Why are you so narrow-minded? You are obviously zoophiliaphobic.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Beyond Same-Sex Marriage
From the December 2, 2010 New York Daily News:
Variations in Spring Rate From Similar Mini-Bungee Cords
I am working on an invention at the moment that requires some source of tightening, and I had thought that bungee cords might be one possible prototype model. It turns out that while bungee cords do not produce enormous force individually, when you sum them, like any other spring, you sum the spring constant.
I am sure you all remember learning Hooke's Law in physics class (or am I one of the weird ones that still remembered it?)--one of the few really simple equations:
I was experimenting some variation, but not this much! The values for k in newtons/meter were -92.6, -96.3, -218.87, -343.94, and -343.94. The clumping of the data suggests that in spite of nearly identical appearance, the rubber that is used in these mini-bungees comes from a variety of sources, with the similarities in values suggesting a common origin for the materials used in similar spring rates.
I'm not sure that mini-bungees are going to be useful for my project, because it would take too many of these cords to achieve the desired force, but it was still startling to see the variation in spring rates!
I am sure you all remember learning Hooke's Law in physics class (or am I one of the weird ones that still remembered it?)--one of the few really simple equations:
F = -kxwhere F is the force, k is the spring constant, and x is the displacement of the spring under force F. I experimentally verified that when you have multiple springs in parallel, the force is the result of summing the value for k of the different springs. I did this by hanging a .78 kg weight on the end of each of five apparently identical mini-bungee cords from the same package, and putting the other hook over the end of a ruler, then measuring x and then computing k for each.
I was experimenting some variation, but not this much! The values for k in newtons/meter were -92.6, -96.3, -218.87, -343.94, and -343.94. The clumping of the data suggests that in spite of nearly identical appearance, the rubber that is used in these mini-bungees comes from a variety of sources, with the similarities in values suggesting a common origin for the materials used in similar spring rates.
I'm not sure that mini-bungees are going to be useful for my project, because it would take too many of these cords to achieve the desired force, but it was still startling to see the variation in spring rates!
The Consequences of Sin Are Far Reaching
Bernie Madoff's son commits suicide. From what I have read, the sons did not know about this, and actually played a role in bringing to the attention of the authorities. I do hope all the Democratic politicians who benefited from Madoff's generosity start to think about the enormous costs associated with looking a blind eye at this type of high-end fraud--without which the Democratic Party could not exist.
Leupold's Redfield Revolution & Fast Delivery!
I mentioned on the 9th that I ordered one of these for product testing and review. I ordered it on the 8th, and because I was in no hurry, I paid for the cheapest ground shipping. It was on my doorstep last night. Wow!
Rabbit Ears
Ever since we moved up to the mountains, I have used some rabbit ears that I bought at Radio Shack for broadcast channels--this model, it appears. It seems as though a few months after all the local television stations went digital that my rabbit ears were not pulling in signals quite as well--and some channels just stopped coming in at all.
When the entire process was analog, there was no dividing line between "you have signal" and "you don't." You might have a crisp clear signal, or you might have one of an infinite number of progressively uglier images, until you could not tell if you were watching television or random noise. With digital television, there is a point where the A-to-D converters throw up their little electronic hands in disgust and say, "I don't know what this is, I'm not playing anymore." At that point, our digital TV converter box just tells you that it can't get a signal. Before you completely lose the signal, you start to get interesting artifacts--blotches of color because individual delta frames are being dropped, and the infamous "Max Headroom" stutter sound effect.
My guess is that the reason my rabbit ears stopped pulling in some channels is that the television stations figured out that they were broadcasting more power than they needed for the 99% of their audience that was down in the flats--and cut the power slightly. Hence, the reduced ability to get some stations.
Since we dropped Dish Network in favor of Netflix, we have been watching a bit more of the broadcast channels, and the nuisance of not getting some channels--and the problems of not quite getting some channels finally moved me to action. I was thinking of removing the satellite dish, and replacing it with an external antenna. There is already RG-59 coax running from the satellite dish to the TV--so this would be a simple process.
My concern was that the coax cable run produces its own signal losses--and over the distance involved, rather a substantial loss. Would it be enough to make up for the gain from an external antenna? Yes, but how much of a gain? And how much work was I prepared to spend installing the external antenna?
I went down to Radio Shack last night. While talking to the helpful salesperson, and contemplating how I was going to get that big box into the Jaguar, she mentioned that since I was getting many stations okay with rabbit ears, perhaps I would benefit from amplified rabbit ears. This unit, model 15-254, looks quite similar to what I already had--but the box promised 22 dB of gain over standard rabbit ears. What the heck, they look awful, but there was no installation work, so I bought them.
At first glance, I didn't see a difference on the channels that were coming in fine--but now, the channels that did not come in were coming in without problem. The digital TV converter box has a signal strength meter, so I decided to use that to compare the results.
With the standard rabbit ears, aimed as optimally as I could get them, the signal strength meter showed 46%. (What is that a percentage of? I have no idea.) With the amplified rabbit ears, the figure was now 80%--and I did not need to try and tune the antenna directionally to get various channels.
If you are giving up cable or satellite, as many people are, before you spend a lot of money on an external antenna, consider whether amplified rabbit ears might solve your problem with the expense and aggravation of a traditional external antenna. I am well out of Boise, with some low mountains in the way, and these solve my problem just beautifully.
When the entire process was analog, there was no dividing line between "you have signal" and "you don't." You might have a crisp clear signal, or you might have one of an infinite number of progressively uglier images, until you could not tell if you were watching television or random noise. With digital television, there is a point where the A-to-D converters throw up their little electronic hands in disgust and say, "I don't know what this is, I'm not playing anymore." At that point, our digital TV converter box just tells you that it can't get a signal. Before you completely lose the signal, you start to get interesting artifacts--blotches of color because individual delta frames are being dropped, and the infamous "Max Headroom" stutter sound effect.
My guess is that the reason my rabbit ears stopped pulling in some channels is that the television stations figured out that they were broadcasting more power than they needed for the 99% of their audience that was down in the flats--and cut the power slightly. Hence, the reduced ability to get some stations.
Since we dropped Dish Network in favor of Netflix, we have been watching a bit more of the broadcast channels, and the nuisance of not getting some channels--and the problems of not quite getting some channels finally moved me to action. I was thinking of removing the satellite dish, and replacing it with an external antenna. There is already RG-59 coax running from the satellite dish to the TV--so this would be a simple process.
My concern was that the coax cable run produces its own signal losses--and over the distance involved, rather a substantial loss. Would it be enough to make up for the gain from an external antenna? Yes, but how much of a gain? And how much work was I prepared to spend installing the external antenna?
I went down to Radio Shack last night. While talking to the helpful salesperson, and contemplating how I was going to get that big box into the Jaguar, she mentioned that since I was getting many stations okay with rabbit ears, perhaps I would benefit from amplified rabbit ears. This unit, model 15-254, looks quite similar to what I already had--but the box promised 22 dB of gain over standard rabbit ears. What the heck, they look awful, but there was no installation work, so I bought them.
At first glance, I didn't see a difference on the channels that were coming in fine--but now, the channels that did not come in were coming in without problem. The digital TV converter box has a signal strength meter, so I decided to use that to compare the results.
With the standard rabbit ears, aimed as optimally as I could get them, the signal strength meter showed 46%. (What is that a percentage of? I have no idea.) With the amplified rabbit ears, the figure was now 80%--and I did not need to try and tune the antenna directionally to get various channels.
If you are giving up cable or satellite, as many people are, before you spend a lot of money on an external antenna, consider whether amplified rabbit ears might solve your problem with the expense and aggravation of a traditional external antenna. I am well out of Boise, with some low mountains in the way, and these solve my problem just beautifully.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Rising Interest Rates
The 30 year Treasury bond yields have been bouncing up and down the last few weeks--but mostly up. On December 1, 4.24%. The last four days: 4.39%, 4.45%, 4.41%, 4.43%. I'm pretty sure that we are going to see them a good bit higher, at least for a year or two. At least I am hoping so.
I have been looking at various bonds. There are a lot of AA-rated municipal bonds with yields above 6%, and for those prepared to live dangerously, and buy from Third World states like California and Illinois, even above 7%. As long as you don't buy too much of the bonds from the Third World American states, this isn't too bad: it's a way to sweeten the total yield of your portfolio. You just need to make sure that your overall bond portfolio is diversified across multiple regions and industries, and is not too heavily invested in heavily unionized companies (or you could get the screw that GM bond holders experienced, courtesy of UAW and its puppet Obama).
So far, I have only had one experience with a company going into bankruptcy whose bonds I held, and that was a company call CIT. No, that's not Citicorp. I did not read the details quite carefully enough, and made that mistake. But even with bankruptcy, all that happened was some of my 7% annual yield bonds turned into stock and bonds that are going to probably end up, by the time the bonds reach maturity and I sell the stock, closer to a 6.5% annual yield.
I have been looking at various bonds. There are a lot of AA-rated municipal bonds with yields above 6%, and for those prepared to live dangerously, and buy from Third World states like California and Illinois, even above 7%. As long as you don't buy too much of the bonds from the Third World American states, this isn't too bad: it's a way to sweeten the total yield of your portfolio. You just need to make sure that your overall bond portfolio is diversified across multiple regions and industries, and is not too heavily invested in heavily unionized companies (or you could get the screw that GM bond holders experienced, courtesy of UAW and its puppet Obama).
So far, I have only had one experience with a company going into bankruptcy whose bonds I held, and that was a company call CIT. No, that's not Citicorp. I did not read the details quite carefully enough, and made that mistake. But even with bankruptcy, all that happened was some of my 7% annual yield bonds turned into stock and bonds that are going to probably end up, by the time the bonds reach maturity and I sell the stock, closer to a 6.5% annual yield.
One Of Those Dilemmas,,,
There's a Mexican food chain in Minnesota that has greatly upset illegal immigration groups because they are... GASP... following federal law. The government is doing an I-9 audit on employees. (The I-9 is the form that you have fill out when you take a job, asserting that you have a legal right to work in the U.S.) It appears that a consequence of the audit is the employer, Chipotle's, is firing employees who can't demonstrate that they told the truth about their employment status.
Some commenters are absolutely thrilled about this, and are indicating that Chipotle's has their business. Others are pointing out that Chipotle's has a prohibition on concealed weapon permit holders. What to do, what to do? Which takes precedence? I guess what I be forced to do is leave my gun in the car, and tell the manager that I did so--and tell him that I would be there twice as often if not for their silly rules.
Some commenters are absolutely thrilled about this, and are indicating that Chipotle's has their business. Others are pointing out that Chipotle's has a prohibition on concealed weapon permit holders. What to do, what to do? Which takes precedence? I guess what I be forced to do is leave my gun in the car, and tell the manager that I did so--and tell him that I would be there twice as often if not for their silly rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)