| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#211
November 22nd 04, 04:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: some snippage 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? My initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to inflate and release a latex balloon carrying a payload into the Stratosphere. This is based on the published results of other groups that are doing this sort of thing at this time. This is also based on correspondence with two people experienced in launching similar balloons. Mt initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to incorporate into that payload, several devices, including a GPS, various Amateur radio transceivers, and cameras. This payload may be controlled by various electronic control systems. Many are using a "Basic Stamp" processor. This research also leads me to believe that by using a packet radio system, the information from the GPS and other sensors may be transmitted to a computer that can keep track of the payload. This is based on what others are doing at this time, and some basic radio knowledge and knowledge of size and weight requirements and known equipment that fits the requirements. My initial research leads me to believe that I can construct a payload that will adequately protect the equipment from the low temperatures encountered in this area of the stratosphere. This is based on what others are doing at this time. Although more extensive calculations might be performed to find an ideal amount of insulation, it must be noted that those projects that are using simple insulation such as foam sheathing are not experiencing cold related failures. This leads me to conclude that at worst, a derivative sort of payload container might be made and operate successfully. If for some reason more research was needed an experiment might be arranged where the payload was packaged in Dry ice for say 5 hours - this would be much longer than any anticipated mission, and with dry ice having a temperature of around -109F, we could make a reasonable approximation of the altitude conditions, temperature- wise. My initial research leads me to believe that small science experiments might be performed on this payload, as long as the aggregate weight is within payload limits. Yeah, you know.... people blah blah blah. My initial research leads me to believe that this can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Reasonable is quite relative, of course, but with 40 dollar type prices for balloons, and around 50 dollars per launch of helium, (less for hydrogen) the relative inexpensiveness of payload construction materials, and that except for the unexpected loss of damage of a payload, the payload parts are multi-mission, the price per launch can be kept in the 200 dollar range. If used/donated parts can be utilized, the cost can be reduced even more. Note that I am not trying to advertise this as some sort of el cheapo project. When I say surprisingly inexpensive, I mean that at least in my case, I would have guessed that this sort of thing would have cost many thousands of dollars per launch. It doesn't appear to. If it would cost us that much, we are doing something different than the other folks that are doing this. My initial research leads me to believe that the powers that be do not place undue restrictions on these launches. I conclude this by the relevant documents that are issued by the FAA, and the accounts by the people that are doing this sort of thing. [i] 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!! 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? Lessee, there is a first person/second person shift in there, so I wasn't sure how to answer. But I'll take a stab. I would think that most everyone here - in fact most everyone everywhere - gives daily pronouncements on things that they have not done. It isn't a problem. While there is nothing like first hand experience, there is nothing wrong with acquiring knowledge from references and passing it on. Otherwise how could people "know" that a bullet fired from a gun will do bodily damage. How would they know that potato chips taste good. How would they know that if they stuck their head underwater and took a deep breath, they probably wouldn't like the results We HAVE to take some info as real without experience. We cannot be skeptical of everything, every waking moment. 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 lo I don't think so, at least as a reason for not doing flights there. So little "weather" is happening at that altitude that a payload sent there would not have much to report on! 8^) f. cost of such missions does not justify the *weather* information gathered True, no return at all. 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. I should clarify this statement. I know that brakes stop cars. I know that it is a pretty straightforward calculation. My point is that it is a few square inches of material that is stopping a big car. It isn't necessarily intuitive that it will do it. And as you say, Jim. People are doing it, so it works. 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. Or complexly wrong. But no doubt, 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. Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it? 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. I don't believe that people have Eagles tailgate parties! Can't be. I've been to Philadelphia many times, and I have not seen one Eagles tailgate party. Besides, the owners of the stadium would NEVER allow tailgate parties in the parking lots outside the stadium. The liability issues would be tremendous. Besides, you need to produce the calculations that show that you could pack people into a car, add food, and set up and feed them outside the stadium. How many Eagles tailgate parties have you put on. You cannot comment on an Eagles tailgate party unless you have attended and put on on, which you can't do because they won't allow them anyhow. Whoeee, now that's a vent! But it does illustrate some of the frustration I experience while on this subject. I'd love to discuss the various facets of the project, the equipment, and the policy aspects of it. (remember this whole thing was brought up in a policy context) But I can't do that because of the insistence by some that I and others can't do it for one reason or the other. This in spite of my addressing every concern. 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? Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with CWGet. I'll probably use packet for telemetry. Now morse QSO's are a possibility. 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? I happen to like being cheap! And I respect it too. 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. Not a problem at all. Questions are good. Skepticism is good. I/we learn and polish our act that way. Gratuitous insults are bad though! 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..... hehe! 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". The smiley was because that was the old Gene Kranz quote during the Apollo 13 mission. I thought it was a bit fitting. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#213
November 22nd 04, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(William) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... 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 Geez, he's got people filtered, promises not to address them until Dayton, then guess what? Sorry, Brain. No "promise" was made. You are encouraged to re-post any such assertion. He breaks his promise. No promise was broken. You are again encouraged to repost the item where a promise was made. I did put you in the spam filter. So far, I count over 78 posts authored by " that were directly filtered out. I cannot "filter" quotes by other posters unless I KF them, too. I do, on occassion, read a post for follow-up via Google. (ie: this one) I never "promised" to not respond to any given post. Please prove otherwise or be man enough to admit to yet another lie, Burke. That's our Steve. I have been many things, am many things, and will be many things in my life. "Your's" will NOT be one of them. You continue to lie and mislead. My decision to KF you was more than adequately substantiated. Brian P Burke, N0IMD, continues to lie and mislead, refusing to live up to his own demands and rhetoric. What a scumbag. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#214
November 22nd 04, 11:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#215
November 22nd 04, 12:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 21 Nov 2004 13:13:12 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote:
Leo wrote in message . .. On 20 Nov 2004 01:57:21 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote: snip I ran into a great blonde in the Toronto airport terminal who was a Mountie. Told her didn't look much like Sergeant Preston to me and asked her where her horse was. She asked me when I was going back where I came from. Heh - I can picture that! Bet she never heard that one before..... :0 Seriously, though, in downtown Toronto in the 70s, I frequently had tourists stop me and ask where they could see an igloo (2,500 miles north would be a great place to start!) and where all of the trees were (!). Doesn't seem to happen much anymore - maybe the Internet fixed that!. w3rv 73. Leo |
|
#216
November 22nd 04, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: some snippage 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? My initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to inflate and release a latex balloon carrying a payload into the Stratosphere. This is based on the published results of other groups that are doing this sort of thing at this time. This is also based on correspondence with two people experienced in launching similar balloons. Mt initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to incorporate into that payload, several devices, including a GPS, various Amateur radio transceivers, and cameras. This payload may be controlled by various electronic control systems. Many are using a "Basic Stamp" processor. This research also leads me to believe that by using a packet radio system, the information from the GPS and other sensors may be transmitted to a computer that can keep track of the payload. This is based on what others are doing at this time, and some basic radio knowledge and knowledge of size and weight requirements and known equipment that fits the requirements. My initial research leads me to believe that I can construct a payload that will adequately protect the equipment from the low temperatures encountered in this area of the stratosphere. This is based on what others are doing at this time. Although more extensive calculations might be performed to find an ideal amount of insulation, it must be noted that those projects that are using simple insulation such as foam sheathing are not experiencing cold related failures. This leads me to conclude that at worst, a derivative sort of payload container might be made and operate successfully. IOW: "If it happens, it must be possible". If for some reason more research was needed an experiment might be arranged where the payload was packaged in Dry ice for say 5 hours - this would be much longer than any anticipated mission, and with dry ice having a temperature of around -109F, we could make a reasonable approximation of the altitude conditions, temperature- wise. You might want to recheck the temperature of frozen CO2, but the concept is valid. My initial research leads me to believe that small science experiments might be performed on this payload, as long as the aggregate weight is within payload limits. Yeah, you know.... people blah blah blah. My initial research leads me to believe that this can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Reasonable is quite relative, of course, but with 40 dollar type prices for balloons, and around 50 dollars per launch of helium, (less for hydrogen) the relative inexpensiveness of payload construction materials, and that except for the unexpected loss of damage of a payload, the payload parts are multi-mission, the price per launch can be kept in the 200 dollar range. If used/donated parts can be utilized, the cost can be reduced even more. There's also the fact of free labor, and donation of incidental expenses like fuel and food. Note that I am not trying to advertise this as some sort of el cheapo project. When I say surprisingly inexpensive, I mean that at least in my case, I would have guessed that this sort of thing would have cost many thousands of dollars per launch. It doesn't appear to. If it would cost us that much, we are doing something different than the other folks that are doing this. Yup. My initial research leads me to believe that the powers that be do not place undue restrictions on these launches. I conclude this by the relevant documents that are issued by the FAA, and the accounts by the people that are doing this sort of thing. So it looks like you've "done your homework".. 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? Lessee, there is a first person/second person shift in there, so I wasn't sure how to answer. But I'll take a stab. I would think that most everyone here - in fact most everyone everywhere - gives daily pronouncements on things that they have not done. It isn't a problem. While there is nothing like first hand experience, there is nothing wrong with acquiring knowledge from references and passing it on. Otherwise how could people "know" that a bullet fired from a gun will do bodily damage. How would they know that potato chips taste good. How would they know that if they stuck their head underwater and took a deep breath, they probably wouldn't like the results We HAVE to take some info as real without experience. We cannot be skeptical of everything, every waking moment. 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. My point is that it is a few square inches of material that is stopping a big car. It isn't necessarily intuitive that it will do it. Not at first. And as you say, Jim. People are doing it, so it works. 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. Or complexly wrong. But no doubt, wrong! Not that he will ever admit it. 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. At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites. Len isn't. Says it all. Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it? Len's just wrong about the latex weather balloons. Not confusing at all. 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. Three words: Eagles tailgate party. I don't believe that people have Eagles tailgate parties! Can't be. I've been to Philadelphia many times, and I have not seen one Eagles tailgate party. Besides, the owners of the stadium would NEVER allow tailgate parties in the parking lots outside the stadium. The liability issues would be tremendous. Besides, you need to produce the calculations that show that you could pack people into a car, add food, and set up and feed them outside the stadium. How many Eagles tailgate parties have you put on. You cannot comment on an Eagles tailgate party unless you have attended and put on on, which you can't do because they won't allow them anyhow. haw Whoeee, now that's a vent! But it does illustrate some of the frustration I experience while on this subject. I'd love to discuss the various facets of the project, the equipment, and the policy aspects of it. (remember this whole thing was brought up in a policy context) But I can't do that because of the insistence by some that I and others can't do it for one reason or the other. This in spite of my addressing every concern. Of course you can discuss those issues! You just can't discuss them with the naysayers! Do you really think Len would have *anything* positive to contribute to the project? Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse? Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with CWGet. Ugh I'll probably use packet for telemetry. Now morse QSO's are a possibility. I am liking this more and more... 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? I happen to like being cheap! And I respect it too. "Cheap" implies shoddiness. I think a better choice is "frugal". 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. Not a problem at all. Questions are good. Skepticism is good. I/we learn and polish our act that way. Gratuitous insults are bad though! Did you *really* expect any usable input from Len? 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..... hehe! Just tuck them in with "Leonard"... I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most here would know about that already. There is one really big problem you cannot avoid, though.... Here in EPA, a *lot* of the land surface area is either wooded or developed. Or water, paved road, etc. This isn't prairie country, like where most of the launches take place. The chances that you'll be able to recover the package are adversely affected by this. If it hangs up 60 feet in a tree, or on a power line, or on top of a building, it's probably gone forever. Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, just that the risk is greater. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#217
November 22nd 04, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#218
November 22nd 04, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N2EY" wrote But no call, no last name, no positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. So what? Come to think of it, you might be N2EY, or you might not be. No positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe you're just another of Len Andersons screen names. Or you might be VA2QRU/VE7JPN, Masataka Noda. Who cares? 73, de Hans, ex-KG6AQI |
|
#219
November 22nd 04, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: some snippage 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? My initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to inflate and release a latex balloon carrying a payload into the Stratosphere. This is based on the published results of other groups that are doing this sort of thing at this time. This is also based on correspondence with two people experienced in launching similar balloons. Mt initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to incorporate into that payload, several devices, including a GPS, various Amateur radio transceivers, and cameras. This payload may be controlled by various electronic control systems. Many are using a "Basic Stamp" processor. This research also leads me to believe that by using a packet radio system, the information from the GPS and other sensors may be transmitted to a computer that can keep track of the payload. This is based on what others are doing at this time, and some basic radio knowledge and knowledge of size and weight requirements and known equipment that fits the requirements. My initial research leads me to believe that I can construct a payload that will adequately protect the equipment from the low temperatures encountered in this area of the stratosphere. This is based on what others are doing at this time. Although more extensive calculations might be performed to find an ideal amount of insulation, it must be noted that those projects that are using simple insulation such as foam sheathing are not experiencing cold related failures. This leads me to conclude that at worst, a derivative sort of payload container might be made and operate successfully. IOW: "If it happens, it must be possible". If for some reason more research was needed an experiment might be arranged where the payload was packaged in Dry ice for say 5 hours - this would be much longer than any anticipated mission, and with dry ice having a temperature of around -109F, we could make a reasonable approximation of the altitude conditions, temperature- wise. You might want to recheck the temperature of frozen CO2, but the concept is valid. -109.3 degrees F, or -78.5 degrees C. Did you have a different number? My initial research leads me to believe that small science experiments might be performed on this payload, as long as the aggregate weight is within payload limits. Yeah, you know.... people blah blah blah. My initial research leads me to believe that this can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Reasonable is quite relative, of course, but with 40 dollar type prices for balloons, and around 50 dollars per launch of helium, (less for hydrogen) the relative inexpensiveness of payload construction materials, and that except for the unexpected loss of damage of a payload, the payload parts are multi-mission, the price per launch can be kept in the 200 dollar range. If used/donated parts can be utilized, the cost can be reduced even more. There's also the fact of free labor, and donation of incidental expenses like fuel and food. Yup. This is a thing that people do for a part of a hobby. There are enough of that sort around. Note that I am not trying to advertise this as some sort of el cheapo project. When I say surprisingly inexpensive, I mean that at least in my case, I would have guessed that this sort of thing would have cost many thousands of dollars per launch. It doesn't appear to. If it would cost us that much, we are doing something different than the other folks that are doing this. Yup. My initial research leads me to believe that the powers that be do not place undue restrictions on these launches. I conclude this by the relevant documents that are issued by the FAA, and the accounts by the people that are doing this sort of thing. So it looks like you've "done your homework".. I think so. There is always something else to learn, but that's another part of the fun. [i] 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!! 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? Lessee, there is a first person/second person shift in there, so I wasn't sure how to answer. But I'll take a stab. I would think that most everyone here - in fact most everyone everywhere - gives daily pronouncements on things that they have not done. It isn't a problem. While there is nothing like first hand experience, there is nothing wrong with acquiring knowledge from references and passing it on. Otherwise how could people "know" that a bullet fired from a gun will do bodily damage. How would they know that potato chips taste good. How would they know that if they stuck their head underwater and took a deep breath, they probably wouldn't like the results We HAVE to take some info as real without experience. We cannot be skeptical of everything, every waking moment. 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. My point is that it is a few square inches of material that is stopping a big car. It isn't necessarily intuitive that it will do it. Not at first. And as you say, Jim. People are doing it, so it works. 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. Or complexly wrong. But no doubt, wrong! Not that he will ever admit it. 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. At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites. Len isn't. Says it all. Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it? Len's just wrong about the latex weather balloons. Not confusing at all. No, I mean it would be confusing to his view, since we would be messing up his opinion with facts. 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. Three words: Eagles tailgate party. I don't believe that people have Eagles tailgate parties! Can't be. I've been to Philadelphia many times, and I have not seen one Eagles tailgate party. Besides, the owners of the stadium would NEVER allow tailgate parties in the parking lots outside the stadium. The liability issues would be tremendous. Besides, you need to produce the calculations that show that you could pack people into a car, add food, and set up and feed them outside the stadium. How many Eagles tailgate parties have you put on. You cannot comment on an Eagles tailgate party unless you have attended and put on on, which you can't do because they won't allow them anyhow. haw Whoeee, now that's a vent! But it does illustrate some of the frustration I experience while on this subject. I'd love to discuss the various facets of the project, the equipment, and the policy aspects of it. (remember this whole thing was brought up in a policy context) But I can't do that because of the insistence by some that I and others can't do it for one reason or the other. This in spite of my addressing every concern. Of course you can discuss those issues! You just can't discuss them with the naysayers! Do you really think Len would have *anything* positive to contribute to the project? Snort! Too bad, that! Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse? Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with CWGet. Ugh I'll probably use packet for telemetry. I've been discussing this with one of the partners. The packet will give us one more level of redundancy, since we can have people that have internet access during the flight look at the position with APRS. Now morse QSO's are a possibility. I am liking this more and more... I'm looking at it in a repeater fashion or remote. I have to see what the F.C.C. rules are related to this. 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? I happen to like being cheap! And I respect it too. "Cheap" implies shoddiness. I think a better choice is "frugal". 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. Not a problem at all. Questions are good. Skepticism is good. I/we learn and polish our act that way. Gratuitous insults are bad though! Did you *really* expect any usable input from Len? Everyone gives me usable input. Brian Burke has given me really good input, Len and other Brian have too. I can take the advisement as what happens when you interact with people that expect (want?) you to fail. This helps, believe it or not. 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..... hehe! Just tuck them in with "Leonard"... Seriously, we probably won't be sending any live payload. There would probably be some ethical issues and complaints. I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most here would know about that already. There is one really big problem you cannot avoid, though.... Here in EPA, a *lot* of the land surface area is either wooded or developed. Or water, paved road, etc. This isn't prairie country, like where most of the launches take place. The chances that you'll be able to recover the package are adversely affected by this. If it hangs up 60 feet in a tree, or on a power line, or on top of a building, it's probably gone forever. Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, just that the risk is greater. It is a much bigger risk. The worst case scenario is a payload that lands in the north central part of the state. There are some areas that are darn near wilderness there. So I/we have to be prepared to do some serious hiking under a few circumstances. That's okay - it doesn't bother me a bit. Hiking in Pennsylvania is a gift. I don't know if you saw the link from the people in Mass.? A couple of their payloads landed in the *big* pond! - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#220
November 22nd 04, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote But no call, no last name, no positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. So what? I said as much, Hans. Come to think of it, you might be N2EY, or you might not be. Nope. You can check out who I am. Others here, including you, have worked me on the air or met me in person. For example, you can dig up *any* old SS log where you worked N2EY, and I can tell you the date, time, band, and exchange. No positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Actually I do have a website, and outside confirmation. Maybe you're just another of Len Andersons screen names. Or you might be VA2QRU/VE7JPN, Masataka Noda. Neither one of those worked you on 7037 some time back.... Who cares? I just made an observation. If "Leo" wants to remain anonymous, I have no problem at all with it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
