Now that we all know this was indeed a hoax

dont get it. Does Bill condone Kangaroo court justice? Lets sentence people before we even convict them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of us is or was part of the legal case in this matter and the chances of any of us had in taking part were very near zero.

As such, we have the right to look at the facts and express our opinions of his and her guilt or innocents and what level of punishment does this behavior call for.

None of our opinions had the power to affect the legal case in any way or in any manner or his or her rights to a fair trial.

Kangaroo court indeed!!!!!!!!

actually your not looking at any "facts". Youre just easily manipulated by successive news stories. You made your mind up on day one. Thats ok for the priesthood but not "fact finding".
I get a kick out of anyone who is a pompous asshole like you.

I sure did make up my mind correctly on day one by the act of plugging in numbers to find our if that toy could carry the boy in question or not.

Once it was clear that a fat cat could not had been flown by this balloon then logic would indicate this was a hoax also from day one.

I do not feel bad that the gentleman was so dumb he did not even take the time to build a balloon that could carry a child and by doing keep the question going beyond day one.

Science is not faith and if the laws of science declare that something is nonsense and a hoax from day one I see no reason not to declare that fact.

No, you guessed based on the news reports. later "real" calculations correctly estimated that the baloon was TWICE what you guessed its volume, and for that you tried to denigrate a scientist from Woods Hole (who actually got a lot closer to te correct balloon volume than you). SO quit pattin yourself on the back, you get no prize for being second

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHF558u6Q_8
THESE GUYS BELIEVE YOU

LINKS LINKS LINKS just one little link to your nonsense.......Come on you read this nonsense that it was larger and could indeed lift more from somewhere if you are not lying so where are the links to your information my silly friend??????!!!!????????

Second anyone could see that toy on landing and get one hell of a good idea on how large it was by comparing to the cars and the people. That is how I judge how big it was not by news reports that was in fact on the large size.

And that scientist is a fool that can not do simple math and once more where is your links to back up your claim that is was larger or could lift anymore then a few pounds.

Come on back up this silly comment of your as I been doing one hell of a lot of google searches looking for more information on that balloon without any luck and you seem to have information that can not be found anywhere so give us a few links or I am going to come to the conclusion that your truthfulness is of the same level as the parents of balloon boy.

You saw the baloon in a partially deflated size. It was actually about 2300 cubic ft

You saw the baloon in a partially deflated size. It was actually about 2300 cubic ft
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give some links to this information once more as you must had read it somewhere.

ALL I hAVE was the damn program I was listening to on NPR. I figure you can calculate an oblate speheroid of about 24 ft in its major diametr (r=12) and about 15 feet in its minor(r=7.5). Im guessing because the people from Woods Hole had a volume of 23 or 2400 and I came out with about 3000 cu ft so my numbers arent the same. But you came in with about 11 cu ft and that is only about half the needed volume. I just figured you pulled that volume out of your ass or copied that kids who posted it on a web site with no references to where he got his numbers eiter. SO youre doing exactly what youve accused me of and (BTW) I didnt do ANY calculation, I just heard it on NPR.
SO if youve got an argument call Noah Adams

So no links and I did see a picture also shown on TV with the balloon being tested with 45 pounds of sands in it and not moving however I also have no link to it either.

No I did not pull the figures out of my rear end I look at the damn toy balloon on landing and as far as it being greatly bigger on take off you people can now go to Utube and see them filming it lift off and judge how big it was or was not at it maximum size.

You know sooner or later farmerman the FAA or someone is going to release a detail report on this toy balloon and I am looking forward to shoveling said report down your..............

http://www.frontpagenews.us/2009/10/colorado-sheriff-runaway-balloon-saga.html
A Colorado State University physics professor, using dimensions given by Richard Heene, had told sheriff's officials as they were tracking the balloon Thursday that it was plausible for it to lift off with 37-pound Falcon inside.
Once the device landed, sheriff's officials discovered it was made with plastic tarps taped together and covered with aluminum foil, with a utility box made of a very thin piece of plywood, cardboard on the side, held together with string and duct tape, Alderden said.
Using the true dimensions, the professor determined it could not have launched with the boy inside, Alderden said.
POSTED BY FRONT PAGE NEWS AT 2:18 PM

If was not a speheroid first of all and a fast look would had told you that as it had a framework of wood giving it shape. If memory serve me correctly I was right on with the lift force and the volume on day one.

Given the likely weight of the balloon itself my fat cat would have been completely safe however my kitten would had gone on a trip.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_balloon_incident

The balloon measured 20 feet (6.1 m) in diameter and 5 feet (1.5 m) in height,[2] and was constructed from plastic tarps taped together, covered with an aluminum foil, and held together with string and duct tape. The base of the balloon, which Falcon allegedly crawled into, was a utility box made from a very thin piece of plywood and cardboard on the side. It was held together with string and duct tape.[27][28]

If fully inflated, a balloon of this size would contain just over 1,000 cubic feet (28 m3) of helium.[29] Helium's lift capacity at sea level and 0°C is 1.113 kg/m3 (0.07 lbs/ft3) and decreases at higher altitudes and at higher temperatures. The volume of helium in the balloon has been estimated as being sufficient to lift a total load, including the balloon itself and the structure beneath it, of 65 pounds (29 kg) at sea level, and 48 pounds (22 kg) at 8,000 feet (2,400 m).[29]

Fort Collins is at an elevation of about 5,000 feet (1,500 m), and the balloon was estimated to have reached an altitude of as high as 7,000 feet (2,100 m).[2][30][31]

[edit] Incident

Here is my first posting concerning your scientist farmerman claimed of a 100 pound of lift and please note that my 50 pound total figure was in total agreement with the Wikiped not bad from looking at a TV scene and plugging some numbers in.

No true idea of how heavy this thing happen to be at the time but it did not look all that light so I could not see how it could lift my fat cat off the ground and once more I was right.

Now are you going to back down now or not?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A scientist claimed that toy could lift a 100 pounds off the ground? LOL

You get roughly 1.29 gram of lift for every liter of helium and very simple math concerning the maximum volume of this toy weather balloon from the landing video and you get a lift of far less then 50 pounds and more likely less then 10.

Once more it is a hoax by the father not the brother or the kid himself as the father would know that it could not had gotten off the ground with the child in it.

No because I didnt do the calc so in order for me to back down I need to mentally refute what I heard on NPR. OK so if the guy on NPR is correct and you are wrong
(1). I hadda find out the lift in terms of cubic feet of helium, (not in grams per fortnight or clevis's per hectare). SO I looked up your numbers and came up with other numbers (under STP and US dimensions)

(2) a cubic foot of Helium will lift 28.2 grams (ok just so we start out on an equal footing)

(3) A gram is 1/448 of a pound or 0.0022 (pounds per gramm) . SO, if we multiply (28.2) X (0.0022) we have (0.063 pounds per cubic foot). THis says that a cubic foot of helium will lift 0.06 pounds

(4) I can simplify all this by just multilying the volume of helium weve got by 0.063 to find out its ideal lift potential

(5) THE GUY ON THE RADIO SAID THAT THE BALLOON HAD A VOLUME (filled with helum) OF 2400 CUBIC FEET

(6) (2400) X(0.062) = 148.8 pounds.This says that a 2400 cubic foot balloon can lift 148.8 pounds

SO, according to NPR's volume the balloon was capable of lifting about 150 pounds.

SO if the kid weighed 80 pounds and the balloon and that little "cabin" weighed only , say 50 pounds, the kid would be liftabel NO? . NOW I didnt do any corrections for temp or density so if I knock off another 20 lb for that, the entire balloon and "CAbin needed to weigh 30 pounds.
I dont know, is that doable ? Id say yes cause I could design a Ti cabin less than 20 pounds that could carry (4), 20 lb turkeys, so I assume we can achieve liftoff with 4 turkey carcasses. ANYWAY even if Im off, Im close enough to NOT make it implausable.

You are correct Billy that the guy is a fraud , but for totally wrong reasons, because your calcs didnt fully disclose the truth.


I think your problem is that you were thinking CGS and didnt really convert over to pounds and cubic feet. Its a mistake that beginning students do all the time.

No because I didnt do the calc so in order for me to back down I need to mentally refute what I heard on NPR. OK so if the guy on NPR is correct and you are wrong
(1). I hadda find out the lift in terms of cubic feet of helium, (not in grams per fortnight or clevis's per hectare). SO I looked up your numbers and came up with other numbers (under STP and US dimensions)

(2) a cubic foot of Helium will lift 28.2 grams (ok just so we atrt out on an equal footing)

(3) A gram is 1/448 of a pound or 0.0022 (pounds per gramm) . SO, if we multiply (28.2) X (0.0022) we have (0.063 pounds per cubic foot). THis says that a cubic foot of helium will lift 0.06 pounds

(4) I can simplify all this by just multilying the volume of helium weve got by 0.063 to find out its ideal lift potential

(5) THE GUY ON THE RADIO SAID THAT THE BALLOON HAD A VOLUME (filled with helum) OF 2400 CUBIC FEET

(6) (2400) X(0.062) = 148.8 pounds.This says that a 2400 cubic foot balloon can lift 148.8 pounds

SO, according to NPR's volume the balloon was capable of lifting about 150 pounds.

SO if the kid weighed 80 pounds and the balloon and that little "cabin" weighed only , say 50 pounds, the kid would be liftabel NO? . NOW I didnt do any corrections for temp or density so if I knock off another 20 lb for that, the entire balloon and "CAbin needed to weigh 30 pounds.
I dont know, is that doable ? Id say yes cause I could design a Ti cabin less than 20 pounds that could carry (4), 20 lb turkeys, so I assume we can achieve liftoff with 4 turkey carcasses. ANYWAY even if Im off, Im close enough to NOT make it implausable.

You are correct Billy that the guy is a fraud , but for totally wrong reasons, because your calcs didnt fully disclose the truth.


I think your problem is that you were thinking CGS and didnt really convert over to pounds and cubic feet. Its a mistake that beginning students do all the time.

OOPS, I should have used my water tables in which they all say that the numberof grams in a pound is 453. not 448. However, this doesnt change the calc too much. Instead of 148 lb., the baloon could carry 135 lb. SO, Id have to use ALuminum in the cage . so the whole thing would have to be less than 30 lb for the balloon and the cage. That can be done.

My very silly friend who can not see the sun looking at it directly as it does not have a volume of 2400 cubic/ft but in the neighborhood of 1000 cubic ft instead by the people who measure it directly after it landing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone looking at in on TV could and did come up with same ball park figures, so just because you and maybe someone at NPR are both wrong does not say anything at all. Oh yes the so call expert on CNN also.

Are you saying that no matter what ones eyes would tell you you have to use the figures given out by some "expert" on TV or on a NPR radio station no matter how wrong anyone who look can see they happen to be?

Lord how stupid can one man be? I was right for the right reason as that toy could not get off the ground with a fat cat.

Once more from wikiped here is the true measurements of this toy and it was 1,000 cubic feet by direct measurements.

So please please cut the **** out that it was 2400 cubic feet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


If fully inflated, a balloon of this size would contain just over 1,000 cubic feet (28 m3) of helium.[29] Helium's lift capacity at sea level and 0°C is 1.113 kg/m3 (0.07 lbs/ft3) and decreases at higher altitudes and at higher temperatures. The volume of helium in the balloon has been estimated as being sufficient to lift a total load, including the balloon itself and the structure beneath it, of 65 pounds (29 kg) at sea level, and 48 pounds (22 kg) at 8,000 feet (2,400 m).[29]

This is what you said. SO if Im to believe you youve fudged some numbers or have created conditions that are more "friendly" to your guesses. Ive heard the actual inflated volume was 2400 cu ft and that (I assume) that you have no criticisms of the actual lift capability of helium based on my above numbers?

You have a vested interest in your guesses being right. I dont, so your insults in broken english are actually funny. Ive taken in DATA from several sources including yours and most that Ive heard agree with the lift capacity of 120 to 140 pounds total.

SO live with facts Billy, or else get me some more information that the balloon IS NOT +2000 cu ft.

If you got that from Wiki then Ill accept it. However, everyone else ON THE RADIO was talking a much higher volume. HOWEVER THat , wiki, was posted days after the incident and was not available to you when you made your original accusation that HEme was guilty of fraud. At that time you were just jumping on a bandwagon started by this kid on the web. (Many of us saw the kids web posting and his calcs were surprisingly your own down to the letter. I assumed that you just copied his and made up a story.)Ill bet Im right.

AS far as DR barnes at Woods Hole (you should have half his credentials in air and gases) I love how you love to criticize real scientists. It appears to me that.like spendius, youre just an old frustrated engineer who didnt pass, and have held a grudge ever since.
Id get as much data as possible before Id make a decision about whether the balloon could or could not lift the kids. AS it stands, NOONE has denied that the balloon was CAPABLE of carrying the kid. Only a few websites have (much later) down- estimated the balloons size (even though its inflated majior diameter was reportedly 24 feet. . Now the- fact was that the balloon was deflating through the flight so, if the kid was on, hed have to have fallen off or hed have the balloon land much sooner.

NObody was treating it as a joke , and that is the way the rescue teams operate. They didnt make up some flippant ass "calculation" (which was underestimating the lift and you didnt correct that until your last post).

Ive spent too many years correcting papers to not detect a person who believes his own bullshit like you. I dont think we have anything else to talk about.

Sorry but I and in fact any numbers of others by plain eyesight came to the same conclusion on day one concern the volume in question.

It was not something that needed to wait until someone got a tape measure out that this toy balloon did not have 2400 cubic feet in it or anywhere near that figure.

Your so call scientist gave out a guess on the volume and or took the word of the boy father before the landing and I had questions then but was not sure until I saw that landing and was able to get the correct size of the balloon by comparing it to the people/cars around it.

I can only now be happy that you are willing to take the word of the professor at Colorado State who had measure the balloon directly.

No faith involved just the ability to see and used your own judgement instead of a TV expert or a NPR radio talk show.

An ability that a lot of people seem to had have in this case but you seem to be lacking.