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.

. . 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.

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.

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...


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.

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

"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 ,
(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

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

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

Leo wrote:
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....

You will probably be able to watch the thing via APRS (possibly) or
even hit a repeater that we might send aloft. Toronto is surprisingly
close to Central PA as the crow flies. But if you want to "see" rubber
hitting the sky, you have to be here! 8^)



"CQ, CQ, CQ RRAP, no lids no kids . . "


"..no near space cadets.." ....sorry, couldn't resist again!

Ha!


I like it! 8^)



Your Near-Space Cadet.... - Mike KB3EIA -