I think I even sent you the regulation way back then, It's changed since then but still ends up being a catchall regulation, (if they want to pursue it)
This is the current definition; "explosive"means any thing that is made, manufactured or used to produce an explosion or a detonation or pyrotechnic effect, and includes any thing prescribed to be an explosive by the regulations, but does not include gases, organic peroxides or any thing prescribed not to be an explosive by the regulations. (The gases is why hybrids are allowed)
"explosion"A release energy in a sudden and often violent manner usually with the generation of high temperature and the release of gases.
6. Except as authorized under this Act and subject to such exemptions as may be provided by regulation, no person shall
* (a) make or manufacture explosives either wholly or in part except in a licensed factory; * (b) sell any authorized explosive unless that person is the operator of a licensed factory or licensed magazine and is authorized to sell explosives;
* (c) store any explosive in a magazine that is not a licensed magazine; * (d) have in his possession any explosive; or* (e) carry on, except in a licensed factory, any of the following processes, namely, * (i) dividing into its component parts, or otherwise breaking up or unmaking, any explosive,
* (ii) making fit for use any damaged explosive, or
* (iii) remaking, altering or repairing any explosive.
one that said making liquid rocket motors was legal.
Robert
At 09:18 PM 11/12/2013, you wrote:
On 11/12/2013 11:00 PM, qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:I remember saying that exact thing back in 2003/2004 when I first started this project. That was when you were selling your motors out of the trunk of your car at Roc Lake. We talked about how you got around building hybrids with that regulation in place and you replied with about that same response. Still looking for the reg, site has changed so much since then.I was involved several years ago in consultations with ERD about various rocketry-related things. I got the opinion from the horses-mouth, so to speak. If they've issued *new* regulations since then that contradict the opinion (written and official) that I received back then, I wouldn't be shocked, but I have a hard time understanding under *what* Act of Pariliament they'd introduce such regulations under. The explosives act itself is unlikely, since it would require major overhaul to bring "things that produce high-pressure jets of gas" under control by the Act.RobertThere *are* boiler-and-pressure-vessel regulations, but they are provincial, and not intended to regulate such things.At 08:23 PM 11/12/2013, you wrote:On 11/12/2013 10:18 PM, qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Up until some recent rule changes, according to Natural Resources Canada, the combining of any chemicals or the making of a device which produces a gas above ambient needs authorization, not that it's hard to get. But even my peroxide motors required a permit. Actually as of late now the peroxide motors are on the restricted list because they use peroxide above 30%. I don't know what impact that would have had on our project but I recently inquired about 50% peroxide using my old permit number and had no problems receiving pricing and shipping details, however I did not make the purchase as I can't use it at this time of year anyway.I'd love pointers to said regulations, because last time I was involved in ERD regulation, they very specifically didn't consider anything like hybrids or bi-propellants to be regulated by the regulations. And "produces a gas above ambient" would mean that, for example, pressure cookers and automobilesRobertwere regulated under the ERD regulations, which clearly would be silly.
