| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
November 19th 04, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 18 Nov 2004 11:11:05 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:24:23 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:50:46 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: It's times like this that can bring people together. You and Brian Kelly have something in common. Realism? Perhaps you could tell me, Leo? I've shown that it can and does happen and that a lot of people are doing exactly what I speak of on a regular basis. Believe or don't believe. It is your choice. Mike, my point was that you have two folks with a fair amount of knowledge and experience taking the time to give you feedback. Who are they, Leo? ...um, Len and Brian, IIRC.....did you forget? What experience do either of them have launching radio-carrying balloons to 100,000 feet or more? And you, of course - cheerleading for Mike, as usual....... You said "two folks who have a fair amount of knowledge and experience". I would make three - except I claim no experience in high altitude ballooning at all. I'll have lots of experience before too long! ;^) I sure hope so! Is there something wrong with expressing a positive attitude towards the idea, and offering encouragement while *simultaneously* pointing out where the problems may be? The best way to get things done! With volunteers, it's arguably often the *only* way to get things done. Who on this newsgroup has even attempted to launch a radio-carrying ballon to 100,000 feet? Or even to half that? Why should that matter? When someone says it cannot be done..... Especially when it is being done with some regularity.... By *amateurs* You yourself have posted on many topics where you have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read......including this one! True enough! Seems to me like the way the academic field works. Someone wants to do something, another say, "Hey! I read an article by so and so, and she says that......... Yep. There's also the "learn by doing" aspect. And this is a bad thing - how? Well, you might actually get some balloons launched, and prove Len to be absolutely wrong..... A lack of hands-on experience has not held you back......why should it apply differently to others? It would be interesting to know what are the "many topics where [i] have no empirical experience, just your own knowledge and various articles that you have read" Have I said *anyone* should not post here? I think Leo believes that I should simply accept that some people think that I cannot do this, and simply slink away. I do reserve the right to reply (and to not be too happy about it) when I am called incompetent! Sorry Leo - it works both ways! 8^) And perhaps you can't do it *all by yourself*. But you don't plan to - your method is to assemble a team, not be the sole basement inventor. Amazingly enough, the laws of physics are absolute. Paper airplane, high speed jet , spitball or balloon - the same physical laws apply to all. Of course. I wonder what a spitball falling from 100,000 feet would do? ;^) Just like you learned in engineering school.....(?) I also learned that preconceptions are often wrong and so are models based on inadequate information and a lack of understanding of *all* the relevant physics. This has been proven time and again in the history of engineering. I've always found it hard to believe that a few square inches of brake lining can stop a bog car. Seems impossible! Depends on the composition of the brake lining, for one thing. No special dispensation is available for good intentions, amateur radio or raw motivation and determination - they are absolute. What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? From what I've seen and calculated, his main limitation may be airspace regulations here in EPA - a place where I do have some empirical experience. And that is one of the big considerations. But those aren't laws of physics - they're regulations imposed by humans for obvious reasons. They aren't saying that you're nuts to be considering doing what you intend to do, but they are offering you the benefit of their understanding of engineering and physics as it pertains to your project. Perhaps we've been reading different posts... I respectfully suggest that you've been too busy (once again) focussing on the poster rather than the material posted. Perhaps "Len" and "Leo" are the same person. Note the identical misspelling of "focussing" and "focussed" in their postings. "Leo" is anonymous, but is never challenged on it by Len or "William".. You mean the way Len says something rather than what he says? Because we can have a civil discussion? Exactly. I think some people assume that the newsgroup is only for arguments and antagonistic behavior. Seems that way.. Jim, whether you happen to like or agree with the messenger or not, the laws of physics could care less! They remain absolute. What laws of physics absolutely prevent Mike from succeeding? The trick here is finding a way to accomplish the task within physical law. In engineering, this requires a rigorous analysis of all facets of the problem at hand - a list of problems impeding the design goal is developed, and solutions are proposed for each until all have been satisfactorily resolved. Engineering 101, freshman years stuff. Jim, can you honestly say that as an engineer that you have solved all the problems on any project satisfactorily? Satisfactorily? Yes. Perfectly? No. Or have you accepted the results and wanted to do better? Any honest engineer will tell you that there were better ways to have done it = after it's done. By the above definition, engineering tasks would probably never get done. If there's too much insistence on perfection, nothing can ever happen. There's *always* another level of documentation, testing, analysis, etc., that could be done. The posts that we saw earlier were the beginnings of the issues list - responding to it with "it's been done, it'll work, no problemo!" - type platitudes ain't going to resolve the issues - it's just wishful thinking. Or perhaps no thinking at all. No, it isn't. Not to mention, I never said those words in quotes! I don't know why I'm attributed to saying things I never said! True enough. When an attempt is made to do something for the first time, there's always the possibility that it simply cannot be done, or cannot be done with the available resources. Or that there are factors no one has considered. But once a thing is actually done for the first time, it's a different ball game completely, because now we *know* it's possible. Classic example: In the very early 1920s, the very best knowledge of the physics of radio waves predicted that it was *essentially impossible* to communicate across the Atlantic with the power levels, wavelengths, antennas and receiver sensitivity then available to amateurs. The problem was that the models used did not take ionospheric refraction into account. And so amateurs showed it could be done, and soon the "shortwaves" were in worldwide use. Now I'm not saying that the physics of ballooning isn't well understood! I'm just saying that since it has been done already, some of the commentary against Mike's idea rings very hollow. Has me stumped! There are some old-school folks whose idea of "encouragement" is to tell you you're no good, your ideas cannot work, that you don't know what you're doing, etc. The idea is that you'll somehow be motivated to prove them wrong, and will succeed in order to do so. If they are missing something (and me too, perhaps - this sure ain't my area of expertise either!), then by all means show them where they're wrong - but they are both pretty intelligent, educated and knowledgeable guys, with years of real-world experience in their fields - maybe worth at least a rational discussion? Or you could throw a bunch of web references in their faces and get angry.... Your call. Leo, There is a world of difference between someone like Jim, who questions and looks at my answers, and one member that says what I am considering is impossible, and yet another that calls me incompetent. At least two out the three are willing to look at the websites. And there is a lot of difference between me illustrating my points wit web references, and finally getting annoyed after I am called incompetent. Considering that to Len, this is an impossible task, and that Brian Kelly has thinks I'm an idiot that is only suited for cheerleading, I would have to say that they probably don't have anything to offer me in my doomed project with which I am going to hurt someone. My call. The websites offer a lot of evidence that it can be done, has been done and even how to do it. Of course it has been done - duh! Tell it to Len. What I like (not) is that when I'm told both that it is impossible (with insinuations as to my lack of knowledge of basic physics), and again with a direct comment as to my lack of competency, I am somehow the petulant one. Classic Len trick. Acts like a complete jackass, then says *he's* the injured party and *you* are acting inappropriately. The term for such behavior in these parts is "being a smack". I do want to get beyond this, but it goes both ways. The issue here is simply how the various obstacles standing in the way of success have been overcome. The first question is if they are obstacles at all. I recall commentary on how expensive helium allegedly is. Then I did a little research and found that it's about 20 cents a cubic foot when bought in quantities of about 300 cubic feet or greater. So for a thousand-cubic foot balloon, we're talking maybe $200 worth of helium. That's a bit of money but not a showstopper. I know folks who will drop $200 on *dinner*. Referring folks who raise technical concerns to a pile of websites merely demonstrates an inability to articulate the technical knowledge that is ultimately required to accomplish a plan such as this. How? 1. He would hate academic documents. references- pages of them! Possible. 2. Besides, I think that NASA has a very nice graphic and description of the atmospheric layers. 3. In the complicated many faceted world we live in today, it is sometimes more important to know where to FIND knowledge than to have all the knowledge there is (which is BTW, impossible) "Don't reinvent the wheel" The websites show what has already been done. By *amateurs*. Their methods and solutions form a starting point. One thing I learned in engineering school was not to reinvent the wheel. *ahem* Makes one wonder ho deep an understanding one would possess to reply in this manner! I'd suspect not too deep.......not much past the "sounds pretty cool!" stage of the project). If it doesn't "sound pretty cool", why do it at all? One of the things I HAVE to do is sell this concept to people. Even as strange as this rrap experience has been is that although I have not encountered it so far in the real world, I must realize that there will probably be people that simply refuse to believe that we can do this for one reason or the other. Sure. Or that it will cost too much to be practical. I may run into a flat earther here and there. You mean like folks who get upset whenever it's pointed out that Morse Code played any important role in radio communication after the 1930s? One can read on various websites a plethora of interesting scientific information - actually doing it is quite something else. That's my point. And doing it will be exceptionally cool. (pardon my enthusiasm) Who should have greater credibility - the person who has done it or the person who sits on the sidelines and says it can't be done? The plans to construct an atomic bomb take up but a few pages on the Web - but actually building one might be just a bit more difficult than the relatively simple documentation would lead one to believe......lol! Those plans aren't complete. ;-) If Mike was not interested in discussing this topic at a detail level, then perhaps it was a bit unwise to post it in a public newsgroup - unless there was some other reason for doing so......? Wonder what that might be.....! hmmmmm - Rah Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bah...... y'think? Perhaps he *is* interested in discussing it at a detail level. But the negeative criticism makes that difficult. After all, Mike could actually launch a balloon - and no matter what the results were, some would decry it as a "kluge". And if it only made it to, say, 98,500 feet, the mission would be described by some as a "failure". I just think it's worth a try. Lets back up a little bit here, and see if I can salvage something here. My main job in this whole project has been to SELL people on the concept of something that is not particularly new, but has been made more interesting by a fusion of Ham radio, GPS, Packet radio, and Schools, or perhaps more accurately, youth in general. Yep. And it's something that requires a team effort. The concept is to put volunteers to playwork in sending a payload in an appropriate container to the shoreline between earth and space, where the conditions are not like the area that we inhabit. It's cold, there is almost no atmosphere, there is a lot of radiation, and it is fairly near the ionized area of the atmosphere. And success is not guaranteed. One thing I notice is that there is very little attention given to the fact that what you're talking about is an ongoing project consisting of a series of launches. You'll almost certainly not try to reach 100,000 feet on the first go. Or the second... These conditions make it an interesting place to go to. How do we go there? Weather balloons provide a tantalizing clue. These latex balloons are launched on a daily basis by various weather agencies, mostly NOAA, but also at others. At this point in time, I don't know whether latex ballons can take one of your packages to 100,000 feet or not. I do know that they can be useful in the development process. Since this happens so often, the authorities (FAA) and the launchers of the balloons have worked out a system that allows this to happen. A science balloon launch will just add one more to the mix. Another consideration is that the FAA no longer cares about the payload after it has reached 60,000 feet. That is the top end of their "airspace". During launch day, you will call them at launch, at 60,000 feet when they leave airspace, and on descent when they renter airspace at 60,000 feet, then again at landing. This means the balloon spends less time in the path of harm than it might appear at first. As the payload grows in weight, the regulations become more involved. While still relatively accommodating, it is a powerful incentive to keep the payload light. How is this done? The payload is often made of a material such as household insulation. Styrene insulation is quite light, and provides good insulation against the cold. Small versions of electronics are usually used. In the quest for weight reduction, cases are often stripped, and the chassis are mounted directly on the foam. For VHF and UHF communications, not a whole lot of power is needed for the transmitters. A 300 mw "credit card" HT is often the transmitter of choice. Power being a consideration. Lithium batteries are the power of choice, due to lightness. Anywhere that power can be conserved is worth looking at. I can go into Foxhunting techniques for landing, but I suspect most here would know about that already. What's so bad about this? You may fail, Mike. Worse, you may succeed! 73 es GL de Jim, N2EY |
Threaded Mode
