Len Over 21 wrote:

a lot of stuff snipped

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

So be it. If you wish to believe that this cannot be done, despite
overwhelming evidence that it can and is being done with regularity,
then I commend you in the strength of your belief. ;^)

This is *so odd* - it's like trying to describe how an antenna works,
yet getting bogged down by people that refuse to believe that we can
extrude aluminum, that the government would allow people to talk over
wireless connections, and besides, it is impossible for electromagfetic
waves to travel through the air anyway.

At any rate, I am moving on with the project. If you choose to believe
that Myself and others are not doing this, then have at it! 8^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

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

Len Over 21 wrote:

a lot of stuff snipped

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

Realism?


So be it. If you wish to believe that this cannot be done, despite
overwhelming evidence that it can and is being done with regularity,
then I commend you in the strength of your belief. ;^)

This is *so odd* - it's like trying to describe how an antenna works,
yet getting bogged down by people that refuse to believe that we can
extrude aluminum, that the government would allow people to talk over
wireless connections, and besides, it is impossible for electromagfetic
waves to travel through the air anyway.

At any rate, I am moving on with the project. If you choose to believe
that Myself and others are not doing this, then have at it! 8^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:

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


Len Over 21 wrote:

a lot of stuff snipped

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


Realism?

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

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

Leo wrote:

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


Len Over 21 wrote:

a lot of stuff snipped

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


Realism?

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

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

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

Your call.


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

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


Leo wrote:


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



Len Over 21 wrote:

a lot of stuff snipped

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


Realism?

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


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

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

Your call.

Leo,

There is a world of difference between someone like Jim, who questions
and looks at my answers, and one member that says what I am considering
is impossible, and yet another that calls me incompetent.

And there is a lot of difference between me illustrating my points wit
web references, and finally getting annoyed after I am called incompetent.

Considering that to Len, this is an impossible task, and that Brian
Kelly has thinks I'm an idiot that is only suited for cheerleading, I
would have to say that they probably don't have anything to offer me in
my doomed project with which I am going to hurt someone.

My call.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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


Leo wrote:


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



Len Over 21 wrote:



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


Realism?

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


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

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

Your call.

Leo,

There is a world of difference between someone like Jim, who questions
and looks at my answers, and one member that says what I am considering
is impossible, and yet another that calls me incompetent.

And there is a lot of difference between me illustrating my points wit
web references, and finally getting annoyed after I am called incompetent.

Considering that to Len, this is an impossible task, and that Brian
Kelly has thinks I'm an idiot that is only suited for cheerleading, I
would have to say that they probably don't have anything to offer me in
my doomed project with which I am going to hurt someone.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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

Leo wrote:

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

Len Over 21 wrote:

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

Realism?

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

Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of
knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback.

Who are they, Leo?

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

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...

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

Your call.

Leo,

There is a world of difference between someone like Jim, who questions
and looks at my answers, and one member that says what I am considering
is impossible, and yet another that calls me incompetent.

At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites.

And there is a lot of difference between me illustrating my points wit
web references, and finally getting annoyed after I am called incompetent.

Considering that to Len, this is an impossible task, and that Brian
Kelly has thinks I'm an idiot that is only suited for cheerleading, I
would have to say that they probably don't have anything to offer me in
my doomed project with which I am going to hurt someone.

My call.

The websites offer a lot of evidence that it can be done, has been done and
even how to do it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...


Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of
knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback.

Who are they, Leo?

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

Me. Not to FL 100 but close enough RRAP purposes. The Maryland state
enviornmental agency and NOAA operate remote contolled air sampling
and WX monitoring stations at the air field where I based my
ultralight in Harford County. The state recruited volunteers who were
regulars at the field to fill and launch balloons they supplied as
kits for assembly and launching on specific dates at specific times
over a period of a about a month.

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

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

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

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


73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

On 18 Nov 2004 11:11:05 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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

Leo wrote:

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

Len Over 21 wrote:

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

Realism?

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

Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of
knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback.

Who are they, Leo?

....um, Len and Brian, IIRC.....did you forget? And you, of course -
cheerleading for Mike, as usual.......


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

Why should that matter? You yourself have posted on many topics where
you have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various
articles that you have read......including this one! A lack of
hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply
differently to others?

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

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


They
aren't saying that you're nuts to be considering doing what you intend
to do, but they are offering you the benefit of their understanding of
engineering and physics as it pertains to your project.

Perhaps we've been reading different posts...

I respectfully suggest that you've been too busy (once again)
focussing on the poster rather than the material posted. Jim, whether
you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of
physics could care less! They remain absolute.

The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical
law. In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets
of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal
is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been
satisfactorily resolved. The posts that we saw earlier were the
beginnings of the issues list - responding to it with "it's been done,
it'll work, no problemo!" - type platitudes ain't going to resolve the
issues - it's just wishful thinking. Or perhaps no thinking at all.


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

Your call.

Leo,

There is a world of difference between someone like Jim, who questions
and looks at my answers, and one member that says what I am considering
is impossible, and yet another that calls me incompetent.

At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites.

And there is a lot of difference between me illustrating my points wit
web references, and finally getting annoyed after I am called incompetent.

Considering that to Len, this is an impossible task, and that Brian
Kelly has thinks I'm an idiot that is only suited for cheerleading, I
would have to say that they probably don't have anything to offer me in
my doomed project with which I am going to hurt someone.

My call.

The websites offer a lot of evidence that it can be done, has been done and
even how to do it.

Of course it has been done - duh! The issue here is simply how the
various obstacles standing in the way of success have been overcome.
Referring folks who raise technical concerns to a pile of websites
merely demonstrates an inability to articulate the technical knowledge
that is ultimately required to accomplish a plan such as this. Makes
one wonder ho deep an understanding one would possess to reply in this
manner! I'd suspect not too deep.......not much past the "sounds
pretty cool!" stage of the project).

One can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific
information - actually doing it is quite something else. The plans to
construct an atomic bomb take up but a few pages on the Web - but
actually building one might be just a bit more difficult than the
relatively simple documentation would lead one to believe......lol!

If Mike was not interested in discussing this topic at a detail level,
then perhaps it was a bit unwise to post it in a public newsgroup -
unless there was some other reason for doing so......? Wonder what
that might be.....! hmmmmm - Rah Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bah......
y'think?

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

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


73 de Jim, N2EY


73, Leo

In article , Leo
writes:

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

Leo wrote:

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


Len Over 21 wrote:



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


Realism?

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

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

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

Your call.

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

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

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

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

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

Tsk.