Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Rockets / December 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Alpha Hybrids

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Rich - 15 Dec 2006 11:40 GMT
Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids ? I
have tried their website a few times but can't seem to open some
sections . I do know that they have a pre-filled tank very much
like the ole AT hybrids and that they will have an I , J , and a K .

              Richard Willey

               Tripoli Cherryfield Maine
Phil Stein - 15 Dec 2006 15:07 GMT
>Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids

Have you tried Alpha Hybrids - same owners as Contrail.
Matt - 15 Dec 2006 15:58 GMT
>> Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids
>
> Have you tried Alpha Hybrids - same owners as Contrail.

I believe you are thinking of Trojan Hybrids, Phil.

Edward from Alpha posted some stuff on TRF recently.

http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=7c2cde9a33d6acd591caa6735c2ecc01&t
hreadid=31537

Chuck Rudy - 16 Dec 2006 17:39 GMT
>>> Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=7c2cde9a33d6acd591caa6735c2ecc01&t
hreadid=31537
 

It appears he's just waiting (agonizingly so) for a test session from a
certain motor testing group.........and waiting.......and waiting.

Chuck
Contrail Rockets - 16 Dec 2006 21:00 GMT
According to that certain motor testing group, he still has yet to
resubmit his motors for certification...  The ball is in his court it
sounds?!
Tom

> >>> Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Chuck
Doug Sams - 16 Dec 2006 21:08 GMT
> According to that certain motor testing group, he still has yet to
> resubmit his motors for certification...  The ball is in his court it
> sounds?!
> Tom

What's their excuse for the Sky Ripper 54's?

</rhetoric>

Doug
Phil Stein - 17 Dec 2006 01:31 GMT
>> According to that certain motor testing group, he still has yet to
>> resubmit his motors for certification...  The ball is in his court it
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Doug

That motor testing group said the same about those.  - I'm not taking
any sides here - just passing on that was said.

Phil
jsdemar - 17 Dec 2006 19:09 GMT
TMT is slowly becoming the next "Bruce Kelly" problem for TRA.

 The difference is that the membership could see the direct affect of
not
getting a magazine.  Bruce could blame lack of submissions, problems
with the printing house, "lost in the mail", and whining ungrateful
members.
TMT can only blame the motor manufacturers, albeit in a selective
manner.
The full story is a disservice to the TRA membership.

 -John D.

> >> According to that certain motor testing group, he still has yet to
> >> resubmit his motors for certification...  The ball is in his court it
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Phil
Chuck Rudy - 18 Dec 2006 00:07 GMT
>     TMT is slowly becoming the next "Bruce Kelly" problem for TRA.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>   -John D.

John

You hit the nail on the head. "the sun's in my eyes, my gloves too big,
my shoelaces were untied"  Oh and BTW I moved, didn't I tell you?

Simply amazing.

It's time to nip it in the bud.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 18 Dec 2006 13:51 GMT
>>     TMT is slowly becoming the next "Bruce Kelly" problem for TRA.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>Chuck

Chuck,

Do you have specific information?  If so, let's try to get this fixed.

Phil
Phil Stein - 18 Dec 2006 13:49 GMT
If this is the case, I'd like to see specific information made public
so that we can attempt to have the problem corrected before it gets to
the Bruce Kelly stage.

I have noticed that there are a few manufacturers that never seem to
have a problem having their motors tested.

Phil

>    TMT is slowly becoming the next "Bruce Kelly" problem for TRA.
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>>
>> Phil
Darrell D. Mobley - 18 Dec 2006 16:07 GMT
> If this is the case, I'd like to see specific information made public
> so that we can attempt to have the problem corrected before it gets to
> the Bruce Kelly stage.

According to Edward, he changed the way the tanks were filled and
attached to the forward closure, and requested that TMT return his
hardware, desiring to have the new and current configuration tested.  It
took TMT 5-1/2 months to get the hardware back to him.  In the interim,
Edward gave up and submitted the hardware to NAR S&T.  The initial
testing at NAR S&T was performed on 12/16.

> I have noticed that there are a few manufacturers that never seem to
> have a problem having their motors tested.

This has been an ongoing complaint for some time.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Contrail Rockets - 19 Dec 2006 02:53 GMT
It sure sounds to me like it was more of a "problem" rather than a "I
changed my mind after submitting them to TMT".

Tom

> > If this is the case, I'd like to see specific information made public
> > so that we can attempt to have the problem corrected before it gets to
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> http://www.rocketryplanet.com
edwardcw@gmail.com - 19 Dec 2006 03:48 GMT
Tom,

Wow, wanting to slander my motors? Can you back this up, this
'problem'.  I'll lay it out.  Before the tank was permanently connected
to the motor and only allowed one tank to be prefilled for flight.  I
changed the connectors between the tank and forward closure to let
users fill more than one tank at a time at home.  This was a design
change that happened after I sent them to TMT after I found a couple of
new parts.

Now, I don't peruse RMR often, mainly because of the lowlife scum like
Tom that likes to cause trouble.

I'd be happy to hear what you think the problem was Tom.

Edward

> It sure sounds to me like it was more of a "problem" rather than a "I
> changed my mind after submitting them to TMT".
>
> Tom
Darrell D. Mobley - 19 Dec 2006 05:41 GMT
> I'll lay it out.  Before the tank was permanently connected
> to the motor and only allowed one tank to be prefilled for flight.  I
> changed the connectors between the tank and forward closure to let
> users fill more than one tank at a time at home.  This was a design
> change that happened after I sent them to TMT after I found a couple of
> new parts.

Wow, with "problems" like that, I can't wait until you start adding
"features"!

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Contrail Rockets - 19 Dec 2006 06:41 GMT
Ed,
How on earth am I slandering your motors?
What I said was "It sounded more like a "problem" with the motors as
reported by Paul Holmes on the TRA Forum.  I would not consider
shipping constraints, delays, or issues what so ever to be considered
or called a "problem" when asked why both SRS and Alpha Hybrids had
been delayed...  Todd has mentioned in public forums that there was in
fact a "problem" which if I remember correctly some plastic flashing on
the grains which he has since taken care of.

Last time I talked to him he even had some good news on the status of
his motors.

Now you say that your "problem" was the motors not being shipped back
to you, and I simply asked why it was labeled a problem.  Couldn't
words such as Delay, Holdup or postponement have been used rather than
problem.  I live with a English Major so don't shoot me for asking the
question.

I have no way of backing up any problems and have no way of knowing
what problems your motors have.  I have never seen your motors in
person, only the pictures you have posted online.
Tom

> Tom,
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> >
> > Tom
J - 19 Dec 2006 12:43 GMT
How about explaining to the masses how your motors get certed right away and
others wait for months on end?

Whats wrong with this picture??

> Ed,
> How on earth am I slandering your motors?
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>> >
>> > Tom
Scott Harrison - 25 Dec 2006 06:28 GMT
It's not what ya know it's who ya blow!!!

right Tom???

Also try having some tack as far as keeping your yip shut about anything you
hear about other manufactures test results! Haven't you freakin figured it
out yet! .. If TMT is telling you anything about of manufactures test
results, alleged problems thats very poor taste on there part.

" I don't have time to look it up" more BS on your part, man your a freakin
idiot..

Go away you annoying puke!

> How about explaining to the masses how your motors get certed right away
> and others wait for months on end?
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>>> >
>>> > Tom
Chuck Rudy - 19 Dec 2006 21:08 GMT
> Ed,
 Todd has mentioned in public forums that there was in
> fact a "problem" which if I remember correctly some plastic flashing on
> the grains which he has since taken care of.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> , only the pictures you have posted online.
> Tom

Todd won't say in public what the real 'issue' was.  Holmes half
admitted it, but then shut his piehole.  Todd should examine avenues
regarding loss of revenue due to the bungling.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 19 Dec 2006 21:54 GMT
> Ed,
 Todd has mentioned in public forums that there was in
> fact a "problem" which if I remember correctly some plastic flashing on
> the grains which he has since taken care of.

> Tom

Interesting.

Chuck
jsdemar - 19 Dec 2006 23:18 GMT
> ...  Todd has mentioned in public forums that there was in
> fact a "problem" which if I remember correctly some plastic flashing on
> the grains which he has since taken care of.

  Can you show me a message in a public forum that has that
information?

  -John D.
Contrail Rockets - 20 Dec 2006 02:50 GMT
I don't have the time to look it up.
Tom

> > ...  Todd has mentioned in public forums that there was in
> > fact a "problem" which if I remember correctly some plastic flashing on
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>    -John D.
jsdemar - 20 Dec 2006 05:21 GMT
> I don't have the time to look it up.

  But you have time to visit all the rocketry forums and make
unsubstantiated statements in an attempt to discredit your competitors?

  Wouldn't you be more credible if you first "looked it up", then made
the statement with a link to the source of your information about a
"problem"?

  If your goal was to improve your sales by involving yourself in
these public discussions, I believe I'm not alone in suggesting this
has backfired and you have failed.

 -John D.
Matt - 20 Dec 2006 06:04 GMT
>> I don't have the time to look it up.

psst! It's in your other desk.

>    But you have time to visit all the rocketry forums and make
> unsubstantiated statements in an attempt to discredit your competitors?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>    If your goal was to improve your sales by involving yourself in
> these public discussions,

> I believe I'm not alone in suggesting this
> has backfired and you have failed.

Speaking for myself, you aren't, and he has.

>   -John D.

Matt
Contrail Rockets - 20 Dec 2006 07:57 GMT
> > I don't have the time to look it up.

I guess the sarcasim wasn't evident in my post...  ;)

>    But you have time to visit all the rocketry forums and make
> unsubstantiated statements in an attempt to discredit your competitors?

How am I doing so?  I am only speaking the truth.  If Edward wants to
BS Everyone about the delay and blame it on others that is perfectly
fine with me.  I am anxiously awaiting the release of his products for
multiple reasons.

>    Wouldn't you be more credible if you first "looked it up", then made
> the statement with a link to the source of your information about a
> "problem"?

I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
attest, showing your cards before the hand is over does not win the
game.  The information is out there...

>    If your goal was to improve your sales by involving yourself in
> these public discussions, I believe I'm not alone in suggesting this
> has backfired and you have failed.

Sales the past 6 months have been up significantly from the past year.
Anyways, what competition are you refering to?  Ed's uncertified
motors?  The 2 which he is looking to release?  We are in a completly
different market.
He is out there for the low thrust, prefilled flyers.
We are here for the variable thrust, filled at the pad flyers.
He is here for the flyers looking for I and J Impulse motors.
We have motors ranging from G to O
He is here for Flyers who may or may not care for any other effects.
We make a variety of fuel blends, with more on the way.

Everyone has there own opinion though.  
Tom
jsdemar - 20 Dec 2006 15:38 GMT
> I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
> to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
> attest, showing your cards before the hand is over does not win the
> game.  The information is out there...

  More veiled references to create more FUD.

> Anyways, what competition are you refering to?  Ed's uncertified
> motors?  The 2 which he is looking to release?  We are in a completly
> different market.

 But, then why the statement above talking about "showing your cards"
and "winning the game"?  Sounds like you are referring to a potential
competitor.  If not, then why stir up trouble?

  -John D.
Phil Stein - 20 Dec 2006 15:59 GMT
Reminds me of the big drama and mystery behind Tom's creation of that
other brand of hybrids he created.  I was so impressed by how he
handled that that I've conviently forgotten the name of that company.

Tom, hope you're not becoming a drama queen.  We've done fine without
one since certain people have disappeared from sight.

Phil

>> I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
>> to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>   -John D.
Tweak - 20 Dec 2006 18:40 GMT
> Reminds me of the big drama and mystery behind Tom's creation of that
> other brand of hybrids he created.  I was so impressed by how he
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Phil

This thread is a pain in the rear.

Signature

Tweak

Phil Stein - 20 Dec 2006 18:50 GMT
>> Reminds me of the big drama and mystery behind Tom's creation of that
>> other brand of hybrids he created.  I was so impressed by how he
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>This thread is a pain in the rear.

At lease it doesn't involve Min and his buddies.

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 02:22 GMT
>>I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
>>to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>    -John D.

Dishonesty knows no bounds......Edward is not as large as
Cesaroni......dishonesty has no balls.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 02:27 GMT
>>I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
>>to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>    -John D.

Laziness comes to mind......why are they hated so much?  They must just
buy a mirror, put it in the house and look.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 02:30 GMT
>>I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
>>to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>    -John D.

Laziness comes to mind......why are they despised so much?  They must
just buy a mirror, put it in the house/mobile home/tent and look.  It's
obvious John......how have  your efforts for help to the tmt gone?  It
should be clear, there are reasons for what is happening.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 21:29 GMT
>>I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
>>to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>    -John D.

Laziness comes to mind......dishonesty of stealing someone else's
work......why are they despised so much?

It's obvious John......how have  your efforts for help to the tmt gone?
 It should be clear, there are reasons for what is happening.

Edward is in a different market?  Would you be surprised if contrail got
a sneak preview out in the sandpile?  That inpropriety appearance makes
for more suspision....well that and some loose lips.

Chuck
Contrail Rockets - 30 Dec 2006 23:51 GMT
> Laziness comes to mind......dishonesty of stealing someone else's
> work......why are they despised so much?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Chuck

Are you claiming that I have seen Edwards product?  The only time I
have seen his product is in the pictures he has posted online.  Never
see one fire other than the video he has posted online.

You have a conspiracy theory for everything.
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 23:57 GMT
>>Laziness comes to mind......dishonesty of stealing someone else's
>>work......why are they despised so much?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> You have a conspiracy theory for everything.

Sorry, don't trust you.

Chuck
edwardcw@gmail.com - 21 Dec 2006 02:50 GMT
> How am I doing so?  I am only speaking the truth.  If Edward wants to
> BS Everyone about the delay and blame it on others that is perfectly
> fine with me.  I am anxiously awaiting the release of his products for
> multiple reasons.

Tom,

Just to let you know that the tanks probably can't be used with your
Trojan Hybrids.  If people take apart the tank/valve connection the
warranty is void on my products - it's not that I'm being mean but I'm
just trying to make sure that it doesn't get put together wrong and
then have issues that weren't originally there.  Sorry if that rains on
your parade.

Edward
Glen Overby - 19 Dec 2006 18:00 GMT
edwardcw@gmail wrote:
>Now, I don't peruse RMR often, mainly because of the lowlife scum like
>Tom that likes to cause trouble.

I get the message.  I promise not to buy a motor from you.

Glen "lowlife scum"
Matt - 20 Dec 2006 06:36 GMT
> edwardcw@gmail wrote:
>> Now, I don't peruse RMR often, mainly because of the lowlife scum like
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Glen "lowlife scum"

When I read Edward's post I thought of JI. If you identified with the
statement, well, if the shoe fits..
Phil Stein - 20 Dec 2006 14:23 GMT
Edward,

That sounds like a great improvement.

Thanks for clarifying that.  As the manufacturer of a product, I think
it is in you best interest to monitor all forums - even if you
consider them to be full of scum.

Phil

>Tom,
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>>
>> Tom
Darrell D. Mobley - 19 Dec 2006 05:34 GMT
> It sure sounds to me like it was more of a "problem" rather than a "I
> changed my mind after submitting them to TMT".

So Tom, does experiencing a "problem" justify it taking 5.5 months to
return the man's hardware to him?  If everyone had Contrail's
turn-around time with TMT, we'd all be axle-deep to a ferris wheel in
certified motors by now.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Phil Stein - 20 Dec 2006 14:28 GMT
Darrell,

As Edward's post shows, it is way better to get the facts first hand
before jumping to conclusions.  I know that there has been some
appearances and accusations of partiality, but I think if we have
first hand facts, the solution (if needed) will reveal itself.

Phil

>> It sure sounds to me like it was more of a "problem" rather than a "I
>> changed my mind after submitting them to TMT".
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>turn-around time with TMT, we'd all be axle-deep to a ferris wheel in
>certified motors by now.
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 23 Dec 2006 05:08 GMT
I think I'll weigh in on this thread.

First of all, thanks to the guys who've jumped in to defend me/Sky
Ripper.  While they don't officially talk for me, I appreciate their
loyal friendship and their willingness to help a friend.  Thanks guys.

In regards to my 54mm certification, I will take the blame where I can,
but to be sure the fault of the delay isn't entirely or even mostly or
half mine. Below I will outline the story to the very best of my
memory.

Let me start out my story by saying that I find Paul Holmes a
completely fair, honest, and likable fellow.   It has been my pleasure
to work with Paul for the complete duration of our certification
efforts. Being that I am a guy who has a job much like Paul's in terms
of travel, I understand how hard it is to live up to commitments while
being away from home all week.   Paul has only so much time per week
that he can commit to testing, and every moment he spends testing, is a
moment he spends away from home - a place where his presence in rare to
begin with.   I think we all owe him some thanks for the job he has
done in the past.  Thank you, Paul - motor testing is a thankless job,
the hours stink, and the pay is... well..... You know. ;)

Now, on to my 54mm story.

Woody took primary control of the motor hardware manufacturing for the
54mm product, and he completed the first run of components for delivery
to TMT in mid March, 2006.  I can't remember the exact date, but I do
remember that he was scrambling to leave for a meeting in LA when he
was getting the shipment together, and that meeting was in March.

Slightly after that or at about the exact same time, I had completed
the injection mold for the 54mm fuel grains.  The injection mold was
for sure the most expensive and time consuming part of the 54mm
project, so when it was complete, I got some sample parts made, did a
few preliminary tests, and sent reload kits to Paul.  Apparently, my
'prelim' tests were not enough.

I had done all the development of the 54mm product using machined ABS
grains, in *mostly* the same configuration as I would later be molding.
However, due to a normal manufacturing flaw that occurs in most
injection molded parts, a pin hole in the grain could be opened up
under some operating conditions.   Despite the earlier tests, I only
found this pin hole a day before Paul did his first official test.  I
sent him an email asking him to hold off the tests until I could
replace his defective grains, but unfortunately Paul didn't get the
message until after he did his first testing, and experienced the pin
hole issue for himself.  I got the message about the failed test on
Easter day, 2006.

I repaired the issue with the mold by the following weekend,
manufactured new grains, and sent them to Paul.  Paul received the
updated reload kits before the end of April, for tests he had
scheduled.  Note that this was the last time that an 'issue' with our
motors held up a testing; The end of April, 2006.

Paul tested a few more times, but noted that his numbers had come up
quite different than the numbers we had sent him.   To us, this wasn't
odd - all of the 29 and 38mm motors we had sent to TMT for testing had
been about 20% off in total impulse from our tests.  We had always
assumed that this was due to the fact that in our testing climate, N20
temps of 60 degrees is common, and in Paul's climate, N20 temperatures
of 90+ degrees are common.
It's easy to understand just on the basis of N20 density alone why the
numbers would be that far off.   TMT has no testing manual, let alone
any criteria for nominal hybrid testing temperature - something that I
believe is infinitely important when it comes to testing hybrids.

Paul and I talked on the telephone in May (from memory), and he
explained that it would be a good idea to get CAR involved in testing.
The temperatures in Arizona were too hot for him to be able to test the
motors at a nominal temperature, and that lower temps would be easily
attained in Canada.   He shipped hardware and some reloads to CAR after
they confirmed that they would be willing to help with the
certification efforts.   Unfortunately, because the reloads were going
to Canada, our approved and tested pyrotechnic ignition components
could not make the trip.   I wrote specific instructions to the CAR
people on what was required for the preheater.

I got confirmation that CAR had received product from Paul in June, and
they quickly performed the first test within a week of receiving the
shipment.   They had, confusingly at first, gotten results that were
very close to what Paul had tested.  When I inquired about the
specifics of the test, I had learned that they had heated the N20 up to
850psi in a bath of warm water, in order to more closely match the
results Paul was getting in the desert.  Of course, this was an
indication that there was some kind of miscommunication as to what the
CAR tests were being performed to prove.   I then wrote an email to the
CAR testing chairman, asking that the next test be performed at 700psi.
They agreed that this would be their course of action.

Early in July, I got a reply from CAR stating that they had experienced
a catastrophic disassembly failure of our hardware during a test. I was
shocked to hear this news.  As I began an email review of the cato, I
discovered that the instructions I had given for preheater
construction/implementation were not followed.  It was clear that this
was the cause of the cato, and it was no fault of the motor design.
CAR agreed with my assessment of the failure point, and agreed to do
some more testing with correct preheaters, provided I could supply them
with another complete motor and 2 or more reload kits, which I did.   I
boxed up my personal 54mm hardware and two new reloads without pyro
elements as soon as I possibly could, and sent them up to Canada.   I
received communication from CAR that the box containing the motor was
received, but that no testing could be completed until the testing
agent had returned from a 3 week long trip he was to be taking.  As it
turns out, this was the last I had heard from CAR.  No further testing
has been done, and I've not had hardware returned to me.

After about six weeks, I contacted Paul and asked him if he had any
information regarding the CAR tests, and he replied that he had assumed
that I was dealing directly with CAR when it came to the tests they
were doing.   I then told Paul that I hadn't heard from them since the
acknowledgment of the shipment, and he sent an email to CAR requesting
return of unused testing materials.  He then told me that TMT would be
in a position to resume testing again when the temperatures cooled a
bit more in the desert.

In October, I got an email from Paul telling me that he had one last
chance to test before he moved to Texas to start a new position with
his company.  From what I recall, the email from Paul came in on a
Wednesday, requesting new reloads for testing one week from the
upcoming Saturday.   Since the 54mm reloads aren't a 'production'
product, and I had assumed that I had already supplied enough reloads
to TMT and CAR to perform the tests, I didn't have enough extra 54mm
grains in my possession to fill his request.

So scrambling, I scheduled a production run of the 54mm grain mold as
early as I could on Sunday, and had a box ready for shipment on Monday
morning - an amazing feat considering the cost and availability of
injection molding machines - particularly on the weekends.  Using our
standard shipping scheme, this would enable enough time to get the box
to Paul for his tests.

Now, in retrospect, I do remember the email that came in during the
middle of summer telling all manufacturers of Paul's change of
address.  However, since I don't have access to my outlook on the
weekends, and I had already assumed that I had sent everything to Paul
that I would need to send, I didn't act at all on his email when it was
received.  This was a poor decision, I'll admit.   But, it must be
understood that when I was filling Paul's request for more reloads, I
was in absolute scramble mode, and the last thing I thought about was
weather or not the only address I had ever used in correspondence with
Paul was still valid - The fact that he had sent the change of address
email had totally slipped my mind.

On Wednesday of that week, after the Monday shipment had been made, I
got an email from Paul asking "Say - did you remember to send the
reloads to my new address?"...Which of course, I did not.  It seems
Paul understood enough to think it reasonable that I might have shipped
to the wrong address to comment on it.  The reloads arrived mid way
through the following week, several days after the testing session.

I have since received communication from Paul that there might be a new
testing location near his new home in Texas that might be perfect for
TMT, and that tests might be able to be performed in early 07.

That is the story, to the best of my honest recollection.
I did not tell this story to trash Paul, because I believe Paul has
done a job to the absolute best of his abilities, and again - I thank
him for doing a completely thankless job.

However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
acceptable for a testing agency who a manufacturer is REQUIRED to
utilize before selling their product, their sanity must be questioned.

The system is broken.  It may be on its way to being fixed but for now,
it is broken, and it being broke has darn near cost Woody and I
everything we've ever worked for in Sky Ripper Systems.

Every penny we have made is now invested in a 54mm product that has sit
on the shelf for 8 months at least, waiting for a resolution outside of
our control.  We are, at this point, bankrupt.  There is no money in
the account for us to pay for the manufacture of even 29 and 38mm
hardware.

Both Woody and I are hoping that the new link Paul has in Texas will
lead to a fair and consistent testing schedule, so that no one else has
to face the loss of their business due to the inability of getting
their products tested.

Thanks for reading.

I hope you all have a rewarding and joyous holiday season!

Todd Moore
Sky Ripper Systems.

> TMT is slowly becoming the next "Bruce Kelly" problem for TRA.
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> >
> > Phil
Chuck Rudy - 27 Dec 2006 03:55 GMT
> I think I'll weigh in on this thread.

> Todd Moore
> Sky Ripper Systems.

Thanks for the clarity.....yes it's broken, what you've endured is
assinine, hopefully they know how to make ice in Texas and 'burn bans'
don't become a recurring excuse.  If so a new site has to be used for
hybrids, or professional testing must be paid for.  Your honesty is to
be commended, we've had our fill of bluster and blowhards in this 'deny
everything' society.

Thanks man!

Chuck
Phil Stein - 27 Dec 2006 13:19 GMT
>> I think I'll weigh in on this thread.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Chuck

I also appreciate Todd's honesty in admitting that TMT is not the
entire cause of the problem.  It seems liek there is enough blame to
go around but I don't thinkn it is necessary to pass the blame.
Everyone has the common interest of having the system work as best it
can.  

If professional testing is done, the manufacturers will pay for it and
pass it on to the users.  That will price some manufacturers out of
the market - especially the smaller ones.  

Phil
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 27 Dec 2006 15:24 GMT
> I also appreciate Todd's honesty in admitting that TMT is not the
> entire cause of the problem.  It seems liek there is enough blame to
> go around but I don't thinkn it is necessary to pass the blame.
> Everyone has the common interest of having the system work as best it
> can.

Let me say that I believe that TMT takes, in an overwhelming way, the
largest share of the blame for the delay.

If that did not come through in my message, then I wasn't clear enough.

TMT had no problems certifying dozens of other motors during the same
time frame when mine weren't being certified.

I have hopes that the new arrangement that Paul is working out will fix
the problems that I have had, and make sure things like this don't
happen in the future.

Todd Moore
Hyphlight - 28 Dec 2006 02:35 GMT
<snip>
> However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
> acceptable for a testing agency who a manufacturer is REQUIRED to
> utilize before selling their product, their sanity must be questioned.

How much does it cost to certify a single motor with the TRA?
Contrail Rockets - 28 Dec 2006 03:54 GMT
> <snip>
> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
> > acceptable for a testing agency who a manufacturer is REQUIRED to
> > utilize before selling their product, their sanity must be questioned.
>
> How much does it cost to certify a single motor with the TRA?

It Varies by Size.  I would have to double check but I know it is 25
Dollars and 30 Dollars.

I can't remember what the 25 Dollars is for and what the 30 Dollars is
for, but I think 30 is for smaller motors (up to M) and 30 dollars is
for M and Above.

Not to much if you ask me.  The Manufacture provides TMT with Hardware,
Reloads and if there are any added expenses they cover those (Nitrous
for Example).  

Tom
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 03:56 GMT
>><snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Tom

How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 28 Dec 2006 04:04 GMT
> How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?

Depends on how much your business was worth before it went under.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 13:50 GMT
>> How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>
> Depends on how much your business was worth before it went under.

....and that is the entire point of all this buffoonery.  ;-)  Thank you
Darrell.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 15:14 GMT
>> How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>
>Depends on how much your business was worth before it went under.

I guess Tom has shown that there is wisdom in how he handles this.

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 16:00 GMT
>>>How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Phil

You mistake geography for wisdom.....some of us are not so easily
fooled.  ;-)

Chuck
Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 22:27 GMT
>>>>How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Chuck

I understand Tom doesn't live exactly next door to Paul.  

IMO what's a few miles - its not like I have to drive it.  8-)

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 23:18 GMT
>>>>>How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Phil

Let me see, I go to mapquest dot com and put phoenix az in one box and
Lake Havasu City az in another box and press the button and it comes out
as about the same for you going to MDRA.

You're making my head hurt.  This is simple stuff man.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 01:23 GMT
fOn Thu, 28 Dec 2006 23:18:56 GMT, Chuck Rudy
<voodoodigitalnospamat@verizonnospamdot.net> wrote:

>>>>>>How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>Chuck

Chuck - The winks and smilys mean not to take it seriously.  Just
checked.  SOuthwest will take you from Detroit to Pheonix and back for
$77 each way - $154 total - I guess there are taxes but it doesn't
seem like a lot if there is much stake.  Plus, who wants to drive when
they can fly?

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 01:57 GMT
>>>I understand Tom doesn't live exactly next door to Paul.  
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Phil

I didn't get a smiley, I got a guy in sunglasses which means I'm in the
dark......take off the glasses and I'm there.

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 02:28 GMT
> Chuck - The winks and smilys mean not to take it seriously.  Just
> checked.  SOuthwest will take you from Detroit to Pheonix and back for
> $77 each way - $154 total - I guess there are taxes but it doesn't
> seem like a lot if there is much stake.  Plus, who wants to drive when
> they can fly?

You forgot about having to haul your own test stand along... 8-)

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 10:59 GMT
> Chuck - The winks and smilys mean not to take it seriously.  Just
> checked.  SOuthwest will take you from Detroit to Pheonix and back for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Phil

So, this is the new model for motor testing that we should adopt?

Manufacturers assemble, test, and certifiy their own motors while the
AHJ looks on?

I'm all for it - it's just that this was not how I was told the game
was played.

Detroit is still about 3 hours from where I am, BTW.
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 16:42 GMT
>>>How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Phil

Never mistake geography for wisdom......

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 28 Dec 2006 20:50 GMT
> I guess Tom has shown that there is wisdom in how he handles this.

Maybe I am dense, Phil, but explain this "wisdom" that you mention?  Do
you mean to say there is "wisdom" in proximity?  Or "wisdom" in having
your own test equipment?

What I see more often, Phil, is a lot of double-speak.  Is there
"wisdom" in double-speak?

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 23:02 GMT
>> I guess Tom has shown that there is wisdom in how he handles this.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>What I see more often, Phil, is a lot of double-speak.  Is there
>"wisdom" in double-speak?

It isn't double speak -think about it Darrell.  What does Tom do?  He
drags the stuff to TMT along with everything that is needed.  I know
that proximity is an issue for some people but dragging the stuff to
them gets it done.

Also, from what I understand, TMT's measuring equipement is used.  It
is Contrail's test stand that is used.

Is that plain enough for you or am I still double speaking?

Phil
Hyphlight - 29 Dec 2006 02:04 GMT
>>> I guess Tom has shown that there is wisdom in how he handles this.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> that proximity is an issue for some people but dragging the stuff to
> them gets it done.

Yes.  Or, a TRA person goes to the manufacture and witnesses a test.

> Also, from what I understand, TMT's measuring equipement is used.  It
> is Contrail's test stand that is used.

One test session (possibly ratt?)  in the past used a rack mounted to the
back of a pickup truck.  The TRA loadcell was installed and checked for
operation.  Motor was loaded and fired and data recorded on the TRA laptop.
Someone please explain the difference a loadcell makes once calibrated?  It
was interesting to see the looong M motor burn though the thick deflector.

If the manufacturer has a calibration procedure, and that test is witnessed
by a certification body, it is no different than sending the motor somewhere
that has the same equipment.  I take that back, it is less expensive.

> Is that plain enough for you or am I still double speaking?
>
> Phil
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 13:16 GMT
>One test session (possibly ratt?)  in the past used a rack mounted to the
>back of a pickup truck.  The TRA loadcell was installed and checked for
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>by a certification body, it is no different than sending the motor somewhere
>that has the same equipment.  I take that back, it is less expensive.

All load cells do the same thing.  By "Someone please explain the
difference a loadcell makes once calibrated? "  are you asking about
why it would matter if you used TRA's load cell or a manufacturers
load cell, I think using TRA's keeps things consistent and prevents
someone from 'enhancing' their test results.

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 15:23 GMT
>>One test session (possibly ratt?)  in the past used a rack mounted to the
>>back of a pickup truck.  The TRA loadcell was installed and checked for
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Phil

Phil

I think the lead brick comes into play here.....and you were at that
symposium......just don't ask the name of the book.  ;-)

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 02:22 GMT
> It isn't double speak -think about it Darrell.  What does Tom do?  

I wasn't referring to you double-speaking, I was referring to Tom.  Tom
always has an answer unless you ask him a specific question, like about
the "fairy dust".  Or the data is always in his "other desk."

> He drags the stuff to TMT along with everything that is needed.  I know
> that proximity is an issue for some people but dragging the stuff to
> them gets it done.

Then it would appear on the surface that this kind of behavior resembles
favoritism.  That should not be the procedure of an independent testing
source.

> Also, from what I understand, TMT's measuring equipement is used.  It
> is Contrail's test stand that is used.

That might be great for Tom, but what about people who don't have that
"advantage?"  Perhaps Paul's moving will eliminate the people who say
that Tom has an unfair advantage now?

> Is that plain enough for you or am I still double speaking?

You never were.  8-)

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Hyphlight - 28 Dec 2006 04:56 GMT
>> <snip>
>> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Reloads and if there are any added expenses they cover those (Nitrous
> for Example).

What?  You are kidding?  Paul spent more than that in gas driving out to the
range.

I was expecting at least $100/hr, several grand per motor and wasn't going
to be surprised at $5,000.

Thanks for the insight.

> Tom
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 28 Dec 2006 10:20 GMT
> What?  You are kidding?  Paul spent more than that in gas driving out to the
> range.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> > Tom

And what manufacturer would be able to pay that cost?   It sure would
cut the competition down, that's for sure! ;)

I'm all for paying more in testing fees, and actually making TMT a
for-hire part time paid position.  100 dollars per motor type, maybe a
premium for hybrids, would be a fair amount, I think.   It wouldn't be
rare to be able to do 4 motor types in a day.

But, what do I know?   I'm just a guy who thought it would be cool to
sell some hybrid motors ;)
Hyphlight - 29 Dec 2006 04:37 GMT
Just wondering, but at only $25 to cert, is not enough demand to justify a
microhybrid cert?

>> <snip>
>> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Tom
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 28 Dec 2006 10:12 GMT
> <snip>
> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
> > acceptable for a testing agency who a manufacturer is REQUIRED to
> > utilize before selling their product, their sanity must be questioned.
>
> How much does it cost to certify a single motor with the TRA?

I don't set the pricing, I just follow it.

However, I'll let you know that I don't think Paul cares too much about
the motor testing fees, as I've yet to receive a bill for the 29mm
motors he tested back two years ago, despite asking for one at least 2
times.  Again, Paul is busy, and the total bill was only ~100 bucks+ 25
dollars (guessing?) for N20.

I'd be all for a 100+ dollar per motor testing fee, if it meant that
the testing would be taken care of commiserate in value with such a
fee.

Todd Moore
Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 15:20 GMT
>> <snip>
>> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>Todd Moore

Assuming everone charges a similar amount, you can always send samples
you NAR, TRA and CAR and ask the guys who haven't tested for your
stuff after the first org has tested for the stuff back.  It might
take a while but with the dollars people have said are at stake, it
may be worth it.

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 16:07 GMT
> Assuming everone charges a similar amount, you can always send samples
> you NAR, TRA and CAR and ask the guys who haven't tested for your
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Phil

CAR? They were in the story too.  Now why would they try to simulate
desert heat?  How would they know the temps to simulate?  Very odd, eh?

"Paul and I talked on the telephone in May (from memory), and he
explained that it would be a good idea to get CAR involved in testing.
The temperatures in Arizona were too hot for him to be able to test the
motors at a nominal temperature, and that lower temps would be easily
attained in Canada.   He shipped hardware and some reloads to CAR after
they confirmed that they would be willing to help with the
certification efforts.   Unfortunately, because the reloads were going
to Canada, our approved and tested pyrotechnic ignition components
could not make the trip.   I wrote specific instructions to the CAR
people on what was required for the preheater.

I got confirmation that CAR had received product from Paul in June, and
they quickly performed the first test within a week of receiving the
shipment.   They had, confusingly at first, gotten results that were
very close to what Paul had tested.  When I inquired about the
specifics of the test, I had learned that they had heated the N20 up to
850psi in a bath of warm water, in order to more closely match the
results Paul was getting in the desert.  Of course, this was an
indication that there was some kind of miscommunication as to what the
CAR tests were being performed to prove.   I then wrote an email to the
CAR testing chairman, asking that the next test be performed at 700psi.
 They agreed that this would be their course of action.

Early in July, I got a reply from CAR stating that they had experienced
a catastrophic disassembly failure of our hardware during a test. I was
shocked to hear this news.  As I began an email review of the cato, I
discovered that the instructions I had given for preheater
construction/implementation were not followed.  It was clear that this
was the cause of the cato, and it was no fault of the motor design.
CAR agreed with my assessment of the failure point, and agreed to do
some more testing with correct preheaters, provided I could supply them
with another complete motor and 2 or more reload kits, which I did.   I
boxed up my personal 54mm hardware and two new reloads without pyro
elements as soon as I possibly could, and sent them up to Canada.   I
received communication from CAR that the box containing the motor was
received, but that no testing could be completed until the testing
agent had returned from a 3 week long trip he was to be taking.  As it
turns out, this was the last I had heard from CAR.  No further testing
has been done, and I've not had hardware returned to me.

After about six weeks, I contacted Paul and asked him if he had any
information regarding the CAR tests, and he replied that he had assumed
that I was dealing directly with CAR when it came to the tests they
were doing.   I then told Paul that I hadn't heard from them since the
acknowledgment of the shipment, and he sent an email to CAR requesting
return of unused testing materials.  He then told me that TMT would be
in a position to resume testing again when the temperatures cooled a
bit more in the desert."

.....so that leaves NAE, but IIRC it takes a lot of red tape to demo
motors at NAR launches....something which TRA allows with much less
paperwork.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 22:34 GMT
I also find it odd.  I guess the similar results tell us that CAR's
and TMT's equipement measures roughly the same numbers.  I guess there
wasa communication problem somewhere along the way.  

One interesting thing I noticed (unless I missed or misintrepreted
something) is that CAR and TMT both made measurments that were within
the operating specs on SR's instructions on their web page.  So I
don't know why it should be a big deal.  I think that anything within
the manufacturer's specs should be fine for testing.

Phil

>> Assuming everone charges a similar amount, you can always send samples
>> you NAR, TRA and CAR and ask the guys who haven't tested for your
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
>
>Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 22:47 GMT
> I also find it odd.  I guess the similar results tell us that CAR's
> and TMT's equipement measures roughly the same numbers.  I guess there
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Phil

CAR obviously didn't know, someone had to tell them.  Who might that
have been?

When you get nitrous too hot, you can test it all you want at the same
temp and you'll get the same numbers.  Hybrids should be tested at
65-70-75 degree increment for test curves.....not off the chart.  Some
hybrids have a 5 degree window, otherwise they are lethargic dogs.
Testing over 10-15 degrees would allow for bad injector/fuel design to
show up.

Consistency is the key......the same temps for all  hybrids so those who
fly know what to expect at different temps/pressures.  I try to isolate
on temps, while others like to look at their guage.....to each his own.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 00:35 GMT
>> I also find it odd.  I guess the similar results tell us that CAR's
>> and TMT's equipement measures roughly the same numbers.  I guess there
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
>Chuck

Understand.  For CAR to have elevated the temp for testing, either
they made a wrong ASSumption or there was some miscommunication.
Either way, a manual as Todd suggested would probably take care of the
problem.  

I previously mentioned the instruction manual.  It says "Never fill or
fire Sky Ripper Systems hybrid rocket motors when the nitrous
oxide pressure is higher than 900psi, or less than 550psi."  There is
no reference to nox temperature which is what has been discussed in
this thread.  I think the instruction manual should discuss it.  I
also think that if a specific temperature or pressure of the nox is
required to achieve a particular thrust profile, it should be
discussed.  I doubt that I am the only one that may be thick to the
issues.  IMO if I am a test guy, I test within the parameters in the
documentation.  Some guys might at both high and low limits or some
might test at anything with the published limits.  If I were doing it,
I would want to test at the high and low to see if it falls within the
allowable deviation which I think is 20%.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  It seems there are some opportunities
for improving consistency.  Darrell if this seems like double talk let
me know and I'll try to translate it for you. ;-)

Phil
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 02:27 GMT
> If I were doing it, I would want to test at the high and low to see
> if it falls within the allowable deviation which I think is 20%.

> Darrell if this seems like double talk let me know and I'll try to
> translate it for you. ;-)

Well, as you can see, you *were* talking about a high end AND a low end...

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 10:52 GMT
> Understand.  For CAR to have elevated the temp for testing, either
> they made a wrong ASSumption or there was some miscommunication.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Phil

Here is the big secret with hybrids, Phil.

You'll never be able to attain a deviation of only 20% over the 'safe'
range of operation.  It just can't happen.

I put the 550/900 range in my manual as a safety point only, as in
these are the ranges I believe it safe to operate the motor.   This
doesn't mean this is optimal, it just means it is safe.

There is a huge difference in density between the pressure ranges I
list.   Much more than 20%.   I hate to admit it, but this *almost*
makes certifiying hybrids completely silly.

The SRS 38mm I motor can be anything from a big H to a big I, depending
on N20 density in this range.  If you really want a kick a.s flight,
take the I motor, fill it with super cold (550psi) N20, and watch it
go.  You'll lose some average impulse due to lack of vapor pressure,
but you'll have a great deal more total impulse.

The only way to have consistant hybrid testing and launch time
accuracy, is to specify a very small window for testing, and product
usage - as in "This is ONLY a certified motor when launched with a N20
pressure of 750psi, +/-25psi."  Without this criteria, hybrid
certification should be about safety - not numbers.  The numbers are
almost totally irrellevant.

Here is a snippet of a post I made to a message board back in the
summer regarding the density issue...

"I tend to run my tests with N20 from 600 to 650 PSI, while it's not
uncommon for TMT to run tests, due to the extreme heat of where the
tests take place, from 800 to 900 PSI. This range makes a huge
difference in nitrous density.

At 60 degrees, N20 pressure is ~675psi, and density of the N20 is ~.028
lb/in^3 At 90 degrees, N20 pressure is ~975psi, and density of the N20
is ~.019lb/in^3"
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 13:32 GMT
>> Understand.  For CAR to have elevated the temp for testing, either
>> they made a wrong ASSumption or there was some miscommunication.
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>lb/in^3 At 90 degrees, N20 pressure is ~975psi, and density of the N20
>is ~.019lb/in^3"

That should be documented in your instructions.  The safety part
includes preventing a land shark so I think thrust curves run at
different pressures would be very helpful.

Thanks for the info - hopefully, many of us are getting less thick.

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 15:54 GMT
>>Here is the big secret with hybrids, Phil.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>list.   Much more than 20%.   I hate to admit it, but this *almost*
>>makes certifiying hybrids completely silly.

> Thanks for the info - hopefully, many of us are getting less thick.
>
> Phil

http://www.skyrippersystems.com/tips/HybridTips.html
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 16:50 GMT
> http://www.skyrippersystems.com/tips/HybridTips.html

Chuck, lots of good information on the documents section there.

Question for Todd's or other similar systems:  The creation of the vent
hole seems to be intriguing.  A user is drilling a hole at a seemingly
precise location in the airframe, and if long enough, through a motor
mount tube as well for the insertion of a piece of 1/8" plastic vent
tubing.  Has this proved easier in theory than in application to
accomplish reliably?

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Kevin OClassen - 29 Dec 2006 18:20 GMT
> Question for Todd's or other similar systems:  The creation of the vent
> hole seems to be intriguing.  A user is drilling a hole at a seemingly
> precise location in the airframe, and if long enough, through a motor
> mount tube as well for the insertion of a piece of 1/8" plastic vent
> tubing.  Has this proved easier in theory than in application to
> accomplish reliably?

I found it pretty easy. I use a jig that holds the rocket horizontally, and
clamps it down so that it can't rotate. A drill press and a slightly
oversize bit finish the job. Wouldn't work on a really large rocket, but for
what I've built so far it's been fine. For multiple holes (different length
motors) I'll clamp a fence to the table of the drill press to make sure the
holes are all on the same line, at the apex of the airframe.

Now, the tricky part is getting the 1/8" tube into the vent hole on the
motor. I've found that taking the burr off the end of the tube with a piece
of fine sandpaper makes the job a lot easier.

Kevin
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 19:14 GMT
> Now, the tricky part is getting the 1/8" tube into the vent hole on the
> motor. I've found that taking the burr off the end of the tube with a piece
> of fine sandpaper makes the job a lot easier.

I imagined that to be a tricky part.  Sounded to me like trying to have
sex using a limp noodle.  Or trying to push rope.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Hyphlight - 30 Dec 2006 16:05 GMT
>> Now, the tricky part is getting the 1/8" tube into the vent hole on the
>> motor. I've found that taking the burr off the end of the tube with a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I imagined that to be a tricky part.  Sounded to me like trying to have
> sex using a limp noodle.  Or trying to push rope.

Hypertek motors have a fitting the tube slides over.  There you simply slide
the tube onto an allen wrench.  Then put the end of the allen into/against
the fitting.  Then you just push the tube down the allen and it slides
over/onto the fitting.
Kevin Trojanowski - 29 Dec 2006 18:58 GMT
> Question for Todd's or other similar systems:  The creation of the vent
> hole seems to be intriguing.  A user is drilling a hole at a seemingly
> precise location in the airframe, and if long enough, through a motor
> mount tube as well for the insertion of a piece of 1/8" plastic vent
> tubing.  Has this proved easier in theory than in application to
> accomplish reliably?

It's actually not too bad. Oversizing the hole a bit makes your life easier.

The other option is to build with a motor mount one size up from the
hybrid diameter and build an adapter that runs the vent down the side
and out the bottom.

-Kevin
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 19:16 GMT
> The other option is to build with a motor mount one size up from the
> hybrid diameter and build an adapter that runs the vent down the side
> and out the bottom.

Ahhh, the innovation of rocket scientists never ceases to amaze me.
This is a very good idea!

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Alex Mericas - 29 Dec 2006 21:10 GMT
> Question for Todd's or other similar systems:  The creation of the vent
> hole seems to be intriguing.  A user is drilling a hole at a seemingly
> precise location in the airframe, and if long enough, through a motor
> mount tube as well for the insertion of a piece of 1/8" plastic vent
> tubing.  Has this proved easier in theory than in application to
> accomplish reliably?

Hasn't been a problem for me. I have done this on 3" and 4" rockets.  I
oversize the hole a bit so the alignment doesn't have to be precise.
Then it's just a mater of rotating the motor until the vent appears in
the hole.  I've done this for Hypertek and RATTworks motors.  RATTworks
have a threaded vent hole that make inserting a vent tube very easy.
Hypertek has a barbed vent that is fairly easy to hit.
Doug Sams - 29 Dec 2006 21:43 GMT
> Question for Todd's or other similar systems:  The creation of the vent
> hole seems to be intriguing.  A user is drilling a hole at a seemingly
> precise location in the airframe, and if long enough, through a motor
> mount tube as well for the insertion of a piece of 1/8" plastic vent
> tubing.  Has this proved easier in theory than in application to
> accomplish reliably?

If you're retro-fitting, it can certainly be a challenge.  But for
purpose-built rockets, it just requires planning.  In my upscale
Avenger, built for the SRS 38's, before installing it, I drilled the MMT
for all three motor lengths.  The airframe was also drilled prior to
installing the MMT.  I used ~1/4" holes in the MMT and ~1/2" holes in
the airframe.  As Alex mentioned, the oversize holes make lining things
up easier - both during construction and during preflight.

Adding a flashlight to your range box helps seeing into the hole to line
up the vent.  With its radially drilled vent hole, the SRS 38 is fairly
easy to get the tube into - IF the rocket has been constructed with this
in mind.  Once the motor is rotated to line up the hole, the vent tube
is rigid enough to make it fairly easy to poke it in and hit the small
hole.  Once in, threads in the vent hole grip the tube sufficiently well
to hold it in place during filling and venting.

The Contrails use an axial vent which requires the user, prior to
installing the motor, to thread the vent tube into the vent hole and out
the MMT aft.  Once the tube is mated to the motor, the motor is
installed while feeding the vent tube back thru the rocket.  While it's
hardly a carrier landing, it's a bit of a pain, and the 90 degree bend
in the vent tube is susceptible to kinking which can prevent a proper fill.

No disrespect to Contrail, but witnessing all this made made me really
appreciate the radial vent of the SRS motors.

Doug

Kentucky  28
Clemson   20
Go 'Cats!
Alex Mericas - 30 Dec 2006 00:58 GMT
I keep a AA Maglite and a Fiber Optic Wand in my range bag.  Really
helps line things up.

West Coast Hybrids also vent coaxially.  I love the motor but not the
vent configuration.  It probably wouldn't be too hard to add a 90 degree
fitting to the vent fitting.

> Adding a flashlight to your range box helps seeing into the hole to line
> up the vent.  With its radially drilled vent hole, the SRS 38 is fairly
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> No disrespect to Contrail, but witnessing all this made made me really
> appreciate the radial vent of the SRS motors.
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 15:58 GMT
> That should be documented in your instructions.  The safety part
> includes preventing a land shark so I think thrust curves run at
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Phil

http://www.skyrippersystems.com/documents/index.html

Click on any of the three

Manuals

    Sky Ripper Systems 54mm Instruction manual

    Sky Ripper Systems 38mm Instruction manual

    Sky Ripper Systems 29mm Instruciton manual
Kevin OClassen - 29 Dec 2006 16:27 GMT
On 29-Dec-2006, Chuck Rudy <voodoodigitalnospamat@verizonnospamdot.net>
wrote:

> http://www.skyrippersystems.com/documents/index.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>      Sky Ripper Systems 29mm Instruciton manual

What's not well documented in any of the manufacturer's literature I have is
the relationship between N20 density, temperature, and motor performance. I
had a conversation with Todd back in the early part of the summer, and he
recommended flying with a maximum N2O pressure of 750psi. I've tried it and
am completely sold - even though it cost me a rocket that performed FAR
better than simulations suggested it would. I've since flown with pressures
as low as 650psi in both Skyripper and Contrail motors with complete success
and great performance. When I acquire the 54mm Skyrippers, it'll be 750psi
or less.

Kevin
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 17:32 GMT
> On 29-Dec-2006, Chuck Rudy <voodoodigitalnospamat@verizonnospamdot.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Kevin

I  prefer 62-65 degrees, the pressure and density will always be the
same at that temp.......more liquid, more consistency.....at least with
SRS motors.  Then if the tank is chilled (on purpose) more liquid may be
able to be squeezed in, so a single 75 degree test doesn't give perfect
numbers.  And numbers at 90 degrees are near useless.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 17:11 GMT
>> That should be documented in your instructions.  The safety part
>> includes preventing a land shark so I think thrust curves run at
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>     Sky Ripper Systems 29mm Instruciton manual

I've read the 54mm one since that's what we're discussing.  This
http://www.skyrippersystems.com/tips/HybridTips.html seems to be more
relevent to the issues we're discussing and I think the GSE section
should be included as part of the instructions.

Phil
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 17:31 GMT
> I've read the 54mm one since that's what we're discussing.  This
> http://www.skyrippersystems.com/tips/HybridTips.html seems to be more
> relevent to the issues we're discussing and I think the GSE section
> should be included as part of the instructions.
>
> Phil

I believe we're the only manufacturer to have information like this
online at all, let alone in their motor assembly instructions.
Adding our entire website to the instructions sounds good, until you're
the one who's printing them. ;)

The instructions paint an excellent descriptive picture on how to have
a great and safe flight with our motor hardware.  This is what they
were intended to do.

The information on the website regarding temperatures and GSE is
supplemental, and I'm sure that many people take advantage of that info
weather or not their our customers.

Todd.
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 19:09 GMT
> I believe we're the only manufacturer to have information like this
> online at all, let alone in their motor assembly instructions.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> supplemental, and I'm sure that many people take advantage of that info
> weather or not their our customers.

The more posts and responses I see of Todd's, the more impressed with
him I become.  He seems like a very fresh breath of air in an
environment where common sense isn't common and slight of hand ("trade
secrets") is a standard marketing practice.  Just the open discourse
without the appearance of being talked down to is a fresh perspective.

Safety before stated impulse?  Who'da thunk it?

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 20:20 GMT
> The more posts and responses I see of Todd's, the more impressed with
> him I become.  He seems like a very fresh breath of air in an
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Safety before stated impulse?  Who'da thunk it?

Thanks Darrell.

We understand that once you put a 38mm motor in a 4" airframe, the
fallacy of ISP and impulse is out the window anyway.   We've always
been about trying to make it easy for someone to have fun flying
hybrids in toy rockets.  That's really what it's all about.  Fun ;)

Todd
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 20:39 GMT
> The more posts and responses I see of Todd's, the more impressed with
> him I become.  He seems like a very fresh breath of air in an
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Safety before stated impulse?  Who'da thunk it?

Todd's a straight shooter....noobs in hybrids, regardless of who's,
should make his pages a must read.  Other motor manufacturers would not
experience the hostilities they do if they were a bit more open and
honest.

Consumers can't buy honesty, but they sure do appreciate it.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 22:10 GMT
>> The more posts and responses I see of Todd's, the more impressed with
>> him I become.  He seems like a very fresh breath of air in an
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Chuck

After watching the LDRS 25 video and seeing the stumbling bumbling act
with regard to one certain failed motor I certainly do appreciate Todd's
honesty......and some questions were answered in that post mortem.
Sometimes folks should just say, 'we're not quite sure what happened.
But here are the facts.'  :-)

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 30 Dec 2006 03:34 GMT
> Consumers can't buy honesty, but they sure do appreciate it.

Maybe we can.  I think we can vote with our dollars, therefore I would
vote for Todd.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Contrail Rockets - 31 Dec 2006 00:27 GMT
> > Consumers can't buy honesty, but they sure do appreciate it.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Consumers absolutely vote with their wallet.  If they like someone,
something, some product, etc. and they like it enough they can purchase
it.  I like Todd, I think Todd makes a great product.  But I also know
that Todd's/Skyripper Product is not for everyone.  I doubt Todd or any
other manufacture would disagree with that.  No Manufacture expects to
sell to everyone.

Look at the number of Motor Manufactures.  I can think of 5 AP
Manufactures (AT, CTI, AMW, Loki, EM) and 6 Hybrid Manufactures (HT,
SRS, Ratt, WC, PP and Contrail).  Each manufacture has some variation
or difference to their product that they hope will stand out to THEIR
Customers.

Do all flyers necessarily like that particular feature, variation,
deviation, etc?  Absolutely Not.  Look at Aerotech's Warp 9.  Some
people love it.  They want to really give their rockets some punch off
the pad.  They like the Woosh and Gone!  Other customers like the long
burn motors that you can see going and going for 10 seconds.  Maybe
those people will fly EM Motors?  Sometimes flyers like both, and may
even fly both manufactures products?!

You also have to look at actual customer response to product rather
than people who just make opinions on them.  Ask an actual customer of
a product if they are happy with the product, customer support, service
etc. and you will get an opinion from someone who knows first hand.

I believe this actually happens more than you might think.  Vote now ;)

Tom
Chuck Rudy - 31 Dec 2006 00:33 GMT
> You also have to look at actual customer response to product rather
> than people who just make opinions on them.  Ask an actual customer of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>  
> Tom

One of your biggest supporters aroound here is annoyed, I've watched
several of they're flights......several not so good.......but I'll let
you figure out why, I got that first handm and in person.  His response?
 Frustration.

Chuck
Contrail Rockets - 31 Dec 2006 00:37 GMT
Why don't you give me a name.  If you don't want to do it on here feel
free to e-mail it to me at support@contrailrockets.com

I have not heard anything of the such from someone.  But I promise 100%
to do everything I can to make them a satisfied customer.
Tom

> > You also have to look at actual customer response to product rather
> > than people who just make opinions on them.  Ask an actual customer of
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 31 Dec 2006 00:38 GMT
> Why don't you give me a name.  If you don't want to do it on here feel
> free to e-mail it to me at support@contrailrockets.com
>
> I have not heard anything of the such from someone.  But I promise 100%
> to do everything I can to make them a satisfied customer.
> Tom

Don't trust you.

Chuck
Contrail Rockets - 31 Dec 2006 00:41 GMT
> > Why don't you give me a name.  If you don't want to do it on here feel
> > free to e-mail it to me at support@contrailrockets.com
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Chuck

What?!  Do you even know me?
Can you come up with a conspiracy theory on who killed Ford?  Or
Sadaam?  What about the ATF or CSPC?
Chuck Rudy - 31 Dec 2006 00:44 GMT
>>>Why don't you give me a name.  If you don't want to do it on here feel
>>>free to e-mail it to me at support@contrailrockets.com
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Can you come up with a conspiracy theory on who killed Ford?  Or
> Sadaam?  What about the ATF or CSPC?

Yep...I do.

And........ http://homepage.mac.com/wesrudy/pics/Fox.jpg

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 31 Dec 2006 00:46 GMT
>>>Why don't you give me a name.  If you don't want to do it on here feel
>>>free to e-mail it to me at support@contrailrockets.com
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Can you come up with a conspiracy theory on who killed Ford?  Or
> Sadaam?  What about the ATF or CSPC?

Like you're difficult to figure out?

And.......  http://homepage.mac.com/wesrudy/pics/Fox.jpg

Chuck
Alex Mericas - 31 Dec 2006 03:21 GMT
>> Why don't you give me a name.  If you don't want to do it on here feel
>> free to e-mail it to me at support@contrailrockets.com
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Chuck

WOW.  WOW.

Tom did what any good business person should do, he said he would do
what it takes to satisfy his customer.

At a minimum I think you need to refer your "friend" to Tom to resolve
any problems he has.

I'm not a customer of Tom's but I admire his products.  They're not for
me, but I admire them.  I wish him success.  Just about every motor
vendor has had technical problems at one time or another.  How they deal
with those problems determines how long they stay in business.
Chuck Rudy - 31 Dec 2006 03:35 GMT
>>> Why don't you give me a name.  If you don't want to do it on here feel
>>> free to e-mail it to me at support@contrailrockets.com
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> vendor has had technical problems at one time or another.  How they deal
> with those problems determines how long they stay in business.

Sorry.....the problems have been known.......I can not trust an entity
which refuses to admit the obvious......no admiration here.  Still
looking for the admission on the website........chronology is the
undoing.  I'm not gonna do their work for them......but I would for
others.  ;-)   ......does this sound cryptic?  Sorry. but if you get a
chance look in other forums.......it's a pity they don't listen.

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 31 Dec 2006 06:00 GMT
> I believe this actually happens more than you might think.  Vote now ;)

You don't know how much you sound just like Jerry Irvine.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

W. E. Fred Wallace - 31 Dec 2006 12:42 GMT
> You don't know how much you sound just like Jerry Irvine.

This entire thread seems to have turned into an "A typical" Irvine
thread..(:-)
Darren J Longhorn - 31 Dec 2006 13:57 GMT
>> You don't know how much you sound just like Jerry Irvine.
>
>This entire thread seems to have turned into an "A typical" Irvine
>thread..(:-)

If Jerry Irvine didn't exist, r.m.r would have to invent him.

Signature

Darren J Longhorn    http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn/
NSRG #005            http://www.northstarrocketry.org.uk/
/UKRA #1094 /L2 /RSO http://www.ukra.org.uk/

Kevin Trojanowski - 31 Dec 2006 15:08 GMT
> If Jerry Irvine didn't exist, r.m.r would have to invent him.

Which came first, the ego or the egg?

-Kevin
Darrell D. Mobley - 31 Dec 2006 17:42 GMT
> If Jerry Irvine didn't exist, r.m.r would have to invent him.

Yes, but Jerry Irvine did exist, and he invented Al Gore.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Darrell D. Mobley - 31 Dec 2006 17:41 GMT
> This entire thread seems to have turned into an "A typical" Irvine
> thread..(:-)

Ain't it the truth?

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Hyphlight - 30 Dec 2006 16:25 GMT
Todd,
I've only glanced through your documentation, but it looks outstanding!  The
sections I did read it occurred to me that someone would have a tough time
finding defects in a step by step analysis.

That level of detail can only lead to more successful flights which will
only serve to convert the naysayer.  Are you trying to take the rocket
science out of this?

>> I've read the 54mm one since that's what we're discussing.  This
>> http://www.skyrippersystems.com/tips/HybridTips.html seems to be more
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Todd.
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 30 Dec 2006 16:49 GMT
> Todd,
> I've only glanced through your documentation, but it looks outstanding!  The
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> only serve to convert the naysayer.  Are you trying to take the rocket
> science out of this?

Thank you for the compliment.

When I was starting out flying hybrids, I was frustrated in what I
perceived to be the lack off information regarding them.   I'm a pretty
simple guy, and all I ever wanted was the simple info that I'd need to
produce an effective flight.  I had seen and experienced enough failed
flights for a variety of reasons, that I understood why hybrids were
disliked by the majority of rocketeers.  They're fairly simple devices
and systems, that have a reputation for being very complicated due to,
in my opinion, lack of good information.

When Woody and I decided to make a go of Sky Ripper Systems, I looked
at the documentation through the eyes of someone who'd never flown a
rocket before - let alone a hybrid.   As a beta-test, I had guys at my
workplace who'd never seen a reloadable motor assemble one with the
instructions, without my help or even observation, then I test fired it
behind the plant as they gave it to me.   If they came to me with
questions, I changed the manual.   I wanted it to be fail safe.   I
think that the product speaks for itself.

We're not trying to take the rocket science out of it, but we do
understand that if your experience is going to be enjoyable with any
hobby,  the products you buy to participate in the hobby have to
work...

Thanks again.

Todd Moore
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 28 Dec 2006 16:31 GMT
As a manufacturer based in the US, CAR can not test my motors at all,
unless the TMT chair himself gives an OK for such a thing to happen,
which is what was attempted.  Any attempt by a US manufacturer to
submit product for testing on their own to CAR would be shot down
immediately.

Please note that at the time I submitted the 54mm product for
certification testing, the NAR didn't have a hybrid capable test stand.

You seem to be thick to the whole issue here, Phil.  I've known you in
the past to be a rather intelligent and well thinking individual.  Why
you can't grasp that there is a problem here in need of a solution
escapes me.

Start off by asking for a copy of the TMT testing manual.  You'll see
that such a manual does not exist.   There is not even a single
starting point to go by when it comes to standards and what is or isn't
acceptable.

My bitch here isn't with Paul.   As I've said before - I truly enjoy
Paul Holmes.  I've enjoyed our talks at BALLS, and our email and phone
conversations.

What I have seen happen is the larger manufactures figure out a way to
test their own motors, to get TMT almost right out of the picture with
testing.  Is that what we want out of an independent testing agency?

Lets fix the system, and give Paul the tools he needs to do the job he
needs to do.   Create  a testing manual, figure out the 'cost' of motor
testing so that it is fair to everyone, and let's never again be in the
situation where a delay of 8 months could lead to the dissolution of a
company.

How about that?

Todd Moore

> >> <snip>
> >> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Phil
terry6969@aol.com - 28 Dec 2006 20:47 GMT
> Lets fix the system, and give Paul the tools
> he needs to do the job he needs to do.  
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> How about that?

makes too much sense.  all this suggestion is going to do is bring out the zealots shouting "so you want to volunteer?"  obviously they don't want you going around their self-policing apparition by submitting to CAR but they don't want to offer a viable alternative either.  

its a shame when you see, what was the quote from pratt hobbies website, "67 certified Contrail hybrid rocket motor combinations" and someone like Alpha or Skyripper can't get ONE through the system in 12 months.  anyone who would voluntarily venture into the hobby rocketry motor manufacturing business facing the odds they face must be off their rocker.
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 21:19 GMT
>>Lets fix the system, and give Paul the tools
>>he needs to do the job he needs to do.  
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
>>How about that?

> makes too much sense.  all this suggestion is going to do is bring out the zealots shouting "so you want to volunteer?"  

I said that once in my life.....after 15 years with a NFP and 5 on the
board, someone called about a problem with one of the properties......I
then (unjustly) asked the person "so why don't YOU volunteer and it
won't happen?".....after I hung up I realized what an a.s I sounded
like....it was at that moment I realized I was burned out from 15 years
of volunteering and solving problems, my new way was to call for the
'why don't you volunteer' copout.......to make a long story short, I
groomed someone to take my spot, retired from the Corp two months later
and that person did well for quite awhile...... the "so you want to
volunteer?" is a sign of a board member who needs to reassess his world,
or just another zealot whom no one needs to hear.  The copout question
does not solve a thing.

It appears tmt needs repair.....so what will be done now?

Chuck
terry6969@aol.com - 28 Dec 2006 21:31 GMT
> It appears tmt needs repair.....so what will
> be done now?

Nothing.

TMT is a spinoff of TRA trying to prove to Big Brother than they can self-regulate, like the multi-tiered certification process.  both have failed to prove to Big Brother that they can self-regulate and now we have regulation out the a.s.  drop all certifications and let ATF do it - apparently they need a reason for being.
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 21:40 GMT
>>It appears tmt needs repair.....so what will
>>be done now?
>
> Nothing.
>
> TMT is a spinoff of TRA trying to prove to Big Brother than they can self-regulate, like the multi-tiered certification process.  both have failed to prove to Big Brother that they can self-regulate and now we have regulation out the a.s.  drop all certifications and let ATF do it - apparently they need a reason for being.

BATF to test motors?  They can't get the little things right, they might
even do it from a Ryder truck.  They might shoot their eye out.  Then
they'll be really rank.

Chuck
jdMARS - 28 Dec 2006 21:16 GMT
> As a manufacturer based in the US, CAR can not test my motors at all,
> unless the TMT chair himself gives an OK for such a thing to happen,
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> Todd Moore

I am not a manufacturer but I have experience with other private sector
certification procedures (FCC, UL, ISO etc).

Whenever a system is broken it is usually because it doesn't have any
free market influence to it.  Here is what I would suggest....

1. Do what Todd says and define the requirements for motor
certification. This would include results required, documentation and
criteria for certification including statistics.  The requirements
would also include frequency of testing sessions, ie quarterly,
biannually on-demand.

2. Propose a motor testing fee schedule and estimated yearly demand.

3. Offer the above to the private sector for a quote on the service. If
no quotes or poor quality quotes, then up the fee schedule and repeat.

I am sure that there are multitudes of organizations or people who
could do this competitently and efficiently at a cost reasonable to the
manufacturers and still make a decent profit for themselves..
Win-Win-Win.
Hyphlight - 29 Dec 2006 01:47 GMT
>> As a manufacturer based in the US, CAR can not test my motors at all,
>> unless the TMT chair himself gives an OK for such a thing to happen,
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> would also include frequency of testing sessions, ie quarterly,
> biannually on-demand.

Most of that is the NFPA 1125 where it all (but fees and schedule) should
be.  Decertification is a big issue.

Problem is, TMT is not the only certification body.  If, in the US, a motor
is certified it should be usable by everyone.  If it is decertified, it
should be DECERTIFIED.

> 2. Propose a motor testing fee schedule and estimated yearly demand.

I still see Tom getting stuck in the same boat.  2 cert failures then
conditions or unavailability preventing further testing.  I've mentioned the
FAA method before.  That would use available resources, not dependent on a
permanent testing station and person(s).

What's going to happen when the next motor type comes out and the test stand
doesn't work with it?

> 3. Offer the above to the private sector for a quote on the service. If
> no quotes or poor quality quotes, then up the fee schedule and repeat.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> manufacturers and still make a decent profit for themselves..
> Win-Win-Win.
Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 22:51 GMT
Todd,

You may be correct about my being thick to the issue.  For this issue,
I've looked at what has been said and tried to decide without
prejudiced for one side or the other.  Maybe you could be more
specific about where you think changes need to be made.  I understand
that you want a manual - that sounds reasonable.  What other tools do
you think are needed and why?  Although I respect you and hope you are
successful, just saying the system is broke doesn't make me an instant
ally.

As far as larger manufacturers testing their own motors, can you be
more specific?  I understand that TMT cannot test all motors and
reccently, Contrail's test stand has been used for their stuff.  What
else is there beyond that?  

I do agree that 8 months is excessive but from you've said thus far,
some of it was you and CAR.  I realize that TMT can't control CAR any
more than you can control TMT but they were a factor.  Hopefully, once
Paul is settled in TX, the situation will be improved - until the next
TMT Chairman comes along.  When using slave/volunteer labor, stuff can
and will happen.  That doesn't make it right - that's reality.

Phil

>As a manufacturer based in the US, CAR can not test my motors at all,
>unless the TMT chair himself gives an OK for such a thing to happen,
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
>>
>> Phil
Bill Spadafora - 28 Dec 2006 22:58 GMT
>Please note that at the time I submitted the 54mm product for
>certification testing, the NAR didn't have a hybrid capable test stand.

That's unfortunate. I was building the stand in March but was taking
my time doing it because no one had approached us. We had it finished
and tested by the middle of July because another manufacturer asked us
to test his motors. We're in the process of doing that now.

We fire the motors indoors in a room with thick concrete walls and a
heavy steel door. I'm not sure how big a motor we can fire in there.
Your best bet is to stick with the CAR but if things don't work out
don't hesitate to contact us.

Bill Spadafora  http://home.att.net/~billspad or http://www.billsplumbing.com or
NARTS   http://www.nar.org/NARTS/cat.html
billspad@comcast.net  bill@billsplumbing.com
terry6969@aol.com - 29 Dec 2006 02:16 GMT
> I was building the stand in March but was
> taking my time doing it because no one had
> approached us. We had it finished and tested
> by the middle of July because another
> manufacturer asked us to test his motors.
> We're in the process of doing that now.

ok, maybe its my time to be thick.  

you had a request from another manufacturer to test their hybrid motors in July, but you are just now testing them?  5 months?

what caused the 5 month delay?  it would seem that that kind of delay is what we are discussing. that kind of delay could be very detrimental to manufacturers, especially small ones.
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 02:21 GMT
>>I was building the stand in March but was
>>taking my time doing it because no one had
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> what caused the 5 month delay?  it would seem that that kind of delay is what we are discussing. that kind of delay could be very detrimental to manufacturers, especially small ones.

Bill is NAR.....Todd went to TRA because at the time NAE didn't have the
stand, then CAR, then back to TRA after having to make another
production run because of......

I'm guessing the motors Bill is doing now are the one's which this
thread is named after.....or I could be thick too.  ;-)

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 02:25 GMT
>>I was building the stand in March but was
>>taking my time doing it because no one had
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> what caused the 5 month delay?  it would seem that that kind of delay is what we are discussing. that kind of delay could be very detrimental to manufacturers, especially small ones.

I'm going to guess it had to do with a delay in the Motor Manufacturer's
return of said motors and parts from a certain testing agency......which
is in this thread somewhere......but it's just a guess.  :-)

Chuck
terry6969@aol.com - 29 Dec 2006 02:42 GMT
i thought i saw in another post somewhere where edward said he made another set of hardware while waiting for his original hardware to be returned.  i may be wrong, it just shocked me.
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 02:51 GMT
> i thought i saw in another post somewhere where edward said he made another set of hardware while waiting for his original hardware to be returned.  i may be wrong, it just shocked me.

One of the first ten messages of the thread.

"According to Edward, he changed the way the tanks were filled and
attached to the forward closure, and requested that TMT return his
hardware, desiring to have the new and current configuration tested.  It
took TMT 5-1/2 months to get the hardware back to him.  In the interim,
Edward gave up and submitted the hardware to NAR S&T.  The initial
testing at NAR S&T was performed on 12/16. "  Darrell Mobley

Presumably different hardware was submitted to NAR.

Chuck
Bill Spadafora - 29 Dec 2006 03:22 GMT
>> I was building the stand in March but was
>> taking my time doing it because no one had
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>what caused the 5 month delay?  it would seem that that kind of delay is what we are discussing. that kind of delay could be very detrimental to manufacturers, especially small ones.

We were asked if we could test them and told the manufacturer we'd be
ready in July. We scheduled testing within about a month of when he
told us he was ready. We try to test once a month.

Bill Spadafora  http://home.att.net/~billspad or http://www.billsplumbing.com or
NARTS   http://www.nar.org/NARTS/cat.html
billspad@comcast.net  bill@billsplumbing.com
edwardcw@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 04:04 GMT
Wow, this thread has gotten complicated.  I contacted NAR in July -
hoping to receive my motors back from TMT soon and send them off.  That
didn't happen and life got busy.  They did test them in a timely
fashion once received and a few bugs worked out.  You are right that
the new design was shipped to NAR, the old design put in the closet and
used only for a couple bigger motors until I can figure a slick method
out.

I've got nothing but great things to say both about NAR and TMT.  TMT
is just a little overwhelmed at the moment and Paul is a great guy.
Hopefully any issues will fix themselves and be back in business.

Edward
Hyphlight - 29 Dec 2006 04:05 GMT
>>> I was building the stand in March but was
>>> taking my time doing it because no one had
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> ready in July. We scheduled testing within about a month of when he
> told us he was ready. We try to test once a month.

What is the per cert cost?

> Bill Spadafora  http://home.att.net/~billspad or
> http://www.billsplumbing.com or
> NARTS   http://www.nar.org/NARTS/cat.html
> billspad@comcast.net  bill@billsplumbing.com
Bill Spadafora - 29 Dec 2006 12:25 GMT
>What is the per cert cost?

Right now it's nothing other than the cost of consumables for hybrids.
That will change soon. You can be sure it will be in line with TMT and
CAR. No matter what, it will be a tiny fraction of what a commercial
testing agency would charge.
Bill Spadafora  http://www.billsplumbing.com
billspad@comcast.net  bill@billsplumbing.com
Hyphlight - 29 Dec 2006 14:17 GMT
>>What is the per cert cost?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Bill Spadafora  http://www.billsplumbing.com
> billspad@comcast.net  bill@billsplumbing.com

I'm seeing the cert groups from a completely different paradigm than before.
Thank you for your response and especially time and effort!
Hyphlight - 29 Dec 2006 01:30 GMT
> As a manufacturer based in the US, CAR can not test my motors at all,
> unless the TMT chair himself gives an OK for such a thing to happen,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Please note that at the time I submitted the 54mm product for
> certification testing, the NAR didn't have a hybrid capable test stand.

I content it doesn't need one.  Your data, review by committee, witness
actual test samplings selected by said committee by an individual selected
by committee in that location.  Done.

> You seem to be thick to the whole issue here, Phil.  I've known you in
> the past to be a rather intelligent and well thinking individual.  Why
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> starting point to go by when it comes to standards and what is or isn't
> acceptable.

NFPA 1125 is the standards.  The manufacturer's user's guide on how to
assemble and fire the motor.  The manufacturers test plan and data from
their formal tests.  Plenty of starting points.

> My bitch here isn't with Paul.   As I've said before - I truly enjoy
> Paul Holmes.  I've enjoyed our talks at BALLS, and our email and phone
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> test their own motors, to get TMT almost right out of the picture with
> testing.  Is that what we want out of an independent testing agency?

Yes.  As described above.  Get it out of the TRA because that's the politics
that will never end no matter who has a great idea about a better way to
test motors.

> Lets fix the system, and give Paul the tools he needs to do the job he
> needs to do.   Create  a testing manual, figure out the 'cost' of motor
> testing so that it is fair to everyone, and let's never again be in the
> situation where a delay of 8 months could lead to the dissolution of a
> company.

Sorry, I don't see what's broken besides the TMT trying to help too much.
They should have said the numbers were different and it's up to the
manufacturer to run down why and what should have been done differently.

> How about that?
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>>
>> Phil
Finally - 29 Dec 2006 02:21 GMT
"Hyphlight"  wrote in message
> I content it doesn't need one.  Your data, review by committee, witness
> actual test samplings selected by said committee by an individual selected
> by committee in that location.  Done.

BINGO!

> NFPA 1125 is the standards.  The manufacturer's user's guide on how to
> assemble and fire the motor.  The manufacturers test plan and data from
> their formal tests.  Plenty of starting points.

BINGO AGAIN!

Finally some common sense.  Why not rely on the manufacturers data with some
oversight?  I suspect every manufacturer has capable test equipment and test
stands and can export data in a useable format.  Let them document the
equipment and procedures and have them observed by a knowledgeable local
flyer acceptable to Tripoli/NAR and go from there.

The point of testing is only to verify stated performance and prove
reliability/safety.  However, the latter cannot really be determined given
the small samples actually tested.  These are only hobby motors so
performance that is close is good enough.  Anyone looking for more is
kidding themselves, given the variety of temperatures, elevations, launch
conditions, etc in which motors are used.   Not to mention flyers sticking
certified motors in inappropriate rockets with the approval of the RSO.

Is that putting the fox in charge of the henhouse?  If a mfr introduces a
motor that doesn't perform, ultimately that comes back to haunt the mfr.
And there have been a number of certified motors that did just that, so
certification apparently is not that effective of a tool to prevent such.

Independent testing would be great, but either the fees would be prohibitive
(I can see $1k to $3k fee per motor if from an established reputable testing
organization) OR the rocketry organizations would not accept their results.
Did NAR and Tripoli readily accept each others testing results?  (Ancient
history -I do not know the answer).
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 10:29 GMT
> Sorry, I don't see what's broken besides the TMT trying to help too much.
> They should have said the numbers were different and it's up to the
> manufacturer to run down why and what should have been done differently.

What are you trying to say here?
Hyphlight - 29 Dec 2006 14:54 GMT
>> Sorry, I don't see what's broken besides the TMT trying to help too much.
>> They should have said the numbers were different and it's up to the
>> manufacturer to run down why and what should have been done differently.
>
> What are you trying to say here?

From what I understand of current (and prior) TMT 'testers', they function
similar to an internal test group which sits down with the development team
to hammer out design issues and get the product out the door.  They have a
rather detailed understanding of motor design and function which provides a
greater level of engineering debug than say a 'beta' tester (someone just
trying the product based on touch & feel and the user's guide).  A simpler
product, APCP has parameters which will cause failure but are much more
likely to be noted at the manufacture taking less time from the tester
(compaired to a fill and fire hybrid with non-pyro ignition for instance).

In my experiance with external certification bodies, you are unlikely to get
much more than pass/fail and returned data on a product.  The engineering
must then be done in house to explain and or justify the data.  Once that is
reported back to the body, a pass has generally been received.

I certainly don't have the level of detail of the multi-month issue to
return much in the way of process improvement but here's a stab of the basic
motor testing process:

Manufacturer submitts motors, user guide, performance data and fee to TMT.

TMT uses manufacturer's user's Guide, performance files, and NFPA 1125 to
assemble, fire
and verify motor performance.

TMT notifies manufacturer if motor performance conforms with their data
(p/f) and if it
complies with NFPA 1125 (p/f).

TMT returns manufacturer equipment, test data, certification or reason for
failure.
(equipment reused if manufacturer response to step 3 is 'sending you more
consumable's
and new data)

-----

Again, based on what was posted in that detailed post.  TMT got to step 3
(above) within a month, month & 1/2(?) including a second submittal for a
manufacturer discovered issue.  I'm not sure if  that too slow?  The second
batch did not perform per submitted numbers which "We had always assumed
that this was due to the fact that in our testing climate, N20 temps of 60
degrees is common, and in Paul's climate, N20 temperatures of 90+ degrees
are common.".

If psi is not documented in NFPA for N20 as a standard for testing, I would
say that's a defect.  If the user's guide does not specify the recommended
N20 psi, that is a defect as well otherwise the end user will not have the
same results and need to take some voodoo methods to ensure consistancy.
(defect/issue/bug/problem whatever pc, non-insulting term applies, voodoo
meaning non-documented by manufacturer)

At this point the manufacturer could have sent new data, produced with the
psi at the approximate TMT range (hind-sight being 20/20 and all) and
revised the UG and resubmitted that to the certification body noting the
changes.  At least that's how we would have done it on multi million dollar
vehicles (with a bit more steps and lengthy review meetings).
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 15:57 GMT
> From what I understand of current (and prior) TMT 'testers', they function
> similar to an internal test group which sits down with the development team
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> changes.  At least that's how we would have done it on multi million dollar
> vehicles (with a bit more steps and lengthy review meetings).

Ok, multi million dollar vehicles don't have much to do with us..... ;)

The other 13 motors in 29 and 38mm that we have had certified with TMT
didn't come close to matching our tested results either.  This wasn't a
problem then, and I just agreed to accept Paul's numbers.  One of our J
motors actually turned out to be an I in Pauls tests.   This means that
when a L1 flier flies our 38/580 motor in Michigan in November, it
might be a J motor.  Ooops. ;)

I think what I've done is to be most reasonable.   I understand the
science of hybrid motors, and I'm willing to live within their quirks,
while pointing out to people the importance of temperature control.

Certification of hybrids is really a foolish joke, as without strict
temperature control, consistency can never be had. I've flown in South
Carolina, with temps of over 90 degrees, and I've flown in Michigan in
the low 40's.  I've seen the differences, and flight tested all my
motors in each condition to prove safety.

I flew a 4" rocket that weighed 17lbs loaded on the pad in Michigan in
November with the SRS 54mm K motor, and it achieved an altitude of 4300
feet.
Another 4" rocket that weighed in at 13lbs that we flew in South
Carolina in July on the same motor only got up to 1800 feet.

Both rockets enjoyed sufficient thrust to be completely safe flights.

My manual has a 'safe' operating range for our products that has
actually been tested for, which protects Sky Ripper Systems  and our
consumers, because safety is the number one concern when dealing with
toy rockets.

I am willing to live with the numbers TMT comes up with in regards to
impulses, because a certified motor is much more valuable to me than a
few extra newton-seconds.   It's interesting to note that the one test
Paul did with cooled N20 came out very close to our numbers....

I'm willing to bet that when Contrail has motors certified, they aren't
required to give Paul their own test data that must agree with Pauls
tested results.   I'm willing to bet that for a lot of their motor
combinations, the first time they ever see a test stand is for the
certification testing.....

Todd Moore
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 16:53 GMT
> I'm willing to bet that when Contrail has motors certified, they aren't
> required to give Paul their own test data that must agree with Pauls
> tested results.   I'm willing to bet that for a lot of their motor
> combinations, the first time they ever see a test stand is for the
> certification testing.....

*WOW*!

*WOW* *WOW*!

(.)(.)

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 17:05 GMT
> > I'm willing to bet that when Contrail has motors certified, they aren't
> > required to give Paul their own test data that must agree with Pauls
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> (.)(.)

Please don't think I'm saying this as a negative, Darrell.   I'm not -
I think it's fine.

The results as tested by the AHJ should be the final word anyway.  It
shouldn't matter what the manufacturer tests, as their tests aren't
really that important.

I would just find it interesting that my delay might be due to the fact
that I supplied numbers, while other manufacturers may not have needed
preemptively do that........

Todd
Contrail Rockets - 30 Dec 2006 01:33 GMT
> > I'm willing to bet that when Contrail has motors certified, they aren't
> > required to give Paul their own test data that must agree with Pauls
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> (.)(.)

I am as shocked as you are...

> --
> Rocketry Planet - hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
> discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
> largest collection of web links anywhere!
>
> http://www.rocketryplanet.com
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 02:00 GMT
>>>I'm willing to bet that when Contrail has motors certified, they aren't
>>>required to give Paul their own test data that must agree with Pauls
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> I am as shocked as you are...

Not me....it's understandable......POTROCS......LDRS 25.......first
try.......user error.....blundering explanation.......by the unlikeliest
of people.......hmmmmmm........

Chuck
Contrail Rockets - 30 Dec 2006 23:56 GMT
> Not me....it's understandable......POTROCS......LDRS 25.......first
> try.......user error.....blundering explanation.......by the unlikeliest
> of people.......hmmmmmm........
>
> Chuck

You always concentrate on the negatives.  What about the cluster of 6
that was flown less than a month later?  The Problem with the flight at
LDRS was analyzed, we made the changes to the instructions and there
hasn't been a problem since.
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 23:58 GMT
>>Not me....it's understandable......POTROCS......LDRS 25.......first
>>try.......user error.....blundering explanation.......by the unlikeliest
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> LDRS was analyzed, we made the changes to the instructions and there
> hasn't been a problem since.

Haven't seen it......know little of it......only saw your handywork.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 31 Dec 2006 00:00 GMT
>>Not me....it's understandable......POTROCS......LDRS 25.......first
>>try.......user error.....blundering explanation.......by the unlikeliest
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> LDRS was analyzed, we made the changes to the instructions and there
> hasn't been a problem since.

Really?  Looking at the chronology, there is something inherrent to your
 motors, something I can find no mention of on your website.....there's
no warning to the public......I definitley wouldn't want the liability
you are open to.  Have fun.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 02:09 GMT
>>>I'm willing to bet that when Contrail has motors certified, they aren't
>>>required to give Paul their own test data that must agree with Pauls
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> I am as shocked as you are...

http://homepage.mac.com/wesrudy/pics/Fox.jpg
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 17:07 GMT
>> From what I understand of current (and prior) TMT 'testers', they function
>> similar to an internal test group which sits down with the development team
[quoted text clipped - 98 lines]
>
>Todd Moore

Ok then according to this, it should be safe to assume that since
hybrids have been tested under hot conditions, an RSO shouldn't have
to worry about temperatures causing something being underpowered.  It
seems to me that the allowance for temperature variations could create
a problem in the future.  What do you think?  Should certification
testing specify a temperature for the nox?

Phil
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 17:18 GMT
If hybrid testing is going to mean anything at all, then yes it should.

Otherwise, it's a never ending game of playing apples and oranges.

I've done all my own testing for the largest range of hybrid
conditions, and concluded that safe flights within the average impulses
I publish are attainable, with the total impulse being all over the
map.  That's my 'criteria'.

I really couldn't care less about the total impulse, because I know
that number is rubbish the way hybrids are flown today.   I'm trying to
change that with education as I talk to people on flight ranges and in
email and message boards, and I've seen many people come around.  If
you want the impulse you're paying for, keep the N20 at around the 70
degree mark..:)

Todd

> Ok then according to this, it should be safe to assume that since
> hybrids have been tested under hot conditions, an RSO shouldn't have
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Phil
Kevin Trojanowski - 29 Dec 2006 19:01 GMT
> I'm willing to bet that when Contrail has motors certified, they aren't
> required to give Paul their own test data that must agree with Pauls
> tested results.   I'm willing to bet that for a lot of their motor
> combinations, the first time they ever see a test stand is for the
> certification testing.....

Going from memory, Tom has publicly stated before that some of their
motors are fired for THE FIRST TIME during those test sessions.

-Kevin
Contrail Rockets - 30 Dec 2006 01:41 GMT
> > I'm willing to bet that when Contrail has motors certified, they aren't
> > required to give Paul their own test data that must agree with Pauls
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> -Kevin

Kevin,
I remember the conversation we had on this subject.  You were asking
how many tests we did on each motor, and I said it varied.  Not that
motors go to cert w/o being tested.  Some motors need some TLC and
extra work before going to TMT, others seem to work great with little
change needed.  
Tom
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 01:57 GMT
>>>I'm willing to bet that when Contrail has motors certified, they aren't
>>>required to give Paul their own test data that must agree with Pauls
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> change needed.  
> Tom

Sounds like the backstroke to me.

Chuck
Bill Spadafora - 29 Dec 2006 19:54 GMT
>Certification of hybrids is really a foolish joke, as without strict
>temperature control, consistency can never be had. I've flown in South
>Carolina, with temps of over 90 degrees, and I've flown in Michigan in
>the low 40's.  I've seen the differences, and flight tested all my
>motors in each condition to prove safety.

Do you have any suggestions on how to improve it? Perhaps test one at
each of the recommended limits and one in the middle?  NFPA 1125 with
regards to hybrids (and a lot of other things too) leaves a lot to be
desired. It doesn't come up for revision for another 3 years but it's
not too early to think about changes.

Bill Spadafora  http://www.billsplumbing.com
billspad@comcast.net  bill@billsplumbing.com
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 20:16 GMT
> Do you have any suggestions on how to improve it? Perhaps test one at
> each of the recommended limits and one in the middle?  NFPA 1125 with
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Bill Spadafora  http://www.billsplumbing.com
> billspad@comcast.net  bill@billsplumbing.com

Well, at first thought, I'd thought maybe a 'range' of pressure that
would be allowed for the flight to be considered 'certified'.......
Like 700+/-50.  We've found this pressure to be attainable in almost
all flight conditions, from pretty cold to really warm...

However, getting people to follow this in the field would be darn near
impossible, I bet.

But now that you mention it, I like the idea of testing at three
points, and assigning each point its own designation... i.e. if you're
flying this motor, at a pressure of 550, it's a I110, if it's at
750psi, it's a I160, and if it's at 900psi, it's an H180...

But this might end up being overly confusing, I guess.....

Ultimately, I think the best thing to do for certification is to stick
to an established guideline between the manufacturers and the testing
authorities for a pressure range, (like 700psi) and make sure the
supply pressure is within a window of that mean pressure for all tests.

We'd at least be comparing apples to apples when doing testing.  The
flight range would be a different story...  But, it seems to be working
OK.   I'll continue to educate people on the benefits of properly
tempered N20, however... .;)

Todd Moore
Anthony Cesaroni - 29 Dec 2006 22:17 GMT
FWIW solid rocket motors exhibit significant changes in ballistics with
temperature and so do delay times. That's why commercial and military rocket
motors have temperature/ballistic tables. The shuttle SRMs have an upper
temperature firing limit for this reason. If you fire a solid at high
temperature, it will burn for a shorter period with a higher average impulse
but the delay will be longer. The inverse is true if you fire it cold. The
reason the delay time changes is due to the Pc action time and it's effect
on the delay burn rate.

The 70F standard was adapted by NFPA to simplify things. Nobody seems to
care about temperature with solid HPR motors probably because of the"
pyrotechnic factor". CAR and NAR temperature condition solids but the last
time we used TMT, they did not. We had to explain the test stand deltas for
delay times and impulse from our conditioned data to the TMT chair at the
time as well as the NFPA requirement. They were testing in the desert on a
hot day and the motors were stored at over 90 F. Temperature effects on
hybrids are not new, they just happen to point out what has been ignored
with solids for a long time. TMT needs a budget to get some proper test
equipment but we all know where the money has gone. CTI has offered to help
but ends still don't meet.

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

> Well, at first thought, I'd thought maybe a 'range' of pressure that
> would be allowed for the flight to be considered 'certified'.......
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Todd Moore
Bill Spadafora - 30 Dec 2006 00:27 GMT
You're talking about propellant temperature and not ambient, right?
The wording of 1125 says that the testing must be at 20 C + or - 5. We
know they mean the propellant temperature but they way it's worded you
could store the motors in the freezer over night and you'd be okay as
long as the air temperature is within the limits. And with hybrids it
should specify tank temperature or pressure because 20 C air
temperature doesn't mean a whole lot if the tank has been baking in
the sun for an hour.

>FWIW solid rocket motors exhibit significant changes in ballistics with
>temperature and so do delay times. That's why commercial and military rocket
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
>(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
Bill Spadafora  http://www.billsplumbing.com
billspad@comcast.net  bill@billsplumbing.com
Bill Spadafora - 30 Dec 2006 03:29 GMT
>Well, at first thought, I'd thought maybe a 'range' of pressure that
>would be allowed for the flight to be considered 'certified'.......
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>However, getting people to follow this in the field would be darn near
>impossible, I bet.

You can be sure there are people out there who think that if the motor
works good at 700 it's going to be great at 900.

>But now that you mention it, I like the idea of testing at three
>points, and assigning each point its own designation... i.e. if you're
>flying this motor, at a pressure of 550, it's a I110, if it's at
>750psi, it's a I160, and if it's at 900psi, it's an H180...
>
>But this might end up being overly confusing, I guess.....

How about classifiying the motor as a "nominal I160" and then listing
the rating at the limits of the acceptable pressure range? That way
the end user has a better idea of the variation with pressure rather
than just telling him to stay between 550 and 900.

>Ultimately, I think the best thing to do for certification is to stick
>to an established guideline between the manufacturers and the testing
>authorities for a pressure range, (like 700psi) and make sure the
>supply pressure is within a window of that mean pressure for all tests.

That's sort of already there in NFPA 1125. It just has to be made
clear that the temperature range they specify applies to the tank of
nitrous as well as the motor.

>We'd at least be comparing apples to apples when doing testing.  The
>flight range would be a different story...  But, it seems to be working
>OK.   I'll continue to educate people on the benefits of properly
>tempered N20, however... .;)
>
>Todd Moore

Bill Spadafora  http://www.billsplumbing.com
billspad@comcast.net  bill@billsplumbing.com
Alex Mericas - 29 Dec 2006 21:34 GMT
> Certification of hybrids is really a foolish joke, as without strict
> temperature control, consistency can never be had. I've flown in South
> Carolina, with temps of over 90 degrees, and I've flown in Michigan in
> the low 40's.  I've seen the differences, and flight tested all my
> motors in each condition to prove safety.

APCP motors also vary according to environmental conditions.  What about
the Aerotech L1120 which became a M1297 when retested.

For my L3 I was planning to use a Hypertek M740, a baby M.  One of the
concerns raised was that a baby M can become a L with an incomplete fill
or if the N2O is too warm.  I covered this with my L3CC by including
flight procedures calling for a narrow PSI range (600-700PSI).  As luck
would have it the motor wasn't available on my flight date and I had to
switch to a Animal Works M1900BB.  It was a cool day and the AMW motor
performed better than expected, putting me a couple thousand feet over
my predictions (but well under the waiver).

The net is that all motors are affected by environmental conditions.
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 22:01 GMT
> > Certification of hybrids is really a foolish joke, as without strict
> > temperature control, consistency can never be had. I've flown in South
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> The net is that all motors are affected by environmental conditions.

True.  I'd argue it a darn near negligible effect in regards to solids
and hobby rocketry, however.  I'd entertain seeing numbers to see what
the actual effects are.
The effects for hybrids are huge, and not at all negligible.  That's
the point, really.

Todd
Contrail Rockets - 30 Dec 2006 01:31 GMT
> I am willing to live with the numbers TMT comes up with in regards to
> impulses, because a certified motor is much more valuable to me than a
> few extra newton-seconds.   It's interesting to note that the one test
> Paul did with cooled N20 came out very close to our numbers....

I thought the reason the Skyripper motors were sent to CAR was because
you were not willing to give up the few extra newton-seconds.  The
Nitrous was warmer and the TI of the motors was reduced, but the
averages were higher...

Tom
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 01:37 GMT
>>I am willing to live with the numbers TMT comes up with in regards to
>>impulses, because a certified motor is much more valuable to me than a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Tom

I'd think it was more  he'd like honest figures for the people who fly
his motors.....what good is a bogus thrust curve showing BS impulse?
Unless you want to market yourself as the bogus impulse motor company.

Honesty, look up the word.

http://homepage.mac.com/wesrudy/pics/Fox.jpg

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 30 Dec 2006 03:46 GMT
> http://homepage.mac.com/wesrudy/pics/Fox.jpg

Classic.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 30 Dec 2006 03:08 GMT
> > I am willing to live with the numbers TMT comes up with in regards to
> > impulses, because a certified motor is much more valuable to me than a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Tom

My exact words to Paul on the phone when he called to tell me of the
lower-than-expected impulse of my 54mm motors was...

"No shock there, Paul - everything you've ever tested for me has been
20% less total impulse than I have tested here."

I was willing to accept his results.    Much to Paul's credit, he
devised the Canadian testing scenario to try to get numbers more in
line with what we got in our colder climate.   Unfortunately, the only
test that CAR did for us was at 850PSI....

If this new testing opportunity pans out, Paul had already
requested/offered to re-test our 38mm motors to get their numbers more
in line with what our tests showed...  I declined this offer, however.

Todd Moore
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 03:19 GMT
> My exact words to Paul on the phone when he called to tell me of the
> lower-than-expected impulse of my 54mm motors was...
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Todd Moore

Todd

I'm still at a loss to understand why this guy can't get the temps
correct on your stuff.....looking at the LDRS 25 dvd it's obvious he
does this for the contrail stuff.....it's almost like contrail is his
own according to his own words.  I think there's a bit more to it than
this group is letting on.  Check out the post mortem of the botched user
error O-ma-diddly-God motor on the LDRS 25 DVD and it may come into focus.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 04:19 GMT
>> My exact words to Paul on the phone when he called to tell me of the
>> lower-than-expected impulse of my 54mm motors was...
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Chuck

Here's the  hilarious explanation of the O-ma-diddly-gosh motor
failure.......see if this guy sounds like the guy you know....now
remember he is explaining the user error of a motor he supposedly
tested.....but may have been different.....is steel like aluminum?

HOLMES
“The problem with nitrous pressures it was a little bit low….umm…because
as they fill the temperatures of course go down……and hence the pressures
of the nitrous go down, and it looks like it was just a little bit too
low.  And, so when it comes out of the nozzles…. Umm….it starts coming
out in big globs of nitrous instead of vaporizing correctly.  Umm…..the
liquid nitrous hits the HTPB grain and tends to freeze it, makes it
brittle and caused a problem.   So it…ah then…ah….what we call nitrous
blowback ….sent the…..ahhh…..flame and fire and everything and allowed
it to migrate up back into the tank.  When  you put that much
temperature into….ahh…..liquid nitrous it….ahhh…..tends to ger
very…..ahhh……reactionary and it overpressurizes the tank,”

INTERVIEWER
“So what do you do to correct this problem?”

HOLMES
“Ah, well they needed to….ahhh…..probably  need to watch OUR tank
pressures a little bit better…..ahh…..at takeoff…..ahhh……make sure that
they  are at the optimum range….ahh…..7…….ahhh…..750 somewhere around
there,  Sooo …….ahhh…..ahhh…..this is one of the first few times they
started using aluminum tanks, steel tanks act a lot different.  Cuz they
don’t chill quite so fast.  Uhhh……WE did a lot of OUR testing and of
course with the steel tanks and this is the first……ahhh……opportunity to
use a little bit of aluminum…he had a little problem yesterday with
heating so he decided to ice them and it looks like WE may have gone….he
might have gone a little bit too far.  But that’s the nature of the
business with nitrous …….ahh……..ya have to live and learn and go on to
the next one. “

LDRS 25

Damn this WE and OUR thing has me wondering......and steel tanks?  Hmmmm
I seem to recall that is a nono.....but I guess it wasn't known they
were steel at the time, they LOOKED like aluminum......it's just ahh umm
so ahh confusing.  Exactly who is WE?

I see a conflict of interest, more dishonesty and someone who may not
want to have your motors see the light of day......add to that they have
bigger problems and I haven't seen the disclaimer on the web
site.......but I will wait to hear an honest answer, if that is possible.

And that user error thing......it could get catchy.  Because the answer
above is bogus, entertaining but bogus, and does not call into play the
real problem.......maybe it's in the other desk.

Chuck
Kevin Trojanowski - 30 Dec 2006 05:09 GMT
> Damn this WE and OUR thing has me wondering......and steel tanks?  Hmmmm
> I seem to recall that is a nono.....but I guess it wasn't known they
> were steel at the time, they LOOKED like aluminum......it's just ahh umm
> so ahh confusing.  Exactly who is WE?

The "we" and "our" stuff is a bit weird.

As for the tank material, what he's referring to is the nitrous tanks
that were used to fill the motors. The Contrail guys had aluminum tanks
with them at LDRS; I'm betting that the tanks they use in AZ to fill
from are steel.

-Kevin
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 30 Dec 2006 10:51 GMT
> Damn this WE and OUR thing has me wondering......and steel tanks?  Hmmmm
> I seem to recall that is a nono.....but I guess it wasn't known they
> were steel at the time, they LOOKED like aluminum......it's just ahh umm
> so ahh confusing.  Exactly who is WE?

> Chuck

Hey Chuck. ;)

I think when Paul says "We" and "Our" here, he's very much talking as a
general hybrid guy...   I did the same thing when talking about the
RATT cato from LDRS 23, although I wasn't on camera doing it.
Hybrid guys tend to be possessive and defensive when it comes to 'our'
part of the hobby, and we tend to talk like we're a single group.

The Aluminum thing was referring to the supply tank - and an aluminum
tank would chill at a rate faster than the steel tanks.   That was the
point he was making - nothing wrong with steel supply tanks.

I believe Paul to be very independent here.  I don't believe there is
any collusion or conspiracy whatsoever going on as to the delay of my
motor testing.   I really just think that Contrail presents Paul a much
easier cert testing format than I can.   The only question then is
should access to Paul create an uneven playing field for manufacturers
requiring tests?

Todd
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 12:56 GMT
>>Damn this WE and OUR thing has me wondering......and steel tanks?  Hmmmm
>>I seem to recall that is a nono.....but I guess it wasn't known they
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Todd

When I screw up I say "I screwed up".......when someone else screws up I
say "they had a problem" ......even with hybrids, maybe there's  a
different command of the english language in different parts of the country.

And it's odd why he came up with the explanation.....where were they?
But the chronology is there and the words are recorded.  I'm even less
impressed.  Sorry man.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 13:12 GMT
>>Damn this WE and OUR thing has me wondering......and steel tanks?  Hmmmm
>>I seem to recall that is a nono.....but I guess it wasn't known they
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Todd

Ahh......the tank item is understood, my misinterpretation there (see
how that works?  I make a mistake I own it).....the lack of clarity got
me to believe they used steel in the assembly of the motor.....

When I screw up I say "I screwed up".......when someone else screws up I
say "they had a problem" ......even with hybrids, maybe there's  a
different command of the english language in different parts of the country.

And it's odd why he came up with the explanation.....where were they?
Why would I want someone else to explain my error?  Or make a statement
which should be made by a company spokesperson?   Very odd.

But the chronology is there and the words are recorded.  I'm even less
impressed.  Sorry man.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 17 Dec 2006 02:07 GMT
>> According to that certain motor testing group, he still has yet to
>> resubmit his motors for certification...  The ball is in his court it
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Doug

Lack of ice.

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 16 Dec 2006 22:15 GMT
> It appears he's just waiting (agonizingly so) for a test session from a
> certain motor testing group.........and waiting.......and waiting.

Actually, he has given up on that certain motor testing group and
submitted them to another motor testing group.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Chuck Rudy - 17 Dec 2006 02:08 GMT
>> It appears he's just waiting (agonizingly so) for a test session from
>> a certain motor testing group.........and waiting.......and waiting.
>
> Actually, he has given up on that certain motor testing group and
> submitted them to another motor testing group.

Smart man

Chuck
Phil Stein - 17 Dec 2006 01:10 GMT
>>> Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=7c2cde9a33d6acd591caa6735c2ecc01&t
hreadid=31537

You're correct - sorry brain fart.

Do they have anything in common - like never having been shipped?

Phil
terry6969@aol.com - 19 Dec 2006 16:11 GMT
> How about explaining to the masses how your
> motors get certed right away and
> others wait for months on end?
>
> Whats wrong with this picture??

Ya know, they used to accuse Gary of favoritism when it came to TMT and motor testing, but then again AT had a big share of the market. Contrail Rockets' market share is abysmally small yet they can get a motor certified in 10 minutes or less. TMT must have a drive-in window for Tom, since it appears they certify his motors while he waits.  

No, that's not right.  They certify Tom's motors while EVERYONE ELSE waits.

and waits.

and waits.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.