Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks fired this volley in news5idnXV1-
:

Darwin? In retrospect, why didn't he mix it with water and use it as
fertilizer. I'm not a smart guy but even I know better...EVERYBODY
knows better! Was he not aware of how to handle powder?


Black powder doesn't go "skunky", nitrocellulose-based propellants do.

BP contains potassium nitrate and sulfur; both good soil amendments. NC
powders make lousy fertilizer, releasing most of their decomposition
products as nitrous oxides and concentrated acids.

LLoyd

On 4/20/2013 8:09 PM, ATP wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:18:41 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Ed wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:37 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 12:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

I know nothing about the art. I do know that I'm not bothered by
people having to live with some restrictions on pyrotechnical
experiments.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in
fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

That's nice.


They pursue the ART of fireworking, preserving hundreds-of-years-old
traditional methods of Europe, the US, and the Mediterranean, and at
the
same time advancing the science, the art, and the technique of
fireworks
as you see them in the sky.

Great. Just as long as they don't mix their brews next door to me.


Fireworks is a small industry compared to many, but it's important,
and
entertains millions safely, economically, and beautifully.

'Amateur' does not mean 'unskilled', nor does it mean unlicensed in
many
cases. A large number of amateurs hold ATF licenses to do their
work.
But at the same time, ATF has OFFICIALLY recognized (and promulgated
regulations) that their record is so good, and also their intentions,
that it is legal under federal law to manufacture fireworks for one's
own
use. They cannot be _transported_ over the public roads by anyone
but
a
licensee, but they can be made without a permit or license. (local
ordinances may mitigate that permission).

You should not express negative opinions about people of whom you
know
nothing. (I do it too, then always regret it)

Look, Lloyd, I'm not expressing negative opinions about amateur pyros.
I am expressing a combination of some experience with what propellants
and explosives can do, and about the uneven distribution of good sense
and responsibility among any large population.

When you talk in generalized abstractions, like the "freedoms" of
amateur pyrotechnicians, it's just not a field -- given the two points
in my last paragraph -- in which I'd get upset about some
restrictions.

On Jan. 1st of this year, San Francisco police reported 188 fireworks
injuries. Some of the stories were about "amateur pyrotechnicians."

What do you do when one of these guys blows the ears off of his
neighbors? Do you disown him? Take away his Amateur Pyrotechnician
club card? Claim he was never an amateur pyrotechnician in the place,
but only a poseur?

It's clearly a field that demands some intelligence, good judgment, a
strong sense of safety for oneself and others. Those are
characteristics that tend to be, as I said, unevenly distributed.

I don't disparage the activity or the practitioners. I'll just watch
from a long distance away, and hope they don't get all loose and
goosey about their "freedoms" at others' expense.

Ok?



Sounds vaguely familiar, Ed...

It should. It's the way most people think about topics that involve
demonstrably dangerous activities and that depend upon good judgment
on the part of people they don't know.

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress

Every time I snowboard I depend on the good judgement of other riders and
skiers on the mountain. They are not tested, certified or licensed.

Everyone has his own personal risk/reward ratio.g

One assumes that your likelihood of getting your ankles sheared off is
quite low. I skiid for years, and I never came close to a collision I
couldn't avoid.

I've been hit square on by a skier while I was on a heelside traverse, no
lasting injuries.

But my chances of outrunning an explosion are pretty remote. And there
is no reward for me. So the risks I'll tolerate are rather lower than
in situations where I'm getting something out of it that I like.

Once again, it's a matter of good sense.

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough explosive
to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories should not be in
residential areas.



Fireworks factories? Pfft.

How about fertilizer factories???

On 4/20/2013 8:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:30:23 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

fired this volley in
:

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough
explosive to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories
should not be in residential areas.

And for what it's worth, the ATF law covers all that. It requires even
unlicensed practicioners to obey all the regulations concerning,
quantities, distances to dwellings and roads, magazine storage, etc.

Out of ignorance, Ed assumes that amateur pyros and people who just like
to make boomers are one in the same.

Amateurs are organized: There are numerous state guilds, and an
international guild. It costs time and money to participate, and the
training regimens are rigorous.

And yes, amateur pyrotechnicians have accidents (so do pros). In the
case of amateurs' accidents, only in a tiny handful of cases have other
'innocents' been involved even as slightly as minor property damage.

LLoyd

Ok, then, just what "freedoms" were you talking about, when you said
"an amateur pyrotechnician - would have a lot of their freedoms
restricted. That's what they want."?


He's right too.

The freedom he's talking about is the freedom to engage in

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

On 4/20/2013 8:56 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:46:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

Nope, and he and his Obamunists don't care to.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

Precisely. But try to get that through progressives' skulls. Ditto
gun owners are not terrorists or snipers...unless pushed too far.g

And what, exactly, do you know about "amateur pyrotechnicians" being
"the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade," Larry? I don't recall you ever expressing an
involvement with the subject before, least of all the origins of "new
techniques in the professional trade."

Do you really know what you're talking about, or, if you'll forgive
the pun, are you just blowing smoke? d8-)



As an AMATEUR, I developed a professional fireworks sequencer that
plugged into a laptop printer port. That was mid 80s.
They are common now.

Just for the love of it.

amo:I love
amas: You love
amat: He, She, or It loves
amamus: We love
amatis: You (plural) love
amant: They love

On 4/20/2013 9:13 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:09:48 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 8:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:30:23 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

fired this volley in
:

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough
explosive to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories
should not be in residential areas.

And for what it's worth, the ATF law covers all that. It requires even
unlicensed practicioners to obey all the regulations concerning,
quantities, distances to dwellings and roads, magazine storage, etc.

Out of ignorance, Ed assumes that amateur pyros and people who just like
to make boomers are one in the same.

Amateurs are organized: There are numerous state guilds, and an
international guild. It costs time and money to participate, and the
training regimens are rigorous.

And yes, amateur pyrotechnicians have accidents (so do pros). In the
case of amateurs' accidents, only in a tiny handful of cases have other
'innocents' been involved even as slightly as minor property damage.

LLoyd

Ok, then, just what "freedoms" were you talking about, when you said
"an amateur pyrotechnician - would have a lot of their freedoms
restricted. That's what they want."?


He's right too.

The freedom he's talking about is the freedom to engage in

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The question is what kind of "happiness" he's talking about. I'll keep
an open mind, but I'm wary until I hear the specifics.


I'll let Lloyd speak for himself.

As for me...
I like to fly airplanes.
I have built several.
VW powered single seat baby buggies, but real flying machines.

I have flown thousands of hours in military aircraft.
I have nursed several hundred Naval Aviators through the simulators.

But I can't fly anymore by myself. Legally anyway.
I've NEVER been to court about that.
NEVER been adjudicated a danger to myself or others.
But the Federal Aviation Agency thinks I might could be a risk.
And I can't afford to take THEM to court to get my medical reinstated.

So my pursuit of happiness has been seriously curtailed.

It's not right.
It's not fair.

But there it is.

On 4/20/2013 9:42 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Were you an amateur pyrotechnician, or a computer technician who
created something for pyrotechnicians?

There's no presumption there. It's a serious question. It's not a
field that I know anything about, but "amateur pyrotechnician"
implies, to me, someone who's working with the explosives and
propellants themselves. Is that a fair distinction?


I would say, yes, it is.

Actually, my boss at the time was a licensed pyromaniac.
I was the amateur.

But I did the circuit design, tested the squibs and how to fire them,
built the wire-wrap prototype, case, cables, wrote the code, and
tested the silly thing.

That's not just technician work, Ed. That's basic engineering.
But I never took the PE exam either.
So I'm an amateur engineer as well.

It's fun making and setting up the stuff for a show.
If three days of hard sweaty work setting up a 10 minute show can be
called fun. Sawing off the mortar tubes (4" and 6" PVC pipe) and
mounting them, running miles of wire all over the place. Wondering
which way the wind will be blowing at show time....
Then the software side - designing the sequence itself.

Yeah, it's fun.

It's probably the same thing I get from reloading my own ammunition.
I didn't expect it, so the results were kind of surprising.

It's fun to do the reloading work.
But when you pull the trigger and the bullet goes home - that was an
amazing feeling.

I actually CAN make better performing ammunition than I can buy.
Who'd a thunk?

And you know what else?
Lloyd is exactly right...

"He who hath once smelt the smoke shall ne'er again be free!"

Come on, Ed.
Didn't you ever play with fireworks when you were a kid?

On 4/20/2013 9:50 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

FWIW, I don't care if you're a danger to yourself. You're an adult;
you work out your own risk-reward ratios.

I do get involved when someone pursues a hobby or a craft that creates
a danger for others who have not chosen to take risks for your sake.
I'll have more to say about this in my post to Lloyd. I'm glad he
started this discussion, because it's helped me to clear up something
that's at the root of a lot of the related issues we talk about here.

About losing your pilot's license: I'm sorry for you, and I'm
sympathetic. In three month's time in 1973 I lost my pilot's license,
my SCCA driver's license, and a berth on a sailboat for the Southern
Ocean Racing Conference. We can talk about it some time. I was
devastated by it; it turned my life upside down.

So I understand your frustration with that.


I appreciate that, Ed. BUT...

I didn't lose my pilot's license.
IT is still valid.

They just won't renew my medical.

I was finishing up a Wittman Tailwind, which is WAY too fast for
the new Sport Pilot (drivers license medical) and had applied for
a new medical, I fell into never-never land.

If one has been denied a medical, one can not legally fly under the
sport pilot rules.

Catch-22

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:59:04 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

" fired this volley in news:dea88c27-
:

So does anyone know what was used

Dan,
One of my infrequent jobs is to do for-pay forensic studies of fireworks
accident scenes, in order to find the cause(s). Part of that involves
doing chemical analyses on the various combustion residues in the area.

In this case, I cannot analyze them chemically, but can still evaluate
the flame-front velocity, the fireball size, the smoke output, and the
smoke color for ideas of what the substance was.

The burn rate and fireball size were consistent with a potassium nitrate
or potassium perchlorate-based composition that was fairly fast-burning
under the degree of containment afforded by the pressure cookers. Keep
in mind, they won't hold much more than about 60-80psi before the break
their little lock tabs, so the pressures wouldn't be as high as they
would be in a 'real' bomb casing.

Black powder is fairly scarce these days for casual purchases. It's
expensive, too. But it can pretty easily be homemade, and can be made to
a quality as good as Goex's shutzen powders.

The BP substitute, Pyrodex, _claims_ to be low-smoke, but in fact makes
as much white smoke as black powder does. Pyrodex is potassium
perchlorate-based, and burns roughly at the same speed as black powder,
with about the same explosive force, volume-for-volume (NOT weight-for-
weight.) Pyrodex is MUCH less dense than BP, which is 1.7g/cc solid
density, and about 1.0g/cc mass density in granulated form.

So... a 6-quart pressure cooker would hold as much as 12 pounds of Black
powder. That would make quite a 'whack', suitably contained.

You'll also note that the containment failed before the lid fragmented.
See the distorted lid pictures. The shrapnel injuries must've been the
result of shards of the pot base, or the nail-shot additions to the load.

There are a couple of other mixtures, pyrotechnic in nature, that would
give the same basic profile of fireball, smoke, and propulsive force.

One thing for sure... it was NOT "flash powder" (the stuff that kids so
often try to collect from firecrackers to make bigger ones). Flash
powder is so fast-burning under containment as to be categorized for
storage and transportation as a high explosive (although it's not
really). It also makes a small and compact, bright-white fireball.

LLoyd

Lloyd, don't you think they know by now exactly what powder(s) was
used? BP leaves so much residue that no one who's used it could miss
it. And the others must leave enough chemical residue to clearly
identify them, right?

I assume so, although chemistry is something about which I know next
to nothing. My guess is that we'll hear pretty soon what they came up
with in the lab -- if it hasn't come out already, and I just missed
it.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

Lloyd, don't you think they know by now exactly what powder(s) was
used? BP leaves so much residue that no one who's used it could miss
it. And the others must leave enough chemical residue to clearly
identify them, right?

I assume so, although chemistry is something about which I know next
to nothing. My guess is that we'll hear pretty soon what they came up
with in the lab -- if it hasn't come out already, and I just missed
it.


Oh, I'm certain that they are absolutely sure of what was used -- they
just haven't published it -- for two reasons.

1) they want to preserve evidence information for a prosecution. Giving
away the info to the public might somehow contaminate any testimony that
comes from the perp.
2) they want to further restrict our access to explosive substances, in
general. I'm licensed with ATF, and wouldn't have any issues, other than
perhaps some more minor paperwork. But the average person - say a BP
shooter, or an amateur pyrotechnician - would have a lot of their
freedoms restricted. That's what they want.

Lloyd

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:49:32 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

Lloyd, don't you think they know by now exactly what powder(s) was
used? BP leaves so much residue that no one who's used it could miss
it. And the others must leave enough chemical residue to clearly
identify them, right?

I assume so, although chemistry is something about which I know next
to nothing. My guess is that we'll hear pretty soon what they came up
with in the lab -- if it hasn't come out already, and I just missed
it.


Oh, I'm certain that they are absolutely sure of what was used -- they
just haven't published it -- for two reasons.

1) they want to preserve evidence information for a prosecution. Giving
away the info to the public might somehow contaminate any testimony that
comes from the perp.
2) they want to further restrict our access to explosive substances, in
general. I'm licensed with ATF, and wouldn't have any issues, other than
perhaps some more minor paperwork. But the average person - say a BP
shooter, or an amateur pyrotechnician - would have a lot of their
freedoms restricted. That's what they want.

Lloyd

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

As for BP shooters, if they're getting their information from terror
bombers, and they're mixing up powders from their examples, I'd like
to know who they are so I can stand at the other end of the firing
line. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.


It always will, Ed.

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

They pursue the ART of fireworking, preserving hundreds-of-years-old
traditional methods of Europe, the US, and the Mediterranean, and at the
same time advancing the science, the art, and the technique of fireworks
as you see them in the sky.

Fireworks is a small industry compared to many, but it's important, and
entertains millions safely, economically, and beautifully.

'Amateur' does not mean 'unskilled', nor does it mean unlicensed in many
cases. A large number of amateurs hold ATF licenses to do their work.
But at the same time, ATF has OFFICIALLY recognized (and promulgated
regulations) that their record is so good, and also their intentions,
that it is legal under federal law to manufacture fireworks for one's own
use. They cannot be _transported_ over the public roads by anyone but a
licensee, but they can be made without a permit or license. (local
ordinances may mitigate that permission).

You should not express negative opinions about people of whom you know
nothing. (I do it too, then always regret it)

LLoyd

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

I know nothing about the art. I do know that I'm not bothered by
people having to live with some restrictions on pyrotechnical
experiments.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

That's nice.


They pursue the ART of fireworking, preserving hundreds-of-years-old
traditional methods of Europe, the US, and the Mediterranean, and at the
same time advancing the science, the art, and the technique of fireworks
as you see them in the sky.

Great. Just as long as they don't mix their brews next door to me.


Fireworks is a small industry compared to many, but it's important, and
entertains millions safely, economically, and beautifully.

'Amateur' does not mean 'unskilled', nor does it mean unlicensed in many
cases. A large number of amateurs hold ATF licenses to do their work.
But at the same time, ATF has OFFICIALLY recognized (and promulgated
regulations) that their record is so good, and also their intentions,
that it is legal under federal law to manufacture fireworks for one's own
use. They cannot be _transported_ over the public roads by anyone but a
licensee, but they can be made without a permit or license. (local
ordinances may mitigate that permission).

You should not express negative opinions about people of whom you know
nothing. (I do it too, then always regret it)

Look, Lloyd, I'm not expressing negative opinions about amateur pyros.
I am expressing a combination of some experience with what propellants
and explosives can do, and about the uneven distribution of good sense
and responsibility among any large population.

When you talk in generalized abstractions, like the "freedoms" of
amateur pyrotechnicians, it's just not a field -- given the two points
in my last paragraph -- in which I'd get upset about some
restrictions.

On Jan. 1st of this year, San Francisco police reported 188 fireworks
injuries. Some of the stories were about "amateur pyrotechnicians."

What do you do when one of these guys blows the ears off of his
neighbors? Do you disown him? Take away his Amateur Pyrotechnician
club card? Claim he was never an amateur pyrotechnician in the place,
but only a poseur?

It's clearly a field that demands some intelligence, good judgment, a
strong sense of safety for oneself and others. Those are
characteristics that tend to be, as I said, unevenly distributed.

I don't disparage the activity or the practitioners. I'll just watch
from a long distance away, and hope they don't get all loose and
goosey about their "freedoms" at others' expense.

Ok?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

I don't disparage the activity or the practitioners. I'll just watch
from a long distance away, and hope they don't get all loose and
goosey about their "freedoms" at others' expense.

Ok?


Ok... but infringe on one group's freedoms, when the legitimate
practioners are the ones infringed upon, and you encroach on everyone's
freedoms.

"Hey! That guy makes DANGEROUS METAL CHIPS, and I want that activity
outlawed unless he has a federal license to make those chips! ONE
careless metalworker threw some chips in the garbage, and a trash
collector got cut, and died from gangrene because he was 'socially
deprived', and didn't know he should keep the cut clean.

And _then_ I want it so heavily taxed that nobody can afford to do it,
even with a license. That'll teach 'em. We need to BEAT THE
METALWORKING CULTURE."
(sound familiar... that's _almost_ a quote)

That's how the libocrats think. They figure we can get all that 'dirty
work' done in China.


LLoyd

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:37 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 12:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

I know nothing about the art. I do know that I'm not bothered by
people having to live with some restrictions on pyrotechnical
experiments.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

That's nice.


They pursue the ART of fireworking, preserving hundreds-of-years-old
traditional methods of Europe, the US, and the Mediterranean, and at the
same time advancing the science, the art, and the technique of fireworks
as you see them in the sky.

Great. Just as long as they don't mix their brews next door to me.


Fireworks is a small industry compared to many, but it's important, and
entertains millions safely, economically, and beautifully.

'Amateur' does not mean 'unskilled', nor does it mean unlicensed in many
cases. A large number of amateurs hold ATF licenses to do their work.
But at the same time, ATF has OFFICIALLY recognized (and promulgated
regulations) that their record is so good, and also their intentions,
that it is legal under federal law to manufacture fireworks for one's own
use. They cannot be _transported_ over the public roads by anyone but a
licensee, but they can be made without a permit or license. (local
ordinances may mitigate that permission).

You should not express negative opinions about people of whom you know
nothing. (I do it too, then always regret it)

Look, Lloyd, I'm not expressing negative opinions about amateur pyros.
I am expressing a combination of some experience with what propellants
and explosives can do, and about the uneven distribution of good sense
and responsibility among any large population.

When you talk in generalized abstractions, like the "freedoms" of
amateur pyrotechnicians, it's just not a field -- given the two points
in my last paragraph -- in which I'd get upset about some
restrictions.

On Jan. 1st of this year, San Francisco police reported 188 fireworks
injuries. Some of the stories were about "amateur pyrotechnicians."

What do you do when one of these guys blows the ears off of his
neighbors? Do you disown him? Take away his Amateur Pyrotechnician
club card? Claim he was never an amateur pyrotechnician in the place,
but only a poseur?

It's clearly a field that demands some intelligence, good judgment, a
strong sense of safety for oneself and others. Those are
characteristics that tend to be, as I said, unevenly distributed.

I don't disparage the activity or the practitioners. I'll just watch
from a long distance away, and hope they don't get all loose and
goosey about their "freedoms" at others' expense.

Ok?



Sounds vaguely familiar, Ed...

It should. It's the way most people think about topics that involve
demonstrably dangerous activities and that depend upon good judgment
on the part of people they don't know.

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:54:54 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 1:32 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:37 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 12:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

I know nothing about the art. I do know that I'm not bothered by
people having to live with some restrictions on pyrotechnical
experiments.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

That's nice.


They pursue the ART of fireworking, preserving hundreds-of-years-old
traditional methods of Europe, the US, and the Mediterranean, and at the
same time advancing the science, the art, and the technique of fireworks
as you see them in the sky.

Great. Just as long as they don't mix their brews next door to me.


Fireworks is a small industry compared to many, but it's important, and
entertains millions safely, economically, and beautifully.

'Amateur' does not mean 'unskilled', nor does it mean unlicensed in many
cases. A large number of amateurs hold ATF licenses to do their work.
But at the same time, ATF has OFFICIALLY recognized (and promulgated
regulations) that their record is so good, and also their intentions,
that it is legal under federal law to manufacture fireworks for one's own
use. They cannot be _transported_ over the public roads by anyone but a
licensee, but they can be made without a permit or license. (local
ordinances may mitigate that permission).

You should not express negative opinions about people of whom you know
nothing. (I do it too, then always regret it)

Look, Lloyd, I'm not expressing negative opinions about amateur pyros.
I am expressing a combination of some experience with what propellants
and explosives can do, and about the uneven distribution of good sense
and responsibility among any large population.

When you talk in generalized abstractions, like the "freedoms" of
amateur pyrotechnicians, it's just not a field -- given the two points
in my last paragraph -- in which I'd get upset about some
restrictions.

On Jan. 1st of this year, San Francisco police reported 188 fireworks
injuries. Some of the stories were about "amateur pyrotechnicians."

What do you do when one of these guys blows the ears off of his
neighbors? Do you disown him? Take away his Amateur Pyrotechnician
club card? Claim he was never an amateur pyrotechnician in the place,
but only a poseur?

It's clearly a field that demands some intelligence, good judgment, a
strong sense of safety for oneself and others. Those are
characteristics that tend to be, as I said, unevenly distributed.

I don't disparage the activity or the practitioners. I'll just watch
from a long distance away, and hope they don't get all loose and
goosey about their "freedoms" at others' expense.

Ok?



Sounds vaguely familiar, Ed...

It should. It's the way most people think about topics that involve
demonstrably dangerous activities and that depend upon good judgment
on the part of people they don't know.

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.



Doctors, airline pilots, machinist, high school teachers?
Miners, race car drivers, astronauts, etcetera...

Here's the differences: Airline pilots have to go through rigorous
training and licensing, and they're subject to frequent reviews. I
don't consider machinists of high school teachers to be very
dangerous.

I stay above ground and don't have to worry about miners. Race car
drivers have to go through race-drivers' school and they're
black-flagged or kept off the track if there's any suggestion that
they're untrustworthy. Astronauts are like miners -- I've never been
near one.


And I love the way you got that "most people" in there.

Ask around.


A majority opinion again?

I'd bet my house on it. The average person on the street has more
common sense than most people who post here.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:37 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 12:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

I know nothing about the art. I do know that I'm not bothered by
people having to live with some restrictions on pyrotechnical
experiments.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in
fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

That's nice.


They pursue the ART of fireworking, preserving hundreds-of-years-old
traditional methods of Europe, the US, and the Mediterranean, and at
the
same time advancing the science, the art, and the technique of
fireworks
as you see them in the sky.

Great. Just as long as they don't mix their brews next door to me.


Fireworks is a small industry compared to many, but it's important, and
entertains millions safely, economically, and beautifully.

'Amateur' does not mean 'unskilled', nor does it mean unlicensed in
many
cases. A large number of amateurs hold ATF licenses to do their work.
But at the same time, ATF has OFFICIALLY recognized (and promulgated
regulations) that their record is so good, and also their intentions,
that it is legal under federal law to manufacture fireworks for one's
own
use. They cannot be _transported_ over the public roads by anyone but
a
licensee, but they can be made without a permit or license. (local
ordinances may mitigate that permission).

You should not express negative opinions about people of whom you know
nothing. (I do it too, then always regret it)

Look, Lloyd, I'm not expressing negative opinions about amateur pyros.
I am expressing a combination of some experience with what propellants
and explosives can do, and about the uneven distribution of good sense
and responsibility among any large population.

When you talk in generalized abstractions, like the "freedoms" of
amateur pyrotechnicians, it's just not a field -- given the two points
in my last paragraph -- in which I'd get upset about some
restrictions.

On Jan. 1st of this year, San Francisco police reported 188 fireworks
injuries. Some of the stories were about "amateur pyrotechnicians."

What do you do when one of these guys blows the ears off of his
neighbors? Do you disown him? Take away his Amateur Pyrotechnician
club card? Claim he was never an amateur pyrotechnician in the place,
but only a poseur?

It's clearly a field that demands some intelligence, good judgment, a
strong sense of safety for oneself and others. Those are
characteristics that tend to be, as I said, unevenly distributed.

I don't disparage the activity or the practitioners. I'll just watch
from a long distance away, and hope they don't get all loose and
goosey about their "freedoms" at others' expense.

Ok?



Sounds vaguely familiar, Ed...

It should. It's the way most people think about topics that involve
demonstrably dangerous activities and that depend upon good judgment
on the part of people they don't know.

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress

Every time I snowboard I depend on the good judgement of other riders and
skiers on the mountain. They are not tested, certified or licensed.

On 20/04/13 21:18, ATP wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:37 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 12:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.
If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.
I know nothing about the art. I do know that I'm not bothered by
people having to live with some restrictions on pyrotechnical
experiments.

"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in
fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.
That's nice.

They pursue the ART of fireworking, preserving hundreds-of-years-old
traditional methods of Europe, the US, and the Mediterranean, and at
the
same time advancing the science, the art, and the technique of
fireworks
as you see them in the sky.
Great. Just as long as they don't mix their brews next door to me.

Fireworks is a small industry compared to many, but it's important, and
entertains millions safely, economically, and beautifully.

'Amateur' does not mean 'unskilled', nor does it mean unlicensed in
many
cases. A large number of amateurs hold ATF licenses to do their work.
But at the same time, ATF has OFFICIALLY recognized (and promulgated
regulations) that their record is so good, and also their intentions,
that it is legal under federal law to manufacture fireworks for one's
own
use. They cannot be _transported_ over the public roads by anyone but
a
licensee, but they can be made without a permit or license. (local
ordinances may mitigate that permission).

You should not express negative opinions about people of whom you know
nothing. (I do it too, then always regret it)
Look, Lloyd, I'm not expressing negative opinions about amateur pyros.
I am expressing a combination of some experience with what propellants
and explosives can do, and about the uneven distribution of good sense
and responsibility among any large population.

When you talk in generalized abstractions, like the "freedoms" of
amateur pyrotechnicians, it's just not a field -- given the two points
in my last paragraph -- in which I'd get upset about some
restrictions.

On Jan. 1st of this year, San Francisco police reported 188 fireworks
injuries. Some of the stories were about "amateur pyrotechnicians."

What do you do when one of these guys blows the ears off of his
neighbors? Do you disown him? Take away his Amateur Pyrotechnician
club card? Claim he was never an amateur pyrotechnician in the place,
but only a poseur?

It's clearly a field that demands some intelligence, good judgment, a
strong sense of safety for oneself and others. Those are
characteristics that tend to be, as I said, unevenly distributed.

I don't disparage the activity or the practitioners. I'll just watch
from a long distance away, and hope they don't get all loose and
goosey about their "freedoms" at others' expense.

Ok?


Sounds vaguely familiar, Ed...
It should. It's the way most people think about topics that involve
demonstrably dangerous activities and that depend upon good judgment
on the part of people they don't know.

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress
Every time I snowboard I depend on the good judgement of other riders and
skiers on the mountain. They are not tested, certified or licensed.


Possibly also equipment suppliers etc as a good mates daughter suffered
multiple fractures to a leg when rented ski equipment failed due to
improper maintenenance/inspection. IIRC she was due to get the metal
pins and plates out recently and she's only about 12.

"ATP" fired this volley in
:

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress

Every time I snowboard I depend on the good judgement of other riders
and skiers on the mountain. They are not tested, certified or
licensed.

Yep. What Ed completely misses is, that in a 'healthy' society, we
presume folks will use good judgement, and we penalize only those who do
not. It becomes an incentive to consider ones actions. People in such a
society learn that freedom of choice equates to responsibility for their
actions.

In Ed's perfect world, we would penalize the entire society by taking
away all the good things 'normal' people deserve in order for the
government to better "protect us all" from the dull-witted scumbags that
our Islamic Ayatollah-in-chief wants to elevate to "favored son" status.

And Ed, that's exactly where we are headed. The government is
progressively taking over every aspect of our lives, to eventually leave
us all as subservient to it's "loving care". The last thing they want is
for citizens to have means - any means - of protecting themselves against
the government.

'Sounds like George Orwell's Ingsoc to me!

LLoyd

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:18:41 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:37 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 12:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

I know nothing about the art. I do know that I'm not bothered by
people having to live with some restrictions on pyrotechnical
experiments.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in
fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

That's nice.


They pursue the ART of fireworking, preserving hundreds-of-years-old
traditional methods of Europe, the US, and the Mediterranean, and at
the
same time advancing the science, the art, and the technique of
fireworks
as you see them in the sky.

Great. Just as long as they don't mix their brews next door to me.


Fireworks is a small industry compared to many, but it's important, and
entertains millions safely, economically, and beautifully.

'Amateur' does not mean 'unskilled', nor does it mean unlicensed in
many
cases. A large number of amateurs hold ATF licenses to do their work.
But at the same time, ATF has OFFICIALLY recognized (and promulgated
regulations) that their record is so good, and also their intentions,
that it is legal under federal law to manufacture fireworks for one's
own
use. They cannot be _transported_ over the public roads by anyone but
a
licensee, but they can be made without a permit or license. (local
ordinances may mitigate that permission).

You should not express negative opinions about people of whom you know
nothing. (I do it too, then always regret it)

Look, Lloyd, I'm not expressing negative opinions about amateur pyros.
I am expressing a combination of some experience with what propellants
and explosives can do, and about the uneven distribution of good sense
and responsibility among any large population.

When you talk in generalized abstractions, like the "freedoms" of
amateur pyrotechnicians, it's just not a field -- given the two points
in my last paragraph -- in which I'd get upset about some
restrictions.

On Jan. 1st of this year, San Francisco police reported 188 fireworks
injuries. Some of the stories were about "amateur pyrotechnicians."

What do you do when one of these guys blows the ears off of his
neighbors? Do you disown him? Take away his Amateur Pyrotechnician
club card? Claim he was never an amateur pyrotechnician in the place,
but only a poseur?

It's clearly a field that demands some intelligence, good judgment, a
strong sense of safety for oneself and others. Those are
characteristics that tend to be, as I said, unevenly distributed.

I don't disparage the activity or the practitioners. I'll just watch
from a long distance away, and hope they don't get all loose and
goosey about their "freedoms" at others' expense.

Ok?



Sounds vaguely familiar, Ed...

It should. It's the way most people think about topics that involve
demonstrably dangerous activities and that depend upon good judgment
on the part of people they don't know.

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress

Every time I snowboard I depend on the good judgement of other riders and
skiers on the mountain. They are not tested, certified or licensed.

Everyone has his own personal risk/reward ratio. g

One assumes that your likelihood of getting your ankles sheared off is
quite low. I skiid for years, and I never came close to a collision I
couldn't avoid.

But my chances of outrunning an explosion are pretty remote. And there
is no reward for me. So the risks I'll tolerate are rather lower than
in situations where I'm getting something out of it that I like.

Once again, it's a matter of good sense.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

It should. It's the way most people think about topics that involve
demonstrably dangerous activities and that depend upon good judgment
on the part of people they don't know.

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.
--
Ed Huntress

That is easy to preach when you can ride around in public
transportation. Out here we expect more from people.
jsw

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:56:28 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

"ATP" fired this volley in
:

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress

Every time I snowboard I depend on the good judgement of other riders
and skiers on the mountain. They are not tested, certified or
licensed.

Yep. What Ed completely misses is, that in a 'healthy' society, we
presume folks will use good judgement

That's not a healthy society, Lloyd. That's a confederacy of suckers.

...,and we penalize only those who do
not.

After people are dead?

It becomes an incentive to consider ones actions. People in such a
society learn that freedom of choice equates to responsibility for their
actions.

Right. So let's allow drinking and driving. There are some people who
can get away with it -- for a while. And killing someone with your car
gives you a great incentive to learn about rhe responsibility that
comes with freedom of choice, eh?

That's why we have regulations -- because there are a lot of assholes
out there. If they get burned or blow their own nose off, that's a
good lesson. If they kill or injure someone else, that's a really bad
lesson.

It's a matter of safety and sense, Lloyd. Lots of people have no sense
of the first and none of the latter.

That's what YOU "miss." You're throwing all of these "incentives" into
the same pot, and don't distinguish between learning something the
hard way at your own expense, and learning the hard way at someone
else's expense.


In Ed's perfect world, we would penalize the entire society by taking
away all the good things 'normal' people deserve in order for the
government to better "protect us all" from the dull-witted scumbags that
our Islamic Ayatollah-in-chief wants to elevate to "favored son" status.

Horse****, with all due respect. I've seen the result that dull-witted
scumbags can produce. I know a family that was destroyed by a drunk
driver. It could have been some asshole in his garage with a pile of
explosives.

You appear to live in a "perfect world" yourself, Lloyd, where
innocent people don't die because of the dimwits. Based on what you're
writing, it's an imaginary world of abstractions.

You can't make generalizations about these things. You have to think
of the specific consequences of these "freedoms." Of course, most
people will say "we aren't talking about drunk driving." But of course
you are. Unless and until you distinguish between the nonsense idea
that we'd all be better off if people "learned" to consider their
actions from experience, and the saner idea that some experiences are
things we can't let happen by default, there is nothing here except a
lot of hot air.

Your freedom of choice ends at my nose.


And Ed, that's exactly where we are headed. The government is
progressively taking over every aspect of our lives, to eventually leave
us all as subservient to it's "loving care". The last thing they want is
for citizens to have means - any means - of protecting themselves against
the government.

If you're start "protecting yourself against the govenment" with some
means of "protecting yourself against the government," please let me
know first, so I can be out of range. g


'Sounds like George Orwell's Ingsoc to me!

It sounds like solipsistic nonsense to me. There's a real world out
there, beyond the perfect system of self-regulation that you seem to
imagine.

The irony here is that I'm as opposed to foolish regulations as anyone
you know. Then I read the posts here, and find that there is an
equally foolish opposite: the fairy-tale notion that everything would
be just fine if we got the govenment out of everything, and let us all
learn about responsibility on our own.

Fine. But what do you do about the dead and injured?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 04:31:42 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I'd bet my house on it. The average person on the street has more
common sense than most people who post here.


I'd not argue against that!

But as for the "average person", that's what I mentioned the other
day. There ain't no such thing.

People tend to believe that everybody else is just like them, and
they are just like everybody else.

Normal.
Average.
Right.

But everybody can me average. The math just doesn't work that way.

I will, however, allow that there is a strong cultural bias that
many people see as "the norm".

Yeah, that's true. The only way to know what IS the norm is through
good, scientific studies. Having a background in survey methodology,
including a lot of practice, I can read surveys with a degree of
understanding that satisfies me about what the "norms" are. I don't
expect some people to agree, because most people haven't done it.


So it's something of a shock when New Jersians migrate to Texas
and find about about all those "Crazy Texans".

Well, I have a source. My closest friend in college migrated there
from Michigan, and his wife, whom I've known for 45 years, was born
there. I talk to them a lot -- they know what I think is crazy. And I
know their kids. I get special reports. d8-)


You ask around your neighborhood.
I'll ask around mine.

I forget what we're supposed to ask about. I've read too many posts
today.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 04:54:30 -0500, Richard
wrote:

Ed, you area very very bad influence!

I just replied to a 120 line message.

And it's all YOUR FAULT!

Hey, you have to take personal responsibility for your actions. Pay
attention to the incentives. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:24:12 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

It should. It's the way most people think about topics that involve
demonstrably dangerous activities and that depend upon good judgment
on the part of people they don't know.

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.
--
Ed Huntress

That is easy to preach when you can ride around in public
transportation. Out here we expect more from people.
jsw

So get yourself a bus. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:24:38 -0400, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 4/20/2013 8:55 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 05:07:49 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 18, 9:31 pm, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:


(I'm in an explosives-related biz, so ways to ignite things are
reasonably familiar to me)

Lloyd

The media has put on hours of broadcasting about the bombing, but I
have seen nothing that gives any details about the bombs. That may be
intentional, no point in inspiring people to build bombs. But I am
curious what was the explosive. The fact that the bombs were pressure
cooker bombs pretty much says the explosive was not commercial ,
except it could have been black powder.

So does anyone know what was used?


Dan

Know? Nothing.

Based on the cloud of whitish/grey smoke and the low velocity of the
explosion as shown by the videos..black powder or something along that
order. It couldnt have been commercial firearms powder..least...its
not likely to have been. the blast would have been a higher order and
the smoke would not have been nearly white. While the possiblity of
it being a commercial firearms powder does..does exist..something fast
like Bullseye pistol powder would pressure up fast enough to act
similarily...my gut feeling says no..based on the display of the
pressure cooker body shown on TV and the lack of a particulate based
fireball, which would likely have shown up brightly if a nitro based
powder had been ignited. If it had been a nitrobased "gun powder"..the
blast would likely have been brilliant as the unburned powder
particles were ignited in mid air after the pressure cooker had broken
open.

I lost a good friend some 10 or more years ago, who was burning old
skunky powder by pouring it into an open flame, a small portion at a
time..bonfire. When he decided to rush it..he tossed a gallon glass
jar into the flames of the bonfire and the fireball that resulted
seared him into a 3rd degree flambe along with his son, who was within
10' of the firepit. And by all reports..lit up the neighborhood like
a flare..despite it being a sunny day and mid afternoon.

He lived for another year or two..but was never right after that and
soon died.





Darwin? In retrospect, why didn't he mix it with water and use it as
fertilizer. I'm not a smart guy but even I know better...EVERYBODY
knows better! Was he not aware of how to handle powder?

Shrug..brain fart. Guy was my mentor and reloading instructor when I
first got started.

I guess he thought it was "fun and safe" to burn off the old powder.
But...a big cloud of Bullseye was outside of his experience.

RIP Joe Moran.

Gunner

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:59:04 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

" fired this volley in news:dea88c27-
:

So does anyone know what was used

Dan,
One of my infrequent jobs is to do for-pay forensic studies of fireworks
accident scenes, in order to find the cause(s). Part of that involves
doing chemical analyses on the various combustion residues in the area.

In this case, I cannot analyze them chemically, but can still evaluate
the flame-front velocity, the fireball size, the smoke output, and the
smoke color for ideas of what the substance was.

The burn rate and fireball size were consistent with a potassium nitrate
or potassium perchlorate-based composition that was fairly fast-burning
under the degree of containment afforded by the pressure cookers. Keep
in mind, they won't hold much more than about 60-80psi before the break
their little lock tabs, so the pressures wouldn't be as high as they
would be in a 'real' bomb casing.

Black powder is fairly scarce these days for casual purchases. It's
expensive, too. But it can pretty easily be homemade, and can be made to
a quality as good as Goex's shutzen powders.

The BP substitute, Pyrodex, _claims_ to be low-smoke, but in fact makes
as much white smoke as black powder does. Pyrodex is potassium
perchlorate-based, and burns roughly at the same speed as black powder,
with about the same explosive force, volume-for-volume (NOT weight-for-
weight.) Pyrodex is MUCH less dense than BP, which is 1.7g/cc solid
density, and about 1.0g/cc mass density in granulated form.

So... a 6-quart pressure cooker would hold as much as 12 pounds of Black
powder. That would make quite a 'whack', suitably contained.

You'll also note that the containment failed before the lid fragmented.
See the distorted lid pictures. The shrapnel injuries must've been the
result of shards of the pot base, or the nail-shot additions to the load.

There are a couple of other mixtures, pyrotechnic in nature, that would
give the same basic profile of fireball, smoke, and propulsive force.

One thing for sure... it was NOT "flash powder" (the stuff that kids so
often try to collect from firecrackers to make bigger ones). Flash
powder is so fast-burning under containment as to be categorized for
storage and transportation as a high explosive (although it's not
really). It also makes a small and compact, bright-white fireball.

LLoyd

Well reasoned!

Gunner

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:18:41 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:37 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 12:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

I know nothing about the art. I do know that I'm not bothered by
people having to live with some restrictions on pyrotechnical
experiments.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in
fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

That's nice.


They pursue the ART of fireworking, preserving hundreds-of-years-old
traditional methods of Europe, the US, and the Mediterranean, and at
the
same time advancing the science, the art, and the technique of
fireworks
as you see them in the sky.

Great. Just as long as they don't mix their brews next door to me.


Fireworks is a small industry compared to many, but it's important,
and
entertains millions safely, economically, and beautifully.

'Amateur' does not mean 'unskilled', nor does it mean unlicensed in
many
cases. A large number of amateurs hold ATF licenses to do their
work.
But at the same time, ATF has OFFICIALLY recognized (and promulgated
regulations) that their record is so good, and also their intentions,
that it is legal under federal law to manufacture fireworks for one's
own
use. They cannot be _transported_ over the public roads by anyone
but
a
licensee, but they can be made without a permit or license. (local
ordinances may mitigate that permission).

You should not express negative opinions about people of whom you
know
nothing. (I do it too, then always regret it)

Look, Lloyd, I'm not expressing negative opinions about amateur pyros.
I am expressing a combination of some experience with what propellants
and explosives can do, and about the uneven distribution of good sense
and responsibility among any large population.

When you talk in generalized abstractions, like the "freedoms" of
amateur pyrotechnicians, it's just not a field -- given the two points
in my last paragraph -- in which I'd get upset about some
restrictions.

On Jan. 1st of this year, San Francisco police reported 188 fireworks
injuries. Some of the stories were about "amateur pyrotechnicians."

What do you do when one of these guys blows the ears off of his
neighbors? Do you disown him? Take away his Amateur Pyrotechnician
club card? Claim he was never an amateur pyrotechnician in the place,
but only a poseur?

It's clearly a field that demands some intelligence, good judgment, a
strong sense of safety for oneself and others. Those are
characteristics that tend to be, as I said, unevenly distributed.

I don't disparage the activity or the practitioners. I'll just watch
from a long distance away, and hope they don't get all loose and
goosey about their "freedoms" at others' expense.

Ok?



Sounds vaguely familiar, Ed...

It should. It's the way most people think about topics that involve
demonstrably dangerous activities and that depend upon good judgment
on the part of people they don't know.

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress

Every time I snowboard I depend on the good judgement of other riders and
skiers on the mountain. They are not tested, certified or licensed.

Everyone has his own personal risk/reward ratio. g

One assumes that your likelihood of getting your ankles sheared off is
quite low. I skiid for years, and I never came close to a collision I
couldn't avoid.

I've been hit square on by a skier while I was on a heelside traverse, no
lasting injuries.

But my chances of outrunning an explosion are pretty remote. And there
is no reward for me. So the risks I'll tolerate are rather lower than
in situations where I'm getting something out of it that I like.

Once again, it's a matter of good sense.

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough explosive
to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories should not be in
residential areas.

"ATP" fired this volley in
:

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough
explosive to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories
should not be in residential areas.

And for what it's worth, the ATF law covers all that. It requires even
unlicensed practicioners to obey all the regulations concerning,
quantities, distances to dwellings and roads, magazine storage, etc.

Out of ignorance, Ed assumes that amateur pyros and people who just like
to make boomers are one in the same.

Amateurs are organized: There are numerous state guilds, and an
international guild. It costs time and money to participate, and the
training regimens are rigorous.

And yes, amateur pyrotechnicians have accidents (so do pros). In the
case of amateurs' accidents, only in a tiny handful of cases have other
'innocents' been involved even as slightly as minor property damage.

LLoyd

On Apr 20, 6:30*pm, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
"ATP" fired this volley :

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough
explosive to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories
should not be in residential areas.

And for what it's worth, the ATF law covers all that. *It requires even
unlicensed practicioners to obey all the regulations concerning,
quantities, distances to dwellings and roads, magazine storage, etc.

Out of ignorance, Ed assumes that amateur pyros and people who just like
to make boomers are one in the same.

Amateurs are organized: *There are numerous state guilds, and an
international guild. *It costs time and money to participate, and the
training regimens are rigorous.

And yes, amateur pyrotechnicians have accidents (so do pros). *In the
case of amateurs' accidents, only in a tiny handful of cases have other
'innocents' been involved even as slightly as minor property damage.

LLoyd

"Out of ignorance, Ed assumes that amateur pyros and people who just
like
to make boomers are one in the same."

It's self imposed ignorance and it's not just on on this topic.

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:09:17 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:18:41 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:31:37 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 12:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

I know nothing about the art. I do know that I'm not bothered by
people having to live with some restrictions on pyrotechnical
experiments.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in
fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

That's nice.


They pursue the ART of fireworking, preserving hundreds-of-years-old
traditional methods of Europe, the US, and the Mediterranean, and at
the
same time advancing the science, the art, and the technique of
fireworks
as you see them in the sky.

Great. Just as long as they don't mix their brews next door to me.


Fireworks is a small industry compared to many, but it's important,
and
entertains millions safely, economically, and beautifully.

'Amateur' does not mean 'unskilled', nor does it mean unlicensed in
many
cases. A large number of amateurs hold ATF licenses to do their
work.
But at the same time, ATF has OFFICIALLY recognized (and promulgated
regulations) that their record is so good, and also their intentions,
that it is legal under federal law to manufacture fireworks for one's
own
use. They cannot be _transported_ over the public roads by anyone
but
a
licensee, but they can be made without a permit or license. (local
ordinances may mitigate that permission).

You should not express negative opinions about people of whom you
know
nothing. (I do it too, then always regret it)

Look, Lloyd, I'm not expressing negative opinions about amateur pyros.
I am expressing a combination of some experience with what propellants
and explosives can do, and about the uneven distribution of good sense
and responsibility among any large population.

When you talk in generalized abstractions, like the "freedoms" of
amateur pyrotechnicians, it's just not a field -- given the two points
in my last paragraph -- in which I'd get upset about some
restrictions.

On Jan. 1st of this year, San Francisco police reported 188 fireworks
injuries. Some of the stories were about "amateur pyrotechnicians."

What do you do when one of these guys blows the ears off of his
neighbors? Do you disown him? Take away his Amateur Pyrotechnician
club card? Claim he was never an amateur pyrotechnician in the place,
but only a poseur?

It's clearly a field that demands some intelligence, good judgment, a
strong sense of safety for oneself and others. Those are
characteristics that tend to be, as I said, unevenly distributed.

I don't disparage the activity or the practitioners. I'll just watch
from a long distance away, and hope they don't get all loose and
goosey about their "freedoms" at others' expense.

Ok?



Sounds vaguely familiar, Ed...

It should. It's the way most people think about topics that involve
demonstrably dangerous activities and that depend upon good judgment
on the part of people they don't know.

If they have any sense, they know that depending on someone else's
good judgment is not a wise thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress

Every time I snowboard I depend on the good judgement of other riders and
skiers on the mountain. They are not tested, certified or licensed.

Everyone has his own personal risk/reward ratio. g

One assumes that your likelihood of getting your ankles sheared off is
quite low. I skiid for years, and I never came close to a collision I
couldn't avoid.

I've been hit square on by a skier while I was on a heelside traverse, no
lasting injuries.

But my chances of outrunning an explosion are pretty remote. And there
is no reward for me. So the risks I'll tolerate are rather lower than
in situations where I'm getting something out of it that I like.

Once again, it's a matter of good sense.

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough explosive
to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories should not be in
residential areas.

A problem is that this discussion is based on Lloyd's non-specific
objection to certain intrusions on "freedom." He had something in mind
when he said it; I reacted with the idea I had in my own mind about
what it meant.

There's a good chance that we were talking about entirely different
things. I should have asked about the specific intrusions he was
talking about.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:30:23 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

"ATP" fired this volley in
:

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough
explosive to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories
should not be in residential areas.

And for what it's worth, the ATF law covers all that. It requires even
unlicensed practicioners to obey all the regulations concerning,
quantities, distances to dwellings and roads, magazine storage, etc.

Out of ignorance, Ed assumes that amateur pyros and people who just like
to make boomers are one in the same.

Amateurs are organized: There are numerous state guilds, and an
international guild. It costs time and money to participate, and the
training regimens are rigorous.

And yes, amateur pyrotechnicians have accidents (so do pros). In the
case of amateurs' accidents, only in a tiny handful of cases have other
'innocents' been involved even as slightly as minor property damage.

LLoyd

Ok, then, just what "freedoms" were you talking about, when you said
"an amateur pyrotechnician - would have a lot of their freedoms
restricted. That's what they want."?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

Nope, and he and his Obamunists don't care to.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

Precisely. But try to get that through progressives' skulls. Ditto
gun owners are not terrorists or snipers...unless pushed too far. g


--
Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplacable spark.

In the hopeless swamps of the not quite, the not yet, and
the not at all, do not let the hero in your soul perish
and leave only frustration for the life you deserved, but
never have been able to reach.

The world you desire can be won, it exists, it is real,
it is possible, it is yours.
-- Ayn Rand

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:46:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
m:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

Nope, and he and his Obamunists don't care to.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

Precisely. But try to get that through progressives' skulls. Ditto
gun owners are not terrorists or snipers...unless pushed too far. g

And what, exactly, do you know about "amateur pyrotechnicians" being
"the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade," Larry? I don't recall you ever expressing an
involvement with the subject before, least of all the origins of "new
techniques in the professional trade."

Do you really know what you're talking about, or, if you'll forgive
the pun, are you just blowing smoke? d8-)

--
Ws Gybrewaa

(Ed Huntress, with fingers shifted off of the home keys...I don't like
these new keyboards -- they're too flat)

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:09:48 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 8:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:30:23 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

fired this volley in
:

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough
explosive to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories
should not be in residential areas.

And for what it's worth, the ATF law covers all that. It requires even
unlicensed practicioners to obey all the regulations concerning,
quantities, distances to dwellings and roads, magazine storage, etc.

Out of ignorance, Ed assumes that amateur pyros and people who just like
to make boomers are one in the same.

Amateurs are organized: There are numerous state guilds, and an
international guild. It costs time and money to participate, and the
training regimens are rigorous.

And yes, amateur pyrotechnicians have accidents (so do pros). In the
case of amateurs' accidents, only in a tiny handful of cases have other
'innocents' been involved even as slightly as minor property damage.

LLoyd

Ok, then, just what "freedoms" were you talking about, when you said
"an amateur pyrotechnician - would have a lot of their freedoms
restricted. That's what they want."?


He's right too.

The freedom he's talking about is the freedom to engage in

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The question is what kind of "happiness" he's talking about. I'll keep
an open mind, but I'm wary until I hear the specifics.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

Ok, then, just what "freedoms" were you talking about, when you said
"an amateur pyrotechnician - would have a lot of their freedoms
restricted. That's what they want."?

Ooookay... if you're listening -- the 'they' is the power mongers
(mostly, but not all democrats) in government who truly want to remove
all 'power' from all citizens, including the use of dangerous materials
or the pursuit of dangerous activities, even when those only endanger the
participants.

And no, I'm not 'anti government'. It serves many good, necessary
purposes. It's not just our government, either; governments have
inevitably devolved into controlling forms that use public doles and
restrictive regulations to turn their citizens into drones.

But, to the point: The amateur pyros know that any criminal use of
explosives by any person, regardless of motive, will cause these same
power mongers to _attempt_ to further restrict their access to and use of
the materials to make their fireworks. They've already restricted a
number of ordinary, essentially harmless chemicals used almost
exclusively by pyros because they MIGHT be used to make illegal
explosives. (no, I'm not talking about ammonium nitrate, which is not
used in pyrotechnics).

They'll also attempt to restrict their firing of the fireworks (which is
done mostly at licensed shoot sites, during organized fireworks
festivals).

The government has already sought to further restrict amateurs by putting
their suppliers out of business, and without any provocation, but just
because the (now prior) BATFE safety director had "an agenda".

The safety director of BATFE declared in public (in a fireworks
symposium, no less) that her personal goal was to have all fireworks
outlawed everywhere in the US. She was a young, minority, power-hungry
feminist who eventually got thrown out of power, but she set a lot of
things in motion that have yet to have their full effects on the
industry.

And Ed... the amateurs do no harm. They don't even compete with, but
rather contribute to, the professional trade.

Except for the same rare 'fringe element' you'll find in any activity,
they all follow the rules and stringent safety protocols, use care AND
good judgement, and care very much what the communities around them think
of their activities. Most of the guilds will, indeed, censure and
_report_ members whom they find doing illegal things.

So, any time the government gets involved, the amateur fireworkers
rightly fear that their ability to ply their craft will be restricted
further.

LLoyd

Richard fired this volley in news:Z4qdnb0KQcl-
:

Just for the love of it.

"He who hath once smelt the smoke shall ne'er again be free!"

LLoyd

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:14:52 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 8:56 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:46:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

Nope, and he and his Obamunists don't care to.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

Precisely. But try to get that through progressives' skulls. Ditto
gun owners are not terrorists or snipers...unless pushed too far.g

And what, exactly, do you know about "amateur pyrotechnicians" being
"the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade," Larry? I don't recall you ever expressing an
involvement with the subject before, least of all the origins of "new
techniques in the professional trade."

Do you really know what you're talking about, or, if you'll forgive
the pun, are you just blowing smoke? d8-)



As an AMATEUR, I developed a professional fireworks sequencer that
plugged into a laptop printer port. That was mid 80s.
They are common now.

Just for the love of it.

amo:I love
amas: You love
amat: He, She, or It loves
amamus: We love
amatis: You (plural) love
amant: They love

Were you an amateur pyrotechnician, or a computer technician who
created something for pyrotechnicians?

There's no presumption there. It's a serious question. It's not a
field that I know anything about, but "amateur pyrotechnician"
implies, to me, someone who's working with the explosives and
propellants themselves. Is that a fair distinction?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

There's no presumption there. It's a serious question. It's not a
field that I know anything about, but "amateur pyrotechnician"
implies, to me, someone who's working with the explosives and
propellants themselves. Is that a fair distinction?

I'm not answering for Richard, but you should know that the craft
attracts many professionals from highly technical trades, because it can
be as technical as one wishes. Physicians, engineers, research chemists,
and lawyers are just as commonly found arm-deep in star compositions as
are less technically-inclined folks.

LLoyd

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:30:47 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 9:13 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:09:48 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 8:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:30:23 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

fired this volley in
:

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough
explosive to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories
should not be in residential areas.

And for what it's worth, the ATF law covers all that. It requires even
unlicensed practicioners to obey all the regulations concerning,
quantities, distances to dwellings and roads, magazine storage, etc.

Out of ignorance, Ed assumes that amateur pyros and people who just like
to make boomers are one in the same.

Amateurs are organized: There are numerous state guilds, and an
international guild. It costs time and money to participate, and the
training regimens are rigorous.

And yes, amateur pyrotechnicians have accidents (so do pros). In the
case of amateurs' accidents, only in a tiny handful of cases have other
'innocents' been involved even as slightly as minor property damage.

LLoyd

Ok, then, just what "freedoms" were you talking about, when you said
"an amateur pyrotechnician - would have a lot of their freedoms
restricted. That's what they want."?


He's right too.

The freedom he's talking about is the freedom to engage in

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The question is what kind of "happiness" he's talking about. I'll keep
an open mind, but I'm wary until I hear the specifics.


I'll let Lloyd speak for himself.

As for me...
I like to fly airplanes.
I have built several.
VW powered single seat baby buggies, but real flying machines.

I have flown thousands of hours in military aircraft.
I have nursed several hundred Naval Aviators through the simulators.

But I can't fly anymore by myself. Legally anyway.
I've NEVER been to court about that.
NEVER been adjudicated a danger to myself or others.
But the Federal Aviation Agency thinks I might could be a risk.
And I can't afford to take THEM to court to get my medical reinstated.

So my pursuit of happiness has been seriously curtailed.

It's not right.
It's not fair.

But there it is.

FWIW, I don't care if you're a danger to yourself. You're an adult;
you work out your own risk-reward ratios.

I do get involved when someone pursues a hobby or a craft that creates
a danger for others who have not chosen to take risks for your sake.
I'll have more to say about this in my post to Lloyd. I'm glad he
started this discussion, because it's helped me to clear up something
that's at the root of a lot of the related issues we talk about here.

About losing your pilot's license: I'm sorry for you, and I'm
sympathetic. In three month's time in 1973 I lost my pilot's license,
my SCCA driver's license, and a berth on a sailboat for the Southern
Ocean Racing Conference. We can talk about it some time. I was
devastated by it; it turned my life upside down.

So I understand your frustration with that.

--
Ed Huntress