In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Brian Kelly wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message
...

1500ºC is 2732ºF, over
a thousand degrees hotter than the melting point of steel!

"That's hot!"

. . WTF . . ?!

The atmosphere does indeed heat up in the area known as the Thermosphere

Does other odd things too. Bouncy, bouncy!

If you don't believe me, here is some info from NASA. They give even
higher values as a maximum.

"That's hot!"

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...tmosphere.html

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

gives a nice explanation of the Thermosphere, and there is a bit of info
there as to why Amateurs should be interested in it.

A good question is "Why doesn't everything that passes through the
thermosphere burn up?" Because they don't. In fact, despite these high
temps, things passing through this region would "feel" cold.

Would you rather stick your hand into water heated to 200 degrees F or air
heated to 400 degrees?

Why should Hams know about the Thermosphere?

'Cause it's hot? ;-)

You *don't* understand some *very* basic
things about the atmosphere, things that you should know as a Ham.

This whole thread got me thinking about how balloons work and how much helium
costs and such. One thing I found out is that 1000 cu ft of helium can be had
for about $200. A bit of $$ for an individual launch but not much if split up
amongst a group.

Another thing was the lifting power at high altitudes and low pressures, and
the concept and behavior of a balloon open at the bottom that's not filled all
the way with gas. Fascinating.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Brian Kelly wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Brian Kelly wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...



Brian Kelly wrote:


. . . groan! . . . -100ºF is only a small part of it huh?

The atmospheric profile shows some interesting things. In the
Troposphere, the temperature drops pretty steadily until around 10 Km,
then it tends to stay pretty consistent until 20 Km. Above 20 Km, the
temperature actually rises somewhat until around 50 Km, at which point
it drops again until around 85 Km. At this point it becomes the
Thermosphere, in which the temperatures rise dramatically - they can get
from 500 to 1500 degrees C.


Of course, but 85Km out is ~280,000 MSL and the few atmospheric
*particles* and manmade *objects* which exist or pass thru that
altitude can get radiation-heated to pretty high temps. The temps of
the space *between* those particles and objects however is 'way down
the Kelvin scale. Your stated goal is 100,000 MSL which is only 30Km
out where all objects and particles are bloody friggin' cold no matter
what as the density of the atmosphere increases and blocks radiation
heating from the sun and conduction and convective cooling
increasingly prevails vs. radiation heating/cooling. So what's the
point to your geting into what's up at 85Km since a balloon ain't even
gonna come close to bobbing up to 85Km?

If your payload capsule is engineered properly for an ascent to FL 100
and back down Leonard will be OK which is really what matters. Back to
auditing a Heat Transfer 101 class for you Good Buddy.


Yo for chrissake Mike, I just noticed this gem, 1500ºC is 2732ºF, over
a thousand degrees hotter than the melting point of steel!


By the way post facto it finally dawned on me that I screwed that
statement up *big* time. Chase it down, spank me good for the screwup
and get even.

Nahh. People can make mistakes.




. . WTF . . ?!

The atmosphere does indeed heat up in the area known as the Thermosphere


. . . See above . . .


If you don't believe me, here is some info from NASA. They give even
higher values as a maximum.


http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...tmosphere.html

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

gives a nice explanation of the Thermosphere, and there is a bit of info
there as to why Amateurs should be interested in it.


?? I thought we were deep into ballooning ping-pong ball experiments
for the kids and gloming some brownie points for ham radio in the
process. Is it me again or did something got lost around here when I
wasn't looking?


Oh gawd, yes, Brian! This whole thread got started when I mentioned
that I was putting together this operation in response to Hans' telling
us about how Amateur radio is being marginalized. Then it turned into me
trying to tell the group about what we were trying to do amidst a couple
people that don't believe it can be done.

But since you were talking about the effects of the cold, I thought I
might point out just how weird things are "up there".

And it is hot in the neighborhood of the ionosphere.


A good question is "Why doesn't everything that passes through the
thermosphere burn up?" Because they don't. In fact, despite these high
temps, things passing through this region would "feel" cold.

Why should Hams know about the Thermosphere?


Those of us who are big into bouncing our signals around the planet
have been there since WHEN? Those who don't know about it are not my
problem.



I don't know how to water this down so I'll be blunt about it. You
really do need to consider biting the bullet and delegating the
technical aspects of this project to some technoid(s) and stick to
being the head cheerleader. Preferably before somebody gets hurt .


Thanks for the bluntness Brian. I always appreciate it.

I will be likewise blunt. You are completely wrong about the people
doing (or not doing) this. You *don't* understand some *very* basic
things about the atmosphere, things that you should know as a Ham. Given
those facts, I'll take your judgment of my qualifications to do this
thing under advisement.

Be ****ed or hate me, it's how it is.


Cool off and settle down Mike, I'm completely incapable of getting
****ed off much less hating any USENET poster. Particulary in this
off-the-wall ham radio based collection of particularly Odd Units.
Stick yer head up and sombody is gonna snipe ya for jollies and ya
handle it. So leave yer thin skin home and duck when you post here and
welcome to RRAP where pud-yanking is the name of the game.

That's how it is.


I apologize Brian. Call me incompetent any time you like. It was a
mistake to bring this subject up in here, I'll admit that.

I bring my hockey mentality in here most of the time. This was too much
of a crossover into my professional mentality. And it is apparent that
it won't be differentiated.


So I guess it's back to talking about the Morse code test! 8^)

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Brian Kelly wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message

...


1500ºC is 2732ºF, over
a thousand degrees hotter than the melting point of steel!


"That's hot!"


. . WTF . . ?!

The atmosphere does indeed heat up in the area known as the Thermosphere


Does other odd things too. Bouncy, bouncy!

Space, or near space is a very strange place...

If you don't believe me, here is some info from NASA. They give even
higher values as a maximum.


"That's hot!"


http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...tmosphere.html

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

gives a nice explanation of the Thermosphere, and there is a bit of info
there as to why Amateurs should be interested in it.


A good question is "Why doesn't everything that passes through the
thermosphere burn up?" Because they don't. In fact, despite these high
temps, things passing through this region would "feel" cold.


Would you rather stick your hand into water heated to 200 degrees F or air
heated to 400 degrees?

Why should Hams know about the Thermosphere?


'Cause it's hot? ;-)

If it wasn't hot, we wouldn't have the ionization that allows us to
communicate all over the world on HF.



You *don't* understand some *very* basic
things about the atmosphere, things that you should know as a Ham.


This whole thread got me thinking about how balloons work and how much helium
costs and such. One thing I found out is that 1000 cu ft of helium can be had
for about $200. A bit of $$ for an individual launch but not much if split up
amongst a group.

And of course you don't need that much per typical launch.


Another thing was the lifting power at high altitudes and low pressures, and
the concept and behavior of a balloon open at the bottom that's not filled all
the way with gas. Fascinating.

Those balloons get BIG before bursting. I've seen some video of it. I
haven't seen what happens to the form of the zero-pressure balloons,
though. Certainly the zero-pressure balloons are a fascinating example
of a self regulating system.

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

They need a way to burst the balloon on command (i.e., nichrome wire
wrapped around the balloon plug, a receiver, and a battery),
metallized RADAR reflectors on the instrument chain, and FAA clearance
to launch.

The "command burst" receiver better have some secure coding to
it or some jughead will burst-command it beforehand.

Make that "CBer." There are no jugheads in the amateur service. 8^0

A corner-cube reflector can be done with aluminum foil on a balsa
wood frame...just three mutually-perpendicular planes in that
corner cube, less than a foot in any dimension and still good for
skin tracking.

Maybe Kelly could diagram one on the back of an envelope for us?

According to Mike, the FAA is "accommodating." :-)

They've lost all sense of jumor since 9/11

Back in the 60s the weather folks used to loft a quarter million or
so weather balloons per year...with little transmitters in them and
telemetry done with extremely low-cost electronics. Good example
of doing things simply and for low cost per launch.

They still do. It is called a rawindsonde and the rawin observations
are transmitted over the weather networks and shared worldwide. These
ballons often reach 10MB, but the payload is much smaller than most
EOS amateur projects.

I had one cluttering up the workshop since the 60s. Military type by
the markings. One-shot battery, a simple aneroid bellows driving a
printed-circuit rotary switch to kick in temp and moisture and light
sensors, all of them variable resistive types that changed the rep.
rate of a simple pulse modulator for the combination RCA pencil
triode and cavity oscillator assembly and inverted ground-plane
antenna.

That must be why the ground operator had headphones and counted
clicks. It's a lot different today.

All of that went in the dumpster long ago except the
translucent plastic sleeve on the Xmter assembly went two weeks
ago (found it in a box of junk after sorting out the workshop).

Best place for all that stuff.

The experiments can be just
about anything you can think of that can be done at that altitude. Most
launches are multi-mission, with both science and Ham fun stuff on
board. And of course the Ham fun can be scientific too.

Hams have had fun ballooning for quite a while, but the advent of
inexpensive GPS has changed things dramatically. We now fully expect to
get our payloads back! That wasn't the case not too many years ago.

The balloon is usually one of the latex weather balloon variety. Zero
pressure balloons can be used too, but since they are designed to go up
and stay up for a long time, that would be a more complex proposition.

You need to do some math on that before envisioning such a "low-
cost" approach to get to 100 Kilofeet. Those 8-foot (typical)
"weather balloons" aren't going to get up that high, not even a mass
of them.

You need to consult some (free for the asking) density values of
the atmosphere and some back-of-the-envelope figuring first. Note
that you have to allow for the lifting gas expansion with altitude. It
is far from the same at 100 kilofeet versus sea level.

Lots of expansion.

Tsk. Mike hasn't consulted a Standard Atmosphere table set yet.

100 kilofeet he will NEVER make with some surplus latex weather
balloons.

Get sponsor, buy new.

The payload uses Amateur radio for command and control. At the heart of

the system is a GPS unit in conjunction with a packet radio. The
telemetry data is sent back to earth and kept track of with a computer.
The computer lets us know where the payload is, where it is going and
how fast, and predicts the landing site. Oh, and it's freeware.

That's going to be a minor cost item. As you will find out, the
balloon structure, its support infrastructure, and lifting gas will
cost more than you think..

It all adds up. Might be good idea to get a sponsor.

Tsk. He gots the "recycling" spirit. Maybe he has a new way
to "mine" helium out of the air or ground? [collectors around some
heliarc welders might work? :-) ]

I was a forecaster for a "round-the-world" balloon venture. They lost
their helium due to a fabric tear. Couldn't find enough replacement
helium in Argentina.

In addition, the packet radio can send back other info as the mission
may desire. The mission is often controlled by a microprocessor. To
date, a lot of balloonatics use basic stamp controllers.

Often a repeater is put on board. A small one has a lot of coverage at
100,000 feet! There is usually a VHF beacon, and occasionally a 10 meter
beacon also, although that is not as prevalent as it was before GPS.

Two words: Payload weight.

You can't get up in the blue sky with lack-of-detail blue sky ideas.

If it were that easy, lots and lots of folks would have done so a
half century ago.

And all of those gps, beacons, packets, thermistors, pressure
transducers, and video cameras and ATV transmitters operate off of
heavy batteries. Luckily the ascent and descent won't be that long,
and the batteries can be scaled back from what is normally required
with one caveat. You'll want the beacon to be operable for several
days, if possible.

Mere details. It is "doing science!" It is "inexpensive!"

One-shot batteries are one source, but they ARE truly one-shot
and can't be recycled afterwards.

I'm sure our multi-disciplinarian engineer who's "been there and back"
could do it.

The experiments vary. One of the favorite devices for the grade and
middle school kids is something called a pongsat. This is an experiment
that can be anything that will fit inside a ping-pong ball. Sounds
weird, but there are plenty of small scale experiments that fit the
bill... er, ping-pong ball.

The balloon lifts the payload to the predetermined altitude, and
bursts. The payload drops, and the Ham comms can continue during
descent, although the first few moments after burst can be pretty weird
as the payload often does some pretty strange gyrations until the
parachute can grab some atmosphere. Drops like the proverbial rock.

All this time, the GPS is keeping track of the whereabouts of the
payload.

Commercial grade GPS recievers are designed to not work above 60,000
feet. Crazy precaution against strapping one to a missile and using
it as a guidance system.

No sweaty-dah. Seal the GPS unit in more balloon material, it stays
in a local pressure regardless of the vehicle altitude. More or less.

The ascent and descent shouldn't be more than 4 - 5 hours.

Then at landing, it turns into a foxhunt as the hams use the
beacon transmissions to find the payload. With the advent of us getting
used to the software and the precision with which the GPS can determine
the location, it is not too uncommon for the recovery team to witness
the landing.

Launch of one of these things does not take as much bureaucratic red
tape as most people think.

You've done that? You are going to the edge of the stratosphere and
think you can do so freely? Ain't quite that easy.

And it can be done for surprisingly little money.

"Surprisingly little" is a highly subjective term. Real projects have
quite objective, finite budgets.

The people that are needed are of course Hams, and people with some
programming experience. People with experience building things, and a
meteorologist can't hurt! People that don't mind a drive on a weekend
day to serve on the recovery team. Plenty of subteams, such as payload,
publicity, science, visualization, integration, education liaison. Even
people that might just want to feed all the other reprobates.

Sounds like you've already filled the "executive" position. :-)

This is real stuff. This might spark the interest in science in some
youngster. And that is not only a career choice, but a service to the
country. American scientists are becoming pretty rare.

"Becoming pretty rare?" Not quite as any visit to academia will
show but feel free to get opinionated.

Its great publicity for Amateur radio.

It will get ham radio noticed, but what is written up by journalists
may not be what you expect.

Free ballooning has been going in the USA since 9 January 1793,
the first American flight by Frenchman Jean-Pierre Blanchard,
lifting off from the Walnut Street Prison in colonial Philadelphia.
That was witnessed by none other than President Washington.
[from "Lighter Than Air Flight" by Lt. Col. C. V. Glines, USAF,
Franklin Watts Inc., NYC, 1965, data from pp 29-35] That's over
two centuries of time...

And we can innovate and experiment. Radio is a pretty mature science
now. It's doubtful that any of us are going to invent a grand new
communication scheme, or an antenna that does DC to daylight, or even
one that is a whole lot better than what we have now. So What we need to
do is to integrate what we have now, and do some innovation with it. We
also need (or at least should) prove our worth to the community.

That we can do it while having fun is a real bonus.

You can have all your innovative fun doing many, many things.
Until you find out what helium costs to lift the total balloon (the
balloon itself, its payload, its carrying structure, its all going to
be a pipe dream having no more basis than enthusiasm.

Check out the prices for helium with a gas supplier, plus what it
takes to haul to HEAVY gas cylinders to a launch area, plus the
metering system plus the filling system plus whatever else. All
that after you've investigated what the actual lifting capacity will
be in terms of ounces per cubic feet of balloon. [I said ounces,
not pounds...lighter than air does not mean negative weight]

You could get "efficiency" by going for hydrogen gas...which is
offset by very direct DANGER from many and varied sources.

Yikes! If they use the nichrome wire on the balloon plug trick...

Hydrogen is a very efficient lifting gas. It CAN be generated by
amateurs...chemistry amateurs. Getting into the balloon is going
to be tricky.

Friend of mine had a hydrogen generator for launching balloons on
Antarctica. I guess it was cheaper/less weight than hauling in
helium.

Surplus catalogs used to sell the little generators but haven't seen
them in years.

Still going for 100,000 foot altitude? Start thinking in terms of
the balloon exapanding to something on the order of EIGHT times
in size at altitude maximum. That's visible on some of the high
altitude research balloon flights of the 1960s using lots and lots
of plastic sheet for balloon material.

Your project may need a virgin...such as Richard Branson...to
help start it off.

Now, if you are REALLY thinking about this whole thing, look into
"Project STAR" and a little thing like a model airplane that crossed
the Atlantic (from Newfoundland to the Irish coast) during the 38
hours in August 9, 10, and 11, 2003. Laugh all you want but a few
guys from around DC managed to do that through GPS guidance
on board as an autopilot. You can read about it at

http://tam.plannet21.com/index.htm

Pictures and stuff to guide you even if you are not into model flying.
38 hours (approx) of powered flight using only 5.5 pounds of fuel,
flight path of 1882 miles. Radio control only for take off and climb-
out, then landing in Ireland...the rest entirely on "autopilot." It had
some means of reporting its position to earth via satellites. That
alone would be of interest to anything else involving GPS location
or guidance.

Search around on the huge NASA website for atmospheric info,
especially for density versus height. You could do an approximate
curve of payload + balloon weight versus cost of helium in hundreds
of cubic feet to whatever altitude limit. That will give you some
realistic viewing into feasibility of it all.



Sounds like fun. Dense air operations in the eastern states may pose
a big problem.

Not to worry. Air carriers are on the "Victor" ways above the max.
balloon altitude. General Av types will be in the denser altitudes
and props will chop it up nicely. :-)

I wouldn't count on it. Maybe CAPman can fly by with a skyhook and
snatch the descending package before it becomes FOD for the General Av
types?

Anyway, this entire thing is highly doable as it's already been done
by amateur radio operators for at least a decade.

Then there are all of the high-power amateur rocket types who
regularly get FAA approval, have telemetry, and a good set of binocs.
I participated once with another amateur and they were thrilled with
our ability to communicate from the launch area to the pick-up area.
Today, FRS and cell phones can probably fill that niche. Ooops!

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Does other odd things too. Bouncy, bouncy!

Space, or near space is a very strange place...

'Cause it's hot? ;-)

If it wasn't hot, we wouldn't have the ionization that allows us to
communicate all over the world on HF.

bouncy bouncy

You *don't* understand some *very* basic
things about the atmosphere, things that you should know as a Ham.

This whole thread got me thinking about how balloons work and how much
helium
costs and such. One thing I found out is that 1000 cu ft of helium can be
had
for about $200. A bit of $$ for an individual launch but not much if split
up amongst a group.

And of course you don't need that much per typical launch.

So the cost is even less.

Another thing was the lifting power at high altitudes and low pressures,
and
the concept and behavior of a balloon open at the bottom that's not filled
all the way with gas. Fascinating.

Those balloons get BIG before bursting. I've seen some video of it. I
haven't seen what happens to the form of the zero-pressure balloons,
though. Certainly the zero-pressure balloons are a fascinating example
of a self regulating system.

With a closed rigid balloon (like the Hindenberg), the lift gas is at constant
volume, so the lift decreases with higher altitude and lower barometric
pressure and the maximum altitude is relatively low.

With a closed elastic balloon (like a stretchy latex balloon), the lift gas can
expand to a certain degree at higher altitudes, but must be at somewhat higher
pressure than the gas outside (because the gas inside must exert pressure on
the balloon walls to stretch them). With a very stretchy balloon, the decrease
in lift will obviously be much less than with a rigid balloon.

With an open-at-the-bottom balloon (like a bag from the dry cleaners), the lift
gas need be only at a very slightly higher pressure than the gas outside
(because the gas inside must support the walls of the balloon/bag). With a bag
that is much larger than the volume of gas at launch, the decrease in lift will
obviously be much less than with a rigid balloon or a stretchy balloon.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

I still might.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, be nice.

I think you have a good project, and cannot understand why all these
"movers and shakers" of RRAP keep poo-pooing the idea. Maybe they are
paper tigers, code-tape Extra's, or just plain old windbags
themselves. Anyway, you have several of them in your backyard and I
haven't seen a single one throw in with you yet (but then I haven't
read all of the blabbering). Speaks volumes.

(

My best advice is to associate the project with a Scouting
Troop/Venture Crew, or H.S. honors science class, etc, find a handful
of sponsors (easier when you have the scouting affiliation), and find
some motivated no-code Techs who aren't afraid of a challenge, or
maybe don't know enough to get out of the way.

)

FWIW, the military has standing orders to assist the Scouts wherever
they can. They might be helpful in many ways, from lodging to launch
location to weather support. You could make a request to the Air
Force Weather Agency to have a Support Assistance Request (SAR) in
place to run the trajectory model and predict the final resting place
of your package (you supply launch time and ascent/descent rates),
preposition your recovery team in that vicinity, then adjust as
real-world conditions dictate.

Have Fun and Best of Luck, bb

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:

a lot of stuff snipped

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. 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.

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.


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

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:

a lot of stuff snipped

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. 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.

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.

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

This whole thread got started when I mentioned
that I was putting together this operation in response to Hans' telling
us about how Amateur radio is being marginalized.

And you presented some very good ideas.

Then it turned into me
trying to tell the group about what we were trying to do amidst a couple
people that don't believe it can be done.

Also a bunch of us who know it can be done and is being done, but who didn't
know much about it until you brought up the idea.


I apologize Brian. Call me incompetent any time you like. It was a
mistake to bring this subject up in here, I'll admit that.

I disagree, Mike. Hans brought up a good *policy* subject, and you continued
the discussion.

I bring my hockey mentality in here most of the time. This was too much
of a crossover into my professional mentality. And it is apparent that
it won't be differentiated.

By whom?

At least W3RV was willing to look at the websites you mentioned, and realizes
it has been done. And while there may be some problems doing it in EPA, the
basic concept is workable.

Len apparently has simply *refused* to even look at the information you
presented.

So I guess it's back to talking about the Morse code test! 8^)

Nobody's done that for a while!

73 de Jim, N2EY

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. 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.

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.

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.