RadioBanter - View Single Post

November 19th 04, 01:03 AM

On 18 Nov 2004 11:11:05 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Leo wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:23 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:50:46 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:

It's times like this that can bring people together. You and Brian
Kelly have something in common.

Realism?

Perhaps you could tell me, Leo? I've shown that it can and does happen
and that a lot of people are doing exactly what I speak of on a regular
basis. Believe or don't believe. It is your choice.

Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of
knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback.

Who are they, Leo?

....um, Len and Brian, IIRC.....did you forget? And you, of course -
cheerleading for Mike, as usual.......

Who on this newsgroup has even attempted to launch a radio-carrying ballon to
100,000 feet? Or even to half that?

Why should that matter? You yourself have posted on many topics where
you have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various
articles that you have read......including this one! A lack of
hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply
differently to others?

Amazingly enough, the laws of physics are absolute. Paper airplane,
high speed jet , spitball or balloon - the same physical laws apply to
all. Just like you learned in engineering school.....(?)

No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur
radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute.

They
aren't saying that you're nuts to be considering doing what you intend
to do, but they are offering you the benefit of their understanding of
engineering and physics as it pertains to your project.

Perhaps we've been reading different posts...

I respectfully suggest that you've been too busy (once again)
focussing on the poster rather than the material posted. Jim, whether
you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of
physics could care less! They remain absolute.

The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical
law. In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets
of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal
is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been
satisfactorily resolved. The posts that we saw earlier were the
beginnings of the issues list - responding to it with "it's been done,
it'll work, no problemo!" - type platitudes ain't going to resolve the
issues - it's just wishful thinking. Or perhaps no thinking at all.

If they are missing something (and me too, perhaps - this sure ain't
my area of expertise either!), then by all means show them where
they're wrong - but they are both pretty intelligent, educated and
knowledgeable guys, with years of real-world experience in their
fields - maybe worth at least a rational discussion? Or you could
throw a bunch of web references in their faces and get angry....

Your call.

Leo,

There is a world of difference between someone like Jim, who questions
and looks at my answers, and one member that says what I am considering
is impossible, and yet another that calls me incompetent.

At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites.

And there is a lot of difference between me illustrating my points wit
web references, and finally getting annoyed after I am called incompetent.

Considering that to Len, this is an impossible task, and that Brian
Kelly has thinks I'm an idiot that is only suited for cheerleading, I
would have to say that they probably don't have anything to offer me in
my doomed project with which I am going to hurt someone.

My call.

The websites offer a lot of evidence that it can be done, has been done and
even how to do it.

Of course it has been done - duh! The issue here is simply how the
various obstacles standing in the way of success have been overcome.
Referring folks who raise technical concerns to a pile of websites
merely demonstrates an inability to articulate the technical knowledge
that is ultimately required to accomplish a plan such as this. Makes
one wonder ho deep an understanding one would possess to reply in this
manner! I'd suspect not too deep.......not much past the "sounds
pretty cool!" stage of the project).

One can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific
information - actually doing it is quite something else. The plans to
construct an atomic bomb take up but a few pages on the Web - but
actually building one might be just a bit more difficult than the
relatively simple documentation would lead one to believe......lol!

If Mike was not interested in discussing this topic at a detail level,
then perhaps it was a bit unwise to post it in a public newsgroup -
unless there was some other reason for doing so......? Wonder what
that might be.....! hmmmmm - Rah Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bah......
y'think?

Of course, Jim, you could step up to the plate and use your vast
knowledge of engineering to articulately respond to each of the
problems and issues raised, educating us all as to why they do or no
not have a bearing on this project........

......Didn't think so.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo