RadioBanter - View Single Post

November 20th 04, 06:26 PM

On 20 Nov 2004 01:57:21 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:

Leo: And you, of course - cheerleading for Mike, as usual.......

You said "two folks who have a fair amount of knowledge and experience". I
would make three - except I claim no experience in high altitude ballooning at
all.

I'll have lots of experience before too long! ;^)

You better! After this ruckus if you don't come through and pull
together a squad which flies an instrumented ballooon to FL 100 you'll
*never* live it down in this twisted village.

I've always found it hard to believe that a few square inches of brake
lining can stop a bog car. Seems impossible!

"It seems impossible" sorts of comments like this are at the core of
why this ruckus came into being. Friction brakes work based on the
ancient F=µN relationship taught in every eleventh grade
pre-engineering/science physics course provided in modern times. So
what's up with your bog car brake mystery? You cut that class or what?
Or maybe you weren't on that track in the first place?

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.

Engineering 101, freshman years stuff. on

What courses, exactly James, did you have in your freshman year in
E-school which taught/preached how to do 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 . . " and come out of it with working pile of
hardware?

. . . as if . . maybe two-three years outta E-school you were allowed
to take a poke at an assignment like that.

Good point.....

Jim, can you honestly say that as an engineer that you have solved all
the problems on any project satisfactorily? Or have you accepted the
results and wanted to do better?

By the above definition, engineering tasks would probably never get done.

THAT I agree with!

To a point, perhaps - it depends on the field. If you're designing
consumer electronics or appliances, 'close enough' is OK as long as
the safety issues are covered to spec. If you're designing hi-rel
equipment, or aircraft, 'close enough' won't do.....

Now I'm not saying that the physics of ballooning isn't well understood! I'm
just saying that since it has been done already, some of the commentary against
Mike's idea rings very hollow.

Has me stumped!

Lemmee explain it for you: There's a collection of grouchy old farts
including myself with long histories in the real-life engineering
world who also hang out around here and learned a long time ago how to
approach and execute projects like you're now committed to pulling
off. Because that's what we get paid to do. Perhaps wrongly, more
likely not, we don't have a helluva lotta time for approaching
projects like ballooning to 100,000 feet with science fair project
mentalities. Interpret as you will.

Another good point.

My main job in this whole project has been to SELL people on the
concept of something that is not particularly new, but has been made
more interesting by a fusion of Ham radio, GPS, Packet radio, and
Schools, or perhaps more accurately, youth in general.

I **TODJA** to stick to being the cheerleader and delegate the tech
stuff to the technoids dammit but NO, you got all ****y huffy about it
instead!

*Fuggit all*!

Leo is a VE, a VE6 if I'm not mistaken.

VE3, actually - in Toronto!

- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

73, Leo