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.

Why didn't you do that with YOUR sales pitch in here first?

Have you actually USED that "Totex" balloon? Did you get to
100 kilofeet with one? [how did you measure that altitude to
"prove" it?]

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."

Convice everyone you are without fault by your ballooning 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."

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.

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. All you have to do is outline your brilliant
and unique "concept" and the cheering is supposed to start.


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.

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

(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?

He breaks his promise. That's our Steve.

bb

"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.

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"William" wrote

He's become bitter since the restructuring

Restructuring? What restructuring?

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

Best of Luck with the new technology.

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