Concord is mulling over banning incandescent lamps (plain old light bulbs) to save electricity. But why? The compact fluorescent bulb saves enough electricity to pay for itself in 400 hours of burning. That's figured on 10 cent a kilowatt hour electricity and $4 for a new compact fluorescent. Sales of compact fluorescents are strong, clearly people have heard the word and are converting over to the more efficient lamps. No government policy needed, the economics are driving the change over.
Why outlaw the plain old bulbs when the new bulbs are taking over anyhow? There are plenty of bulbs in the world that only light up for brief intervals, and use negligible amounts of electricity. Consider the light inside your refrigerator. It doesn't stay on very long, but let it burn out, and you cannot find the milk, let alone something way in the back. There are a lot of light bulbs like that in out buildings, cellars, attics, and other seldom visited places. If an owner chooses to replace such a bulb with a 75 cent incandescent rather than a $4 compact fluorescent why not? Think of all the decorative fixtures and appliances that require small incandescent lamps. Is it fair to require the owners to to junk these things when the bulb burns out? Will I be able to buy replacement lamps to fit my Christmas light string?
Or is banning incandescent lamps just a way for politicians to make a feel good gesture toward greenness with out spending any state money? Or does it cater to the natural desire to boss people around just for the sake of bossing.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Is the FAA targeting American Airlines?
American's fleet of MD-80's, which have been carrying passengers for 20 years, all of a sudden became unsafe to fly, with American canceling hundreds of flights and stranding 250,000 passengers.
How come the sudden change from reliable passenger hauler to safety of flight hangar queen? Could it be the FAA inspectors have a grudge against American? And after the Oberstar house hearings last week, no one is going to challenge a line inspector on anything.
According to the Wall St Journal, the MD-80 furore involves the spacing of wire tiedown clips (Adel clamps) . FAA was complaining that the clips weren't on a ONE INCH spacing. In a prior life I was a flight line supervisor. If the wire bundles were secured with Adel clamps every 12 inches we were happy. I never heard of any aircraft requiring tiedown clamps on a one inch spacing. The clamps are 1/2 inch wide, space them every inch and you might as well put the wires into conduit.
The Air Worthiness directive that caused all this trouble was only issued in early March. Surely they might allow a little more time to comply with an Air Worthiness directive without grounding the MD-80 fleet and stranding 250,000 passengers.
Then the the paper pushers came up for air. FAA will now allow carriers to submit their their interpretations of maintenance rules to the FAA for approval before they instruct their mechanics. This ain't right. Aircraft are maintained by the book. There is one book for each aircraft, written by the maker's engineering department. We don't write separate books for each airline. let alone have FAA approve each airline's special book. We stick to the right book, with no variations. Sounds like FAA is demanding each airline paraphrase the maker's book and submit the paraphrases for FAA approval. That will keep a bunch of GS paper pushers employed for decades.
Aircraft are complex, and no one on the flight line pretends that he knows everything about the aircraft. Instead, everyone has a copy of the book. When questions as to proper procedure arise (and they do, trust me) everyone pulls down their copy of the book. And complies with it. No arguments. If it's in the book, we do it by the book. And we have one book for everyone. Even FAA inspectors should be going by the book. They should not be re writing the book.
Good thing I don't fly much any more. Bad enough they want me to take off my shoes. Worse they now cancel my flight and leave me stuck at the airport.
How come the sudden change from reliable passenger hauler to safety of flight hangar queen? Could it be the FAA inspectors have a grudge against American? And after the Oberstar house hearings last week, no one is going to challenge a line inspector on anything.
According to the Wall St Journal, the MD-80 furore involves the spacing of wire tiedown clips (Adel clamps) . FAA was complaining that the clips weren't on a ONE INCH spacing. In a prior life I was a flight line supervisor. If the wire bundles were secured with Adel clamps every 12 inches we were happy. I never heard of any aircraft requiring tiedown clamps on a one inch spacing. The clamps are 1/2 inch wide, space them every inch and you might as well put the wires into conduit.
The Air Worthiness directive that caused all this trouble was only issued in early March. Surely they might allow a little more time to comply with an Air Worthiness directive without grounding the MD-80 fleet and stranding 250,000 passengers.
Then the the paper pushers came up for air. FAA will now allow carriers to submit their their interpretations of maintenance rules to the FAA for approval before they instruct their mechanics. This ain't right. Aircraft are maintained by the book. There is one book for each aircraft, written by the maker's engineering department. We don't write separate books for each airline. let alone have FAA approve each airline's special book. We stick to the right book, with no variations. Sounds like FAA is demanding each airline paraphrase the maker's book and submit the paraphrases for FAA approval. That will keep a bunch of GS paper pushers employed for decades.
Aircraft are complex, and no one on the flight line pretends that he knows everything about the aircraft. Instead, everyone has a copy of the book. When questions as to proper procedure arise (and they do, trust me) everyone pulls down their copy of the book. And complies with it. No arguments. If it's in the book, we do it by the book. And we have one book for everyone. Even FAA inspectors should be going by the book. They should not be re writing the book.
Good thing I don't fly much any more. Bad enough they want me to take off my shoes. Worse they now cancel my flight and leave me stuck at the airport.
The Second Civil War Ronald Brownstein
Sub titled "How extreme partisanship has paralyzed Washington and polarized America." It's a very recent book (2007) . It gives an interesting account of the politics of the last 20 years. For those that lived thru the period, it is a good nostalgic read. The author describes the "great sorting out" when the Solid South decided to leave the democratic party and join the republicans. In the good old days, the solid south voted democratic, and had done so ever since the Civil War. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was pushed thru by the national democratic party, over the dead bodies of the southern democrats. After that, southerners found they could join the republican party without causing total revulsion among their neighbors.
The result was the conservative southern democrats joined the conservative republican party, and the moderate republicans from the northeast switched to the liberal democratic party. The result was considerable more unity in the two national parties. By the 1990's the division between the parties in Congress was as sharp and rancorous as it had been before the Civil War. The strength of the two parties was fairly equal by the '90's so controversial legislation had little chance of passage.
The author decries this as total gridlock and calls for a return to the more mellow 1950's. I fail to agree with this viewpoint. I see the great sorting out as clarifying the issues to the voters. In the mellow 1950's it was hard for citizens, even real news junkies, to know what their party stood for, and what it might do if elected. Today the choices for the voters are more understandable.
The author does not discuss the rise of contentious issues since the 1960's. Things like drugs, abortion, gay rights, and immigration just were not issues in the 1950's and 60's. They hadn't been invented yet. When you have more contentious issues on the table you are going to have a more polarized electorate. The other thing the author fails to discuss is the fading of the unity forced upon us by the great challenges of the depression and World War II, and the Soviets. Twenty years of facing down existential challenges will foster a lot of political unity.
The author is a reporter for the Los Angles Times, and once co authored a book with Ralph Nader. His liberal sympathies seep out in the text.
The result was the conservative southern democrats joined the conservative republican party, and the moderate republicans from the northeast switched to the liberal democratic party. The result was considerable more unity in the two national parties. By the 1990's the division between the parties in Congress was as sharp and rancorous as it had been before the Civil War. The strength of the two parties was fairly equal by the '90's so controversial legislation had little chance of passage.
The author decries this as total gridlock and calls for a return to the more mellow 1950's. I fail to agree with this viewpoint. I see the great sorting out as clarifying the issues to the voters. In the mellow 1950's it was hard for citizens, even real news junkies, to know what their party stood for, and what it might do if elected. Today the choices for the voters are more understandable.
The author does not discuss the rise of contentious issues since the 1960's. Things like drugs, abortion, gay rights, and immigration just were not issues in the 1950's and 60's. They hadn't been invented yet. When you have more contentious issues on the table you are going to have a more polarized electorate. The other thing the author fails to discuss is the fading of the unity forced upon us by the great challenges of the depression and World War II, and the Soviets. Twenty years of facing down existential challenges will foster a lot of political unity.
The author is a reporter for the Los Angles Times, and once co authored a book with Ralph Nader. His liberal sympathies seep out in the text.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The Petraeus-Crocker hearings
C-Span carried the hearings live. General Petraeus looked and sounded good. Crocker did OK, although there were a couple of times where he should have answered "Yes' or "No" and didn't. Ranking committee member John McCain was impressive. McCain's questions where real questions, which prompted the witness (Petraeus) to offer more and useful information. The committee democrats just made anti-war speeches. The democrats tried hard to get Petraeus and Crocker to commit to a withdrawal date, but they wisely refused. You don't tell the enemy when you plan to go home, that just makes the enemy hunker down until you leave him in charge.
Crocker is negotiating a "status of forces" agreement with the Iraqi government. The UN resolution that OK'ed the US invasion will expire end of this year. "Status of Forces" is the usual agreement between our government and foreign governments that allows armed US troops into said foreign country. Such agreements usually spell out legal jurisdictions, does a US soldier have to face the local justice when crimes are alleged? We try hard to put in a clause that give the US Army jurisdiction, but that doesn't always fly with the locals. Interesting point, Crocker said the status of forces agreement would be handled by executive order without the advice and consent of the US senate. Most of the existing status of forces agreements were handled as real treaties needing Senate OK. This might give rise to more Senate grandstanding before the election.
Petraeus and Crocker feel that the recent shootouts in Basra and other places represents the Maliki government getting strong enough to take out the militias, which is a good thing even if taking them out leads to a bit of mortar fire into the Green Zone.
Crocker is negotiating a "status of forces" agreement with the Iraqi government. The UN resolution that OK'ed the US invasion will expire end of this year. "Status of Forces" is the usual agreement between our government and foreign governments that allows armed US troops into said foreign country. Such agreements usually spell out legal jurisdictions, does a US soldier have to face the local justice when crimes are alleged? We try hard to put in a clause that give the US Army jurisdiction, but that doesn't always fly with the locals. Interesting point, Crocker said the status of forces agreement would be handled by executive order without the advice and consent of the US senate. Most of the existing status of forces agreements were handled as real treaties needing Senate OK. This might give rise to more Senate grandstanding before the election.
Petraeus and Crocker feel that the recent shootouts in Basra and other places represents the Maliki government getting strong enough to take out the militias, which is a good thing even if taking them out leads to a bit of mortar fire into the Green Zone.
Defeat the Granite State Fair Tax Coalition
They want to strip away the powers of cities and towns and give them to
Cities and towns will get more education done for less money than
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Secrets of fine wood finishing
For a paint finish, things haven't changed much over the years. Although a bright finish (varnish,shellac,oil) shows off the wood to advantage, some pieces call for the opaque finish of paint. Especially things made of ordinary lumberyard wood (pine) as opposed to expensive hardwood.
For openers, fill cracks, gaps in joints and finishing nail holes with wood filler. Smooth the wood filler with a putty knife. Give the filler some time to dry and then sand the whole thing. Walmart has Black & Decker 1/4 sheet orbital sanders for $30. The power tool takes a lot of the curse out of sanding. 120 grit paper is about right, coarse enough to cut the wood and fine enough that the scratches won't show thru the first coat.
First coat is thinned down shellac, to act as a sealer. The grain in wood is layers of harder and softer wood. The softwood soaks up more paint than the hardwood and causes the grain to show thru the paint layers. The sealer soaks into the soft and hard wood, and prevents to top color coat from soaking deeply into the wood. You take plain store bought shellac and cut it 50-50 with shellac thinner (denatured alcohol). The thinned shellac will soak deeply into the fresh wood.
Let the shellac dry hard, overnight at least. Although shellac dries tack free in less than an hour, you want to give it plenty of time to get good and hard so it won't clog the sandpaper when you sand it. The dries shellac coat will be rough to the touch. What's happened is tiny wood fibers that were soft and flexible have gotten hard and bristly thru the shellac drying and hardening then. Sand every thing with 220 grit sand paper until it feels glass smooth. If the sandpaper cuts down thru the shellac to the wood it doesn't matter much, the thinned shellac is still in the wood pores.
Wipe down the sanded piece with a rag dampened in mineral spirits to catch all the sanding dust and then put on the first coat of paint. I don't trust water based or latex paint. I look for a gloss oil based paint. Rust Oleum or Larcaloid has worked for me, but any oil based gloss enamel works. Avoid lacquer unless you have a paint sprayer. Lacquer dries so fast that the brushmarks don't have time to level. Lest the paint dry over night.
Sand the first coat of paint with 220 grit. Wipe the dust down with the same rag moistened in mineral spirits. Then apply t he second coat, let dry and you are done, if you want a glossy surface. For a more sophisticated matte finish, you sand the last coat with 220 grit and then give it a coat of paste wax. Butcher's wax is good. Avoid car wax, it contains silicone to which nothing will ever stick, making a recoat in later years peel off.
For openers, fill cracks, gaps in joints and finishing nail holes with wood filler. Smooth the wood filler with a putty knife. Give the filler some time to dry and then sand the whole thing. Walmart has Black & Decker 1/4 sheet orbital sanders for $30. The power tool takes a lot of the curse out of sanding. 120 grit paper is about right, coarse enough to cut the wood and fine enough that the scratches won't show thru the first coat.
First coat is thinned down shellac, to act as a sealer. The grain in wood is layers of harder and softer wood. The softwood soaks up more paint than the hardwood and causes the grain to show thru the paint layers. The sealer soaks into the soft and hard wood, and prevents to top color coat from soaking deeply into the wood. You take plain store bought shellac and cut it 50-50 with shellac thinner (denatured alcohol). The thinned shellac will soak deeply into the fresh wood.
Let the shellac dry hard, overnight at least. Although shellac dries tack free in less than an hour, you want to give it plenty of time to get good and hard so it won't clog the sandpaper when you sand it. The dries shellac coat will be rough to the touch. What's happened is tiny wood fibers that were soft and flexible have gotten hard and bristly thru the shellac drying and hardening then. Sand every thing with 220 grit sand paper until it feels glass smooth. If the sandpaper cuts down thru the shellac to the wood it doesn't matter much, the thinned shellac is still in the wood pores.
Wipe down the sanded piece with a rag dampened in mineral spirits to catch all the sanding dust and then put on the first coat of paint. I don't trust water based or latex paint. I look for a gloss oil based paint. Rust Oleum or Larcaloid has worked for me, but any oil based gloss enamel works. Avoid lacquer unless you have a paint sprayer. Lacquer dries so fast that the brushmarks don't have time to level. Lest the paint dry over night.
Sand the first coat of paint with 220 grit. Wipe the dust down with the same rag moistened in mineral spirits. Then apply t he second coat, let dry and you are done, if you want a glossy surface. For a more sophisticated matte finish, you sand the last coat with 220 grit and then give it a coat of paste wax. Butcher's wax is good. Avoid car wax, it contains silicone to which nothing will ever stick, making a recoat in later years peel off.
Sunday Pundits
An earnest young thing on George Stephanoplis' show this morning argued that American withdrawal from Iraq would improve things. She proposed that lacking Americans to shoot at, the Iraqi shooters would hang up their guns and go home. Good old Cokie Roberts said "I don't think the American electorate accepts that view".
I think Cokie has it right there.
I think Cokie has it right there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)