 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / August 2007[Planet News] Cesaroni Technology Incorporated and Animal Motor Works announce merger of HPR product lines
SARASOTA, Florida USA (RP NEWSWIRE) — After several months of planning and discussion, Cesaroni Technology Incorporated (CTI) and Animal Motor Works (AMW) will begin cooperative production of their respective product lines and new product development. The product production and marketing merger will make AMW/Pro-X® the industry's largest manufacturer of high power rocketry motors and reloads. The product merger will also accelerate AMW's production transition from its previous New Hampshire location. Some of the new products will include a new line of propellants that will be marketed under the Kryptonite™ brand name. These new propellants will be manufactured on CTI's state of the art manufacturing equipment. The product line will include high performance colors and effects formulations in addition to classic favorites that will be certified for use in AMW, Pro-X as well as Brand A hardware systems. In April of this year, CTI received DOT and ERD 1.4C shipping classifications for its 75mm and 98mm moon burner line as well as a new series of 54mm, long burn reload systems. Smoky Sam propellant is also included in this approval. Initial production and pre-certification testing of color and effects propellants is currently underway. All propellants produced by CTI are ferrocene and catocene free, ensuring long life, stability and safety while maintaining predictable ballistics due to associated migration and sublimation issues. In addition to the traditional reload configurations that have been previously available, the AMW line plans to offer Pro-X style, drop-in, modular reloads for some of its existing hardware cases. Both companies are also planning 24mm and 29mm systems that will include Brand A compatibility as the product line expands. Production of single-use model rocket motors is also being considered for 2008 once the new line has been established. Previously, CTI limited production of small single-use rocket motors to commercial and defense R&D applications. Certification of new products will also include California State Fire Marshall approval so California flyers will have access to the entire AMW/Pro-X line. Manufacturing and distribution is planned from both Canadian and U.S. locations with certifications and the first new product releases scheduled for this fall. Animial Motor Works: http://www.animalmotorworks.com/ Pro-X: http://www.pro38.com/ Cesaroni Technology Incorporation: http://www.cesaroni.net/ Full press release at: http://www.rocketryplanet.com/content/view/2013/28/  SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com well, well, well. nar s&t opened brand a's pandora box and a whole zoo-full of animals jumped out! nar s&t claim no responsibility for opening pandora's box, but it was they who started the trend. all in all the consumer wins. thanks, nar! i bet brand a is thrilled about this! Brand "A" can go blow a goat. > well, well, well. nar s&t opened brand a's pandora box and a whole zoo-full of animals jumped out! > > nar s&t claim no responsibility for opening pandora's box, but it was they who started the trend. all in all the consumer wins. thanks, nar! i bet brand a is thrilled about this! > Brand "A" can go blow a goat. have you noticed bill hasn't said a peep since this was announced. in fact he hadn't said a peep since it was shown that nar s&t really was the one to open pandora's box. it sure didn't take long for the other mfgs to jump on this after nar made it clear the door was open to make reloads for other people's cases. but the jury's still out on the question of hardware warranties... Only one person in S&T opend the box (Along with a certian head of a rocketry orginization whose nicname rymes with "funny") They and brand "A" can blow the same goat. > > Brand "A" can go blow a goat. > > have you noticed bill hasn't said a peep since this was announced. in fact he hadn't said a peep since it was shown that nar s&t really was the one to open pandora's box. it sure didn't take long for the other mfgs to jump on this after nar made it clear the door was open to make reloads for other people's cases. but the jury's still out on the question of hardware warranties... On Aug 15, 2:11 pm, terry6...@aol.com wrote: > > Brand "A" can go blow a goat. > > have you noticed bill hasn't said a peep since this was announced. in fact he hadn't said a peep since it was shown that nar s&t really was the one to open pandora's box. it sure didn't take long for the other mfgs to jump on this after nar made it clear the door was open to make reloads for other people's cases. but the jury's still out on the question of hardware warranties... That's because I got bored going around in circles with Darrell. I doubt that either of us is going to change his opinion. Personally I have no problem with cross compatibility. However, as a member of the S & T committee, I see the potential for headaches for us. If the manufacturers do what they're supposed to and do enough testing to make sure their reloads work in other people's casings things are going to be fine. If they don't then there are going to be casing failures, warranty issues and all kinds of fun stuff that shouldn't be S &T's problem but I'm sure we'll get blamed for them. That may sound a little cynical but is a reality. > That's because I got bored going around in circles with Darrell. I > doubt that either of us is going to change his opinion. Bill, you want to change my opinion? Ok here's your chance: 1. What was the first certified reload that fit in another manufacturer's hardware that the reload manufacturer didn't also certify the reload to fit in their own hardware? 2. What motor testing group was it that certified that reload? Pending the correct answer to these two questions, I may be inclined to change my mind. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com On Aug 14, 3:21 pm, terry6...@aol.com wrote: > well, well, well. nar s&t opened brand a's pandora box and a whole zoo-full of animals jumped out! > > nar s&t claim no responsibility for opening pandora's box, but it was they who started the trend. all in all the consumer wins. thanks, nar! i bet brand a is thrilled about this! ******************************** "nar s&t claim no responsibility for opening pandora's box, but it was they who started the trend." Buzz.... That would be an incorrect answer. The correct answer is: ********************************* Cesaroni Certification Status of 5 and 6 grain Pro38 May 15, 2002 Web posted at: 6:11 PM EDT Gormley, Ontario, CANADA (ROL Newswire) -- Cesaroni Technology Incorporated is currently in the process of certifying new propulsion systems following the recent successful certification of Pro38(R) Smoky Sam tm reloads and the 5 and 6 grain "U.S. Spec" reloads for the Pro38(R) Reloadable Rocket Motor System. Products that are currently undergoing certification by the CAR Motor Testing Committee include a line of Pro75(R) and Pro98(R) "Brand A" compatible reload kits slated for introduction at the Roc Lake V launch in Alberta Canada this June. Shown in the photo is a 7450M2505-P (preliminary designation) 4-grain Pro98(R) reload kit undergoing certification testing. Also scheduled for testing includes the much-anticipated Pro54(R) Reloadable Rocket Motor System and a limited production Pro150(R) O motor system slated for release this summer. The Pro150(R) line will have total impulse ratings up to the full 40,960 Ns HPR limit. For more information, visit our website at http://www.pro38.com. *********************************************** There is also this comment from the 8/14/07 announcement: "After several months of planning and discussion, Cesaroni Technology Incorporated (CTI) and Animal Motor Works (AMW) will begin cooperative production of their respective product lines and new product development." That's right, "after several months" ......... so this deal was in the works well before the Aerotech/KBA - AMW motors were submitted to NAR S&T for testing. I know that there were rumors about CTI and AMW joining forces circulating months ago. It seems that it's difficult to keep secrets from the rocketry community. John Least CAR followed the proper channels. > On Aug 14, 3:21 pm, terry6...@aol.com wrote: > > well, well, well. nar s&t opened brand a's pandora box and a whole zoo-full of animals jumped out! > > > > nar s&t claim no responsibility for opening pandora's box, but it was they who started the trend. all in all the consumer wins. thanks, nar! i bet brand a is thrilled about this! > ******************************** > "nar s&t claim no responsibility for opening pandora's box, but it was [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > John > Buzz.... That would be an incorrect answer. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Pro150(R) O motor system slated for release this summer. The Pro150(R) line > will have total impulse ratings up to the full 40,960 Ns HPR limit. nice try john, but no cigar. notice that the article says the CAR was testing "a line of Pro75(R) and Pro98(R) "Brand A" compatible reload kits." that means those were reloads kits that fit Pro75 and Pro98 hardware that was also compatible with Brand A hardware. show me in the aerotech news release where it states that aerotech was releasing a line of RMS "Brand B" compatible reload kits. it doesn't, because the aerotech KBA reloads aren't cross compatible and do not fit any RMS hardware. show me an aerotech-manufactured case that the KBA reloads will fit. you people at the nar seem to have a hard time dealing with the truth, so you are left to bend and manipulate it. > "After several months of planning and discussion, Cesaroni Technology > Incorporated (CTI) and Animal Motor Works (AMW) will begin cooperative [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > works well before the Aerotech/KBA - AMW motors were submitted to NAR > S&T for testing. weak, john, weak. it is no secret that they were discussing a cooperative agreement, but the agreement didn't hinge on making reloads for Brand A hardware. anyone with half a brain knew the discussion was due to AMW moving from their NH production facility and that the discussion had been going on for a while. don't try to distort the truth that CTI and AMW have been scheming for "months" about making Brand A reloads. i imagine them announcing that they also planned to make Brand A reloads was just icing on their cake, since the topic takes such a miniscule space in their announcement. shame on nar s&t for spreading more untruths. the first motor testing group to certify a reload kit specifically designed to fit another manufacturer's hardware was nar s&t, with the kba amw-compatible reloads. you can lie about that all you want, but the truth is the truth. gary tried to take advantage of paul's misfortune in finding a new manufacturing facility and nar is trying to cover it up. no wonder people accuse nar s&t of being Brand A-biased. the smart thing for members of nar s&t to do is to do like bill has done and STFU before you spread more lies that will get called out. Bravo, well said. > > Buzz.... That would be an incorrect answer. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > nice try john, but no cigar. notice that the article says the CAR was testing "a line of Pro75(R) and Pro98(R) "Brand A" compatible reload kits." that means those were reloads kits that fit Pro75 and Pro98 hardware that was also compatible with Brand A hardware. show me in the aerotech news release where it states that aerotech was releasing a line of RMS "Brand B" compatible reload kits. it doesn't, because the aerotech KBA reloads aren't cross compatible and do not fit any RMS hardware. show me an aerotech-manufactured case that the KBA reloads will fit. you people at the nar seem to have a hard time dealing with the truth, so you are left to bend and manipulate it. > > "After several months of planning and discussion, Cesaroni Technology > > Incorporated (CTI) and Animal Motor Works (AMW) will begin cooperative [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > weak, john, weak. it is no secret that they were discussing a cooperative agreement, but the agreement didn't hinge on making reloads for Brand A hardware. anyone with half a brain knew the discussion was due to AMW moving from their NH production facility and that the discussion had been going on for a while. don't try to distort the truth that CTI and AMW have been scheming for "months" about making Brand A reloads. i imagine them announcing that they also planned to make Brand A reloads was just icing on their cake, since the topic takes such a miniscule space in their announcement. > shame on nar s&t for spreading more untruths. the first motor testing group to certify a reload kit specifically designed to fit another manufacturer's hardware was nar s&t, with the kba amw-compatible reloads. you can lie about that all you want, but the truth is the truth. gary tried to take advantage of paul's misfortune in finding a new manufacturing facility and nar is trying to cover it up. no wonder people accuse nar s&t of being Brand A-biased. > the smart thing for members of nar s&t to do is to do like bill has done and STFU before you spread more lies that will get called out. > Bravo, well said. i mean, it's just common sense. what does AMW and CTI discussing working together have anything to do with nar s&t certifying a reload that was made exclusively for another manufacturer's hardware? perhaps it's another way of saying, "well, CTI and AMW are discussing teaming up, so what can we do to help Brand A out?" if that doesn't smack of bias, what does? nar doesn't want to admit complicity but i was them i wouldn't want to either. no one likes to admit when they are wrong. On Aug 15, 2:37 pm, terry6...@aol.com wrote: > > Buzz.... That would be an incorrect answer. > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I see... I see... Your point is that it's OK for CTI to make AT compatible reloads, because they can also be also used in CTI hardware. I guess that means if and when AT starts selling hardware that can use the KBA reloads, you'll be happy? NAR S&T is tasked with testing and certifying motors per NFPA 1125. The performance requirements for certification are clearly identified in NFPA 1125 and those are the only requirements we place on any motor manufacturer. As far as your comment " the smart thing for members of nar s&t to do is to do like bill has done and STFU before you spread more lies that will get called out." It just goes to show that some people consider ignorance a virtue. John > I see... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > if and when AT starts selling hardware that can use the KBA reloads, > you'll be happy? that's not what was said at all, but since you brought it up, CTI created truly 'cross-compatible' reloads. AT with KBA did not. everyone wants to claim it was CTI would crossed the line first with those cross-compatible reloads when if fact it did not. suppose you compared crossing these lines on a chart, with the status quo being point a, if CTI crossing the first line with their cross-compatible reloads was point b, and AT's certification of their AMW-ONLY reloads was point c, the distance between point a and point b would be like going from dallas to plano, but the distance from point a (or b for that matter) to point c would be like going from dallas (or plano) to china. rather than making KBA hardware, AT should stick to making their own products work in their own hardware instead of making products for other manufacturer's hardware, starting with a particular m motor that was 27% below what it was claimed. > NAR S&T is tasked with testing and certifying motors per NFPA 1125. > The performance requirements for certification are clearly identified > in NFPA 1125 and those are the only requirements we place on any motor > manufacturer. its easy to hide behind the regulations and requirements when you doing favors for friends. > As far as your comment " the smart thing for members of nar s&t to do > is to do like bill has done and STFU before you spread more lies that > will get called out." It just goes to show that some people consider > ignorance a virtue. trust me, in this world, ignorance is a much more favorable virtue than deception. they are both based on the availability of knowledge, only one requires you to make a decision based on it. > I see... > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > John I have comments to the contrary, John, but I will post them in the private S&T list server. They may contain comments detrimental to a manufacturer. As you've instructed the committee as co-Chairman after the NAR BOT meeting, such topics should not be discussed publicly. -jd > As you've instructed the committee as co-Chairman after the NAR BOT > meeting, such topics should not be discussed publicly. And all this time I have been told the truth will set us free... 8-) SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com On Aug 15, 1:59 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote: > > As you've instructed the committee as co-Chairman after the NAR BOT > > meeting, such topics should not be discussed publicly. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Rocketry Planet -http://www.rocketryplanet.com Just to clear the air... jsdemar is correctly stating the S&T policy. In order to remain objective (as difficult as some you find difficut to believe), we only comment on the testing policy, and how the testing policy is applied, how that decision was reached, and motor test results. John > Just to clear the air... > > jsdemar is correctly stating the S&T policy. In order to remain > objective (as difficult as some you find difficut to believe), we only > comment on the testing policy, and how the testing policy is applied, > how that decision was reached, and motor test results. Ok. How did that clear anything up? Everything is still a murky as before. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > jsdemar is correctly stating the S&T policy. In order to remain > objective (as difficult as some you find difficut to believe), we only > comment on the testing policy, and how the testing policy is applied, > how that decision was reached, and motor test results. In order to remain "objective"... would it not make more sense that NAR, TRA & CAR get out of the motor testing business and have an "independant' party test motors... such as the Bureau of Explosives? Doug >> jsdemar is correctly stating the S&T policy. In order to remain >> objective (as difficult as some you find difficut to believe), we only [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Doug I suspect that a government agency would be at least as slow as what we currently have and would also be a source of non objective accusations although it would probably be for other reasons. Why trade one set of problems for another set? Also if anyone cares that much, they can present a logical case for electing new people in order to affect change. Judging by election results, no one cares. >And all this time I have been told the truth will set us free... 8-) They lied. The truth will get you flamed on rmr. > They lied. The truth will get you flamed on rmr. So will many other situations. It's not limited to just the truth. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >NAR S&T is tasked with testing and certifying motors per NFPA 1125. >The performance requirements for certification are clearly identified >in NFPA 1125 and those are the only requirements we place on any motor >manufacturer. Thank you for do this and thank you for not doing anything more than this. Phil Stein On Aug 15, 5:37 pm, terry6...@aol.com wrote: > the smart thing for members of nar s&t to do is to do like bill has done and STFU before you spread more lies that will get called out. It amazes me how the people who participate in this group attack anyone who disagrees with them. You've had two people from the S & T committee tell you how they see things. You don't have to agree but just exactly what do you gain by calling them liars? Just so I can feel I made one person happy today I am going to STFU and make your day. >On Aug 15, 5:37 pm, terry6...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >feel I made one person happy today I am going to STFU and make your >day. Terry is one of those "special" people that give rmr a bad name - ignore him. > It amazes me how the people who participate in this group attack > anyone who disagrees with them. You've had two people from the S & T > committee tell you how they see things. You don't have to agree but > just exactly what do you gain by calling them liars? Just so I can > feel I made one person happy today I am going to STFU and make your > day. when they don't tell the truth, that makes the person a liar. personally i don't give a damn what you do, you are going to do and say what you want to anyway. what i have seen is two people from s&t try to buffalo everyone with their version of what happened. i see another person affiliated with s&t saying that your versions are erroneous. no one wants to admit that this is a whole new ball game. when CTI added a few additional parts to one of their reload kits in '02 so that the reload could be used in AT cases, they followed the rules of 1125, submitting them for certification in both sets of hardware. gary cried FOUL and thought the idea stank to the high heaven. fast forward 5 years and all of a sudden you've got AT making reloads for AMW cases, and playing games with the names, calling them kosdon by aerotech, when they don't have anything to do with kosdon's propellant. if it was such a bad idea on '02, what makes it a good idea today? you won't ever hear gary answer that question, ever. but the difference is, this is the first time manufacturer a has openly made reloads for manufacturer b's hardware when manufacturer a doesn't have a comparable motor case that the reload in question will fit as well. it's a making for b, not a making for a AND b. but you guys at s&t can't admit that, because it might paint gary in a bad light. the rest of the world already knows the truth even if you won't admit it. the first manufacturer to cross this line is AT, not CTI. CTI expanded the range of an existing product by adding a few extra parts and certifying it to fit another range of hardware. AT created a complete product, not by adding a few additional parts, one in its entirety, for the purpose of invading another manufacturer's market who was relocating his manufacturing facility. AT says foul, s&t defends him saying CTI started it. AT commits same 'crime' and s&t jumps through hoops, reduces requirements, races against time to get the product certified, the 'crime' is OK now. CTI announces they and AMW are going to do the same thing AT did and s&t tries to make it look like they've been scheming to do this for months before gary did it. please. it's always CTI's fault, isn't it, john? or AMW. or anyone who isn't AT. gary is just an innocent person caught in the battle of good vs. evil, small business vs. big business. how much money has gary's lawsuit cost the orgs already, isn't enough enough? but that's all fine and good, because now the playing field is level and everybody will be going after everybody else's market. this should teach some people a lesson for crying foul. perhaps tmt and s&t could both learn a few things from the northern counterpart at CAR. > Buzz.... That would be an incorrect answer. The correct answer is: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > compatible reload kits slated for introduction at the Roc Lake V > launch in Alberta Canada this June. John, the news release plainly states they are Pro75 and Pro98 reload kits that are compatible with Brand A. Did I misread the KBA announcement where it stated that they were RMS reloads that were also AMW compatible? > That's right, "after several months" ......... so this deal was in the > works well before the Aerotech/KBA - AMW motors were submitted to NAR > S&T for testing. AMW announced in January that they would be moving to a new production facility, so I don't understand the connection between CTI/AMW discussing a possible working arrangement and NAR certifying motors that were made to fit another manufacturer's hardware. Perhaps you can enlighten me. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com On Aug 15, 12:44 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote: > > Buzz.... That would be an incorrect answer. The correct answer is: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Rocketry Planet -http://www.rocketryplanet.com Darrell, The post was to show that manufacturing reloads for use in other manufacturers hardware is not new to the current conversation. I believe that you'll find that CTI 98mm cross-compatable reloads have two o-ring kits, one for use in CTI hardware and the other for use in AT/RMS hardware. The use of the reload requires different components determined by the hardware they are used in, this would be considered two different reloads as a result. CAR tested the 98mm reloads in both CTI and AT/RMS hardware to address this issue. The 98mm CTI product using the AT/RMS o-rings, can not be fired in CTI hardware. This gets very close to the situation with the AT/KBA configured for use in AMW hardware. If AT decides to manufacture hardware that can also be used with the reloads earlier certified for use in AMW hardware, the NAR S&T policy would be that the motors would be tested as if were a new motor design. Doing so keeps NAR S&T in agreement with the current TMT and CAR testing processes. John > I believe that you'll find that CTI 98mm cross-compatable reloads have > two o-ring kits, one for use in CTI hardware and the other for use in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > very close to the situation with the AT/KBA configured for use in AMW > hardware. What o-ring kit would I have to use with the KBA reloads in order to use them in AT hardware? None? Wow. That's been my point all along. Being "very close to the situation" and being "the same exact situation" is very different, yet very similar to 'closeness' in hand grenades. > If AT decides to manufacture hardware that can also be used with the > reloads earlier certified for use in AMW hardware, the NAR S&T policy > would be that the motors would be tested as if were a new motor > design. Doing so keeps NAR S&T in agreement with the current TMT and > CAR testing processes. Chicken. Egg. Egg. Chicken. We take all comers? *IF* that happens, does it change the fact of who the first manufacturer (and first testing agency) was who made reloads exclusively for another manufacturer's hardware? Guess not. Is obstinance considered a virtue? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com On Aug 15, 12:44 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote: > AMW announced in January that they would be moving to a new production > facility, so I don't understand the connection between CTI/AMW > discussing a possible working arrangement and NAR certifying motors that > were made to fit another manufacturer's hardware. Perhaps you can > enlighten me. Darrell, In the CTI/AMW announcement it states: "The product line will include high performance colors and effects formulations in addition to classic favorites that will be certified for use in AMW, Pro-X as well as Brand A hardware systems." >From this comment it sure sounds like CTI/AMW are going down a similar path as Aerotech did with the AT/KBA loads for AMW hardware. John > Darrell, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>From this comment it sure sounds like CTI/AMW are going down a similar > path as Aerotech did with the AT/KBA loads for AMW hardware. You mean following down the path AeroTech initiated, right? My read of the statement is that they intend to do the same thing CTI has been doing since 2002: making reloads that will work in their hardware "as well as" AeroTech hardware. Otherwise, the statement would have said "in addition to" or how about just plain: "We intend to make a product line specifically to fit AeroTech hardware." Since we are batting around semantics, why label it KBA in the first place, when it is not Kosdon propellant? KBA is supposed to be Kosdon propellants made by AT to fit Kosdon cases, isn't it? As it is, it is simply AT propellants made for use in AMW cases. Why the name game? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >Why the name game? I think the game is commonly called marketing and 1125 does not dictate marketing guidelines. Why does the game bother you? > I think the game is commonly called marketing and 1125 does not > dictate marketing guidelines. Why does the game bother you? Who said it bothered me? No where did I say NAR S&T had a responsibility to make a manufacturer accurately proclaim a product's description. I simply asked a question. Look, I could care less about all of this. I simply made a statement initially that this is the first time one company has made reloads for another company's hardware in which the company making the reloads didn't have comparable hardware. Several have denied that vehemently or outright refused to answer the question. Answering the question honestly would confirm my statement that the KBA certifications are comparable to opening Pandora's Box. People who disagreed with me pointed the finger at CTI, but while that situation is similar, it still isn't the same because their certification was truly cross-compatible hardware-wise. I have to believe that the statement about Pandora's Box is accurate, because as soon as the the KBA announcement was made, we now have two more manufacturer's following suit. No matter who was planning what and for how long. If 2002 was the year Pandora's Box was opened, we would have seen evidence of it before now. I know the truth. But other than that, the whole thing doesn't matter to me one way or the other. The consumer will be the winner in this. That said, I still don't understand why AeroTech would want to market AeroTech propellants as Kosdon propellants even if they are labeled "by AeroTech." Things in life have order, and the order of that is out of balance, so it just struck me as odd. Is it wrong to question things you don't understand? I don't think so. No harm done. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > That said, I still don't understand why AeroTech would want to market > AeroTech propellants as Kosdon propellants even if they are labeled "by > AeroTech." Things in life have order, and the order of that is out of > balance, so it just struck me as odd. Is it wrong to question things > you don't understand? I don't think so. No harm done. Isn't there history between Kosdon and AMW? Kosdon has always claimed the intellectual property behind the snap ring reloads, right? Is this really a Kosdon reload (using an Aerotech formula under license from Aerotech)? Between the name calling and the accusations I've lost track of the real issue. I would love to see more motor choices for the casing I already have. I don't really care if it was CAR, NAR, or TRA that set the precedent. Now I'm starting wonder if selling my Ellis Mountain casings was a mistake! >Isn't there history between Kosdon and AMW? Kosdon has always claimed >the intellectual property behind the snap ring reloads, right? That might be the case but if anyone does a little research, they will find that snap ring reloads were used way before Kosdon started using them. >>Isn't there history between Kosdon and AMW? Kosdon has always claimed >>the intellectual property behind the snap ring reloads, right? > > That might be the case but if anyone does a little research, they will > find that snap ring reloads were used way before Kosdon started using > them. Yeah, I didn't really want to open up that can of worms. My real question was the relationship between Kosdon and AMW. If Kosdon had the rights to make reloads for AMW casings then this could explain the KBA labeling. > Yeah, I didn't really want to open up that can of worms. My real > question was the relationship between Kosdon and AMW. If Kosdon had the > rights to make reloads for AMW casings then this could explain the KBA > labeling. The NAR President has determined, without gathering the required information from all parties, that there are no agreements. When contrary information was presented, he and half the S&T Chairmanship ignored it. Furthermore, the NAR BOT voted to use NFPA 1125 as a crutch and have S&T become a service to one manufacturer instead of keeping the interests of the paying membership in mind. I find this troubling and uncharacteristic. The result is to make S&T irrelevant. A paper tiger and Aerotech pawn. The actual agreements between the parties is public information for the most part. Details were in press releases at the time of Kosdon's agreement with Kosdon East, and the original (real) KBA agreement with Aerotech. This is complicated by the fact that Aerotech went bankrupt and RCS bought the assets. Gary claims the agreements went away with the sale, but the court documents show otherwise. It may take a judge to make a final determination. In any event, the AMW casing/closure/nozzle/liner system is not a Kosdon design. Also, the propellant is not Kosdon's design (WL and RL). There is nothing "KBA" about these reloads. However, there is nothing to stop anyone from making reloads for these casings, other than the consumer's response to the abuse of their AMW casings while voiding the warranty. Some may say that this discussion is "flogging a dead horse" but it's a significant turning point in the hobby and one more step toward removing the difference between certified/QC'd motors and amateur rocketry. Nothing more to add, with the exception of S&T's response to TRA's total decert of Frank's motors... They did not conform to any NFPA regs, but S&T kept them certified, as S&T could only say "they're certified, and we can't find 1122 or 1127 with both hands and a flashlight!" Rememeber, the decert of Frank's loads by TRA was driven by a NAR NSL in Utah! Seems that S&T has once again been blinded when someone stuck their heads in the "bunny hole"!. >> Yeah, I didn't really want to open up that can of worms. My real >> question was the relationship between Kosdon and AMW. If Kosdon had the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > one more step toward removing the difference between certified/QC'd > motors and amateur rocketry. > The NAR President has determined, without gathering the required > information from all parties, that there are no agreements. When [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > troubling and uncharacteristic. The result is to make S&T > irrelevant. A paper tiger and Aerotech pawn. but you couldn't get an official position on this comment from der rabbit and S&T if your life depended on it. der rabbit should change his name to der ostrich. i guess if you pretend it doesn't exist, it doesn't exit. > The actual agreements between the parties is public information for > the most part. Details were in press releases at the time of Kosdon's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the sale, but the court documents show otherwise. It may take a judge > to make a final determination. there out there, on the web, to read, still today. > In any event, the AMW casing/closure/nozzle/liner system is not a > Kosdon design. Also, the propellant is not Kosdon's design (WL and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > one more step toward removing the difference between certified/QC'd > motors and amateur rocketry. it is significant. its the opening of pandora's box as other have said. it is a turning point in the hobby but no one wants to take ownership of that fact. S&T becomes irrelevant, warranties become valid on a whim, but no one is to blame. how truly baby boomer american: "i am not responsible". > Now I'm starting wonder if selling my Ellis Mountain casings was a mistake! Are the EM motors still around? If so, have they gotten more reliable? Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 >> Now I'm starting wonder if selling my Ellis Mountain casings was a >> mistake! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > TRA#5512 > IEAS#75 The Ellis Mountain 'E' motors I've seen have been very reliable. Every one I've seen could be relied on to CATO... <G> David Erbas-White >>> Now I'm starting wonder if selling my Ellis Mountain casings was a >>> mistake! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >David Erbas-White Consistency is good. ;-) I don't understand why folks are so ticked off by this? Maybe it's a pissing match between competitors, but that's the nature of business, plain and simple. I also don't get why it's a big deal that "KBA" loads are simply AT loads with his name attached. If all parties involved agreed to use his name for that purpose, then why are folks pissed off about it? Seriously, in the end it boils down to more choices for your current casings. Why all the ranting and raving? The last KBA loads are for AMW hardware ONLY. Kosdon By Aerotech Fast, Slow, Dirty Harry (not WL, RL for AMW hardware ONLY) Nuff said Like I said earlier, Brand "A" can go blow a goat. > I don't understand why folks are so ticked off by this? Maybe it's a > pissing match between competitors, but that's the nature of business, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Seriously, in the end it boils down to more choices for your current > casings. Why all the ranting and raving? Yeah. about as clear as mud, thanks! > The last KBA loads are for AMW hardware ONLY. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > I don't understand why folks are so ticked off by this? Maybe it's a > pissing match between competitors, but that's the nature of business, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Seriously, in the end it boils down to more choices for your current > casings. Why all the ranting and raving? i bet if the ranting and raving was about holding your thumb, index finger and little finger extended you'd understand... > On Aug 15, 12:44 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > John Guys, these pissing matches between Gary, Paul, and Anthony really don't matter that much. We are the ones who win! Burn motors and be happy! ;-) Joe Michel NAR 82797 L2 |
Reply to this Message |
 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.