Posted on 09/03/2016 7:40:28 AM PDT by Zakeet
” ... the circumstances under which wetted Nitrocellulose is considered a high explosive under CFR 27 Part 555. ...”
The agency demonstrates in the very first sentence that they are technologically uninformed.
Nitrocellulose - wet, dry, or otherwise - cannot be a high explosive because it will not detonate. Period.
It can still be a fire hazard, of sorts: the heat energy in plain old gasoline is many times greater, and any number of household chemicals pose nastier risks. Smokeless powder might cause an already-burning house fire to send flames a foot or two higher, but its stand-alone fire risk is tiny.
Nitrocellulose it might be a “low” explosive - classic gunpowder (termed “black powder” today) is no more than that, but it can still do great damage.
Physics and chemistry and rational safety risk assessments (sometimes known as “reality”) are frequently denied any role in legal definitions and agency regulatory decisions. If it pleases authorities, they merely change definitions to support the rulings they want.
Very similar to the IRS, which has explicitly stated it will not stand behind prior rulings, if their “freedom” of action in future cases might thus be curtailed.
Alert forum members will note that relative hazards are not addressed anywhere in the Industry Newsletter update. No mention is made of any actual mishap involving wetted nitrocellulose. The key point is that many laws and regulations already in place cover the manufacture and storage of high explosives (including the absurd legal doctrine of “strict liability”). The possibilities here could make any regulatory enthusiast’s mouth water.
This item is quite similar to the recent agency ruling, approved by a judge, which declares standard 5.45x39 ammunition to be “armor piercing” because of its bullet construction and is thus banned from import (there is another projectile version that is designed to pierce armor). In so doing, the judge went against the clearly understood wording of the federal statute, but (like many Left/Progressive jurists) insisted he had not done so.
ATF may have backed off, but they may try again. Won’t take any longer than the time required for a secretary to type up a letter.
They are not alone: over the decades, EPA has proposed a rule to ban lead from use as fishing sinkers, on grounds it was an environmental hazard. They’ve attempted it more than once: numbers to support their claims are nonexistent but they keep trying.
The last time I explained that nitrocellulose was an explosive, the whole thread got pulled.
It must be that the masses are not to know this.
be forewarned.
Smokeless Propellants as Vehicle Borne lED Main Charges: An Initial Threat Assessment
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada491715
---The most valuable research available is a comprehensive 1988 Canadian study which examined the results of seven independent tests (Appendix G). The research documents test results compiled from separate studies by six European countries and the United States. The most relevant of these is a Finish study that performed cap sensitivity tests involving both single and double-based propellants. The test was performed by placing one kilogram of propellant into a plastic bag and suspending it one meter above the ground. A detonator was placed in the center of the bag and initiated. The test results indicated 16 of the 32 powders tested detonated when initiated with a number 8 commercial detonator. Overall the Canadian study makes several important conclusions:
• Most propellants will detonate when suitably initiated by an explosive source.
• Propellants have a critical diameter and an ideal diameter as in the case of all explosives materials.
• The larger the quantity of smokeless propellants the greater the possibility for a high TNT equivalence."
The study consists of a series of tests shots using near identical charges and initiators. The test charge consists of a thin walled plastic bag filled with the sample propellant (Appendix H). Alliant Powder Bullseye brand double- base smokeless powder is the propellant test charge (Appendix I). The completed charge is placed atop a steel witness plate affixed with instrumentation to measure the velocity of detonation (Appendix J). An ICI aluminum shelled #8 electrical detonator is used to initiate each test shot. A photograph of a test charge prior to firing is shown in Appendix K. The test shots were fired sequentially and data was collected and documented. The O.R.A test report describes the data collection method and summarizes the tests results (Appendix L).
The test results document the occurrence of detonation in each of the four test shots. The highest velocity of detonation (VOD) was recorded at 25,641 fps and the lowest at 19,048 fps. The average VOD of all tests was measured at 21,282 fps. This is especially significant when compared to the known VOD of common high explosives and their TNT equivalency---
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.