tbzep
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,724
- Reaction score
- 3
They stopped putting that suff on motor lables in the mid 90's along with most of the different motor type color coding. Used to be Upper stage motors were had purple lettering, lower stage or single stage green, and boosters Red. Currently all but boosters are green or green&blk lettering with boosters remaining red.
But none of this has a thing to do with a delayed/ejection charged motor being used as a booster. There is just no bases for such a suggestion.
It has everything to do with it. The motors were labeled with the manufacturer's intended use for decades. It was also printed in literature. Delayed/ejection motors were not intended to be used as boosters by the manufacturers. That's the same logic you used when saying a booster couldn't be used as a single stage motor.
Not a short memory; Just wanted to see if someone was still carry the same gurdge...as suspected, you are.
You're just killing me, John. Everybody knows that gurdges are way to energetic to be carried around like a pocket knife. They have to be contained in a magnetic bottle.
Really no defense necessary but since you obviously wanted to try again to make some sort of statement, I'll be happy to rebut it.
The Difference my friend, is I wasn't suggesting such a use by inexperienced modelers in your average run of the mill mod-roc. Rather speaking about a semi-common practice used in spacific tiny competition models where the modeler HAS the knowledge to do and has done the research to make such a system work Safely. It's all about WHO we are suggesting a specific technique to and in what context.
And you seem to expect that only experienced modelers will read it. This is a publicly accessed forum and the inexperienced come here all the time. If you don't want me to talk about zero delay motors for single stage, then you shouldn't talk about delayed motors for boosters in the open forum. Plain and simple.
I'd still have to "slam" as you put it, such a discussion in this forum (LPR) if proposed to be done by JohnQ rocketeer. The quote is still just a revelant as it was in TRF 1.0. "Booster motors ARE NOT INTENDED to be used to deploy recovery systems, PEROID."
My point exactly. John Q. Rocketeers read all kinds of posts, including yours justifying use of single stage motors as boosters, which by definition should be just as much against the safety code as Bob Kaplow's zero delay booster used as a single stage motor. Single stage motors are not intended to be used as boosters by the manufacturers, period.
Am I supposed to say I'm sorry I dared address a potentially harmful suggestion to inexperinced folks reading? Nope! it ain't a gonna happen bunkey, we have to Think before we Act or Type
Now lets put this pointless past bickering aside and get back to the subject of gap staging.
I've never asked anyone for an apology. I wouldn't start now. But it's funny that you think nothing is wrong with you talking about a potentially harmful act, but if somebody else does you see it with a different pair of glasses.
Gap staging and staging in general, good idea. Let's discuss the taped vs. gap method. I've never had a failure with either, but I can see where taped method might have a lower success rate. I'd suspect that motors taped together with a slight gap, or became gapped as they were inserted in the airframe might have problems, especially with cellophane. There's almost no volume between the two motors so pressure would build very fast compared with vented gap staging. I could see the tape weakened from heat and pressure causing tape failure, allowing separation before ignition of the upper stage. With radiation traveling fastest, low mass gases next fastest, and burning particles slowest, this could be a clue that burning particles may be the main source of ignition during staging. I wonder if anyone has tested for failure with masking vs. cellophane tape, hairline gaps between motors, etc.