| Pages:
1
2 |
chloric1
International Hazard
Posts: 1146
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: GroupVII of the periodic table
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoichiometrically Balanced
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by The_Davster
I thought it tricky wording as well, I wonder why they did not say amateur pyrotechnicians? They go through much much more than a pound of oxidizer a
year, wheras the total oxidizers used by amateur chemists(those not into pyrotechnics) will use less(but likely greater than a pound). I think the
wording was to justify a 1lb limit for everyone.
I am angry that someone in the chemical academia and affiliated with a pyrotechnics society would even consider this rational. |
Yeh, it is sad that there are professionals out there that want to stifle the growth of both pyrotechnics and amatuer chemistry. It seems to me is a
self serving motivation that makes them think "less for them and more for me". Sadly they are hammering the last nails in their own coffin.
Fellow molecular manipulator
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1346
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Arrogant
Best description of these so-called "professionals". In reality, as stated, it sounds
like a bunch of self-serving wankers who have their own interest in mind. No problem,
most of us will make our own "perc" anyway.
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Often, the positions taken by the national leadership of professional organizations does not accurately reflect the views of the rank and file of that
organization.
I could cite a number of examples but they would not be chemistry related, so I'll skip this.
When this happens it is high time to change the governance of the organization.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
I'd been a member of a number of those organizations and still pay dues to a couple. They are self-serving. But I like the PGII calender. 
Realistically, there was a time when there was mentoring and the cultivation of youngsters into chemistry via energetics, etc. We don't live in those
times anymore. I had a neighbor when I was a boy who made little fireworks and rockets. Can you IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A TEN YEAR OLD KID WENT
TO SOME GROWN MAN'S HOME TODAY AND HE SHOWED HIM HOW TO MAKE BLACK POWDER????? 
On another level professional pyro-technicians have a LOT of capital rolled up into their profession as do a lot of special effects guys.....they
can't afford for their livelihood to be threatened by jackoffs making M80's on the local Reservation & selling them to tourists. I see this whole
issue from a variety of perspectives.
The people (hobbyists) who act responsibly with energetic materials simply won't come into contact with law enforcement or even the public for that
matter as they experiment in such a manner that the "hobby" might as well not exist....for all the public's perception of those who DO act
responsibly; it's invisible! It's only when a genius blows up a local mailbox (or starts a fire!) that there is a problem with public perception.
[Edited on 10-1-2008 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
jarynth
Hazard to Self
Posts: 76
Registered: 12-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Injunction
Here's the injunction against Firefox and its owners. There is more to the new restrictions than what appears on their homepage. Found here.
Attachment: Firefox_injunction_opinion.pdf (64kB)
This file has been downloaded 871 times
|
|
|
Aperturescience27
Harmless
Posts: 39
Registered: 5-4-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
While these sorts of regulations are infuriating, I take comfort from the fact that people with adequate knowledge of chemistry (with a little help
from their friends on ScienceMadness) can synthesize essentially anything at home.
|
|
|
Wizzard
Hazard to Others
Posts: 337
Registered: 22-3-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Aperture- This thread is SO old! I doubt it's even still 100% relevant.
|
|
|
Swede
Hazard to Others
Posts: 491
Registered: 4-9-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It brings up an interesting question, though. From what I've seen, Firefox still operates under the injunction. Skylighter, on the other hand, can
still sell multiple kilos of the "evil" oxidizers to hobbyists without an explosives license.
They do (and rightly so) examine buying patterns to detect ground salute makers.
Begs the question: Why does Firefox have to limit oxidizer sales, while others do not? BTW, I love the fact that Firefox sells wetted nitrocellulose
solids in bulk, for $12 lb. IIRC the product they sell is the same stuff as supplied to, or manufactured by, smokeless propellant companies.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
To the best of my knowledge, the sale of "kits" can have some type of civil injunction - however the whole "1-2 lbs a year" (of Al) is not standing
law. What this means in an everyday sense is that there is no Federal law that says that one may not sell a 30lb keg of Ekart ink-grade or for that
matter most any powdered metal. The issues can be D.O.T. in origin with zirconium requiring a percentage of water or powdered magnesium demanding to
be marked as a flammable solid. but as per legality, it's a full "kit" that would violate the original "Child Protective Safety Act".
So in a Business platform CPSC could file an injunction and demand that the item(s) be withheld from sale on varying penalty depending upon
circumstances. but person to person: this issue would only apply to D.O.T.'s demand for packaging restriction.
N/C in a "smokeless propellant" meets packaging requirements in terms of weight ordered at one time and again TtBoMK, the bulk cartons of separate
containers are marked flammable solid.
BP on the other hand must maintain a strict 25lb single order in Common carrier. But that can be addressed via a private shipping firm, etc. Storage
(I remember) is 25 and 50lbs with no Class 20 or 50 license. Manufacturing issues must met inspected magazine approval. Yet the language of the mfg
licensees are somewhat ambiguous. At this point the "Orange Book" is of little use as the laws change rapidly.
|
|
|
noxnox
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 1-9-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
LOL, while browsing there inventory I found,
after all that ATFE B.S.FireFox is still allowed to sell 2,4 DINITROTOLUENE with no ATFE restrictions the one truly dangerous substance in there whole
inventory, might i add at a slightly expensive price of $9.95/lb no restrictions.
quote:
2,4-Dinitrotoluene, powder [C7H6N2O4], benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro; 1-methyl-2,4-dinitrobenzene; 2,4-dinitrotoluol; 2,4-DNT.
Stock # C144A
Pale yellow crystals used as a modifier for smokeless powders, as an explosive intermediate, as a plasticizer in moderate and high explosives
(examples cited in T.L.Davis' Chemistry of Powder and Explosives), rubber and plastics manufacture, and to manufacture toluene diisocyanate. It is
also used as a stabilizer in double and triple base smokeless propellants instead of diphenylamine which can only be used to stabilize nitrocellulose
resins and powders (single base) and single base propellants. Highly soluble in acetone (as is nitrocellulose), so it is easily blended into pulp for
propellant production or various pyrotechnic formulae. Also soluble in diethyl ether and ethanol. Add this one to your inventory of hard to find
exhotic chemicals. No ATFE required to purchase, no quantity restrictions.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
