Re: Message from Pierre

Mike McCants (
Sun, 6 Oct 1996 12:45:31 -0500

>Bart answer is confused and not very apologetic but, at last, I get
>a reaction.

Yes, I note sarcastically, when one sends a message to Bart, one
is very likely to receive a reply.  However, when one takes 10 months
to get around to posting a not-at-all-specific public message of complaint,
one is not likely to get an apologetic reply.

>thin. But the joke fell flat at his flat.

Yes, it was hard for Bart to guess that you would go 10 months without
seeing an issue and then try to joke about the issues being too thin.

>- There is no point to "decipher" my writing. People say it is nearly

Kind of like Japanese characters, I ask sarcastically?

Maybe you don't get too many chances to see what the FAX machine does
to your handwriting.

>10 lines of figures is nothing compared with pages of bla-bla found
>in Flash. These 10 lines were precisely what was missing from the
>Rainer/Pierre article.

And I can see why.  They are your opinion and probably not at all
pertinent to the article in question.

And when you casually talk about "pages of bla-bla found in Flash",
why are you surprised that Bart takes offense at this and it does
not help to reverse his decision to stop spending hours of his time
publishing Flash?

>"accurate method": my humorous sentence does not imply that others
>are inaccurate. It states that everybody should have the right to
>show one's own method.

If you "want to show your own method", you must either state that
method in clear language or publish your own newsletter.  I can figure
out what you are saying in about 5 minutes, but you did not really
describe what you are doing in clear language.

>take over. I contacted 3 French subscribers. They could not tell
>the Eurosom venue because they dropped from Flash! One faxed me
>he is not going to Eurosom due to an unfortunate Bart sentence.

That's much better, (he said sarcastically).  Take offense at one
sentence and don't complain, just quit.

>My 10 old lines may be replaced by new data:

>Rocket timings demand even numbers of flash intervals.

Perhaps the word "demand" is too strong.  I have a little experience
and my opinion is that only a very few rockets have shown a significant
difference between consecutive flashes.  Of course I have a stopwatch
with 50 memory cells, so I time every flash and then check them all
to see if there is any noticeable difference between the "odd" and
the "even" timings.

However, it is recommended in Chapter 6 of the "Introduction to
Artificial Satellite Observing" Manual published by the BWGS that
"you can circumvent this problem by counting an even number of
periods".  So, for observers who are only timing a start and a stop
time, counting an even number of cycles is recommended.

>Not often the case of payloads.

I also wish to disagree with this statement.  In my opinion, payloads
are much more likely to show all kinds of "strange" behavior and using
an "even" number of cycles may help give a consistent period.

Giving one example of a payload that does not show strange behavior
is not an argument that strange behavior does not occur often.

>2 counts, even or uneven, lead to 3 accurate periods.

Your example shows "2 counts" on the same pass and then the process
of "tying the two counts together" in order to obtain an accurate
period from all of the measurements.

I have been doing this for years and I just assumed that anyone would
do it if he could because it's so obvious.

So, I don't know what article this method was supposed to be attached to,
but I can guess that it was not pertinent.

>I intend to pay for 3 years, at Eurosom, in order not to be axed too

But if there's not going to be a Flash in the future, no payment
will be accepted.  :-)

>PS added 5/10/96: All is forgotten. Just received Flash 10 with
>                  Eurosom instructions

At your age, I can believe you are forgetful.  But try not to
forget everything.  :-)

Mike McCants