| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#191
November 21st 04, 02:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: snippage 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. The trick is that the volunteer folks don't have the paycheck incentive. Just the reverse - such a project costs them money! So the motivation has to be elsewhere. Then again, I'm not looking for grouchy old farts. If a person is "too (something)" for the project, then they certainly don't have to help. There are enough people out there apparently like myself that are too dumb to know that what we are trying to do can't be done. It is also a big mistake to take my sales pitch and extrapolate that I have a science fair mentality. A fair number of engineers have the "grouchy old fart" problem. That's why they don't do a good job outside of their respective fields. Ever have a crack engineer explain his project at a sales pitch? I don't recall Mike ever saying the first ballon would reach 100,000, nor that he'd use latex weather ballons, or even helium, or whatever. The first balloons won't even be free flying. My analysis of other groups and the problems they have had at times indicates that payload integration was and is a real problem. The device needs tested properly, and not just on a bench. rest snipped - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#193
November 21st 04, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: Near Space Science - was They just don't get it
From: Mike Coslo Date: 11/20/2004 7:19 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (La Cucaracha) writes: Len apparently has simply *refused* to even look at the information you presented. No way, he surfed 'em and you can bank it but he doesn't have the gonads to 'fess up and admit he was wrong. As usual. Nope. WRONG. ERROR. Didn't need to surf some selected websites NOW. Tsk. I'd already known of amateur BALLOONISTS who went unmanned high-ballooning a decade ago. So...where was I "wrong?" La Cucaracha, you are way over your head on this...but then that happens with regularity. Mike Coslo claimed he could go to "100,000 feet altitude" or near space" (as he states it) with "latex weather balloons." I claim he can't do that...with those same "latex weather balloons." Atmospheric density and pressure won't allow it and those "latex weather balloons will burst below 50,000 feet. Dave Mullenix of the EOSS group states: * We use Totex weather balloons. They seem to be the best quality. * We purchase them from: * * Kaymont Consolidated Industries, Inc. * 21 Sprucetree Lane * P.O. Box 348 * Huntington Station, NY 11746 * Phone (voice): 516 424-6459 * Phone (fax): 516 549-3076 * * Balloons are sized by their weight in grams. Kaymont currently * carries two sizes, 800 and 1200 grams. The 800 gram size will * lift 3-4 lbs to 100,000 feet. The 1200 gram size will take a full * six pound payload to 100,000 feet. Prices are about $45.00 each for * the 1200 gram balloons. Kaymont accepts telephone orders and credit cards. End Dave Mullinex of EOSS quote Kaymont has this to say about their Totex balloons: * This balloon was developed in the 1940's and is made from a natural *latex compound which is highly elastic and tear resistant. Physical *properties are retained at extremely low temperatures and the latex *compound contains additives which contribute to its resistance to *oxidation and ozone. The robustness of the rubber film allows the fully *inflated balloon to maintain its spherical shape making it particularly *suitable for severe weather launches. End Kaymont Quote Latex balloons. Helium. 100,000 feet with a six pound payload. I can supply references upon request. Why the difference between a manufacturer of the latex balloons, and a documented user group, and your facts? You should have bracketed thge word "facts", Mike. As was made evident by his post, precious little of what Lennie presented was fact...Or should I say CURRENT...??? The disparity occured because, once again, Lennie tried to interject his decades old knowledge (in this case his few non-soloed hours as a student pilot in 1950-something...) where common sense should have directed a more prudent man to keep his mouth shut and not display such ignorance. Leonard H. Anderson is an idiot. It really is THAT simple. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#194
November 21st 04, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#195
November 21st 04, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , writes: Len apparently has simply *refused* to even look at the information you presented. No way, he surfed 'em and you can bank it but he doesn't have the gonads to 'fess up and admit he was wrong. As usual. Nope. WRONG. ERROR. Didn't need to surf some selected websites NOW. Looks like W3RV called it right on the money. Tsk. I'd already known of amateur BALLOONISTS who went unmanned high-ballooning a decade ago. "known of"..."a decade ago" Living in the past..... So...where was I "wrong?" See below! Mike Coslo claimed he could go to "100,000 feet altitude" or near space" (as he states it) with "latex weather balloons." I don't recall that claim at all. I claim he can't do that...with those same "latex weather balloons." Atmospheric density and pressure won't allow it and those "latex weather balloons will burst below 50,000 feet. Hmmmm...... Dave Mullenix of the EOSS group states: * We use Totex weather balloons. They seem to be the best quality. * We purchase them from: * * Kaymont Consolidated Industries, Inc. * 21 Sprucetree Lane * P.O. Box 348 * Huntington Station, NY 11746 * Phone (voice): 516 424-6459 * Phone (fax): 516 549-3076 * * Balloons are sized by their weight in grams. Kaymont currently * carries two sizes, 800 and 1200 grams. The 800 gram size will * lift 3-4 lbs to 100,000 feet. The 1200 gram size will take a full * six pound payload to 100,000 feet. Prices are about $45.00 each for * the 1200 gram balloons. Kaymont accepts telephone orders and credit cards. End Dave Mullinex of EOSS quote But - Len wrote: "I claim he can't do that...with those same "latex weather balloons." Atmospheric density and pressure won't allow it and those "latex weather balloons will burst below 50,000 feet." So somebody is clearly wrong here. Kaymont has this to say about their Totex balloons: * This balloon was developed in the 1940's and is made from a natural *latex compound which is highly elastic and tear resistant. Physical *properties are retained at extremely low temperatures and the latex *compound contains additives which contribute to its resistance to *oxidation and ozone. The robustness of the rubber film allows the fully *inflated balloon to maintain its spherical shape making it particularly *suitable for severe weather launches. End Kaymont Quote 1940's??!! Latex balloons. Helium. 100,000 feet with a six pound payload. I can supply references upon request. Why the difference between a manufacturer of the latex balloons, and a documented user group, and your facts? Looks like Len is simply wrong about those "latex weather balloons". Now ya done it, Mike. Proved Len to be definitively mistaken about something. Of course, as W3RV says, he won't admit it. Does La cucaracha know of Standard Atmosphere? It's in all the fancy flying texts, been there for decades. Pressure, density, temperature all there, all quite good enough for estimating some balloon experiments with their ultimate altitudes versus total balloon plus payload weights. Doesn't have to be exquisitely textbook accurate to begin with, just some estimates, what is colloquially called "ball park figures." Diversion from the issue. Did you see any estimates of weight, altitude, or ANY cost figures presented in here? I didn't. I doubt anyone else saw them. More diversion. Nothing beyond "surprisingly inexpensive". I'm not making a financial report to the group. Lessee - $50 for the balloon, $200 for the helium (assumming you need 1000 cu ft), $50 for other goodies, $100 for stuff I'm not aware of yet. That's $400 for the lifting system. Payload package, launch and recovery expenses not included. Not pocket change but not a showstopper either. Apparently the "dreamers" (or, as they self-ephemistically call themselves, "concept managers") don't consider some estimates as necessary. Nope, they have a CONCEPT but that is way way short of ANY sort of estimated numbers of anything. Ahem. I'm not required to provide financial data to you. It's a diversion, Mike. "Concept" is just a hunch, a sort of emotional daydream of an idea, ephemeral like a gas without those estimates. Apparently these expert-knowledge balloonists can float on Will and Idea, because others have done so before? Tsk. Kaymont 1200 gram latex weather balloon, 100,000 feet using helium, carrying a six pound payload. Maybe a little higher with hydrogen? That's not a concept - it's a proven reality. Are you counting the "tsks", Mike? Maybe Len imagines himself as the ruling bull elephant, displaying his t[u]sks in a show of dominance. Seems to me that my original statement about the problems still holds: The biggest problem may be getting permission to use the airspace. But it looks like you've got that one under control too. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#196
November 21st 04, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: Near Space Science - was They just don't get it
From: (Brian Kelly) Date: 11/20/2004 8:53 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... Must be. Cucaracha Kelly's whip hasn't drawn blood in a long time. Sweetums get a grip and get a life. Carl and I have met eyeball to eyball, we worked the BPL crap together with the cognizant ARRL guy and broken bread together and we've become casual buddies as a result. Despite the fact that we continue to be at variance over the code test thing. That's the way it is out here amongst us licensed Extras 20wpm tested and otherwise. YOU on the other hand Sweetums . . . EVERYBODY jump in here and fill in the rest of sentence! Oh Geeze, Brian, don't tempt me like that! I've pretty well filtered out 95% of Scumbag and BlatherBoy as it is...an offer like THAT could keep me busy for weeks! And it's not really fair to take advantage the idiot...He DOES make it sooooooooo easy to do! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#197
November 21st 04, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Leo : 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? Len's information about "latex weather ballons" has been shown to be wrong. What experience do either of them have launching radio-carrying balloons to 100,000 feet or more? W3RV has some. Len, OTOH... 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! ;^) I sure hope so! Is there something wrong with expressing a positive attitude towards the idea, and offering encouragement while *simultaneously* pointing out where the problems may be? The best way to get things done! With volunteers, it's arguably often the *only* way to get things done. 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? When someone says it cannot be done..... And then is proved wrong... Especially when it is being done with some regularity.... By *amateurs* Yes indeed Jim. By amateurs Using equipment that is readily available. While not cheap, not outside the range of a team of ordinary folks each paying part of the tab. 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! True enough! Seems to me like the way the academic field works. Someone wants to do something, another say, "Hey! I read an article by so and so, and she says that......... Yep. There's also the "learn by doing" aspect. Sure enough. Am I an expert in this field? Not hardly. I'm going to have to launch a few of these things before I can be a neophyte. But I can do the research, and learn as I go. And the research says? And this is a bad thing - how? Well, you might actually get some balloons launched, and prove Len to be absolutely wrong..... Yup. Despite his *tables* The tables will show that a properly-designed "latex weather ballon" can reach 100,000 feet. Remember: "If it happens, it must be possible" A lack of hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply differently to others? Hasn't held Len back, even when he's wrong!! [i] It would be interesting to know what are the "many topics where have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read" Hmmm? Have I said *anyone* should not post here? I think Leo believes that I should simply accept that some people think that I cannot do this, and simply slink away. I do reserve the right to reply (and to not be too happy about it) when I am called incompetent! Sorry Leo - it works both ways! 8^) And perhaps you can't do it *all by yourself*. But you don't plan to - your method is to assemble a team, not be the sole basement inventor. Right, I have no intention of doing it by myself. Which means your resources have been multiplied. Pop quiz time! Weather people often send balloons of the latex variety into the atmosphere. Why would they not often send them to 100,000 feet? a. Because the balloon is made of latex, and will not "go" that high? No. b. Because there isn't enough "lift" to take a payload that high No. c. Because most of what they are interested in takes place at lower altitudes. Possible. d. more financial information please... 8^) How about: e. reliability of such high altitude missions is too low. f. cost of such missions does not justify the *weather* information gathered Amazingly enough, the laws of physics are absolute. Paper airplane, high speed jet , spitball or balloon - the same physical laws apply to all. Of course. I wonder what a spitball falling from 100,000 feet would do? ;^) Just like you learned in engineering school.....(?) I also learned that preconceptions are often wrong and so are models based on inadequate information and a lack of understanding of *all* the relevant physics. This has been proven time and again in the history of engineering. I've always found it hard to believe that a few square inches of brake lining can stop a bog car. Seems impossible! Depends on the composition of the brake lining, for one thing. No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute. What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? From what I've seen and calculated, his main limitation may be airspace regulations here in EPA - a place where I do have some empirical experience. And that is one of the big considerations. But those aren't laws of physics - they're regulations imposed by humans .for obvious reasons. 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. I suggest that the person posting that "latex weather balloons cannot reach 100,000 feet is simply wrong. You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says? Because we can have a civil discussion? Exactly. I think some people assume that the newsgroup is only for arguments and antagonistic behavior. Seems that way.. Jim, whether you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of physics could care less! They remain absolute. What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? Hmmm? 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. Jim, can you honestly say that as an engineer that you have solved all the problems on any project satisfactorily? Satisfactorily? Yes. Perfectly? No. Or have you accepted the results and wanted to do better? Any honest engineer will tell you that there were better ways to have done it = after it's done. By the above definition, engineering tasks would probably never get done. If there's too much insistence on perfection, nothing can ever happen. There's *always* another level of documentation, testing, analysis, etc., that could be done. All depends on how we define "satisfactorily". For example, suppose a project demands that a system have MTBF of, say, 100,000 hours, as measured under certain specified conditions. If a system is designed that meets that specification, it's "satisfactory". 99,999 hours is not satisfactory, unless the writer(s) of the specification rewrite it. Of course if the design turns out to have MTBF of, say, 250,000 hours, that's great - but only if it does not adversely affect other requirements. 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. No, it isn't. Not to mention, I never said those words in quotes! I don't know why I'm attributed to saying things I never said! True enough. When an attempt is made to do something for the first time, there's always the possibility that it simply cannot be done, or cannot be done with the available resources. Or that there are factors no one has considered. But once a thing is actually done for the first time, it's a different ball game completely, because now we *know* it's possible. Classic example: In the very early 1920s, the very best knowledge of the physics of radio waves predicted that it was *essentially impossible* to communicate across the Atlantic with the power levels, wavelengths, antennas and receiver sensitivity then available to amateurs. The problem was that the models used did not take ionospheric refraction into account. And so amateurs showed it could be done, and soon the "shortwaves" were in worldwide use. 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! There are some old-school folks whose idea of "encouragement" is to tell you you're no good, your ideas cannot work, that you don't know what you're doing, etc. The idea is that you'll somehow be motivated to prove them wrong, and will succeed in order to do so. Do you think this is encouragement? Not that it matters. I don't think it's encouragement. It's just typical Len behavior. 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. Len isn't. Says it all. 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! Tell it to Len. What I like (not) is that when I'm told both that it is impossible (with insinuations as to my lack of knowledge of basic physics), and again with a direct comment as to my lack of competency, I am somehow the petulant one. Classic Len trick. Acts like a complete jackass, then says *he's* the injured party and *you* are acting inappropriately. The term for such behavior in these parts is "being a smack". I do want to get beyond this, but it goes both ways. The issue here is simply how the various obstacles standing in the way of success have been overcome. The first question is if they are obstacles at all. I recall commentary on how expensive helium allegedly is. Then I did a little research and found that it's about 20 cents a cubic foot when bought in quantities of about 300 cubic feet or greater. So for a thousand-cubic foot balloon, we're talking maybe $200 worth of helium. That's a bit of money but not a showstopper. I know folks who will drop $200 on *dinner*. Yup. Three words: Eagles tailgate party. 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. How? 1. He would hate academic documents. references- pages of them! Possible. 2. Besides, I think that NASA has a very nice graphic and description of the atmospheric layers. 3. In the complicated many faceted world we live in today, it is sometimes more important to know where to FIND knowledge than to have all the knowledge there is (which is BTW, impossible) "Don't reinvent the wheel" The websites show what has already been done. By *amateurs*. Their methods and solutions form a starting point. One thing I learned in engineering school was not to reinvent the wheel. *ahem* 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). If it doesn't "sound pretty cool", why do it at all? One of the things I HAVE to do is sell this concept to people. Even as strange as this rrap experience has been is that although I have not encountered it so far in the real world, I must realize that there will probably be people that simply refuse to believe that we can do this for one reason or the other. Sure. Or that it will cost too much to be practical. I may run into a flat earther here and there. You mean like folks who get upset whenever it's pointed out that Morse Code played any important role in radio communication after the 1930s? Yeah.... like that! I bet they'll really be annoyed knowing this thing is going to have a Morse beacon on it. Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse? One can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific information - actually doing it is quite something else. That's my point. And doing it will be exceptionally cool. (pardon my enthusiasm) Who should have greater credibility - the person who has done it or the person who sits on the sidelines and says it can't be done? 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! Those plans aren't complete. ;-) 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? Perhaps he *is* interested in discussing it at a detail level. But the negeative criticism makes that difficult. After all, Mike could actually launch a balloon - and no matter what the results were, some would decry it as a "kluge". And if it only made it to, say, 98,500 feet, the mission would be described by some as a "failure". I just think it's worth a try. Lets back up a little bit here, and see if I can salvage something here. 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. Yep. And it's something that requires a team effort. The concept is to put volunteers to playwork in sending a payload in an appropriate container to the shoreline between earth and space, where the conditions are not like the area that we inhabit. It's cold, there is almost no atmosphere, there is a lot of radiation, and it is fairly near the ionized area of the atmosphere. And success is not guaranteed. Which of course, makes success all that much better. It's like the difference between a complete appliance station, and one where as much as you can do yourself has been done. You mean...like somebody who builds an entire ham station out of mostly recycled parts? And then is called "cheap" because it only him cost $100? One thing I notice is that there is very little attention given to the fact that what you're talking about is an ongoing project consisting of a series of launches. You'll almost certainly not try to reach 100,000 feet on the first go. Or the second... These conditions make it an interesting place to go to. How do we go there? Weather balloons provide a tantalizing clue. These latex balloons are launched on a daily basis by various weather agencies, mostly NOAA, but also at others. At this point in time, I don't know whether latex ballons can take one of your packages to 100,000 feet or not. From what I've read since that sentence was written, it seems very likely that "latex weather balloons" can do the job. I do know that they can be useful in the development process. Here are a couple links: pssst, don't let Leo know I gave you these! ;^) http://www.eoss.org/pubs/faqloon.htm This is a gentleman of experience going through a FAQ on the subject. Part way through, he notes that they use Totex balloons. 800 gram balloon to lift 3-4 pounds to 100,000 feet, and 1200 gram to lift a 6 pound payload to the same. The company that they buy the balloons from has a website: http://www.kaymont.com/pages/home.html Checking on this website, you'll find that Totex balloons are indeed made of natural latex rubber, as well as some other interesting stuff. Back to the EOSS FAQ page, there are a lot of answers there. They also go into costs, He versus H, power sources, and a lot of other stuff. "If it happens, it must be possible". Perhaps you could send a copy of those atmospheric tables up on the first 100,000 foot flight..... Since this happens so often, the authorities (FAA) and the launchers of the balloons have worked out a system that allows this to happen. A science balloon launch will just add one more to the mix. Another consideration is that the FAA no longer cares about the payload after it has reached 60,000 feet. That is the top end of their "airspace". During launch day, you will call them at launch, at 60,000 feet when they leave airspace, and on descent when they renter airspace at 60,000 feet, then again at landing. This means the balloon spends less time in the path of harm than it might appear at first. As the payload grows in weight, the regulations become more involved. While still relatively accommodating, it is a powerful incentive to keep the payload light. How is this done? The payload is often made of a material such as household insulation. Styrene insulation is quite light, and provides good insulation against the cold. Small versions of electronics are usually used. In the quest for weight reduction, cases are often stripped, and the chassis are mounted directly on the foam. For VHF and UHF communications, not a whole lot of power is needed for the transmitters. A 300 mw "credit card" HT is often the transmitter of choice. Power being a consideration. Lithium batteries are the power of choice, due to lightness. Anywhere that power can be conserved is worth looking at. I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most here would know about that already. What's so bad about this? You may fail, Mike. Worse, you may succeed! Failure is not an option......... ;^) Failure is always an option. Often more is learned from a "failure" than from a "success". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#198
November 21st 04, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: 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? Ya missed the point. Unless you can cite your soup-to-nuts "engineered" pile of freshman hardware I didn't miss the point. Boilerplate verbiage like: "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" is the ES 101 stuff. Actually doing it is very different. For example - just what *are* all the facets of a given problem?. I have no idea what "ES 101" is or was. . . . as if . . maybe two-three years outta E-school you were allowed to take a poke at an assignment like that. More like a year. Sometimes right out of the chute, sometimes never and perhaps with a glaring exception or two never in a freshman year out in commercial reality. . . 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. The trick is that the volunteer folks don't have the paycheck incentive. Just the reverse - such a project costs them money! So the motivation has to be elsewhere. You're taking it off onto a couple irrelevent tangents. The topic is how various folk who come from different educational, training and employment backgrounds approach the technical aspects of pulling off non-commercial stunts like sending homebrewed electronics packages to 100,000 feet with a balloon. Seasoned technical types degreed and otherwise learn out in the college of hard knocks how to plan and execute projects in highly systematic manners because when money is involved the project better be pulled off properly or yer outta work. That's the incentive. Beyond that we is what we is and we don't change our stripes when we get involved in the planning of off-hours volunteer efforts or our hobbies. Wherein come the clashes with the non-technical types we get involved with on joint efforts. Pick any mid-to-large scale Field Day planning session around here for a perfect example. 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! ****y huffy is par for the course here, isn't it? .. . . yeah . . . which of course is the whole bottom bottom line . . sigh Leo is VE, a VE6 if I'm not mistaken. How does anyone know for sure? He's been anonymous since day one here. He let his cat out of the bag at some point in past but it got past you. He's a VE but I had him in the wrong province. Not that there's anyhting wrong with that! He could just as easily be another of Len's online personalities. No way, changing writing styles like changing fingerprints, can't be done. Leo absolutely is not Sweetums. Or vice versa. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
#199
November 21st 04, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: snippage 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. The trick is that the volunteer folks don't have the paycheck incentive. Just the reverse - such a project costs them money! So the motivation has to be elsewhere. Then again, I'm not looking for grouchy old farts. If a person is "too (something)" for the project, then they certainly don't have to help. Yup. There are enough people out there apparently like myself that are too dumb to know that what we are trying to do can't be done. Certainly it can be done. It's HOW you do the planning to get from here to 100K feet which is the source of the grousing from us technoids. It is also a big mistake to take my sales pitch and extrapolate that I have a science fair mentality. A fair number of engineers have the "grouchy old fart" problem. That's why they don't do a good job outside of their respective fields. Ever have a crack engineer explain his project at a sales pitch? You jest! Wannna hear about how this grouchy old fart pitched his radical design concept for a big piece of machiney to Boeing about ten years ago? Thought so. Net result was that 8 months later and against eight much bigger gun bidders we had it running in the Boeing facility and they shipped the check for $1.5 million bucks. About a year later they didn't bother with the bidding process when they bought the second one based on the success of it's predecessor. One of my brothers was a hot-shot engineer with DuPont early in his career and went on to retire as CEO and President of an industry-leading mechanical technology firm which he built from 550 employees and $55m in sales to 1,600 employees and $250m in sales in nine years. The engine behind the growth was the engineering department. Former CEOs didn't think engineers mattered much. When he took over the company he had *four* engineers. So he went out and hired several hundred more. Bingo. Jim has met that brudder, he knows .. . . Then comes my father's cranky old buddy John Glass who had both ME and EE degrees from MIT. John started his company on one end of my one of my father's shop benches. He was marketing and sales manager's worst nightmare but his company is now a division of Northrop-Grumman. John left a $55m estate. But you're right about locking some engineers in the back shop under some conditiona and I've had to do that. The worst of the worst though are the unplugged engineers who stay in school all their lives and become "academics". I'll spare ya that rant, enough is enough. I don't recall Mike ever saying the first ballon would reach 100,000, nor that he'd use latex weather ballons, or even helium, or whatever. The first balloons won't even be free flying. My analysis of other groups and the problems they have had at times indicates that payload integration was and is a real problem. The device needs tested properly, and not just on a bench. Screw your web-based "analyses" nonsense, that's not a solution, that's a big piece of your problem. Get out from behind your nice comfy keyboard, pack the toolbox, gas up the car and link up with one of the experienced groups which is working on a high-altitude shot. Get yer hands dirty for a couple weekends and learn what's really up before you go at it yourself. That's close to the *first* move I'd make if I was into an effort like this. rest snipped - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
|
#200
November 21st 04, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: The first balloons won't even be free flying. My analysis of other groups and the problems they have had at times indicates that payload integration was and is a real problem. The device needs tested properly, and not just on a bench. In ballooning, the atmosphere IS your "bench." |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
