|
In article , Leo
writes: 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. It's absolutely predictable. :-) |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: 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. ...then try not to come across as an "expert" with all the "website references" to prove somebody's criticism is "wrong." 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* Tsk. The Standard Atmosphere "table" was put together before WW2. It is quite accurate enough for the flying community to use, to calibrate altimeters as one example. Refinements of the data have continued, including computer modeling to make it easier to use in other analysis programs involving aerodynamics. The first question that comes to mind is: How accurate are the claims of amateur balloonists' altitudes? How is that measured? [Note: An on-board recording barometer would have to be precisely calibrated against - guess what - those pesky Standard Atmosphere "tables!"] SpaceShipOne's altitude was measured by NASA radar; Dryden is conveniently very near Mojave International where Scaled Composites has its company and uses that old Marine Air Base's airfield. Radar ranging from China Lake Naval Weapons facility is a bit south of Edwards but they can "look up" just fine. Before you claim (in triumph, of course) reaching a certain height, you have to establish some bona fides about actually reaching an altitude by being able to cite the measurement capability. 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. Right. Get everyone ELSE busy taking care of those pesky details like "work" and budgetary support. Concept managers don't have to sweat anything. 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? Tsk. Because those surplus 8-foot-diameter (or so) balloons which are implied probably don't have the elastomeric characteristics they might have had when new. Those are fine for parties and such at surface altitudes but are NO guarantee that they will work at 100,000 ASL with totally frigid temps and way-low pressure and atmospheric density. No problem...you have all these websites to "prove" you are absolutely good and true and without fault in messaging. :-) b. Because there isn't enough "lift" to take a payload that high Maybe, maybe not. Ask the Commerce Department, ask NOAA, whoever. Look for ANSWERS from the pros who do that kind of thing, not some ballooning morsemen. Some high school geometry and those nasty, pesky figures from the Standard Atmosphere "tables" can help you make some simple back-of-the-envelope APPROXIMATIONS of lift capability with various balloon volumes and various available gasses (other than the hot air from PCTAs). That gives you some CREDIBILITY on doing your own homework. Successful managers DO that sort of thing...finalized, refined calculations are left up to specialists. c. Because most of what they are interested in takes place at lower altitudes. You are starting to show promise of thinking for yourself. d. more financial information please... 8^) Successful managers are able to contact the specialists and pros of a particular technology to get that...and should have some of that background data available before pitching the "concept management" pipe-dream. 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 you are spending OTHER folks' money (such as sponsors) or OTHER folks' TIME (the unnamed volunteers doing all the dirty work), then you'd better have your ducks at least partway in a row before committing. If you want to get pouty, petulant, and pejorative-laden towards anyone demonstrating common corporate design review practices on your noble, imaginative soul, that's your own problem. Your "concept" is not unique nor is your application unique...free ballooning in the USA has been going on for over 200 years and those other websites "prove" that others have been "doing science" (NASA's phraseology) already. Design review meetings are done to make certain a project will make a profit, the most profit, for the company. The emotionally self-centered usually have a very hard time in those because "they thought of a particular thing and that is without fault and the 'best' one to use" and are then freaked out by several other 'suggestions' which are cheaper, simpler, or just plain better all-around. Those folks don't last long in projects. To do "managing" of a fair-sized budget hobby project involving others time and energy, you have to demonstrate some capability other than passing a morse code test...like knowing a FEW details about this ballooning thingy, approximate monies involved, appropriate federal and local laws met, and so forth. If you need all this psychological stroking BEFORE committing, try looking at some of the successes in the past. A couple of bicycle shop owners-brothers worked for years and years on making a flying machine, pretty much in isolation. They got their ducks in a row on what terribly little "science" of flight was known by anyone [built their own wind tunnel to get an idea of airfoil shapes and lifting capability, as one example] They did their first, very short flight of a heavier-than-air flying machine 101 years ago. Few folks other than the Wright's sister offered any solace or ego sustenance for years and years of working out their first problems. 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. So far, Mr. Concept Manager, you have NOT done it. Try not to get all ****y about others not cheering your "success." You may fail, Mike. Worse, you may succeed! Failure is not an option......... ;^) You don't have a gene stamped with "Kranz" yet. |
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 20 Nov 2004 01:57:21 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote: 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..... Varies all over the place but by 13th graders . . . ? Nah. 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. Unfortunately. If you're designing hi-rel equipment, or aircraft, 'close enough' won't do..... Yup. But sometimes even they don't come close enough. Leo is a VE, a VE6 if I'm not mistaken. VE3, actually - in Toronto! Oops. No, Toronto is not in Alberta. Unless somebody moved it. In a former life in the early 1980s I commuted back and forth between Philadelphia and Toronto weekly on biz for six months or so. Interesting place, interesting folk. Anyone who thinks Canadians are "just like us Yanks" needs to spend some time in Canada, eh? (heh). I ran into a great blonde in the Toronto airport terminal who was a Mountie. Told her didn't look much like Sergeant Preston to me and asked her where her horse was. She asked me when I was going back where I came from. w3rv 73, Leo w3rv |
|
"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"William" wrote He's become bitter since the restructuring Restructuring? What restructuring? .73, de Hans, K0HB The restructuring where the FCC desired fewer license classes rather than his desire of more license classes. That's also when he started the "No Test International" strawman. |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: 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. Okay, you quoted a SALES PITCH. I quoted what the named group uses, and then did research at the site they bought their balloons at to ascertain what those particular balloons were made of. Why didn't you do that with YOUR sales pitch in here first? There is a need to work out a protocol for balloon launches. But aside from that, the use of latex balloons and the altitudes achieved with these balloons is pretty well documented. Believe or do not. If you don't believe me, then you don't believe a whole lot of people. Besides, even if I did, your next statement indicates that it would not have mattered. Have you actually USED that "Totex" balloon? Did you get to 100 kilofeet with one? [how did you measure that altitude to "prove" it?] Whattya think? Think this is a good question point? Are you really so skeptical that you accept NOTHING as reliable? If you believe that the EOSS is lying, and that Kaymont is engaging in false advertisement about a product that they have produced since the 1940's, take it up with them. I can supply references upon request. A big reference Professor named Langley once convinced the USN that heavier-than-air flying machines were dandy things for the fleet. He talked them into rebuilding a small ship into an aircraft carrier. His first flying machine "flight" went right off the bow and into the water, climb rate in the minus numbers. Langley remained a "wheel" (with references) but a couple of bicycle shop owners did the first heavier-than-air flight...without anyone "proving it could be done" by websites or advertisements. Why the difference between a manufacturer of the latex balloons, and a documented user group, and your facts? You tell me. YOU are the "manager" of this "concept." THe difference is that you are incorrect. I suspect that part of the confusion is that most weather balloons are sent to a much lower altitude than what NSS does. The reason is that almost all the weather occurs in the Troposphere (and below) They are sending the balloons that high, because that is the area that they are interested in. This does not mean that the balloons can go no higher. The maximum height that can be attained is a function of the maximum diameter that the balloon can attain without bursting. Contributing factors to this are the weight of the payload, which influences how much of the H or He has to be put into the balloon, and the needed amount of lift. More weight, more lift gas. Higher lift for faster ascent means more lift gas. Since the balloon will be inflated to a larger diameter at launch, it will attain maximum diameter before burst at a lower altitude. Convice everyone you are without fault by your ballooning successes to date. So strange a comment. Nothing beyond "surprisingly inexpensive". I'm not making a financial report to the group. No? True...you don't have to tell anyone anything, including what you are going to "do." Are you telling me to shut up again? Otherwise I have a little trouble making sense of that statement. This was not about the financial aspects of the project anyhow. It was in response to Hans' thread about the ARS being marginalized. Its a new project. Somehow I don't get a clear picture of all those "volunteers" just waiting and anxious to give Mike Coslo TIME and MONEY to make a "success" out of your "concept." Color me skeptical. Not surprising. If you want more, you could dig it out of some of the other posts. A few costs are in there. Tsk. Standard newsgroup disclaimer. You expect others to go out and do YOUR homework. You would be doing the homework for yourself, Len. I really don't need to convince you, and some newsgroup members have complained when I gave them references. All you have to do is outline your brilliant It is not a particularly brilliant concept. In fact, since a number of people are already doing it, it isn't a concept at all. and unique "concept" and the cheering is supposed to start. Unique? Incorrect. This project is not unique Ahem. I'm not required to provide financial data to you. Absolutely true. You don't have to provide anything to anyone. The project will be "inexpensive." The FAA is "accommodating." "Others have already done it." No sweaty-dah. If you google up the parts of the thread where I was providing "references" you could confirm the veracity of those statements for yourself. But you won't. And you are still incorrect about latex balloons reaching the 100,000 foot altitude. Latex. Helium *or* Hydrogen. 100,000 feet. Its happening. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Leo wrote in message . ..
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 88s?! SHEESH! |
On 21 Nov 2004 18:42:08 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote:
Leo wrote in message . .. 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 88s?! SHEESH! Not quite 88s. From the "Western Union 92 Code" - 134 means "Who is at the key?". Pretty much the question that Jim seems to be pondering - I'm just restating it telegraphicallyfor him....... :) http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html 73, Leo |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: some snippage Sure enough. Am I an expert in this field? Not hardly. I'm going to have to launch a few of these things before I can be a neophyte. But I can do the research, and learn as I go. And the research says? My initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to inflate and release a latex balloon carrying a payload into the Stratosphere. This is based on the published results of other groups that are doing this sort of thing at this time. This is also based on correspondence with two people experienced in launching similar balloons. Mt initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to incorporate into that payload, several devices, including a GPS, various Amateur radio transceivers, and cameras. This payload may be controlled by various electronic control systems. Many are using a "Basic Stamp" processor. This research also leads me to believe that by using a packet radio system, the information from the GPS and other sensors may be transmitted to a computer that can keep track of the payload. This is based on what others are doing at this time, and some basic radio knowledge and knowledge of size and weight requirements and known equipment that fits the requirements. My initial research leads me to believe that I can construct a payload that will adequately protect the equipment from the low temperatures encountered in this area of the stratosphere. This is based on what others are doing at this time. Although more extensive calculations might be performed to find an ideal amount of insulation, it must be noted that those projects that are using simple insulation such as foam sheathing are not experiencing cold related failures. This leads me to conclude that at worst, a derivative sort of payload container might be made and operate successfully. If for some reason more research was needed an experiment might be arranged where the payload was packaged in Dry ice for say 5 hours - this would be much longer than any anticipated mission, and with dry ice having a temperature of around -109F, we could make a reasonable approximation of the altitude conditions, temperature- wise. My initial research leads me to believe that small science experiments might be performed on this payload, as long as the aggregate weight is within payload limits. Yeah, you know.... people blah blah blah. My initial research leads me to believe that this can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Reasonable is quite relative, of course, but with 40 dollar type prices for balloons, and around 50 dollars per launch of helium, (less for hydrogen) the relative inexpensiveness of payload construction materials, and that except for the unexpected loss of damage of a payload, the payload parts are multi-mission, the price per launch can be kept in the 200 dollar range. If used/donated parts can be utilized, the cost can be reduced even more. Note that I am not trying to advertise this as some sort of el cheapo project. When I say surprisingly inexpensive, I mean that at least in my case, I would have guessed that this sort of thing would have cost many thousands of dollars per launch. It doesn't appear to. If it would cost us that much, we are doing something different than the other folks that are doing this. My initial research leads me to believe that the powers that be do not place undue restrictions on these launches. I conclude this by the relevant documents that are issued by the FAA, and the accounts by the people that are doing this sort of thing. [i] And this is a bad thing - how? Well, you might actually get some balloons launched, and prove Len to be absolutely wrong..... Yup. Despite his *tables* The tables will show that a properly-designed "latex weather ballon" can reach 100,000 feet. Remember: "If it happens, it must be possible" A lack of hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply differently to others? Hasn't held Len back, even when he's wrong!! It would be interesting to know what are the "many topics where have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read" Hmmm? Lessee, there is a first person/second person shift in there, so I wasn't sure how to answer. But I'll take a stab. I would think that most everyone here - in fact most everyone everywhere - gives daily pronouncements on things that they have not done. It isn't a problem. While there is nothing like first hand experience, there is nothing wrong with acquiring knowledge from references and passing it on. Otherwise how could people "know" that a bullet fired from a gun will do bodily damage. How would they know that potato chips taste good. How would they know that if they stuck their head underwater and took a deep breath, they probably wouldn't like the results We HAVE to take some info as real without experience. We cannot be skeptical of everything, every waking moment. Have I said *anyone* should not post here? I think Leo believes that I should simply accept that some people think that I cannot do this, and simply slink away. I do reserve the right to reply (and to not be too happy about it) when I am called incompetent! Sorry Leo - it works both ways! 8^) And perhaps you can't do it *all by yourself*. But you don't plan to - your method is to assemble a team, not be the sole basement inventor. Right, I have no intention of doing it by myself. Which means your resources have been multiplied. Pop quiz time! Weather people often send balloons of the latex variety into the atmosphere. Why would they not often send them to 100,000 feet? a. Because the balloon is made of latex, and will not "go" that high? No. b. Because there isn't enough "lift" to take a payload that high No. c. Because most of what they are interested in takes place at lower altitudes. Possible. d. more financial information please... 8^) How about: e. reliability of such high altitude missions is too lo I don't think so, at least as a reason for not doing flights there. So little "weather" is happening at that altitude that a payload sent there would not have much to report on! 8^) f. cost of such missions does not justify the *weather* information gathered True, no return at all. Amazingly enough, the laws of physics are absolute. Paper airplane, high speed jet , spitball or balloon - the same physical laws apply to all. Of course. I wonder what a spitball falling from 100,000 feet would do? ;^) Just like you learned in engineering school.....(?) I also learned that preconceptions are often wrong and so are models based on inadequate information and a lack of understanding of *all* the relevant physics. This has been proven time and again in the history of engineering. I've always found it hard to believe that a few square inches of brake lining can stop a bog car. Seems impossible! Depends on the composition of the brake lining, for one thing. I should clarify this statement. I know that brakes stop cars. I know that it is a pretty straightforward calculation. My point is that it is a few square inches of material that is stopping a big car. It isn't necessarily intuitive that it will do it. And as you say, Jim. People are doing it, so it works. No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute. What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? From what I've seen and calculated, his main limitation may be airspace regulations here in EPA - a place where I do have some empirical experience. And that is one of the big considerations. But those aren't laws of physics - they're regulations imposed by humans .for obvious reasons. They aren't saying that you're nuts to be considering doing what you intend to do, but they are offering you the benefit of their understanding of engineering and physics as it pertains to your project. Perhaps we've been reading different posts... I respectfully suggest that you've been too busy (once again) focussing on the poster rather than the material posted. I suggest that the person posting that "latex weather balloons cannot reach 100,000 feet is simply wrong. Or complexly wrong. But no doubt, wrong! You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says? Because we can have a civil discussion? Exactly. I think some people assume that the newsgroup is only for arguments and antagonistic behavior. Seems that way.. Jim, whether you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of physics could care less! They remain absolute. What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? Hmmm? The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical law. In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been satisfactorily resolved. Engineering 101, freshman years stuff. Jim, can you honestly say that as an engineer that you have solved all the problems on any project satisfactorily? Satisfactorily? Yes. Perfectly? No. Or have you accepted the results and wanted to do better? Any honest engineer will tell you that there were better ways to have done it = after it's done. By the above definition, engineering tasks would probably never get done. If there's too much insistence on perfection, nothing can ever happen. There's *always* another level of documentation, testing, analysis, etc., that could be done. All depends on how we define "satisfactorily". For example, suppose a project demands that a system have MTBF of, say, 100,000 hours, as measured under certain specified conditions. If a system is designed that meets that specification, it's "satisfactory". 99,999 hours is not satisfactory, unless the writer(s) of the specification rewrite it. Of course if the design turns out to have MTBF of, say, 250,000 hours, that's great - but only if it does not adversely affect other requirements. The posts that we saw earlier were the beginnings of the issues list - responding to it with "it's been done, it'll work, no problemo!" - type platitudes ain't going to resolve the issues - it's just wishful thinking. Or perhaps no thinking at all. No, it isn't. Not to mention, I never said those words in quotes! I don't know why I'm attributed to saying things I never said! True enough. When an attempt is made to do something for the first time, there's always the possibility that it simply cannot be done, or cannot be done with the available resources. Or that there are factors no one has considered. But once a thing is actually done for the first time, it's a different ball game completely, because now we *know* it's possible. Classic example: In the very early 1920s, the very best knowledge of the physics of radio waves predicted that it was *essentially impossible* to communicate across the Atlantic with the power levels, wavelengths, antennas and receiver sensitivity then available to amateurs. The problem was that the models used did not take ionospheric refraction into account. And so amateurs showed it could be done, and soon the "shortwaves" were in worldwide use. Now I'm not saying that the physics of ballooning isn't well understood! I'm just saying that since it has been done already, some of the commentary against Mike's idea rings very hollow. Has me stumped! There are some old-school folks whose idea of "encouragement" is to tell you you're no good, your ideas cannot work, that you don't know what you're doing, etc. The idea is that you'll somehow be motivated to prove them wrong, and will succeed in order to do so. Do you think this is encouragement? Not that it matters. I don't think it's encouragement. It's just typical Len behavior. If they are missing something (and me too, perhaps - this sure ain't my area of expertise either!), then by all means show them where they're wrong - but they are both pretty intelligent, educated and knowledgeable guys, with years of real-world experience in their fields - maybe worth at least a rational discussion? Or you could throw a bunch of web references in their faces and get angry.... Your call. Leo, There is a world of difference between someone like Jim, who questions and looks at my answers, and one member that says what I am considering is impossible, and yet another that calls me incompetent. At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites. Len isn't. Says it all. Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it? And there is a lot of difference between me illustrating my points wit web references, and finally getting annoyed after I am called incompetent. Considering that to Len, this is an impossible task, and that Brian Kelly has thinks I'm an idiot that is only suited for cheerleading, I would have to say that they probably don't have anything to offer me in my doomed project with which I am going to hurt someone. My call. The websites offer a lot of evidence that it can be done, has been done and even how to do it. Of course it has been done - duh! Tell it to Len. What I like (not) is that when I'm told both that it is impossible (with insinuations as to my lack of knowledge of basic physics), and again with a direct comment as to my lack of competency, I am somehow the petulant one. Classic Len trick. Acts like a complete jackass, then says *he's* the injured party and *you* are acting inappropriately. The term for such behavior in these parts is "being a smack". I do want to get beyond this, but it goes both ways. The issue here is simply how the various obstacles standing in the way of success have been overcome. The first question is if they are obstacles at all. I recall commentary on how expensive helium allegedly is. Then I did a little research and found that it's about 20 cents a cubic foot when bought in quantities of about 300 cubic feet or greater. So for a thousand-cubic foot balloon, we're talking maybe $200 worth of helium. That's a bit of money but not a showstopper. I know folks who will drop $200 on *dinner*. Yup. Three words: Eagles tailgate party. I don't believe that people have Eagles tailgate parties! Can't be. I've been to Philadelphia many times, and I have not seen one Eagles tailgate party. Besides, the owners of the stadium would NEVER allow tailgate parties in the parking lots outside the stadium. The liability issues would be tremendous. Besides, you need to produce the calculations that show that you could pack people into a car, add food, and set up and feed them outside the stadium. How many Eagles tailgate parties have you put on. You cannot comment on an Eagles tailgate party unless you have attended and put on on, which you can't do because they won't allow them anyhow. Whoeee, now that's a vent! But it does illustrate some of the frustration I experience while on this subject. I'd love to discuss the various facets of the project, the equipment, and the policy aspects of it. (remember this whole thing was brought up in a policy context) But I can't do that because of the insistence by some that I and others can't do it for one reason or the other. This in spite of my addressing every concern. Referring folks who raise technical concerns to a pile of websites merely demonstrates an inability to articulate the technical knowledge that is ultimately required to accomplish a plan such as this. How? 1. He would hate academic documents. references- pages of them! Possible. 2. Besides, I think that NASA has a very nice graphic and description of the atmospheric layers. 3. In the complicated many faceted world we live in today, it is sometimes more important to know where to FIND knowledge than to have all the knowledge there is (which is BTW, impossible) "Don't reinvent the wheel" The websites show what has already been done. By *amateurs*. Their methods and solutions form a starting point. One thing I learned in engineering school was not to reinvent the wheel. *ahem* Makes one wonder ho deep an understanding one would possess to reply in this manner! I'd suspect not too deep.......not much past the "sounds pretty cool!" stage of the project). If it doesn't "sound pretty cool", why do it at all? One of the things I HAVE to do is sell this concept to people. Even as strange as this rrap experience has been is that although I have not encountered it so far in the real world, I must realize that there will probably be people that simply refuse to believe that we can do this for one reason or the other. Sure. Or that it will cost too much to be practical. I may run into a flat earther here and there. You mean like folks who get upset whenever it's pointed out that Morse Code played any important role in radio communication after the 1930s? Yeah.... like that! I bet they'll really be annoyed knowing this thing is going to have a Morse beacon on it. Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse? Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with CWGet. I'll probably use packet for telemetry. Now morse QSO's are a possibility. One can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific information - actually doing it is quite something else. That's my point. And doing it will be exceptionally cool. (pardon my enthusiasm) Who should have greater credibility - the person who has done it or the person who sits on the sidelines and says it can't be done? The plans to construct an atomic bomb take up but a few pages on the Web - but actually building one might be just a bit more difficult than the relatively simple documentation would lead one to believe......lol! Those plans aren't complete. ;-) If Mike was not interested in discussing this topic at a detail level, then perhaps it was a bit unwise to post it in a public newsgroup - unless there was some other reason for doing so......? Wonder what that might be.....! hmmmmm - Rah Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bah...... y'think? Perhaps he *is* interested in discussing it at a detail level. But the negeative criticism makes that difficult. After all, Mike could actually launch a balloon - and no matter what the results were, some would decry it as a "kluge". And if it only made it to, say, 98,500 feet, the mission would be described by some as a "failure". I just think it's worth a try. Lets back up a little bit here, and see if I can salvage something here. My main job in this whole project has been to SELL people on the concept of something that is not particularly new, but has been made more interesting by a fusion of Ham radio, GPS, Packet radio, and Schools, or perhaps more accurately, youth in general. Yep. And it's something that requires a team effort. The concept is to put volunteers to playwork in sending a payload in an appropriate container to the shoreline between earth and space, where the conditions are not like the area that we inhabit. It's cold, there is almost no atmosphere, there is a lot of radiation, and it is fairly near the ionized area of the atmosphere. And success is not guaranteed. Which of course, makes success all that much better. It's like the difference between a complete appliance station, and one where as much as you can do yourself has been done. You mean...like somebody who builds an entire ham station out of mostly recycled parts? And then is called "cheap" because it only him cost $100? I happen to like being cheap! And I respect it too. One thing I notice is that there is very little attention given to the fact that what you're talking about is an ongoing project consisting of a series of launches. You'll almost certainly not try to reach 100,000 feet on the first go. Or the second... These conditions make it an interesting place to go to. How do we go there? Weather balloons provide a tantalizing clue. These latex balloons are launched on a daily basis by various weather agencies, mostly NOAA, but also at others. At this point in time, I don't know whether latex ballons can take one of your packages to 100,000 feet or not. From what I've read since that sentence was written, it seems very likely that "latex weather balloons" can do the job. Not a problem at all. Questions are good. Skepticism is good. I/we learn and polish our act that way. Gratuitous insults are bad though! I do know that they can be useful in the development process. Here are a couple links: pssst, don't let Leo know I gave you these! ;^) http://www.eoss.org/pubs/faqloon.htm This is a gentleman of experience going through a FAQ on the subject. Part way through, he notes that they use Totex balloons. 800 gram balloon to lift 3-4 pounds to 100,000 feet, and 1200 gram to lift a 6 pound payload to the same. The company that they buy the balloons from has a website: http://www.kaymont.com/pages/home.html Checking on this website, you'll find that Totex balloons are indeed made of natural latex rubber, as well as some other interesting stuff. Back to the EOSS FAQ page, there are a lot of answers there. They also go into costs, He versus H, power sources, and a lot of other stuff. "If it happens, it must be possible". Perhaps you could send a copy of those atmospheric tables up on the first 100,000 foot flight..... hehe! Since this happens so often, the authorities (FAA) and the launchers of the balloons have worked out a system that allows this to happen. A science balloon launch will just add one more to the mix. Another consideration is that the FAA no longer cares about the payload after it has reached 60,000 feet. That is the top end of their "airspace". During launch day, you will call them at launch, at 60,000 feet when they leave airspace, and on descent when they renter airspace at 60,000 feet, then again at landing. This means the balloon spends less time in the path of harm than it might appear at first. As the payload grows in weight, the regulations become more involved. While still relatively accommodating, it is a powerful incentive to keep the payload light. How is this done? The payload is often made of a material such as household insulation. Styrene insulation is quite light, and provides good insulation against the cold. Small versions of electronics are usually used. In the quest for weight reduction, cases are often stripped, and the chassis are mounted directly on the foam. For VHF and UHF communications, not a whole lot of power is needed for the transmitters. A 300 mw "credit card" HT is often the transmitter of choice. Power being a consideration. Lithium batteries are the power of choice, due to lightness. Anywhere that power can be conserved is worth looking at. I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most here would know about that already. What's so bad about this? You may fail, Mike. Worse, you may succeed! Failure is not an option......... ;^) Failure is always an option. Often more is learned from a "failure" than from a "success". The smiley was because that was the old Gene Kranz quote during the Apollo 13 mission. I thought it was a bit fitting. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
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. Well, he is certainly wrong in this case! - Mike KB3EIA - |
(William) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... Oh Geeze, Brian, don't tempt me like that! I've pretty well filtered out 95% of Scumbag and BlatherBoy as it is...an offer like THAT could keep me busy for weeks! And it's not really fair to take advantage the idiot...He DOES make it sooooooooo easy to do! 73 Steve, K4YZ Geez, he's got people filtered, promises not to address them until Dayton, then guess what? Sorry, Brain. No "promise" was made. You are encouraged to re-post any such assertion. He breaks his promise. No promise was broken. You are again encouraged to repost the item where a promise was made. I did put you in the spam filter. So far, I count over 78 posts authored by " that were directly filtered out. I cannot "filter" quotes by other posters unless I KF them, too. I do, on occassion, read a post for follow-up via Google. (ie: this one) I never "promised" to not respond to any given post. Please prove otherwise or be man enough to admit to yet another lie, Burke. That's our Steve. I have been many things, am many things, and will be many things in my life. "Your's" will NOT be one of them. You continue to lie and mislead. My decision to KF you was more than adequately substantiated. Brian P Burke, N0IMD, continues to lie and mislead, refusing to live up to his own demands and rhetoric. What a scumbag. Steve, K4YZ |
|
On 21 Nov 2004 13:13:12 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote:
Leo wrote in message . .. On 20 Nov 2004 01:57:21 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote: snip I ran into a great blonde in the Toronto airport terminal who was a Mountie. Told her didn't look much like Sergeant Preston to me and asked her where her horse was. She asked me when I was going back where I came from. Heh - I can picture that! Bet she never heard that one before..... :0 Seriously, though, in downtown Toronto in the 70s, I frequently had tourists stop me and ask where they could see an igloo (2,500 miles north would be a great place to start!) and where all of the trees were (!). Doesn't seem to happen much anymore - maybe the Internet fixed that!. w3rv 73. Leo |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: some snippage Sure enough. Am I an expert in this field? Not hardly. I'm going to have to launch a few of these things before I can be a neophyte. But I can do the research, and learn as I go. And the research says? My initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to inflate and release a latex balloon carrying a payload into the Stratosphere. This is based on the published results of other groups that are doing this sort of thing at this time. This is also based on correspondence with two people experienced in launching similar balloons. Mt initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to incorporate into that payload, several devices, including a GPS, various Amateur radio transceivers, and cameras. This payload may be controlled by various electronic control systems. Many are using a "Basic Stamp" processor. This research also leads me to believe that by using a packet radio system, the information from the GPS and other sensors may be transmitted to a computer that can keep track of the payload. This is based on what others are doing at this time, and some basic radio knowledge and knowledge of size and weight requirements and known equipment that fits the requirements. My initial research leads me to believe that I can construct a payload that will adequately protect the equipment from the low temperatures encountered in this area of the stratosphere. This is based on what others are doing at this time. Although more extensive calculations might be performed to find an ideal amount of insulation, it must be noted that those projects that are using simple insulation such as foam sheathing are not experiencing cold related failures. This leads me to conclude that at worst, a derivative sort of payload container might be made and operate successfully. IOW: "If it happens, it must be possible". If for some reason more research was needed an experiment might be arranged where the payload was packaged in Dry ice for say 5 hours - this would be much longer than any anticipated mission, and with dry ice having a temperature of around -109F, we could make a reasonable approximation of the altitude conditions, temperature- wise. You might want to recheck the temperature of frozen CO2, but the concept is valid. My initial research leads me to believe that small science experiments might be performed on this payload, as long as the aggregate weight is within payload limits. Yeah, you know.... people blah blah blah. My initial research leads me to believe that this can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Reasonable is quite relative, of course, but with 40 dollar type prices for balloons, and around 50 dollars per launch of helium, (less for hydrogen) the relative inexpensiveness of payload construction materials, and that except for the unexpected loss of damage of a payload, the payload parts are multi-mission, the price per launch can be kept in the 200 dollar range. If used/donated parts can be utilized, the cost can be reduced even more. There's also the fact of free labor, and donation of incidental expenses like fuel and food. Note that I am not trying to advertise this as some sort of el cheapo project. When I say surprisingly inexpensive, I mean that at least in my case, I would have guessed that this sort of thing would have cost many thousands of dollars per launch. It doesn't appear to. If it would cost us that much, we are doing something different than the other folks that are doing this. Yup. My initial research leads me to believe that the powers that be do not place undue restrictions on these launches. I conclude this by the relevant documents that are issued by the FAA, and the accounts by the people that are doing this sort of thing. So it looks like you've "done your homework".. And this is a bad thing - how? Well, you might actually get some balloons launched, and prove Len to be absolutely wrong..... Yup. Despite his *tables* The tables will show that a properly-designed "latex weather ballon" can reach 100,000 feet. Remember: "If it happens, it must be possible" A lack of hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply differently to others? Hasn't held Len back, even when he's wrong!! [i] It would be interesting to know what are the "many topics where have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read" Hmmm? Lessee, there is a first person/second person shift in there, so I wasn't sure how to answer. But I'll take a stab. I would think that most everyone here - in fact most everyone everywhere - gives daily pronouncements on things that they have not done. It isn't a problem. While there is nothing like first hand experience, there is nothing wrong with acquiring knowledge from references and passing it on. Otherwise how could people "know" that a bullet fired from a gun will do bodily damage. How would they know that potato chips taste good. How would they know that if they stuck their head underwater and took a deep breath, they probably wouldn't like the results We HAVE to take some info as real without experience. We cannot be skeptical of everything, every waking moment. Have I said *anyone* should not post here? I think Leo believes that I should simply accept that some people think that I cannot do this, and simply slink away. I do reserve the right to reply (and to not be too happy about it) when I am called incompetent! Sorry Leo - it works both ways! 8^) And perhaps you can't do it *all by yourself*. But you don't plan to - your method is to assemble a team, not be the sole basement inventor. Right, I have no intention of doing it by myself. Which means your resources have been multiplied. My point is that it is a few square inches of material that is stopping a big car. It isn't necessarily intuitive that it will do it. Not at first. And as you say, Jim. People are doing it, so it works. No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute. What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? From what I've seen and calculated, his main limitation may be airspace regulations here in EPA - a place where I do have some empirical experience. And that is one of the big considerations. But those aren't laws of physics - they're regulations imposed by humans .for obvious reasons. They aren't saying that you're nuts to be considering doing what you intend to do, but they are offering you the benefit of their understanding of engineering and physics as it pertains to your project. Perhaps we've been reading different posts... I respectfully suggest that you've been too busy (once again) focussing on the poster rather than the material posted. I suggest that the person posting that "latex weather balloons cannot reach 100,000 feet is simply wrong. Or complexly wrong. But no doubt, wrong! Not that he will ever admit it. You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says? Because we can have a civil discussion? Exactly. I think some people assume that the newsgroup is only for arguments and antagonistic behavior. Seems that way.. Jim, whether you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of physics could care less! They remain absolute. What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? Hmmm? The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical law. In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been satisfactorily resolved. Engineering 101, freshman years stuff. Jim, can you honestly say that as an engineer that you have solved all the problems on any project satisfactorily? Satisfactorily? Yes. Perfectly? No. Or have you accepted the results and wanted to do better? Any honest engineer will tell you that there were better ways to have done it = after it's done. By the above definition, engineering tasks would probably never get done. If there's too much insistence on perfection, nothing can ever happen. There's *always* another level of documentation, testing, analysis, etc., that could be done. All depends on how we define "satisfactorily". For example, suppose a project demands that a system have MTBF of, say, 100,000 hours, as measured under certain specified conditions. If a system is designed that meets that specification, it's "satisfactory". 99,999 hours is not satisfactory, unless the writer(s) of the specification rewrite it. Of course if the design turns out to have MTBF of, say, 250,000 hours, that's great - but only if it does not adversely affect other requirements. The posts that we saw earlier were the beginnings of the issues list - responding to it with "it's been done, it'll work, no problemo!" - type platitudes ain't going to resolve the issues - it's just wishful thinking. Or perhaps no thinking at all. No, it isn't. Not to mention, I never said those words in quotes! I don't know why I'm attributed to saying things I never said! True enough. At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites. Len isn't. Says it all. Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it? Len's just wrong about the latex weather balloons. Not confusing at all. What I like (not) is that when I'm told both that it is impossible (with insinuations as to my lack of knowledge of basic physics), and again with a direct comment as to my lack of competency, I am somehow the petulant one. Classic Len trick. Acts like a complete jackass, then says *he's* the injured party and *you* are acting inappropriately. The term for such behavior in these parts is "being a smack". I do want to get beyond this, but it goes both ways. Three words: Eagles tailgate party. I don't believe that people have Eagles tailgate parties! Can't be. I've been to Philadelphia many times, and I have not seen one Eagles tailgate party. Besides, the owners of the stadium would NEVER allow tailgate parties in the parking lots outside the stadium. The liability issues would be tremendous. Besides, you need to produce the calculations that show that you could pack people into a car, add food, and set up and feed them outside the stadium. How many Eagles tailgate parties have you put on. You cannot comment on an Eagles tailgate party unless you have attended and put on on, which you can't do because they won't allow them anyhow. haw Whoeee, now that's a vent! But it does illustrate some of the frustration I experience while on this subject. I'd love to discuss the various facets of the project, the equipment, and the policy aspects of it. (remember this whole thing was brought up in a policy context) But I can't do that because of the insistence by some that I and others can't do it for one reason or the other. This in spite of my addressing every concern. Of course you can discuss those issues! You just can't discuss them with the naysayers! Do you really think Len would have *anything* positive to contribute to the project? Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse? Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with CWGet. Ugh I'll probably use packet for telemetry. Now morse QSO's are a possibility. I am liking this more and more... You mean...like somebody who builds an entire ham station out of mostly recycled parts? And then is called "cheap" because it only him cost $100? I happen to like being cheap! And I respect it too. "Cheap" implies shoddiness. I think a better choice is "frugal". One thing I notice is that there is very little attention given to the fact that what you're talking about is an ongoing project consisting of a series of launches. You'll almost certainly not try to reach 100,000 feet on the first go. Or the second... These conditions make it an interesting place to go to. How do we go there? Weather balloons provide a tantalizing clue. These latex balloons are launched on a daily basis by various weather agencies, mostly NOAA, but also at others. At this point in time, I don't know whether latex ballons can take one of your packages to 100,000 feet or not. From what I've read since that sentence was written, it seems very likely that "latex weather balloons" can do the job. Not a problem at all. Questions are good. Skepticism is good. I/we learn and polish our act that way. Gratuitous insults are bad though! Did you *really* expect any usable input from Len? I do know that they can be useful in the development process. Here are a couple links: pssst, don't let Leo know I gave you these! ;^) http://www.eoss.org/pubs/faqloon.htm This is a gentleman of experience going through a FAQ on the subject. Part way through, he notes that they use Totex balloons. 800 gram balloon to lift 3-4 pounds to 100,000 feet, and 1200 gram to lift a 6 pound payload to the same. The company that they buy the balloons from has a website: http://www.kaymont.com/pages/home.html Checking on this website, you'll find that Totex balloons are indeed made of natural latex rubber, as well as some other interesting stuff. Back to the EOSS FAQ page, there are a lot of answers there. They also go into costs, He versus H, power sources, and a lot of other stuff. "If it happens, it must be possible". Perhaps you could send a copy of those atmospheric tables up on the first 100,000 foot flight..... hehe! Just tuck them in with "Leonard"... I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most here would know about that already. There is one really big problem you cannot avoid, though.... Here in EPA, a *lot* of the land surface area is either wooded or developed. Or water, paved road, etc. This isn't prairie country, like where most of the launches take place. The chances that you'll be able to recover the package are adversely affected by this. If it hangs up 60 feet in a tree, or on a power line, or on top of a building, it's probably gone forever. Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, just that the risk is greater. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"N2EY" wrote But no call, no last name, no positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. So what? Come to think of it, you might be N2EY, or you might not be. No positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe you're just another of Len Andersons screen names. Or you might be VA2QRU/VE7JPN, Masataka Noda. Who cares? 73, de Hans, ex-KG6AQI |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: some snippage Sure enough. Am I an expert in this field? Not hardly. I'm going to have to launch a few of these things before I can be a neophyte. But I can do the research, and learn as I go. And the research says? My initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to inflate and release a latex balloon carrying a payload into the Stratosphere. This is based on the published results of other groups that are doing this sort of thing at this time. This is also based on correspondence with two people experienced in launching similar balloons. Mt initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to incorporate into that payload, several devices, including a GPS, various Amateur radio transceivers, and cameras. This payload may be controlled by various electronic control systems. Many are using a "Basic Stamp" processor. This research also leads me to believe that by using a packet radio system, the information from the GPS and other sensors may be transmitted to a computer that can keep track of the payload. This is based on what others are doing at this time, and some basic radio knowledge and knowledge of size and weight requirements and known equipment that fits the requirements. My initial research leads me to believe that I can construct a payload that will adequately protect the equipment from the low temperatures encountered in this area of the stratosphere. This is based on what others are doing at this time. Although more extensive calculations might be performed to find an ideal amount of insulation, it must be noted that those projects that are using simple insulation such as foam sheathing are not experiencing cold related failures. This leads me to conclude that at worst, a derivative sort of payload container might be made and operate successfully. IOW: "If it happens, it must be possible". If for some reason more research was needed an experiment might be arranged where the payload was packaged in Dry ice for say 5 hours - this would be much longer than any anticipated mission, and with dry ice having a temperature of around -109F, we could make a reasonable approximation of the altitude conditions, temperature- wise. You might want to recheck the temperature of frozen CO2, but the concept is valid. -109.3 degrees F, or -78.5 degrees C. Did you have a different number? My initial research leads me to believe that small science experiments might be performed on this payload, as long as the aggregate weight is within payload limits. Yeah, you know.... people blah blah blah. My initial research leads me to believe that this can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Reasonable is quite relative, of course, but with 40 dollar type prices for balloons, and around 50 dollars per launch of helium, (less for hydrogen) the relative inexpensiveness of payload construction materials, and that except for the unexpected loss of damage of a payload, the payload parts are multi-mission, the price per launch can be kept in the 200 dollar range. If used/donated parts can be utilized, the cost can be reduced even more. There's also the fact of free labor, and donation of incidental expenses like fuel and food. Yup. This is a thing that people do for a part of a hobby. There are enough of that sort around. Note that I am not trying to advertise this as some sort of el cheapo project. When I say surprisingly inexpensive, I mean that at least in my case, I would have guessed that this sort of thing would have cost many thousands of dollars per launch. It doesn't appear to. If it would cost us that much, we are doing something different than the other folks that are doing this. Yup. My initial research leads me to believe that the powers that be do not place undue restrictions on these launches. I conclude this by the relevant documents that are issued by the FAA, and the accounts by the people that are doing this sort of thing. So it looks like you've "done your homework".. I think so. There is always something else to learn, but that's another part of the fun. [i] And this is a bad thing - how? Well, you might actually get some balloons launched, and prove Len to be absolutely wrong..... Yup. Despite his *tables* The tables will show that a properly-designed "latex weather ballon" can reach 100,000 feet. Remember: "If it happens, it must be possible" A lack of hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply differently to others? Hasn't held Len back, even when he's wrong!! It would be interesting to know what are the "many topics where have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read" Hmmm? Lessee, there is a first person/second person shift in there, so I wasn't sure how to answer. But I'll take a stab. I would think that most everyone here - in fact most everyone everywhere - gives daily pronouncements on things that they have not done. It isn't a problem. While there is nothing like first hand experience, there is nothing wrong with acquiring knowledge from references and passing it on. Otherwise how could people "know" that a bullet fired from a gun will do bodily damage. How would they know that potato chips taste good. How would they know that if they stuck their head underwater and took a deep breath, they probably wouldn't like the results We HAVE to take some info as real without experience. We cannot be skeptical of everything, every waking moment. Have I said *anyone* should not post here? I think Leo believes that I should simply accept that some people think that I cannot do this, and simply slink away. I do reserve the right to reply (and to not be too happy about it) when I am called incompetent! Sorry Leo - it works both ways! 8^) And perhaps you can't do it *all by yourself*. But you don't plan to - your method is to assemble a team, not be the sole basement inventor. Right, I have no intention of doing it by myself. Which means your resources have been multiplied. My point is that it is a few square inches of material that is stopping a big car. It isn't necessarily intuitive that it will do it. Not at first. And as you say, Jim. People are doing it, so it works. No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute. What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? From what I've seen and calculated, his main limitation may be airspace regulations here in EPA - a place where I do have some empirical experience. And that is one of the big considerations. But those aren't laws of physics - they're regulations imposed by humans .for obvious reasons. They aren't saying that you're nuts to be considering doing what you intend to do, but they are offering you the benefit of their understanding of engineering and physics as it pertains to your project. Perhaps we've been reading different posts... I respectfully suggest that you've been too busy (once again) focussing on the poster rather than the material posted. I suggest that the person posting that "latex weather balloons cannot reach 100,000 feet is simply wrong. Or complexly wrong. But no doubt, wrong! Not that he will ever admit it. You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says? Because we can have a civil discussion? Exactly. I think some people assume that the newsgroup is only for arguments and antagonistic behavior. Seems that way.. Jim, whether you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of physics could care less! They remain absolute. What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? Hmmm? The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical law. In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been satisfactorily resolved. Engineering 101, freshman years stuff. Jim, can you honestly say that as an engineer that you have solved all the problems on any project satisfactorily? Satisfactorily? Yes. Perfectly? No. Or have you accepted the results and wanted to do better? Any honest engineer will tell you that there were better ways to have done it = after it's done. By the above definition, engineering tasks would probably never get done. If there's too much insistence on perfection, nothing can ever happen. There's *always* another level of documentation, testing, analysis, etc., that could be done. All depends on how we define "satisfactorily". For example, suppose a project demands that a system have MTBF of, say, 100,000 hours, as measured under certain specified conditions. If a system is designed that meets that specification, it's "satisfactory". 99,999 hours is not satisfactory, unless the writer(s) of the specification rewrite it. Of course if the design turns out to have MTBF of, say, 250,000 hours, that's great - but only if it does not adversely affect other requirements. The posts that we saw earlier were the beginnings of the issues list - responding to it with "it's been done, it'll work, no problemo!" - type platitudes ain't going to resolve the issues - it's just wishful thinking. Or perhaps no thinking at all. No, it isn't. Not to mention, I never said those words in quotes! I don't know why I'm attributed to saying things I never said! True enough. At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites. Len isn't. Says it all. Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it? Len's just wrong about the latex weather balloons. Not confusing at all. No, I mean it would be confusing to his view, since we would be messing up his opinion with facts. What I like (not) is that when I'm told both that it is impossible (with insinuations as to my lack of knowledge of basic physics), and again with a direct comment as to my lack of competency, I am somehow the petulant one. Classic Len trick. Acts like a complete jackass, then says *he's* the injured party and *you* are acting inappropriately. The term for such behavior in these parts is "being a smack". I do want to get beyond this, but it goes both ways. Three words: Eagles tailgate party. I don't believe that people have Eagles tailgate parties! Can't be. I've been to Philadelphia many times, and I have not seen one Eagles tailgate party. Besides, the owners of the stadium would NEVER allow tailgate parties in the parking lots outside the stadium. The liability issues would be tremendous. Besides, you need to produce the calculations that show that you could pack people into a car, add food, and set up and feed them outside the stadium. How many Eagles tailgate parties have you put on. You cannot comment on an Eagles tailgate party unless you have attended and put on on, which you can't do because they won't allow them anyhow. haw Whoeee, now that's a vent! But it does illustrate some of the frustration I experience while on this subject. I'd love to discuss the various facets of the project, the equipment, and the policy aspects of it. (remember this whole thing was brought up in a policy context) But I can't do that because of the insistence by some that I and others can't do it for one reason or the other. This in spite of my addressing every concern. Of course you can discuss those issues! You just can't discuss them with the naysayers! Do you really think Len would have *anything* positive to contribute to the project? Snort! Too bad, that! Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse? Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with CWGet. Ugh I'll probably use packet for telemetry. I've been discussing this with one of the partners. The packet will give us one more level of redundancy, since we can have people that have internet access during the flight look at the position with APRS. Now morse QSO's are a possibility. I am liking this more and more... I'm looking at it in a repeater fashion or remote. I have to see what the F.C.C. rules are related to this. You mean...like somebody who builds an entire ham station out of mostly recycled parts? And then is called "cheap" because it only him cost $100? I happen to like being cheap! And I respect it too. "Cheap" implies shoddiness. I think a better choice is "frugal". One thing I notice is that there is very little attention given to the fact that what you're talking about is an ongoing project consisting of a series of launches. You'll almost certainly not try to reach 100,000 feet on the first go. Or the second... These conditions make it an interesting place to go to. How do we go there? Weather balloons provide a tantalizing clue. These latex balloons are launched on a daily basis by various weather agencies, mostly NOAA, but also at others. At this point in time, I don't know whether latex ballons can take one of your packages to 100,000 feet or not. From what I've read since that sentence was written, it seems very likely that "latex weather balloons" can do the job. Not a problem at all. Questions are good. Skepticism is good. I/we learn and polish our act that way. Gratuitous insults are bad though! Did you *really* expect any usable input from Len? Everyone gives me usable input. Brian Burke has given me really good input, Len and other Brian have too. I can take the advisement as what happens when you interact with people that expect (want?) you to fail. This helps, believe it or not. I do know that they can be useful in the development process. Here are a couple links: pssst, don't let Leo know I gave you these! ;^) http://www.eoss.org/pubs/faqloon.htm This is a gentleman of experience going through a FAQ on the subject. Part way through, he notes that they use Totex balloons. 800 gram balloon to lift 3-4 pounds to 100,000 feet, and 1200 gram to lift a 6 pound payload to the same. The company that they buy the balloons from has a website: http://www.kaymont.com/pages/home.html Checking on this website, you'll find that Totex balloons are indeed made of natural latex rubber, as well as some other interesting stuff. Back to the EOSS FAQ page, there are a lot of answers there. They also go into costs, He versus H, power sources, and a lot of other stuff. "If it happens, it must be possible". Perhaps you could send a copy of those atmospheric tables up on the first 100,000 foot flight..... hehe! Just tuck them in with "Leonard"... Seriously, we probably won't be sending any live payload. There would probably be some ethical issues and complaints. I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most here would know about that already. There is one really big problem you cannot avoid, though.... Here in EPA, a *lot* of the land surface area is either wooded or developed. Or water, paved road, etc. This isn't prairie country, like where most of the launches take place. The chances that you'll be able to recover the package are adversely affected by this. If it hangs up 60 feet in a tree, or on a power line, or on top of a building, it's probably gone forever. Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, just that the risk is greater. It is a much bigger risk. The worst case scenario is a payload that lands in the north central part of the state. There are some areas that are darn near wilderness there. So I/we have to be prepared to do some serious hiking under a few circumstances. That's okay - it doesn't bother me a bit. Hiking in Pennsylvania is a gift. I don't know if you saw the link from the people in Mass.? A couple of their payloads landed in the *big* pond! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote But no call, no last name, no positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. So what? I said as much, Hans. Come to think of it, you might be N2EY, or you might not be. Nope. You can check out who I am. Others here, including you, have worked me on the air or met me in person. For example, you can dig up *any* old SS log where you worked N2EY, and I can tell you the date, time, band, and exchange. No positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Actually I do have a website, and outside confirmation. Maybe you're just another of Len Andersons screen names. Or you might be VA2QRU/VE7JPN, Masataka Noda. Neither one of those worked you on 7037 some time back.... Who cares? I just made an observation. If "Leo" wants to remain anonymous, I have no problem at all with it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote But no call, no last name, no positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. So what? Come to think of it, you might be N2EY, or you might not be. No positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe you're just another of Len Andersons screen names. Or you might be VA2QRU/VE7JPN, Masataka Noda. Who cares? 73, de Hans, ex-KG6AQI He might be Mark Morgan. Could explain Steve's recent disagreements with whoever. |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote But no call, no last name, no positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. So what? Come to think of it, you might be N2EY, or you might not be. No positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe you're just another of Len Andersons screen names. Or you might be VA2QRU/VE7JPN, Masataka Noda. No! No! Not Cootie Boy! Who cares? 73, de Hans, ex-KG6AQI |
|
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: What courses, exactly James, did you have in your freshman year in E-school which taught/preached how to do a "rigorous analysis of all facets of the problem at hand . . . a list of problems impeding the design goal is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been . . " and come out of it with working pile of hardware? Ya missed the point. Unless you can cite your soup-to-nuts "engineered" pile of freshman hardware I didn't miss the point. Boilerplate verbiage like: "In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been satisfactorily resolved" is the ES 101 stuff. Actually doing it is very different. For example - just what *are* all the facets of a given problem?. I have no idea what "ES 101" is or was. One of those intro engineering courses. Lays out basic concepts and methods. . . . as if . . maybe two-three years outta E-school you were allowed to take a poke at an assignment like that. More like a year. Sometimes right out of the chute, sometimes never and perhaps with a glaring exception or two never in a freshman year out in commercial reality. Plus there's a big difference between giving the kid a project to do (every aspect of which will be checked by someone more experienced) and really being in charge of something. Freshemen do get projects. . . Because that's what we get paid to do. Perhaps wrongly, more likely not, we don't have a helluva lotta time for approaching projects like ballooning to 100,000 feet with science fair project mentalities. Interpret as you will. The trick is that the volunteer folks don't have the paycheck incentive. Just the reverse - such a project costs them money! So the motivation has to be elsewhere. You're taking it off onto a couple irrelevent tangents. No, completely relevant. There isn't much real "engineering" in the hard numeric design sense attached to doing what KB3EIA proposes. It's like adding a room onto a house - you wouldn't do a complete stress analysis of every stud and joist, nor a fluid dynamic analysis of the plumbing just so you could have a half-bath on the ground floor. Bingo! The topic is how various folk who come from different educational, training and employment backgrounds approach the technical aspects of pulling off non-commercial stunts like sending homebrewed electronics packages to 100,000 feet with a balloon. OK. Seasoned technical types degreed and otherwise learn out in the college of hard knocks how to plan and execute projects in highly systematic manners because when money is involved the project better be pulled off properly or yer outta work. Which is not the same factor here. In business if ya signed the contract to deliver X on date Y, you better do it or bad things will happen. In this balloon thing, a delay of weeks or months is no big deal if the result is success rather than failure. That's the incentive. Beyond that we is what we is and we don't change our stripes when we get involved in the planning of off-hours volunteer efforts or our hobbies. Maybe *you* don't. People need to differentiate between work and play. Those who can't get grumpy! ;^) Wherein come the clashes with the non-technical types we get involved with on joint efforts. Pick any mid-to-large scale Field Day planning session around here for a perfect example. You might wanna look up how the CP folks did... Send the non-technical types to me. I don't differentiate between them and what is apparently the first class Hams. Perhaps they will learn, and eventually become technical types. My main job in this whole project has been to SELL people on the concept of something that is not particularly new, but has been made more interesting by a fusion of Ham radio, GPS, Packet radio, and Schools, or perhaps more accurately, youth in general. I **TODJA** to stick to being the cheerleader and delegate the tech stuff to the technoids dammit but NO, you got all ****y huffy about it instead! ****y huffy is par for the course here, isn't it? . . . yeah . . . which of course is the whole bottom bottom line . . sigh bwaahaahaa Leo is VE, a VE6 if I'm not mistaken. How does anyone know for sure? He's been anonymous since day one here. He let his cat out of the bag at some point in past but it got past you. He's a VE but I had him in the wrong province. Didn't get past me. Leo sez he's a VE3. But no call, no last name, no positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't. Not that there's anyhting wrong with that! He could just as easily be another of Len's online personalities. No way, changing writing styles like changing fingerprints, can't be done. Nonsense. Ghostwriters do it all the time. Len's done the pseudonym thing here more than once - that we know of. Leo absolutely is not Sweetums. Or vice versa. Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not losing any sleep over it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: some snippage My initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to inflate and release a latex balloon carrying a payload into the Stratosphere. This is based on the published results of other groups that are doing this sort of thing at this time. This is also based on correspondence with two people experienced in launching similar balloons. Mt initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to incorporate into that payload, several devices, including a GPS, various Amateur radio transceivers, and cameras. This payload may be controlled by various electronic control systems. Many are using a "Basic Stamp" processor. This research also leads me to believe that by using a packet radio system, the information from the GPS and other sensors may be transmitted to a computer that can keep track of the payload. If I may offer a suggestion: Keep the first flights simple. This is based on what others are doing at this time, and some basic radio knowledge and knowledge of size and weight requirements and known equipment that fits the requirements. My initial research leads me to believe that I can construct a payload that will adequately protect the equipment from the low temperatures encountered in this area of the stratosphere. Since the payload will spend a relatively short time in the cold, the insulation can be less than what would be needed for long duration. This is based on what others are doing at this time. Although more extensive calculations might be performed to find an ideal amount of insulation, it must be noted that those projects that are using simple insulation such as foam sheathing are not experiencing cold related failures. This leads me to conclude that at worst, a derivative sort of payload container might be made and operate successfully. IOW: "If it happens, it must be possible". Such a simple concept - so hard for some to grasp.... If for some reason more research was needed an experiment might be arranged where the payload was packaged in Dry ice for say 5 hours - this would be much longer than any anticipated mission, and with dry ice having a temperature of around -109F, we could make a reasonable approximation of the altitude conditions, temperature- wise. Consider also the effect of launching in midsummer. The payload starts off at, say, 100 degrees F inside the insulation.... My initial research leads me to believe that this can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Reasonable is quite relative, of course, but with 40 dollar type prices for balloons, and around 50 dollars per launch of helium, (less for hydrogen) the relative inexpensiveness of payload construction materials, and that except for the unexpected loss of damage of a payload, the payload parts are multi-mission, the price per launch can be kept in the 200 dollar range. If used/donated parts can be utilized, the cost can be reduced even more. There's also the fact of free labor, and donation of incidental expenses like fuel and food. Yup. This is a thing that people do for a part of a hobby. There are enough of that sort around. Right. Note that I am not trying to advertise this as some sort of el cheapo project. When I say surprisingly inexpensive, I mean that at least in my case, I would have guessed that this sort of thing would have cost many thousands of dollars per launch. It doesn't appear to. If it would cost us that much, we are doing something different than the other folks that are doing this. Yup. My initial research leads me to believe that the powers that be do not place undue restrictions on these launches. I conclude this by the relevant documents that are issued by the FAA, and the accounts by the people that are doing this sort of thing. So it looks like you've "done your homework".. I think so. There is always something else to learn, but that's another part of the fun. Kewl And this is a bad thing - how? Well, you might actually get some balloons launched, and prove Len to be absolutely wrong..... Again 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!! Len isn't. Says it all. Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it? Len's just wrong about the latex weather balloons. Not confusing at all. No, I mean it would be confusing to his view, since we would be messing up his opinion with facts. That's a definite no-no. ;-) Three words: Eagles tailgate party. I don't believe that people have Eagles tailgate parties! Can't be. I've been to Philadelphia many times, and I have not seen one Eagles tailgate party. Besides, the owners of the stadium would NEVER allow tailgate parties in the parking lots outside the stadium. The liability issues would be tremendous. Besides, you need to produce the calculations that show that you could pack people into a car, add food, and set up and feed them outside the stadium. How many Eagles tailgate parties have you put on. You cannot comment on an Eagles tailgate party unless you have attended and put on on, which you can't do because they won't allow them anyhow. haw Whoeee, now that's a vent! But it does illustrate some of the frustration I experience while on this subject. I'd love to discuss the various facets of the project, the equipment, and the policy aspects of it. (remember this whole thing was brought up in a policy context) But I can't do that because of the insistence by some that I and others can't do it for one reason or the other. This in spite of my addressing every concern. Of course you can discuss those issues! You just can't discuss them with the naysayers! Do you really think Len would have *anything* positive to contribute to the project? Snort! Too bad, that! Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse? Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with CWGet. Ugh I'll probably use packet for telemetry. I've been discussing this with one of the partners. The packet will give us one more level of redundancy, since we can have people that have internet access during the flight look at the position with APRS. Only if there's a way for the data to get onto the internet. Now morse QSO's are a possibility. I am liking this more and more... I'm looking at it in a repeater fashion or remote. I have to see what the F.C.C. rules are related to this. You mean...like somebody who builds an entire ham station out of mostly recycled parts? And then is called "cheap" because it only him cost $100? I happen to like being cheap! And I respect it too. "Cheap" implies shoddiness. I think a better choice is "frugal". Not a problem at all. Questions are good. Skepticism is good. I/we learn and polish our act that way. Gratuitous insults are bad though! Did you *really* expect any usable input from Len? Everyone gives me usable input. Brian Burke has given me really good input, Len and other Brian have too. I can take the advisement as what happens when you interact with people that expect (want?) you to fail. This helps, believe it or not. "No [fill in this blank] is a complete waste. He/she/it can always serve as a horrible example" Perhaps you could send a copy of those atmospheric tables up on the first 100,000 foot flight..... hehe! Just tuck them in with "Leonard"... Seriously, we probably won't be sending any live payload. There would probably be some ethical issues and complaints. oh the humanity I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most here would know about that already. There is one really big problem you cannot avoid, though.... Here in EPA, a *lot* of the land surface area is either wooded or developed. Or water, paved road, etc. This isn't prairie country, like where most of the launches take place. The chances that you'll be able to recover the package are adversely affected by this. If it hangs up 60 feet in a tree, or on a power line, or on top of a building, it's probably gone forever. Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, just that the risk is greater. It is a much bigger risk. The worst case scenario is a payload that lands in the north central part of the state. No, I can think of worse ones. There are some areas that are darn near wilderness there. So I/we have to be prepared to do some serious hiking under a few circumstances. That's okay - it doesn't bother me a bit. Hiking in Pennsylvania is a gift. Of course. Just don't do it during deer season. (moment of silence for the Wisconsin tragedy) I don't know if you saw the link from the people in Mass.? A couple of their payloads landed in the *big* pond! Loss of a payload is one thing; it's bad but if you make the payload inexpensive enough, it's not a big deal. An acceptable risk. OTOH, I can imagine the payload landing on a power line and causing an outage, or even a fire. Or landing on a busy interstate, somebody's house or business, etc. Not the kind of publicity ham radio needs... I wonder if it might not be more desirable to launch with the *intent* of the payload coming down over water. Like Chesapeake Bay. Should not be hard to make it float. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Subject: Near Space Science - was They just don't get it
From: (William) Date: 11/22/2004 5:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... Sorry, Brain. No "promise" was made. You are encouraged to re-post any such assertion. Steve, in your third to the last post to me on November 7th, you said that I was "kill" filed, and that you would see me at Dayton. You gave the definite impression that you would have no further discourse with me until Dayton. Then YOUR "impression" was wrong. You are in the killfile, Brain, and as I said, 85% of your lying bile gets deleted without further adieu. It still does not mean I can't read through them before I hit "delete". You don't need to preface a statement with "I promise" in order for someone to think that you have given your word, or that you might keep your word. Or perhaps you do. Sure I do. "I promise" is a definitive statement. I did not make that statement. You are welcomed to repost the quote wherein you think I said "I promise". Then you post to me again and again. Hardly "again and again". Most of the replies were to third persons who quoted you. Is your word no good? I think not. My "word" is better than ANYthing that comes from the mouth or keyboard of Brian P Burke. You ARE a known liar who does not even abide his own rhetoric. Creep. Scumbag. Liar. That's the legacy Brain P Burke leaves to his namesakes. Sheeeesh. Steve, K4YZ |
In article , Leo
writes: On 21 Nov 2004 18:42:08 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote: Leo wrote in message ... 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 88s?! SHEESH! Not quite 88s. From the "Western Union 92 Code" - 134 means "Who is at the key?". Pretty much the question that Jim seems to be pondering - I'm just restating it telegraphicallyfor him....... :) Updated to "who is at the keyboard?"....;-) http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html See also: http://www.signalharbor.com/73.html http://www.qsl.net/w5www/73.html http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...864%40ladder03. news.aol.com&output=gplain 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Latex balloons. Helium. 100,000 feet with a six pound payload. Okay, you quoted a SALES PITCH. More diversion. I quoted what the named group uses, and then did research at the site they bought their balloons at to ascertain what those particular balloons were made of. Why didn't you do that with YOUR sales pitch in here first? Always the critic.. There is a need to work out a protocol for balloon launches. But aside from that, the use of latex balloons and the altitudes achieved with these balloons is pretty well documented. Believe or do not. If you don't believe me, then you don't believe a whole lot of people. Besides, even if I did, your next statement indicates that it would not have mattered. Have you actually USED that "Totex" balloon? Did you get to 100 kilofeet with one? [how did you measure that altitude to "prove" it?] Whattya think? Think this is a good question point? Are you really so skeptical that you accept NOTHING as reliable? If it proves Len to be wrong... If you believe that the EOSS is lying, and that Kaymont is engaging in false advertisement about a product that they have produced since the 1940's, take it up with them. Don't hold yer breath... I can supply references upon request. A big reference Professor named Langley once convinced the USN that heavier-than-air flying machines were dandy things for the fleet. He talked them into rebuilding a small ship into an aircraft carrier. His first flying machine "flight" went right off the bow and into the water, climb rate in the minus numbers. Langley remained a "wheel" (with references) but a couple of bicycle shop owners did the first heavier-than-air flight...without anyone "proving it could be done" by websites or advertisements. Has nothing to do with the subject. Why the difference between a manufacturer of the latex balloons, and a documented user group, and your facts? You tell me. YOU are the "manager" of this "concept." Two sets of rules - one for Len, one for everyone else. You have to justify your statements, Len doesn't have to justify his... THe difference is that you are incorrect. I suspect that part of the confusion is that most weather balloons are sent to a much lower altitude than what NSS does. The reason is that almost all the weather occurs in the Troposphere (and below) They are sending the balloons that high, because that is the area that they are interested in. This does not mean that the balloons can go no higher. The maximum height that can be attained is a function of the maximum diameter that the balloon can attain without bursting. Contributing factors to this are the weight of the payload, which influences how much of the H or He has to be put into the balloon, and the needed amount of lift. More weight, more lift gas. Higher lift for faster ascent means more lift gas. Since the balloon will be inflated to a larger diameter at launch, it will attain maximum diameter before burst at a lower altitude. Convice everyone you are without fault by your ballooning successes to date. So strange a comment. "Convice"? Still waiting for Len to show us his amateur radio and homebrewing successes to date. Nothing beyond "surprisingly inexpensive". I'm not making a financial report to the group. No? True...you don't have to tell anyone anything, including what you are going to "do." Are you telling me to shut up again? Looks like it. Otherwise I have a little trouble making sense of that statement. This was not about the financial aspects of the project anyhow. It was in response to Hans' thread about the ARS being marginalized. Its a new project. Somehow I don't get a clear picture of all those "volunteers" just waiting and anxious to give Mike Coslo TIME and MONEY to make a "success" out of your "concept." Color me skeptical. Not surprising. Hockey team, star party, Field Day.... If you want more, you could dig it out of some of the other posts. A few costs are in there. Tsk. Standard newsgroup disclaimer. You expect others to go out and do YOUR homework. Len won't do his. You would be doing the homework for yourself, Len. I really don't need to convince you, and some newsgroup members have complained when I gave them references. All you have to do is outline your brilliant It is not a particularly brilliant concept. In fact, since a number of people are already doing it, it isn't a concept at all. and unique "concept" and the cheering is supposed to start. Unique? Incorrect. This project is not unique In fact that's the biggest possible criticism - it's been done before, by amateurs. Repeatedly.... Ahem. I'm not required to provide financial data to you. Absolutely true. You don't have to provide anything to anyone. The project will be "inexpensive." The FAA is "accommodating." "Others have already done it." No sweaty-dah. Len hasn't done it. If you google up the parts of the thread where I was providing "references" you could confirm the veracity of those statements for yourself. But you won't. And you are still incorrect about latex balloons reaching the 100,000 foot altitude. Latex. Helium *or* Hydrogen. 100,000 feet. Its happening. Therefore it's possible 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: some snippage My initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to inflate and release a latex balloon carrying a payload into the Stratosphere. This is based on the published results of other groups that are doing this sort of thing at this time. This is also based on correspondence with two people experienced in launching similar balloons. Mt initial research leads me to believe that it is possible to incorporate into that payload, several devices, including a GPS, various Amateur radio transceivers, and cameras. This payload may be controlled by various electronic control systems. Many are using a "Basic Stamp" processor. This research also leads me to believe that by using a packet radio system, the information from the GPS and other sensors may be transmitted to a computer that can keep track of the payload. If I may offer a suggestion: Keep the first flights simple. Oh yes! The first flight or two will be as much figuring out a protocol/training for balloon launching as anything else. Payloads will be minimal. This is based on what others are doing at this time, and some basic radio knowledge and knowledge of size and weight requirements and known equipment that fits the requirements. My initial research leads me to believe that I can construct a payload that will adequately protect the equipment from the low temperatures encountered in this area of the stratosphere. Since the payload will spend a relatively short time in the cold, the insulation can be less than what would be needed for long duration. Spot-on! This is not a spacecraft that must be insulated in anticipation of a long duration mission. As long as the insulation is sufficient to keep the payload within it's operating temperature envelope for the duration of the flight, we are in good shape. And since some of the balloonatics are reporting slight internal temperature *rise* during the flight, I am not anticipating major problems in this area. This is based on what others are doing at this time. Although more extensive calculations might be performed to find an ideal amount of insulation, it must be noted that those projects that are using simple insulation such as foam sheathing are not experiencing cold related failures. This leads me to conclude that at worst, a derivative sort of payload container might be made and operate successfully. IOW: "If it happens, it must be possible". Such a simple concept - so hard for some to grasp.... And I have a hard time grasping the lack of grasp! 8^) If for some reason more research was needed an experiment might be arranged where the payload was packaged in Dry ice for say 5 hours - this would be much longer than any anticipated mission, and with dry ice having a temperature of around -109F, we could make a reasonable approximation of the altitude conditions, temperature- wise. Consider also the effect of launching in midsummer. The payload starts off at, say, 100 degrees F inside the insulation.... My biggest concern is humidity. Nice saturated Pennsylvania humidity heading from say 85 degrees to well below zero. Visual ports may just become blocked with frost, as well as antenna connectors - anything that might be cold could possibly frost up. There will be extra helium left over, so we may design a method to purge the payload. My initial research leads me to believe that this can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Reasonable is quite relative, of course, but with 40 dollar type prices for balloons, and around 50 dollars per launch of helium, (less for hydrogen) the relative inexpensiveness of payload construction materials, and that except for the unexpected loss of damage of a payload, the payload parts are multi-mission, the price per launch can be kept in the 200 dollar range. If used/donated parts can be utilized, the cost can be reduced even more. There's also the fact of free labor, and donation of incidental expenses like fuel and food. Yup. This is a thing that people do for a part of a hobby. There are enough of that sort around. Right. Note that I am not trying to advertise this as some sort of el cheapo project. When I say surprisingly inexpensive, I mean that at least in my case, I would have guessed that this sort of thing would have cost many thousands of dollars per launch. It doesn't appear to. If it would cost us that much, we are doing something different than the other folks that are doing this. Yup. My initial research leads me to believe that the powers that be do not place undue restrictions on these launches. I conclude this by the relevant documents that are issued by the FAA, and the accounts by the people that are doing this sort of thing. So it looks like you've "done your homework".. I think so. There is always something else to learn, but that's another part of the fun. Kewl And this is a bad thing - how? Well, you might actually get some balloons launched, and prove Len to be absolutely wrong..... Again 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!! Len isn't. Says it all. Well, it *would* be confusing wouldn't it? Len's just wrong about the latex weather balloons. Not confusing at all. No, I mean it would be confusing to his view, since we would be messing up his opinion with facts. That's a definite no-no. ;-) Three words: Eagles tailgate party. I don't believe that people have Eagles tailgate parties! Can't be. I've been to Philadelphia many times, and I have not seen one Eagles tailgate party. Besides, the owners of the stadium would NEVER allow tailgate parties in the parking lots outside the stadium. The liability issues would be tremendous. Besides, you need to produce the calculations that show that you could pack people into a car, add food, and set up and feed them outside the stadium. How many Eagles tailgate parties have you put on. You cannot comment on an Eagles tailgate party unless you have attended and put on on, which you can't do because they won't allow them anyhow. haw Whoeee, now that's a vent! But it does illustrate some of the frustration I experience while on this subject. I'd love to discuss the various facets of the project, the equipment, and the policy aspects of it. (remember this whole thing was brought up in a policy context) But I can't do that because of the insistence by some that I and others can't do it for one reason or the other. This in spite of my addressing every concern. Of course you can discuss those issues! You just can't discuss them with the naysayers! Do you really think Len would have *anything* positive to contribute to the project? Snort! Too bad, that! Just a beacon? How about some telemetry via Morse? Some do use morse telemetry. Oddly enough, they translate it with CWGet. Ugh I'll probably use packet for telemetry. I've been discussing this with one of the partners. The packet will give us one more level of redundancy, since we can have people that have internet access during the flight look at the position with APRS. Only if there's a way for the data to get onto the internet. Remember that the APRS signal from the Packet transmitter will allow anyone running the software to see the location of the signal. So while I doubt we will be connected, another ham at home might be able to do this. Part of the philosophy of *everyone* can help*. A shut-in Ham, or one that can't be with the group for some reason or another can help out. It's part of the redundancy thing. And under some failure modes, the APRS signal might just save the payload. Now morse QSO's are a possibility. I am liking this more and more... I'm looking at it in a repeater fashion or remote. I have to see what the F.C.C. rules are related to this. You mean...like somebody who builds an entire ham station out of mostly recycled parts? And then is called "cheap" because it only him cost $100? I happen to like being cheap! And I respect it too. "Cheap" implies shoddiness. I think a better choice is "frugal". Not a problem at all. Questions are good. Skepticism is good. I/we learn and polish our act that way. Gratuitous insults are bad though! Did you *really* expect any usable input from Len? Everyone gives me usable input. Brian Burke has given me really good input, Len and other Brian have too. I can take the advisement as what happens when you interact with people that expect (want?) you to fail. This helps, believe it or not. "No [fill in this blank] is a complete waste. He/she/it can always serve as a horrible example" Have you ever seen the "Disincentive" screen saver? It's a parody of the ones with pithy and optimistic quotes. That is one of the screens. Perhaps you could send a copy of those atmospheric tables up on the first 100,000 foot flight..... hehe! Just tuck them in with "Leonard"... Seriously, we probably won't be sending any live payload. There would probably be some ethical issues and complaints. oh the humanity I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most here would know about that already. There is one really big problem you cannot avoid, though.... Here in EPA, a *lot* of the land surface area is either wooded or developed. Or water, paved road, etc. This isn't prairie country, like where most of the launches take place. The chances that you'll be able to recover the package are adversely affected by this. If it hangs up 60 feet in a tree, or on a power line, or on top of a building, it's probably gone forever. Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, just that the risk is greater. It is a much bigger risk. The worst case scenario is a payload that lands in the north central part of the state. No, I can think of worse ones. There are some areas that are darn near wilderness there. So I/we have to be prepared to do some serious hiking under a few circumstances. That's okay - it doesn't bother me a bit. Hiking in Pennsylvania is a gift. Of course. Just don't do it during deer season. (moment of silence for the Wisconsin tragedy) I don't know if you saw the link from the people in Mass.? A couple of their payloads landed in the *big* pond! Loss of a payload is one thing; it's bad but if you make the payload inexpensive enough, it's not a big deal. An acceptable risk. Knowing their possible fate due to proximity to the ocean, they have done just that. OTOH, I can imagine the payload landing on a power line and causing an outage, or even a fire. Or landing on a busy interstate, somebody's house or business, etc. Not the kind of publicity ham radio needs... I wonder if it might not be more desirable to launch with the *intent* of the payload coming down over water. Like Chesapeake Bay. Should not be hard to make it float. It is planned to be waterproof. - Mike KB3EIA - |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: is the ES 101 stuff. Actually doing it is very different. For example - just what *are* all the facets of a given problem?. I have no idea what "ES 101" is or was. One of those intro engineering courses. Lays out basic concepts and methods. DIT didn't bless us with any of those. I guess we were expected to pick it up on the fly during our industry periods. Which would be typical. Like one of their standing policies; "Topics in the syllabus not covered in class or by the homework will be covered in the final." Seasoned technical types degreed and otherwise learn out in the college of hard knocks how to plan and execute projects in highly systematic manners because when money is involved the project better be pulled off properly or yer outta work. Which is not the same factor here. In business if ya signed the contract to deliver X on date Y, you better do it or bad things will happen. In this balloon thing, a delay of weeks or months is no big deal if the result is success rather than failure. I meant from the standpoint of organizing a project. Being nit-picky about it "delivery dates" can matter in some hobby projects like when one is faced with finishing up the job jar to get set for a specific contest. I agree, in most cases nothing bad comes of slipped dates in non-commercial efforts like it does out in the commercial world. That's the incentive. Beyond that we is what we is and we don't change our stripes when we get involved in the planning of off-hours volunteer efforts or our hobbies. Maybe *you* don't. Not when it comes to identifying and organizing the sequence of project milestones, laying out a budget, identifying the unknowns to the extent possible and listing the assets required and such I don't. It all goes down on paper or in an MS Project file from square one just like I do on the job. Which is the way I'd run Mike's balloon project. And which I sense is not the way Mike is approaching it. Wherein come the clashes with the non-technical types we get involved with on joint efforts. Pick any mid-to-large scale Field Day planning session around here for a perfect example. You might wanna look up how the CP folks did... Ya ducked the bullet. I scanned the scores but I couldn't find 'em in 2/3/4/5A. I missed it? They didn't submit an entry? Howcum there's two lists for 1B-2? He let his cat out of the bag at some point in past but it got past you. He's a VE but I had him in the wrong province. Didn't get past me. Leo sez he's a VE3. But no call, no last name, no positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't. I'm convinced he is a VE3 named Leo. Your mileage is obviously varying for some mysterious reason. No way, changing writing styles like changing fingerprints, can't be done. Nonsense. Ghostwriters do it all the time. Len's done the pseudonym thing here more than once - that we know of. Sweetums is a patterned, unlettered compulsively combative fomer military aerospace bench tech, professional ghostwriters are usually talented journalists, historians, etc. . Leo absolutely is not Sweetums. Or vice versa. Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not losing any sleep over it. I'm *outta* this goofy thread, I'm done with Mike, I'm bored, I gotta go find somebody else to gnaw on. "CQ, CQ, CQ RRAP, no lids no kids . . " 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 21 Nov 2004 18:42:08 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote: Leo wrote in message . .. 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 88s?! SHEESH! Not quite 88s. From the "Western Union 92 Code" - 134 means "Who is at the key?". Pretty much the question that Jim seems to be pondering - I'm just restating it telegraphicallyfor him....... :) http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html 73, Leo Looks like our Morse Experts aren't so expert. :) |
(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ...
Subject: Near Space Science - was They just don't get it From: (William) Date: 11/22/2004 5:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... Sorry, Brain. No "promise" was made. You are encouraged to re-post any such assertion. Steve, in your third to the last post to me on November 7th, you said that I was "kill" filed, and that you would see me at Dayton. You gave the definite impression that you would have no further discourse with me until Dayton. Then YOUR "impression" was wrong. No, it wasn't. You are in the killfile, Brain, With the number of direct posts to me, that is -highly- unlikely. I'd say it was impossible. In other words, your statement is untruthful. and as I said, 85% of your lying bile gets deleted without further adieu. It still does not mean I can't read through them before I hit "delete". What is your purpose in kill filing someone, then posting that they are kill filed and that you would speak to them at Dayton, and then reading the kill filed messages? You are a truly a kook. You don't need to preface a statement with "I promise" in order for someone to think that you have given your word, or that you might keep your word. Or perhaps you do. Sure I do. Apparently -you- do. The rest of us just take each other at their word. "I promise" is a definitive statement. I did not make that statement. You are welcomed to repost the quote wherein you think I said "I promise". Then you post to me again and again. Hardly "again and again". Most of the replies were to third persons who quoted you. Is your word no good? I think not. My "word" is better than ANYthing that comes from the mouth or keyboard of Brian P Burke. You ARE a known liar who does not even abide his own rhetoric. Hardly. Hardly. Creep. Scumbag. Liar. That's the legacy Brain P Burke leaves to his namesakes. Sheeeesh. Steve, K4YZ Got any more names in there? Just go ahead and get them out. You'll feel much better afterward. Ooops. You can't do that - you've got me kill filed. Hi, hi! Whatta kook. |
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 21 Nov 2004 13:13:12 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote: Leo wrote in message . .. On 20 Nov 2004 01:57:21 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote: snip I ran into a great blonde in the Toronto airport terminal who was a Mountie. Told her didn't look much like Sergeant Preston to me and asked her where her horse was. She asked me when I was going back where I came from. Heh - I can picture that! Bet she never heard that one before..... :0 She tried to suppress the laugh, didn't work. Seriously, though, in downtown Toronto in the 70s, I frequently had tourists stop me and ask where they could see an igloo (2,500 miles north would be a great place to start!) and where all of the trees were (!). groan! They're all over. I was working in France in 1982 and my boss popped over. We were at the tail end of the line waiting to go up the Eiffel Tower and a tour bus disgorged a big load middle-aged flyover country Yanks. A blue-haired female version of significant girth in a hot pink stretch suit came off the bus and plowed into line right behind us. She immediately got into loudly complaining about how "None of these people around here speak English!" and stared at me for a moment then asked "Do YOU speak English?!" I stared back for a moment or two, shrugged my shoulders, then "Parle vous Francais madam . . ?" She erupted: "See, I toldja, here's another one!!" My boss gave me an elbow shot to the ribs and whispered, "Kelly you're such a s--t." Doesn't seem to happen much anymore - maybe the Internet fixed that!. I hope. 73. Leo w3rv |
Subject: Near Space Science - was They just don't get it
From: (William) Date: 11/23/2004 10:53 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... Subject: Near Space Science - was They just don't get it From: (William) Date: 11/22/2004 5:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... Sorry, Brain. No "promise" was made. You are encouraged to re-post any such assertion. Steve, in your third to the last post to me on November 7th, you said that I was "kill" filed, and that you would see me at Dayton. You gave the definite impression that you would have no further discourse with me until Dayton. Then YOUR "impression" was wrong. No, it wasn't. Yes, it was. No promise was made. You've now been asked three times to repost the post wherein you allege I made such a promise. You cannot since it does not exist. In other words, you HAVE been caught lying AGAIN! You are in the killfile, Brain, With the number of direct posts to me, that is -highly- unlikely. I'd say it was impossible. In other words, your statement is untruthful. Better ask some of the other AOL users about the AOL newsreader and how it works. As a matter of fact, ask your mentor, Lennie the Liar. I am sure he can attest to AOL's filtering system. and as I said, 85% of your lying bile gets deleted without further adieu. It still does not mean I can't read through them before I hit "delete". What is your purpose in kill filing someone, then posting that they are kill filed and that you would speak to them at Dayton, and then reading the kill filed messages? Because I can just hit "Mark Read" when I want to and know that only you, Lennie or Brucie could have been sent to the trash. You are a truly a kook. Hardly. You don't need to preface a statement with "I promise" in order for someone to think that you have given your word, or that you might keep your word. Or perhaps you do. Sure I do. Apparently -you- do. The rest of us just take each other at their word. YOUR word, Brain...?!?! BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA ! ! ! !! You HAVE NO WORD to be taken seriously ! ! You have been proven a liar over and over again with your OWN "word", Brain! "I promise" is a definitive statement. I did not make that statement. You are welcomed to repost the quote wherein you think I said "I promise". Then you post to me again and again. Hardly "again and again". Most of the replies were to third persons who quoted you. Is your word no good? I think not. My "word" is better than ANYthing that comes from the mouth or keyboard of Brian P Burke. You ARE a known liar who does not even abide his own rhetoric. Hardly. Hardly. You ARE a known liar and you do NOT abide your own rhetoric, Brain! Otherwise you would have offered some sort of retraction/apology for the "Steve never admits wrongdoing or errors" statement which was made hours AFTER I had already done just that very thing. Creep. Scumbag. Liar. That's the legacy Brain P Burke leaves to his namesakes. Sheeeesh. Steve, K4YZ Got any more names in there? Just go ahead and get them out. You'll feel much better afterward. Ooops. You can't do that - you've got me kill filed. Hi, hi! You are killfilled. I can read you or not. Mostly not. And I wish there was some more complimentary adjectives I could send your way, but you just keep reaffriming the old ones. Sucks to be you. Steve, K4YZ |
|
On 23 Nov 2004 08:26:11 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: snip I'm convinced he is a VE3 named Leo. Your mileage is obviously varying for some mysterious reason. I ham, therefore I am :) snip I'm *outta* this goofy thread, I'm done with Mike, I'm bored, I gotta go find somebody else to gnaw on. Good idea - it seems to have degraded now into a mutual admiration and backslapping society of our two intrepid near-space explorers....one heavily involved, and one armchair QB-type.... Perhaps, when they're done with the fantasy phase of the project, we'll see some rubber hit the sky? Stay tuned.... "CQ, CQ, CQ RRAP, no lids no kids . . " "..no near space cadets.." ....sorry, couldn't resist again! :) Ha! 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv 73, Leo |
(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ...
Subject: Near Space Science - was They just don't get it From: (William) Date: 11/23/2004 10:53 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... Subject: Near Space Science - was They just don't get it From: (William) Date: 11/22/2004 5:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... Sorry, Brain. No "promise" was made. You are encouraged to re-post any such assertion. Steve, in your third to the last post to me on November 7th, you said that I was "kill" filed, and that you would see me at Dayton. You gave the definite impression that you would have no further discourse with me until Dayton. Then YOUR "impression" was wrong. No, it wasn't. Yes, it was. No, it wasn't. You've now been asked three times to repost the post wherein you allege I made such a promise. So your word is no good? SOP. You cannot since it does not exist. In other words, you HAVE been caught lying AGAIN! Nope. You are in the killfile, Brain, With the number of direct posts to me, that is -highly- unlikely. I'd say it was impossible. In other words, your statement is untruthful. Better ask some of the other AOL users about the AOL newsreader and how it works. As a matter of fact, ask your mentor, Lennie the Liar. I am sure he can attest to AOL's filtering system. I have no time for AOL's nonsense. and as I said, 85% of your lying bile gets deleted without further adieu. It still does not mean I can't read through them before I hit "delete". What is your purpose in kill filing someone, then posting that they are kill filed and that you would speak to them at Dayton, and then reading the kill filed messages? Because I can just hit "Mark Read" when I want to and know that only you, Lennie or Brucie could have been sent to the trash. Riiight! Then you hit the reply button and do something that you said you weren't going to do. You are a truly a kook. Hardly. Yepper. You don't need to preface a statement with "I promise" in order for someone to think that you have given your word, or that you might keep your word. Or perhaps you do. Sure I do. Apparently -you- do. The rest of us just take each other at their word. YOUR word, Brain...?!?! BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA ! ! ! !! You HAVE NO WORD to be taken seriously ! ! You have been proven a liar over and over again with your OWN "word", Brain! Nope. Only your lying assertions. "I promise" is a definitive statement. I did not make that statement. You are welcomed to repost the quote wherein you think I said "I promise". Then you post to me again and again. Hardly "again and again". Most of the replies were to third persons who quoted you. Is your word no good? I think not. My "word" is better than ANYthing that comes from the mouth or keyboard of Brian P Burke. You ARE a known liar who does not even abide his own rhetoric. Hardly. Hardly. You ARE a known liar and you do NOT abide your own rhetoric, Brain! Otherwise you would have offered some sort of retraction/apology for the "Steve never admits wrongdoing or errors" statement which was made hours AFTER I had already done just that very thing. Still offended about getting called on the carpet over your ingenuous apology to Hans? Hi, hi! Creep. Scumbag. Liar. That's the legacy Brain P Burke leaves to his namesakes. Sheeeesh. Steve, K4YZ Got any more names in there? Just go ahead and get them out. You'll feel much better afterward. Ooops. You can't do that - you've got me kill filed. Hi, hi! You are killfilled. I can read you or not. Mostly not. Don't forget that you can also reply to me, especially after having said that you would talk to me at Dayton. And I wish there was some more complimentary adjectives I could send your way, but you just keep reaffriming the old ones. Sucks to be you. Steve, K4YZ Your life may suck. Mine's just fine except for the idiot that killfiles me then keeps replying. Kook. |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Latex balloons. Helium. 100,000 feet with a six pound payload. Okay, you quoted a SALES PITCH. More diversion. I quoted what the named group uses, and then did research at the site they bought their balloons at to ascertain what those particular balloons were made of. Why didn't you do that with YOUR sales pitch in here first? Always the critic.. Yeah. I didn't note the frequencies we were going to use or the make and model of the chase vehicles. Must be bogus. There is a need to work out a protocol for balloon launches. But aside from that, the use of latex balloons and the altitudes achieved with these balloons is pretty well documented. Believe or do not. If you don't believe me, then you don't believe a whole lot of people. Besides, even if I did, your next statement indicates that it would not have mattered. Have you actually USED that "Totex" balloon? Did you get to 100 kilofeet with one? [how did you measure that altitude to "prove" it?] Whattya think? Think this is a good question point? Are you really so skeptical that you accept NOTHING as reliable? If it proves Len to be wrong... It takes a certain something to remain steadfast in the face of the truth. What exactly that is.... I don't know.... 8^) If you believe that the EOSS is lying, and that Kaymont is engaging in false advertisement about a product that they have produced since the 1940's, take it up with them. Don't hold yer breath... I wish someone would. It would be nice to let these disillusioned people know that they aren't doing what they think they are doing. I can supply references upon request. A big reference Professor named Langley once convinced the USN that heavier-than-air flying machines were dandy things for the fleet. He talked them into rebuilding a small ship into an aircraft carrier. His first flying machine "flight" went right off the bow and into the water, climb rate in the minus numbers. Langley remained a "wheel" (with references) but a couple of bicycle shop owners did the first heavier-than-air flight...without anyone "proving it could be done" by websites or advertisements. Has nothing to do with the subject. It's a wonder anything gets done with all those websites running around... 8^) Why the difference between a manufacturer of the latex balloons, and a documented user group, and your facts? You tell me. YOU are the "manager" of this "concept." Two sets of rules - one for Len, one for everyone else. You have to justify your statements, Len doesn't have to justify his... Tis okay. I understand the meaning of that sort of thing. THe difference is that you are incorrect. I suspect that part of the confusion is that most weather balloons are sent to a much lower altitude than what NSS does. The reason is that almost all the weather occurs in the Troposphere (and below) They are sending the balloons that high, because that is the area that they are interested in. This does not mean that the balloons can go no higher. The maximum height that can be attained is a function of the maximum diameter that the balloon can attain without bursting. Contributing factors to this are the weight of the payload, which influences how much of the H or He has to be put into the balloon, and the needed amount of lift. More weight, more lift gas. Higher lift for faster ascent means more lift gas. Since the balloon will be inflated to a larger diameter at launch, it will attain maximum diameter before burst at a lower altitude. Convice everyone you are without fault by your ballooning successes to date. So strange a comment. "Convice"? Criminals sharing in socially unacceptable activity? Still waiting for Len to show us his amateur radio and homebrewing successes to date. Nothing beyond "surprisingly inexpensive". I'm not making a financial report to the group. No? True...you don't have to tell anyone anything, including what you are going to "do." Are you telling me to shut up again? Looks like it. Otherwise I have a little trouble making sense of that statement. This was not about the financial aspects of the project anyhow. It was in response to Hans' thread about the ARS being marginalized. Its a new project. Somehow I don't get a clear picture of all those "volunteers" just waiting and anxious to give Mike Coslo TIME and MONEY to make a "success" out of your "concept." Color me skeptical. Not surprising. Hockey team, star party, Field Day.... If you want more, you could dig it out of some of the other posts. A few costs are in there. Tsk. Standard newsgroup disclaimer. You expect others to go out and do YOUR homework. Len won't do his. You would be doing the homework for yourself, Len. I really don't need to convince you, and some newsgroup members have complained when I gave them references. All you have to do is outline your brilliant It is not a particularly brilliant concept. In fact, since a number of people are already doing it, it isn't a concept at all. and unique "concept" and the cheering is supposed to start. Unique? Incorrect. This project is not unique In fact that's the biggest possible criticism - it's been done before, by amateurs. Repeatedly.... Of course. So has putting up an antenna, or putting together a system in the shack. Building things, talking, beeping or typing to people all over the Earth. But once we get past the basics - if we dare call them that - there is room for innovation. After all SpaceShipOne didn't go anywhere people have not been before. But Rutan and his people certainly made some innovations along the way. Ahem. I'm not required to provide financial data to you. Absolutely true. You don't have to provide anything to anyone. The project will be "inexpensive." The FAA is "accommodating." "Others have already done it." No sweaty-dah. Len hasn't done it. Nope. Some people are like that. Probably be coming up with reasons we can't do it long after we do. If you google up the parts of the thread where I was providing "references" you could confirm the veracity of those statements for yourself. But you won't. And you are still incorrect about latex balloons reaching the 100,000 foot altitude. Latex. Helium *or* Hydrogen. 100,000 feet. Its happening. Therefore it's possible 73 de Jim, N2EY - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: is the ES 101 stuff. Actually doing it is very different. For example - just what *are* all the facets of a given problem?. I have no idea what "ES 101" is or was. One of those intro engineering courses. Lays out basic concepts and methods. DIT didn't bless us with any of those. I guess we were expected to pick it up on the fly during our industry periods. Which would be typical. Like one of their standing policies; "Topics in the syllabus not covered in class or by the homework will be covered in the final." Different generation... Seasoned technical types degreed and otherwise learn out in the college of hard knocks how to plan and execute projects in highly systematic manners because when money is involved the project better be pulled off properly or yer outta work. Which is not the same factor here. In business if ya signed the contract to deliver X on date Y, you better do it or bad things will happen. In this balloon thing, a delay of weeks or months is no big deal if the result is success rather than failure. I meant from the standpoint of organizing a project. Being nit-picky about it "delivery dates" can matter in some hobby projects like when one is faced with finishing up the job jar to get set for a specific contest. I agree, in most cases nothing bad comes of slipped dates in non-commercial efforts like it does out in the commercial world. Point is it's still a different world. That's the incentive. Beyond that we is what we is and we don't change our stripes when we get involved in the planning of off-hours volunteer efforts or our hobbies. Maybe *you* don't. Not when it comes to identifying and organizing the sequence of project milestones, laying out a budget, identifying the unknowns to the extent possible and listing the assets required and such I don't. It all goes down on paper or in an MS Project file from square one just like I do on the job. Which is the way I'd run Mike's balloon project. And which I sense is not the way Mike is approaching it. You don't know Mike... Wherein come the clashes with the non-technical types we get involved with on joint efforts. Pick any mid-to-large scale Field Day planning session around here for a perfect example. You might wanna look up how the CP folks did... Ya ducked the bullet. I scanned the scores but I couldn't find 'em in 2/3/4/5A. I missed it? They didn't submit an entry? Howcum there's two lists for 1B-2? They ran something like 8A with a call you probably don't recognize. Most of the categories are split into three lists: Battery, Emergency Power, and Commercial Power. He let his cat out of the bag at some point in past but it got past you. He's a VE but I had him in the wrong province. Didn't get past me. Leo sez he's a VE3. But no call, no last name, no positive ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't. I'm convinced he is a VE3 named Leo. Your mileage is obviously varying for some mysterious reason. I'm simply pointing out there's no proof one way or the other. No way, changing writing styles like changing fingerprints, can't be done. Nonsense. Ghostwriters do it all the time. Len's done the pseudonym thing here more than once - that we know of. Sweetums is a patterned, unlettered compulsively combative fomer military aerospace bench tech, professional ghostwriters are usually talented journalists, historians, etc. . Now that's a valid point! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: There isn't much real "engineering" in the hard numeric design sense attached to doing what KB3EIA proposes. It's like adding a room onto a house - you wouldn't do a complete stress analysis of every stud and joist, nor a fluid dynamic analysis of the plumbing just so you could have a half-bath on the ground floor. Bingo! A lot of the job of getting that half-bath is permits, inspections, estimates, coordinations, etc., too. The topic is how various folk who come from different educational, training and employment backgrounds approach the technical aspects of pulling off non-commercial stunts like sending homebrewed electronics packages to 100,000 feet with a balloon. OK. Seasoned technical types degreed and otherwise learn out in the college of hard knocks how to plan and execute projects in highly systematic manners because when money is involved the project better be pulled off properly or yer outta work. Which is not the same factor here. In business if ya signed the contract to deliver X on date Y, you better do it or bad things will happen. In this balloon thing, a delay of weeks or months is no big deal if the result is success rather than failure. That's the incentive. Beyond that we is what we is and we don't change our stripes when we get involved in the planning of off-hours volunteer efforts or our hobbies. Maybe *you* don't. People need to differentiate between work and play. Those who can't get grumpy! ;^) Yup. Particularly with volunteer labor: they can just tell you where to shove the helium hose, and then they walk away. Few of us can do that in our work life. Wherein come the clashes with the non-technical types we get involved with on joint efforts. Pick any mid-to-large scale Field Day planning session around here for a perfect example. You might wanna look up how the CP folks did... Send the non-technical types to me. I don't differentiate between them and what is apparently the first class Hams. Perhaps they will learn, and eventually become technical types. The "CP folks" referred to were a classic case of nonplanners. There's a casual approach and then there's carelessness. A few good folks did 90+% of the work and the rest watched. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com