonpushing stuff?
Maybe we shouldn’t use “laaawnch”, so after our starters start we call it “send.”
As I have said before, I wonder if some of the posts from self proclaimed “newbies” asking about things which are not only against safety code but directly on the scope for Homie Land Sekuerity (gotta love Bon Qui Qui) are not from bad guys or even truly ignorant but enthusiastic newbies but actually the Homies trolling the forum to see if we are aiding and abetting REAL bad guys.
Anyway, I will definitely try to use “starter” as my designated rocket sender term!
Seems like however we are going to have to avoid a lot of other terms, however, and I wonder if it is going to make us look even more like “bad guys” talking around a subject than good guys just discussing a hobby.
If we can’t use bee pee or other terms for purr pellent, what? Grey solid pusher stuff. followed by grey solid smoky nonpushing stuff?
Maybe we shouldn’t use “laaawnch”, so after our starters start we call it “send.”
As I have said before, I wonder if some of the posts from self proclaimed “newbies” asking about things which are not only against safety code but directly on the scope for Homie Land Sekuerity (gotta love Bon Qui Qui) are not from bad guys or even truly ignorant but enthusiastic newbies but actually the Homies trolling the forum to see if we are aiding and abetting REAL bad guys.
Anyway, I will definitely try to use “starter” as my designated rocket sender term!
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,656
- Reaction score
- 6,309
Can we still call them “Rawkits”?
Precision3D
Active Member
Coming more from the pyrotechnic background, I have always called these " Ignitors " E-match or just Match when you're in a hurry and you're running low on them. I use it in the context like this "Hey, Go grab me some more match off the bed of the truck " but this also gets confusing as we also use something called quick match which also is called " Match " and then you have us builders who also call black match ( a black powder permeated sting ) "Match"
But there is also this unregulated "E-match" / "Initiator " / "Ignitor" that the company who makes it does not like it being called "E-match " because it's unregulated so in the industry, we call it " I-match" ( Initiator Match )
Some of you may know what it is and use it and some may not. I'll leave a link below to the product.
https://electricmatch.com/rocketry/see/6/6/mjg-firewire-initiator
But there is also this unregulated "E-match" / "Initiator " / "Ignitor" that the company who makes it does not like it being called "E-match " because it's unregulated so in the industry, we call it " I-match" ( Initiator Match )
Some of you may know what it is and use it and some may not. I'll leave a link below to the product.
https://electricmatch.com/rocketry/see/6/6/mjg-firewire-initiator
They don’t, and that’s the problem. Congress created that wording that includes the term “igniter”. ATF might have done it differently today, but as it stands the law says “igniter”. There’s still the criteria of “functions as an explosive” that must be met which is what someone would have to disprove in the very unlikely event of prosecution. Disproving that could be very difficult or even impossible for some of the pyrogen coated initiators.
That’s why we suggest not using the term. It’s not legally defined, which leaves too much latitude, the defense could be difficult, and the very use of the term could obligate ATF to act.
BradMilkomeda
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2017
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 28
This conversation is reminding me a of book I recently read ( to my kids ). It is "The Thing Explainer: complicated stuff in simple words" by xkcd's Randall Munroe. It only uses the 1,000 most common words in the English languages to explain...things. The explanations include: "Shared space house", "Heavy metal power building", "Us Space Team's Up Goer Five" (Saturn V), "Red world space car" (Curiosity Rover), "Big tiny thing hitter"(Large Hadron Collider) and "Food-heating radio box" (microwave oven). It is a very entertaining and informative book filled with terms such as "fire water" for gasoline and "Flying space trucks" for the space shuttle. So even with a limited vocabulary is possible to communicate very technical subjects.
Ez2cDave
Well-Known Member
Steve,
In that ATF quote you posted, BOTH the terms "igniter" and "ignitor" were used by the ATF . . .
I suggest calling these items "heaters" or "devices".
Dave F.
Those are just alternate spellings for the same thing.
Ideally someone would develop an initiator that uses a pyrogen compound that has already been legally determined to not be an explosive, such as APCP. That, I believe, we would be able to get a blanket approval for.
There’s no issue over the nichrome bridge wire.
Ez2cDave
Well-Known Member
Hmm . . . Blue Thunder comes to mind . . . I wonder if Nichrome ( dipped in BT ) could light it reliably, especially in larger motors ?
Dave F.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 203
While not particularly pertinent for the ATF...
In California’s fireworks regulations (where rocketry is regulated), they actually define what an “Ignitor” is (Title 19, §980), but then don’t use the term anywhere in the regulations...figure that!
In California’s fireworks regulations (where rocketry is regulated), they actually define what an “Ignitor” is (Title 19, §980), but then don’t use the term anywhere in the regulations...figure that!
Do they reference the ATF list?
Ez2cDave
Well-Known Member
This is how California defines "ignitor" and a couple of other things . . .
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Do...ype=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
(i) “I” Definitions.
(1) Ignitor. An electric, chemical or mechanical device used to initiate burning or pyrotechnic or propellant materials.
(e) “E” Definitions.
(2) Electric Match. An electric device containing a pyrotechnic compound which ignites when sufficient current flows through the leads.
(s) “S” Definitions.
(8) Squib. See Electric Match. See also Detonator and Soft Detonator.
(6) Soft Detonator. A detonator in which the explosive or pyrotechnic material is encased in a non-metallic container.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 203
So it’s complicated...the ATF list is included (but not limited to...) in the definition of “Explosive” in the general CA laws (section 12000). So technically, they’re regulated through that path, even though they are specifically excluded from the Fireworks regulations.
I would take this to mean that any requirements for handing/licensing of things on the list (including Igniters, whatever that means) is covered by the requirements in that part of the code so my CA Pyro license doesn’t mean anything in relation to explosives.
I would take this to mean that any requirements for handing/licensing of things on the list (including Igniters, whatever that means) is covered by the requirements in that part of the code so my CA Pyro license doesn’t mean anything in relation to explosives.
It appears that the California definition is considerably broader in scope than the “function as explosives” words of the federal law.
Ez2cDave
Well-Known Member
No "surprises" there . . .
Under their definition, "rubbing two sticks together" is an "ignitor", possibly even a magnifying glass ( focusing the Sun's rays ).
Glad I live on the East Coast !
Dave F.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 203
I think that its material that MJG sells both regulated and unregulated devices and that the ATF seems OK with it.
