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


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? 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! A lack of
hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply
differently to others?

Amazingly enough, the laws of physics are absolute. Paper airplane,
high speed jet , spitball or balloon - the same physical laws apply to
all. Just like you learned in engineering school.....(?)

No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur
radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute.


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. Jim, whether
you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of
physics could care less! They remain absolute.

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. 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.


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.

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! The issue here is simply how the
various obstacles standing in the way of success have been overcome.
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. 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).

One can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific
information - actually doing it is quite something else. 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!

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?

Of course, Jim, you could step up to the plate and use your vast
knowledge of engineering to articulately respond to each of the
problems and issues raised, educating us all as to why they do or no
not have a bearing on this project........

......Didn't think so.


73 de Jim, N2EY


73, Leo

On 18 Nov 2004 15:04:20 -0800, (William) wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Heil
writes:

If you break 100,000 MSL we'll ship Leonard off to Sean O'Keefe at
NASA so that O'Keefe can pin astronaut wings on Leonard.

HOWL! Now that's funny!

Yes, it was incredibly funny, yet there are those who think that there
is a lack of humor in r.r.a.p.

I like W3RV's idea. I thought it might be more appropriate to consider
naming the vehicle itself "Leonard" but I was advised that there is
already a gas bag with that name.

Remember, too, that the balloons Mike is considering obtain their lift from
helium (a noble gas) rather than hot air.

73 de Jim, N2EY

What an ignoble thing to say, James.

You didn't expect something different, did you?

73, Leo

On 18 Nov 2004 04:42:46 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:23 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:50:46 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Len Over 21 wrote:



It's times like this that can bring people together. You and Brian
Kelly have something in common.


Realism?

Perhaps you could tell me, Leo? I've shown that it can and does happen
and that a lot of people are doing exactly what I speak of on a regular
basis. Believe or don't believe. It is your choice.

Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of
knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback. They
aren't saying that you're nuts to be considering doing what you intend
to do, but they are offering you the benefit of their understanding of
engineering and physics as it pertains to your project.

If they are missing something (and me too, perhaps - this sure ain't
my area of expertise either!), then by all means show them where
they're wrong - but they are both pretty intelligent, educated and
knowledgeable guys, with years of real-world experience in their
fields - maybe worth at least a rational discussion? Or you could
throw a bunch of web references in their faces and get angry....

Your call.

Sigh...there will be NO "rational discussions" in THIS newsgrope
by PCTA with any NCTA. Hasn't been before, won't be ever until
the last code key is pried from cold, dead fingers. :-)

There have been - literally - millions of balloons lofted carrying
radio transmitters to high altitudes. Very, very few of those made
it past 50 kilofeet altitude...they weren't designed to do that and
part of that design-for-meteorology-by-metrology used ground-
level helium-filled closed balloons.

Basic information needed for any "manager" of this kind of thing
is the Standard Atmosphere data. [easy to get] Information on
the millions of radiosondes and (now) rawinsondes takes more
digging (it's of little interest to most other folks) but it's out there.
Next would be basic gas costs and what is required to get from
the supplier's bottle (costs a helluva lot more if the container is
not returned, empty or not) to the balloon itself. That's the
cross-over between work-that-must-be-known-and-done and task
logistics. The "manager" must eventually integrate all the on-board
equipment, cross-check that against lifting capability and make
sure that someone has checked operation VERY close to launch.
There has to be some kind of tracking of the balloon flight and
(unless one has a spare half-million-dollar optical tracker) it is
going out of sight in about ten minutes or maybe 15 even with 10
power binoculars. Supposedly the on-board GPS is doing that
tracking and reporting back accurately...but what if it suddenly
went non-operational? There needs be a procedural back-up.

Now, if the name of the game is Actual Amateur Experimentation,
then the "manager" ought to be able to sweet-talk his way into
getting his own experiment on board one of those already-proven
ham balloon flights. But, that may be defeating the whole object
of this blue-sky to near-blackness-of-space pipe dreaming...
the "manager" won't be manager any more and his name can't head
the list of experienced done-it-before types doing the actual flight.

Or, the project proposals for all this are pure pipe dreaming which
cannot Ever be negatively criticized without getting someone very
outraged for ANY sort of critique except high-fives. Dreaming
about something is fine. DOING it is quite another. Getting outraged
at not being psychologically sugar-boosted happens all the time in
here, realized by most but never by the proposer. :-)

Tsk.



Sad indeed, but true! Of course, it's far more important to make a
concerted effort to bash the messenger rather than analyse the essence
of the data presented in the message - that's how this thing seems to
work......!

73, Leo

In article , Leo
writes:

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?

What experience do either of them have launching radio-carrying balloons to
100,000 feet or more?

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.

Is there something wrong with expressing a positive attitude towards the idea,
and offering encouragement while *simultaneously* pointing out where the
problems may be?

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.....

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!

A lack of
hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply
differently to others?

Have I said *anyone* should not post here?

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.

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.

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.

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.

You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific
information - actually doing it is quite something else.

That's my point.

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!

;-)

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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


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? 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! A lack of
hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply
differently to others?

Amazingly enough, the laws of physics are absolute. Paper airplane,
high speed jet , spitball or balloon - the same physical laws apply to
all. Just like you learned in engineering school.....(?)

And the laws of physics I am trying to ignore are....?

No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur
radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute.


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. Jim, whether
you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of
physics could care less! They remain absolute.

The laws of physics

The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical
law.

No laws have been broken 8^)


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.

1. hmmmm. Your engineering projects must have an unlimited budget

2. In engineering projects, all problems are never satisfactorily
resolved. In fact, most are not. You accept, you are not satisfied.


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.

I see that is in quotes. can you dig that up where I said that? You
can't even paraphrase that from any of my posts.


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.


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! The issue here is simply how the
various obstacles standing in the way of success have been overcome.
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.

Leo, would you accept my explanations? If there is a graphic that shows
the thermal profile of the atmosphere, should I draw my own, and mail it
to the person? Why not make that reference?

In fact, what you are taking for petulance is the simple provision of
references. I don't know how many techincal reports you read, but where
I come from, they often have *several* pages of references, lately
including some that are indeed web pages.

Sorry that you don't think I have any technical acumen, but you are
wrong. But that isn't my sole purpose in the project, as outlined below.


Makes
one wonder ho deep an understanding one would possess to reply in this
manner! I'd suspect not too deep.......

"One" would not posess all the understanding needed to do this project.
My own expertise towards this project would be in the area of
Visualization - still and video cameras - and payload integration. In
addition, I would be involved with interfacing between the various parts
of the group, schools and regulatory agencies. Other people that would
be needed are programmers, technician type builders,computer jockeys and
let's not forget the recovery team.

As for the launching, I already have a person with experience in
launching balloons for NOAA. Does it several times a week.


not much past the "sounds
pretty cool!" stage of the project).


That stage was reached around August of this past year. We are at the
beginning stage of making committees now.


One can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific
information - actually doing it is quite something else.

Yep.

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!

At least you don't exxagerate! Sheesh!



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 -

How much detail do you want? I expect that as this project evolves, I
will post a lot of info on our club website.

I would be interested in providing detail as the project evolves.

Of course, I'm handicapped by the fact that some here want me to
reinvent the wheel.

Yes, it is possible to send a small balloon and payload to the edge of
space, and safely retrieve it. But if I can't convince people here that
it is being done(and if I give proof, it is considered being petulant)
then what can I do?


unless there was some other reason for doing so......? Wonder what
that might be.....! hmmmmm - Rah Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bah......
y'think?

Come to think of it, there *was* another reason. A long long time ago
in this thread, I brough this project up as an example of what Hams
could do that is relevent. Hans had noted that the ARS is being
marginalized.

I noted that such a project had many advantages. We would be working
with youth on a science oriented mission, we would be innovating,
bringing multiple disciplines together, and garnering good publicity for
the ARS. THAT was the reason I brought it up. And barring unforseen
setback, it will happen.



Of course, Jim, you could step up to the plate and use your vast
knowledge of engineering

Sarcasm doesn't become you , Leo.


to articulately respond to each of the
problems and issues raised, educating us all as to why they do or no
not have a bearing on this project........

Jim raised some good questions. One does not need to be versed in all
the disciplines involved to be a good sounding board. What is needed is
critical thinking. he can think critically, and that is a good trait.


Many do *not* like that trait of course.


.....Didn't think so.

Why the lawyer mentality? One must be an acknowledged expert in any
field to comment on anything?

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:


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?


What experience do either of them have launching radio-carrying balloons to
100,000 feet or more?


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! ;^)

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!

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.....

Especially when it is being done with some regularity....


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.........

And this is a bad thing - how?


A lack of
hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply
differently to others?


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^)

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!


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.

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.


You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says?


Because we can have a civil discussion?

I think some people assume that the newsgroup is only for arguments and
antagonistic behavior.


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?

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? Or have you accepted the
results and wanted to do better?

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


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!


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!

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.


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.

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.


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!

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)


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.


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.

I may run into a flat earther here and there.


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!


;-)

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.

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.

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. 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?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 18 Nov 2004 04:42:46 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:23 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:50:46 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Len Over 21 wrote:



It's times like this that can bring people together. You and Brian
Kelly have something in common.


Realism?

Perhaps you could tell me, Leo? I've shown that it can and does happen
and that a lot of people are doing exactly what I speak of on a regular
basis. Believe or don't believe. It is your choice.

Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of
knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback. They
aren't saying that you're nuts to be considering doing what you intend
to do, but they are offering you the benefit of their understanding of
engineering and physics as it pertains to your project.

If they are missing something (and me too, perhaps - this sure ain't
my area of expertise either!), then by all means show them where
they're wrong - but they are both pretty intelligent, educated and
knowledgeable guys, with years of real-world experience in their
fields - maybe worth at least a rational discussion? Or you could
throw a bunch of web references in their faces and get angry....

Your call.

Sigh...there will be NO "rational discussions" in THIS newsgrope
by PCTA with any NCTA. Hasn't been before, won't be ever until
the last code key is pried from cold, dead fingers. :-)

There have been - literally - millions of balloons lofted carrying
radio transmitters to high altitudes. Very, very few of those made
it past 50 kilofeet altitude...they weren't designed to do that and
part of that design-for-meteorology-by-metrology used ground-
level helium-filled closed balloons.

Basic information needed for any "manager" of this kind of thing
is the Standard Atmosphere data. [easy to get] Information on
the millions of radiosondes and (now) rawinsondes takes more
digging (it's of little interest to most other folks) but it's out there.
Next would be basic gas costs and what is required to get from
the supplier's bottle (costs a helluva lot more if the container is
not returned, empty or not) to the balloon itself. That's the
cross-over between work-that-must-be-known-and-done and task
logistics. The "manager" must eventually integrate all the on-board
equipment, cross-check that against lifting capability and make
sure that someone has checked operation VERY close to launch.
There has to be some kind of tracking of the balloon flight and
(unless one has a spare half-million-dollar optical tracker) it is
going out of sight in about ten minutes or maybe 15 even with 10
power binoculars. Supposedly the on-board GPS is doing that
tracking and reporting back accurately...but what if it suddenly
went non-operational? There needs be a procedural back-up.

Now, if the name of the game is Actual Amateur Experimentation,
then the "manager" ought to be able to sweet-talk his way into
getting his own experiment on board one of those already-proven
ham balloon flights. But, that may be defeating the whole object
of this blue-sky to near-blackness-of-space pipe dreaming...
the "manager" won't be manager any more and his name can't head
the list of experienced done-it-before types doing the actual flight.

Or, the project proposals for all this are pure pipe dreaming which
cannot Ever be negatively criticized without getting someone very
outraged for ANY sort of critique except high-fives. Dreaming
about something is fine. DOING it is quite another. Getting outraged
at not being psychologically sugar-boosted happens all the time in
here, realized by most but never by the proposer. :-)

Tsk.



Sad indeed, but true! Of course, it's far more important to make a
concerted effort to bash the messenger rather than analyse the essence
of the data presented in the message - that's how this thing seems to
work......!

If it didn't work that way there would be no RRAP.


73, Leo

w3rv

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Leo

writes:


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?

What experience do either of them have launching radio-carrying balloons to
100,000 feet or more?

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.....

Especially when it is being done with some regularity....

By *amateurs*

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.

And this is a bad thing - how?

Well, you might actually get some balloons launched, and prove Len to be
absolutely wrong.....

A lack of
hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply
differently to others?

It would be interesting to know what are the "many topics where [i]
have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various
articles that you have read"

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.

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.

Perhaps "Len" and "Leo" are the same person. Note the identical misspelling of
"focussing" and "focussed" in their postings. "Leo" is anonymous, but is never
challenged on it by Len or "William"..

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?

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.

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.

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.

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*.

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?

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.

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. I do know that they can be useful in the
development process.

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!

73 es GL de Jim, N2EY

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 18 Nov 2004 15:04:20 -0800, (William) wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Heil
writes:

If you break 100,000 MSL we'll ship Leonard off to Sean O'Keefe at
NASA so that O'Keefe can pin astronaut wings on Leonard.

HOWL! Now that's funny!

Yes, it was incredibly funny, yet there are those who think that there
is a lack of humor in r.r.a.p.

I like W3RV's idea. I thought it might be more appropriate to consider
naming the vehicle itself "Leonard" but I was advised that there is
already a gas bag with that name.

Remember, too, that the balloons Mike is considering obtain their lift from
helium (a noble gas) rather than hot air.

73 de Jim, N2EY

What an ignoble thing to say, James.

You didn't expect something different, did you?

73, Leo

I used to, but James has changed. He's become bitter since the restructuring.

"William" wrote

He's become bitter since the restructuring

Restructuring? What restructuring?

..73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote


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


"Many difficult endeavors are belittled because if they are not
belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not
taking part in them?'"
--H. G. Wells

73, de Hans, K0HB

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says?

Because we can have a civil discussion?

I think some people assume that the newsgroup is only for arguments and
antagonistic behavior.

There are a number of dot policy groups in USENET and arguing, venting
spleens, running brag tapes and antaganism is what all of 'em are
about. Check out sci dot space dot policy or whatever it is for
another example. This NG was founded to get arguing over the code
tests out of whatever ham NG is was tearing up back then. RRAP is
still true to it's founding principles and it ain't about to morph
into a place where you'll find much in the way of ongoing civil
discussions for anybody.

Somewhere in this thread you indicated that posting your balloon
project in the NG was probably not a good idea. It wasn't.

- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 18 Nov 2004 15:04:20 -0800, (William) wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Heil
writes:

If you break 100,000 MSL we'll ship Leonard off to Sean O'Keefe at
NASA so that O'Keefe can pin astronaut wings on Leonard.

HOWL! Now that's funny!

Yes, it was incredibly funny, yet there are those who think that there
is a lack of humor in r.r.a.p.

I like W3RV's idea. I thought it might be more appropriate to consider
naming the vehicle itself "Leonard" but I was advised that there is
already a gas bag with that name.

Remember, too, that the balloons Mike is considering obtain their lift from
helium (a noble gas) rather than hot air.

73 de Jim, N2EY

What an ignoble thing to say, James.

You didn't expect something different, did you?

73, Leo

Jim has gone over to the QuiteDarkSide.

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

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?

Who on this newsgroup has even attempted to launch a radio-carrying ballon
to 100,000 feet? Or even to half that?

Me.

bwaahaahaa

Not to FL 100 but close enough RRAP purposes.

How close, just for grins?

The Maryland state
enviornmental agency and NOAA operate remote contolled air sampling
and WX monitoring stations at the air field where I based my
ultralight in Harford County. The state recruited volunteers who were
regulars at the field to fill and launch balloons they supplied as
kits for assembly and launching on specific dates at specific times
over a period of a about a month.

1990 or so. I volunteered and was involved in three launches. A state
guy conducted a two-hour meeting at the field during which us
volunteers were taught hands-on how to do the assemble, test and
launch work.

The drill was to unpack the kit, lay everything out on the overrun
grass off the south end of the turf runway, hook it all together,
inflate the balloon and tie it down. At this point the electronics and
batteries were checked out by sending a system test routine to the
ground station rcvr. There were zero failures at ground level on 20 or
so missions from that airport. There was one inflight failure at some
very high altitude according to feedback from the state.

Usually a 2 or 3 man crew per launch was involved, two out on the
grass and one in the FBO office who dialed FAA Leesburg, announced the
launch then got on the local UNICOM freq and broadcast a "balloon in
the air" alert and our job was over that day.

The payload instruments inhaled and analyzed air samples at various
pre-programmed altitudes. The payload radio shipped the analyzer
output data back to the ground station which was networked back to the
agency group doing the studies via a dedicated phone line. They also
had other networked rcvrs scattered around the state listening to the
payload radio for backup purposes.

Good show!


73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

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."

Did you see any estimates of weight, altitude, or ANY cost figures
presented in here? I didn't. I doubt anyone else saw them.

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.

"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.

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

YES! QRX while I dial up Carl Stevenson on the other line . .

Why? Does your whip need fresh blood?

Nobody's done that for a while!

Must be. Cucaracha Kelly's whip hasn't drawn blood in a long
time.

In article , Leo
writes:

Sad indeed, but true! Of course, it's far more important to make a
concerted effort to bash the messenger rather than analyse the essence
of the data presented in the message - that's how this thing seems to
work......!

In article ,
(William) writes:

Len, so one part of the project, the corner cube reflector, is easily
fabricated using inexpensive materials. Excellent. No need to bother
Kelly. I'm sure he's much too busy gearing up for field day or the
sweeps.

That "corner-cube" type of retroflector was once part of survival
rafts on USAF aircraft. Light enough to be lifted by kite (also part
of the raft).

Corner cubes can be highly irritating. At Rockwell, the optics
designer's mini-bull-pen had one made by one of the drafts people
from three flat mirrors. Whenever you were there and looked at
that one wall, regardless of position or at which table, you found
yourself looking back at you. :-)

Regarding the latex balloons, the little PIBAL balloons are not going
to get there, if those are the balloons that Mike is referring to.

Tsk. The ROI (Rules Of Engagement) in this newsgrope is that
everyone MUST do something they say. :-)

Well, I've told Mike that them surplus-store "latex weather
balloons" ain't going to do it, Kelly implied as much. But, if he
gets negative comments he goes all pouty and sniffly and
condemns the dastardly (if an NCTA) negative commenters as
trying to discourage him or that "it is impossible."

I
don't know what kind of fabric the rawinsonde balloons are made from,
but they routinely get to 100mb, and often get to 10mb (~30km). Mike
just needs to get whatever is currently available and go with it. It
will work.

Of course they will work. But, Mike (if he wants to be grande
"concept manager") should memorize the public info on Standard
Atmosphere tables before stepping into the self-declared CEO
(Creative Efficiency Officer) spot. CO$T is involved with this whole
thing...it ain't just filling cute party balloons at some state fair.
Just considering the Standard Atmosphere -

1. Atmosphere density decreases remarkably at altitudes above
around 10 kilofeet. A closed balloon envelope displaces only
so much atmosphere despite its size and the density (or
"weight") remains essentially the same. That provides one of
the upper-altitude maxima for the project...when related to the
payload weight.

2. Atmospheric pressure also decreases with increasing altitude.
A closed balloon envelope has to take that into account, either
by being only partly filled at launch altitude (envelope weight is
dependent on expansion capability, the unfilled part being just
dead weight at launch). Balloon envelope maximum size will
establish the maximum payload lift, having to correspond with
item (1.) and the lower of either altitude will be the limit.

3. Atmospheric temperature gets remarkably cold at altitude and
there's a roughly 70 C drop between altitudes of 10K feet and
100K feet. As temperature goes down, gas pressure will go
down and that impacts on both envelope structure strength
and displacement, thus a fine point on lifting capability.

4. There's been inadequate mention of the "lifting gas" availability
handling, and cost. Only one mention was made of a "typical
cost" at one locality...but not by the "concept manager."
Helium gas in heavy cannisters/tanks (high cost if not returned
to vendor) is readily avilable for welders' use (Heliarc welding).
That stuff is "safe" except that, as is, it is under a lot of
pressure which must be reduced somehow for filling relatively
delicate balloon envelopes. Hydrogen gas is available in the
same cannister/tanks but is highly flammable and may be
subject to some local rules on hazard materials' handling.
Low-pressure hydrogen can be produced easily by high school
science electrolysis very cheaply but large balloon envelope
sizes need a lot more of it than is done in classroom
experiments..

5. The slightest mention of BASICS involved in getting the balloon
and payload up at all is "discouraging the concept."

I think planning several launches, each with increasing difficulty, is
a way to tackle the problems and see what works and ~who~ works.

Concept managers don't have to concern themselves with
details. That's up to the serfs who do all the work, foot their
own bills, and have some idea of Standard Atmosphere data.
Concept managers have their CONCEPTS and that is the end
in itself. snort

Nothing sent aloft should be so valuable that it cannot be lost, and
expect losses. A receiver for the command burst, a beacon transmitter
for tracking and recovery, and a telemetry recorder (internal temp,
external temp, and pressure) will verify the attained altitude. He
can play with the cross-band repeaters, atv cameras, and hyperspectral
imaging during a later launch.

Absolutely so. Just the same, an off-the-cuff estimate of costs
per launch could go from $200 to even $500. depending on the
payload "science." As I said, this isn't inflating some party
balloons at a fair. Three words: Sponsors, sponsors, sponsors.

The problem of congested airways is still there. He might consider
having a trained group of DFers locally/College Station to recover the
package, and move his launch site and crew to Indiana to tame that
problem. If he does it with the Scouts, they are always mobile, and
actually like going places for a purpose. And Scouting opens doors
that might otherwise be closed.

All highly do-able if he gets the right volunteers and sponsorship.

Sponsors aren't going to buy into the "concept manager" stuff
unless there's something in it for the sponsor.

Now watch all the "noble" PCTAs chime in with "cockroach" humor
and the resident Gas Bag try to call others for one. Way to much
DREAMING of glories in here and not enough practicality.

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

This reads like the story of your entry into amateur radio, Leonard.

Tsk. I've never claimed to be desirous of getting into amateurism.

That's YOUR false charge.

Dreaming about getting that ticket is one thing. DOING it is quite
another.

Tsk again. I bypassed licensed amateurism in 1956, going
directly to the commercial license. Went full time into radio-
electronics.

So...I've DONE IT, Herr Gasbag, a long time ago.

I remain both a pro and an amateur in electronics, being a
hobbyist before graduating high school and continuing that for
a long time of my professional career.

Mike will likely see "Leonard" at 100k feet before you obtain an amateur
radio license.

Tsk. You best lay off the peyote or whatever substance you inhale.

Happy psychological sugar-boosting and message knuckling to you.

More tsk. I'm not the one into pipe dreams ("grand concepts and
graphics management")

I'm not into looking for sweet words of approval on the computer plus
"applause" for all the pipe dreaming. Others need to be nurtured by
"peer approval" first before they work up the courage to go DO it.

Tsk, tsk...I'm not into arguing a subject by snitting on others or
working up IMAGINARY "reasons" for engaging in anything. Heil-the-
Gasbag seems capable of nothing else.

Odd. A gasbag that doesn't know Standard Atmosphere...but is an
"expert" on lofting many and varied airhead comments on others'
persons.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:12:53 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:
snip

1. hmmmm. Your engineering projects must have an unlimited budget

I wish!

Professionally speaking.......

My projects have to meet very detailed specifications and industry
standards (CCITT, EIA, IC), and are designed to be commercially and
economically viable - with as few as possible 'surprises' for the end
user to discover. If a business case cannot be prepared to justify
adequate funding for this level of quality in the end product, it dies
right then and there. This is how things are done in the professional
world - unless you enjoy recall programs, product liability suits and
loss of market share due to the poor reputation that follows......not
to mention the negative impact this would have on one's career.

For an amateur level project, the rules are obviously *far* less
rigorous - many tradeoffs can be made, as the end user is you - you
decide the level of quality, time, costs and losses that you can
afford, and go from there. One thing that cannot be traded off,
however, are the realities of physics as they apply to the project -
which leads us back to the original discussion point.....


2. In engineering projects, all problems are never satisfactorily
resolved. In fact, most are not. You accept, you are not satisfied.

Wow! I'm sure glad I don't work where you do! This explains the
erosion of the North American manufacturing sector pretty well.....

This philosophy may hold true in a Chinese power tool plant making
$5.00 battery powered drills - in my field we use the Six Sigma
protocol (a form of total quality management, originally developed by
Motorola) to ensure that folks who subscribe to that philosophy don't
sneak something crappy out the door!

snip

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.

Not really - he frequently uses posts like this one to play off his
own political agenda with several of the other posters here in RRAP.
Look closer - and read between the lines......

You are most definitely not incompetent, though - not sure why someone
would infer that! You're thinking, and you have done your homework!

And what you are planning is most definitely possible - it's been
done, many many times before!

So, if you posted your ideas in a discussion group, and someone
commented that it is not possible to do what you plan to do, yet you
have researched it and know that it can - why not try to rationally
explain the solutions that you have discovered to each of the
show-stoppers raised? Rather than get angry with them and fire off a
pile of web references and indignant comments, that is. Or ignore
them entirely - after all, you know it can be done - right?

Discussion groups are for discussions, aren't they....?

snip

Of course, Jim, you could step up to the plate and use your vast
knowledge of engineering

Sarcasm doesn't become you , Leo.

Not necessarily sarcastic - I see no real technical comments at all,
just cheerleading, platitudes, and pooh-poohing of the comments made
by others.....which would be considered half vast :) (sorry -
couldn't resist!)



to articulately respond to each of the
problems and issues raised, educating us all as to why they do or no
not have a bearing on this project........

Jim raised some good questions. One does not need to be versed in all
the disciplines involved to be a good sounding board. What is needed is
critical thinking. he can think critically, and that is a good trait.

If there's one thing we can always count on, it's Jim raising
questions. Even direct questions to him are usually answered with
questions! Not much in the answer department, though.....and none so
far in this thread!

But you can always bet that, if the possibility exists to springboard
off a post and take a shot at one of his adversaries (or those dreaded
'professionals'!), he'll jump on it.

Bwahaahaa indeed.



Many do *not* like that trait of course.

Yep



.....Didn't think so.

Why the lawyer mentality? One must be an acknowledged expert in any
field to comment on anything?

? You missed the point here - please reconstruct the original
paragraph and reread.....


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


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


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

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

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


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

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


The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical
law. In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets
of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal
is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been
satisfactorily resolved.


Engineering 101, freshman years stuff. on

What courses, exactly James, did you have in your freshman year in
E-school which taught/preached how to do a "rigorous analysis of all
facets of the problem at hand . . . a list of problems impeding the
design goal is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until
all have been . . " and come out of it with working pile of
hardware?

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

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

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

THAT I agree with!

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

Has me stumped!

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

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

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

*Fuggit all*!


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


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"William" wrote

He's become bitter since the restructuring

Restructuring? What restructuring?

Where the hell you been again Hans?! We've been "restuctured" into
using PL tones on the machines or we're outted.


.73, de Hans, K0HB

Red Velvet

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical
law. In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets
of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal
is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been
satisfactorily resolved.

Engineering 101, freshman years stuff. on

What courses, exactly James, did you have in your freshman year in
E-school which taught/preached how to do a "rigorous analysis of all
facets of the problem at hand . . . a list of problems impeding the
design goal is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until
all have been . . " and come out of it with working pile of
hardware?

Ya missed 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?.

. . . 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.

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

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

THAT I agree with!

Right!

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

Has me stumped!

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

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.

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.

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?

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

How does anyone know for sure? He's been anonymous since day one here.

Not that there's anyhting wrong with that!

He could just as easily be another of Len's online personalities.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


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


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

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

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


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

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


The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical
law. In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets
of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal
is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been
satisfactorily resolved.


Engineering 101, freshman years stuff. on

What courses, exactly James, did you have in your freshman year in
E-school which taught/preached how to do a "rigorous analysis of all
facets of the problem at hand . . . a list of problems impeding the
design goal is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until
all have been . . " and come out of it with working pile of
hardware?

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

Good point.....


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

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

THAT I agree with!

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


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

Has me stumped!

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

Another good point.


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

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

*Fuggit all*!


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

VE3, actually - in Toronto!


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

73, Leo

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?

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."

Did you see any estimates of weight, altitude, or ANY cost figures
presented in here? I didn't. I doubt anyone else saw them.

Nothing beyond "surprisingly inexpensive". I'm not making a financial
report to the group.

If you want more, you could dig it out of some of the other posts. A few
costs are in there.


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.

"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.


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

YES! QRX while I dial up Carl Stevenson on the other line . .


Why? Does your whip need fresh blood?


Nobody's done that for a while!


Must be. Cucaracha Kelly's whip hasn't drawn blood in a long
time.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article , Leo



writes:



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?



What experience do either of them have launching radio-carrying balloons to
100,000 feet or more?



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.....

Especially when it is being done with some regularity....


By *amateurs*
Yes indeed Jim. By amateurs

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 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*
[i]
A lack of
hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply
differently to others?


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"


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.



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?

b. Because there isn't enough "lift" to take a payload that high

c. Because most of what they are interested in takes place at lower
altitudes.

d. more financial information please... 8^)


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.


Perhaps "Len" and "Leo" are the same person. Note the identical misspelling of
"focussing" and "focussed" in their postings. "Leo" is anonymous, but is never
challenged on it by Len or "William"..


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?



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.


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.


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.


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.

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.


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.

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. 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.


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......... ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

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 -

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

On 20 Nov 2004 13:30:15 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
snip

He could just as easily be another of Len's online personalities.

That's an odd comment indeed.....a bit of paranoia perhaps, OM?


73 de Jim, N2EY


134, Leo

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

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

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