In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Latex balloons.
Helium.
100,000 feet with a six pound payload.

Okay, you quoted a SALES PITCH.

More diversion.

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?

Always the critic..

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 it proves Len to be wrong...

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.

Don't hold yer breath...

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.

Has nothing to do with the subject.

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."

Two sets of rules - one for Len, one for everyone else. You have to justify
your statements, Len doesn't have to justify his...

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.

"Convice"?

Still waiting for Len to show us his amateur radio and homebrewing 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."

Are you telling me to shut up again?

Looks like it.

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.

Hockey team, star party, Field Day....

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.

Len won't do his.

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

In fact that's the biggest possible criticism - it's been done before, by
amateurs. Repeatedly....

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.

Len hasn't done it.

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.

Therefore it's possible

73 de Jim, N2EY