On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:29:01 +0100, Iain Kelly
wrote:

Whilst the above comments are very well made I must say that there are
some good ideas with this whole HAP thing. A lot of my lecturers and
professors are involved with a big chunk of the research into this
venture,

Hi Ian,

This is called "conflict of interest," which discounts those same
lecturers' and professors' credentials.

and for high speed broadband data access the idea is good. The
points made about cellular systems are true, but it is my understanding
that in densely populated areas there would be more HAPs up in the air,
each could have multiple cells potentially...

You've missed the point Roy made. Adding connections (more HAPs) does
not add more bandwidth. Those extra HAPs will be competing for the
same (now diminishing by proportion) spectrum.

Having said that I do get the impression from some research seminars
I've been to on the subject, that there is still a lot of work to be
done before the proposal can be realised to it's full potential, but I
do think the principle is sound.

When there's existing hardware (after all, no one is telling the
consumers to throw away their phones and buy HAP versions), and
Hindenberg technology is a century old; then any proviso "there is
still a lot of work to be done" translates into SEND MORE MONEY - a
message tape with an infinite loop.

Ask researcher1: "can I float a balloon?"
researcher1: "Sure, no problem."

Ask researcher2: "can I transmit and receive from a height?"
researcher2: "Sure, no problem."

Ask researcher3: "can I find a stabilizing platform?"
researcher3: "Sure, no problem."

Ask researcher4: "can more connections serve more customers?"
researcher4: "Sure, no problem."

The sum is not equal to the whole:
Ask customers: "can you still hear me?"
customers: "What the ****! My line is dead."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC