| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
November 19th 04, 04:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Leo wrote:
On 18 Nov 2004 11:11:05 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:23 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:50:46 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: It's times like this that can bring people together. You and Brian Kelly have something in common. Realism? Perhaps you could tell me, Leo? I've shown that it can and does happen and that a lot of people are doing exactly what I speak of on a regular basis. Believe or don't believe. It is your choice. Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback. Who are they, Leo? ...um, Len and Brian, IIRC.....did you forget? And you, of course - cheerleading for Mike, as usual....... Who on this newsgroup has even attempted to launch a radio-carrying ballon to 100,000 feet? Or even to half that? Why should that matter? You yourself have posted on many topics where you have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read......including this one! A lack of hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply differently to others? Amazingly enough, the laws of physics are absolute. Paper airplane, high speed jet , spitball or balloon - the same physical laws apply to all. Just like you learned in engineering school.....(?) And the laws of physics I am trying to ignore are....? No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute. They aren't saying that you're nuts to be considering doing what you intend to do, but they are offering you the benefit of their understanding of engineering and physics as it pertains to your project. Perhaps we've been reading different posts... I respectfully suggest that you've been too busy (once again) focussing on the poster rather than the material posted. Jim, whether you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of physics could care less! They remain absolute. The laws of physics The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical law. No laws have been broken 8^) In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been satisfactorily resolved. 1. hmmmm. Your engineering projects must have an unlimited budget 2. In engineering projects, all problems are never satisfactorily resolved. In fact, most are not. You accept, you are not satisfied. The posts that we saw earlier were the beginnings of the issues list - responding to it with "it's been done, it'll work, no problemo!" - type platitudes ain't going to resolve the issues - it's just wishful thinking. Or perhaps no thinking at all. I see that is in quotes. can you dig that up where I said that? You can't even paraphrase that from any of my posts. If they are missing something (and me too, perhaps - this sure ain't my area of expertise either!), then by all means show them where they're wrong - but they are both pretty intelligent, educated and knowledgeable guys, with years of real-world experience in their fields - maybe worth at least a rational discussion? Or you could throw a bunch of web references in their faces and get angry.... Your call. Leo, There is a world of difference between someone like Jim, who questions and looks at my answers, and one member that says what I am considering is impossible, and yet another that calls me incompetent. At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites. And there is a lot of difference between me illustrating my points wit web references, and finally getting annoyed after I am called incompetent. Considering that to Len, this is an impossible task, and that Brian Kelly has thinks I'm an idiot that is only suited for cheerleading, I would have to say that they probably don't have anything to offer me in my doomed project with which I am going to hurt someone. My call. The websites offer a lot of evidence that it can be done, has been done and even how to do it. Of course it has been done - duh! The issue here is simply how the various obstacles standing in the way of success have been overcome. Referring folks who raise technical concerns to a pile of websites merely demonstrates an inability to articulate the technical knowledge that is ultimately required to accomplish a plan such as this. Leo, would you accept my explanations? If there is a graphic that shows the thermal profile of the atmosphere, should I draw my own, and mail it to the person? Why not make that reference? In fact, what you are taking for petulance is the simple provision of references. I don't know how many techincal reports you read, but where I come from, they often have *several* pages of references, lately including some that are indeed web pages. Sorry that you don't think I have any technical acumen, but you are wrong. But that isn't my sole purpose in the project, as outlined below. Makes one wonder ho deep an understanding one would possess to reply in this manner! I'd suspect not too deep....... "One" would not posess all the understanding needed to do this project. My own expertise towards this project would be in the area of Visualization - still and video cameras - and payload integration. In addition, I would be involved with interfacing between the various parts of the group, schools and regulatory agencies. Other people that would be needed are programmers, technician type builders,computer jockeys and let's not forget the recovery team. As for the launching, I already have a person with experience in launching balloons for NOAA. Does it several times a week. not much past the "sounds pretty cool!" stage of the project). That stage was reached around August of this past year. We are at the beginning stage of making committees now. One can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific information - actually doing it is quite something else. Yep. The plans to construct an atomic bomb take up but a few pages on the Web - but actually building one might be just a bit more difficult than the relatively simple documentation would lead one to believe......lol! At least you don't exxagerate! Sheesh! If Mike was not interested in discussing this topic at a detail level, then perhaps it was a bit unwise to post it in a public newsgroup - How much detail do you want? I expect that as this project evolves, I will post a lot of info on our club website. I would be interested in providing detail as the project evolves. Of course, I'm handicapped by the fact that some here want me to reinvent the wheel. Yes, it is possible to send a small balloon and payload to the edge of space, and safely retrieve it. But if I can't convince people here that it is being done(and if I give proof, it is considered being petulant) then what can I do? unless there was some other reason for doing so......? Wonder what that might be.....! hmmmmm - Rah Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bah...... y'think? Come to think of it, there *was* another reason. A long long time ago in this thread, I brough this project up as an example of what Hams could do that is relevent. Hans had noted that the ARS is being marginalized. I noted that such a project had many advantages. We would be working with youth on a science oriented mission, we would be innovating, bringing multiple disciplines together, and garnering good publicity for the ARS. THAT was the reason I brought it up. And barring unforseen setback, it will happen. Of course, Jim, you could step up to the plate and use your vast knowledge of engineering Sarcasm doesn't become you , Leo. to articulately respond to each of the problems and issues raised, educating us all as to why they do or no not have a bearing on this project........ Jim raised some good questions. One does not need to be versed in all the disciplines involved to be a good sounding board. What is needed is critical thinking. he can think critically, and that is a good trait. Many do *not* like that trait of course. .....Didn't think so. Why the lawyer mentality? One must be an acknowledged expert in any field to comment on anything? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Threaded Mode
