The main line of the Franconia branch of the Boston & Maine Railroad (HO gauge) is finished today. A car coasts clean around the train room, no bumps, jumps, lurches or derailments, even when hand pushed at a scale 200 miles per hour. Gotta do some wiring before I can run locomotives under power. One thing at a time.
Lessons learned. After cutting the flex track to size with rail nippers, clean up the rail ends with a flat single cut file. File the end square, and then file a slight bevel on the tops, bottoms, and sides of the rail. This gives a smooth-to-the-touch rail joint, rather than leaving a burr that might help a wheel flange climb over the rail head. Use fresh new rail joiners. Lay a 4 foot straight edge along the straight tracks to make sure they stay straight and kink free before nailing the track down.
PL300 foam board adhesive has the pleasant property of coming off with just a sharp putty knife pushed under the roadbed. Comes clean from the foam without destroying it. How do I know this? Just one or two places I had to move the roadbed over a bit to make things fit better.
Nailing down the flex track to wood roadbed also lets me relocate track to eliminate kinks and other bad spots. Just pull out the track nails with long nose pliers and move the track. Easier to correct problems than had I glued the track down.
The wire guides (1/2 inch holes and dadoes in the under neath of the table work) are already doing good. I started the Cab A bus (#14 solid copper house wire) in the wire guides and lo and behold, it stays in place, runs straight, and it will be obvious just what wire it is even after the usual under layout rats nest of wire gets started.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Global Warming Part 2. What's wrong with more summer?
Coming out of a harsher than average New Hampshire winter, I see little wrong with shorter winter and earlier summer. We had a three inch snowstorm on the last day of April, and had to wait until today for the first truly warm day of the year. A couple of degrees of global warming would only drive the last snow back into March and move the onset of warm weather back into mid May. That ain't a catastrophe. We get a longer growing season, we still have winter skiing.
What's so bad about that?
Historical records show the Medieval Warm Period as a climatic optimum for Europe. Good harvests, good population growth, a good time. The Little Ice Age that set in for the 15th century was a disaster. With help from the Black Death, it cut the population of Europe in half.
If the Arctic ice went out it would improve the climate in all the Arctic lands, changing them from frozen wastelands into habitable farmlands. Since ice floats mostly underwater, like 90 % of an iceberg is submerged, melting the arctic ocean ice won't do much to raise sea level.
To get real sea level rises we have to melt the Antarctic ice cap. Greenland is only 15% the size of Antarctica and much of the Greenland ice cap is already below sea level. For a back of the envelope calculation we can ignore Greenland, it's Antarctica that counts. A crude calculation based on the relative area of the world oceans and the Antarctic is scary, melting the Antarctic ice cap might raise world sea level by 200 feet. Antarctica on the other hand is on land, so the ocean currents cannot melt it the way they can the Arctic. Antarctica is really, really cold. The average temperature is -30 C. The Antarctic ice cap won't melt until global temperatures climb 30 degrees C (54 degrees F). The most extreme global warming predictions are calling for temperature rises in the single digits, that isn't enough to melt out the South Pole. Without melting Antarctica, sea level rises will be in the one or two foot range at worst.
Around here we get a nine foot tide. Seawalls, locks, beaches, beach front property is already coping with an ocean that goes up and down 9 feet. An extra foot or so at high tide isn't going to flood downtown Boston.
So, far as I can see, a few degrees of global warming will give us a nicer planet to live on.
What's so bad about that?
Historical records show the Medieval Warm Period as a climatic optimum for Europe. Good harvests, good population growth, a good time. The Little Ice Age that set in for the 15th century was a disaster. With help from the Black Death, it cut the population of Europe in half.
If the Arctic ice went out it would improve the climate in all the Arctic lands, changing them from frozen wastelands into habitable farmlands. Since ice floats mostly underwater, like 90 % of an iceberg is submerged, melting the arctic ocean ice won't do much to raise sea level.
To get real sea level rises we have to melt the Antarctic ice cap. Greenland is only 15% the size of Antarctica and much of the Greenland ice cap is already below sea level. For a back of the envelope calculation we can ignore Greenland, it's Antarctica that counts. A crude calculation based on the relative area of the world oceans and the Antarctic is scary, melting the Antarctic ice cap might raise world sea level by 200 feet. Antarctica on the other hand is on land, so the ocean currents cannot melt it the way they can the Arctic. Antarctica is really, really cold. The average temperature is -30 C. The Antarctic ice cap won't melt until global temperatures climb 30 degrees C (54 degrees F). The most extreme global warming predictions are calling for temperature rises in the single digits, that isn't enough to melt out the South Pole. Without melting Antarctica, sea level rises will be in the one or two foot range at worst.
Around here we get a nine foot tide. Seawalls, locks, beaches, beach front property is already coping with an ocean that goes up and down 9 feet. An extra foot or so at high tide isn't going to flood downtown Boston.
So, far as I can see, a few degrees of global warming will give us a nicer planet to live on.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Global Warming, Part 1
The media, the greens, the Democrats, the presidential candidates, and everyone else is taking it seriously. The Senate is debating a "close down every smokestack" bill right now.
There are a number of questions voters ought to ask them selves. For instance, is the world really warming up?
To answer this question, you want to look at real measurable data, like historical temperature records or ice cores. Computer models don't mean much. All the computers do is solve mathematical equations and the answers are no better than the equations and data fed into them. The computer adds nothing to the process, scientists could solve the equations by hand with a slide rule. Using a computer makes the results seem more true, but with or without computer all we have is a theory. Science demands that theories be backed up with real observations or experiments. Theory unsupported by observations is mere speculation. It might be true, it might not be true, but until supported by real data, it's just a theory.
The most obvious data is records of temperature, made with thermometers, going back as far as the records go. That's less than three hundred years. Fahrenheit didn't invent his thermometer until 1724. A Scientific American article some years ago dug up every temperature reading in existence and tried to find a warming trend in that mountain of data. The article proceeded to explain the corrections they had to apply to the data. For instance, as vast cities grew up around historical weather stations, the temperature readings will rise, because cities covered with black asphalt roads, black asphalt roofs, lacking green trees, are significantly hotter than the surrounding country side. In sailing ship days, sea temperature was measured by heaving a canvas bucket overside, hauling the bucket of seawater up on deck, and dropping a thermometer into it. Steamers take in seawater to cool the engines, and the thermometer is permanently mounted in the cold water intake. The canvas bucket sitting on deck would warm up slightly before the thermometer reading could be taken. The sailing ship temperature readings were corrected downward a fraction of a degree to compensate. After much more correcting and data crunching the article concluded that yes, the earth had warmed up slightly. The amount of warming was smaller than the various corrections applied to the raw data.
Translation. The amount of global warming over the past three hundred years is too small to reliably observe with a thermometer.
Going back further, we have historical records of things like the start of the grape harvest, extent of Alpine glaciers, date of freezing of seaports, first day of spring planting, first snow of winter, and so on. Looking at this historical data suggests the existence of a medieval warm period centered in the 11th and 12th centuries and a little ice age from mid 15th century until the late 18th century. The medieval warm period coincides with the high middle ages, harvests were good, life was pleasant. In the depths of the little ice age it was so cold that the River Thames froze hard enough to conduct ice fairs and markets on the river ice. That doesn't happen today. The Viking colonies in Greenland failed at the onset of the little ice age.
Translation: Historical data suggests that the world has been both warmer and cooler than today, within historical times. The little ice age only ended two hundred years ago, so some warming is expected as we come out of it.
Then we have longer term evidence from ice cores. Quite a few have been taken and analyzed. The results are equivocal, some experts see global warming in the ice cores, others don't. Not being an experienced reader of ice cores myself, all I can go on is what the experts say, and right now the experts are arguing with each other.
Finally I have seen some very dramatic satellite photos of polar ice caps. One pair of photos shows a dramatic shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap over the last dozen years. I'd like to see a few more photos just to make sure we aren't seeing summer vs winter or just a short warm spell, but the two selected photos are impressive.
There are a number of questions voters ought to ask them selves. For instance, is the world really warming up?
To answer this question, you want to look at real measurable data, like historical temperature records or ice cores. Computer models don't mean much. All the computers do is solve mathematical equations and the answers are no better than the equations and data fed into them. The computer adds nothing to the process, scientists could solve the equations by hand with a slide rule. Using a computer makes the results seem more true, but with or without computer all we have is a theory. Science demands that theories be backed up with real observations or experiments. Theory unsupported by observations is mere speculation. It might be true, it might not be true, but until supported by real data, it's just a theory.
The most obvious data is records of temperature, made with thermometers, going back as far as the records go. That's less than three hundred years. Fahrenheit didn't invent his thermometer until 1724. A Scientific American article some years ago dug up every temperature reading in existence and tried to find a warming trend in that mountain of data. The article proceeded to explain the corrections they had to apply to the data. For instance, as vast cities grew up around historical weather stations, the temperature readings will rise, because cities covered with black asphalt roads, black asphalt roofs, lacking green trees, are significantly hotter than the surrounding country side. In sailing ship days, sea temperature was measured by heaving a canvas bucket overside, hauling the bucket of seawater up on deck, and dropping a thermometer into it. Steamers take in seawater to cool the engines, and the thermometer is permanently mounted in the cold water intake. The canvas bucket sitting on deck would warm up slightly before the thermometer reading could be taken. The sailing ship temperature readings were corrected downward a fraction of a degree to compensate. After much more correcting and data crunching the article concluded that yes, the earth had warmed up slightly. The amount of warming was smaller than the various corrections applied to the raw data.
Translation. The amount of global warming over the past three hundred years is too small to reliably observe with a thermometer.
Going back further, we have historical records of things like the start of the grape harvest, extent of Alpine glaciers, date of freezing of seaports, first day of spring planting, first snow of winter, and so on. Looking at this historical data suggests the existence of a medieval warm period centered in the 11th and 12th centuries and a little ice age from mid 15th century until the late 18th century. The medieval warm period coincides with the high middle ages, harvests were good, life was pleasant. In the depths of the little ice age it was so cold that the River Thames froze hard enough to conduct ice fairs and markets on the river ice. That doesn't happen today. The Viking colonies in Greenland failed at the onset of the little ice age.
Translation: Historical data suggests that the world has been both warmer and cooler than today, within historical times. The little ice age only ended two hundred years ago, so some warming is expected as we come out of it.
Then we have longer term evidence from ice cores. Quite a few have been taken and analyzed. The results are equivocal, some experts see global warming in the ice cores, others don't. Not being an experienced reader of ice cores myself, all I can go on is what the experts say, and right now the experts are arguing with each other.
Finally I have seen some very dramatic satellite photos of polar ice caps. One pair of photos shows a dramatic shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap over the last dozen years. I'd like to see a few more photos just to make sure we aren't seeing summer vs winter or just a short warm spell, but the two selected photos are impressive.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Whither Hillary?
This email came in this morning:
Dear David,
Over the course of this campaign, I have seen the promise of America in your courage and character, your energy and ingenuity, and your compassion and faith.
Your spirit has inspired me every day in this race. While I traveled this country talking about how I wanted to help you -- time and again, you reached out to help me. To grab my hand or grip my arm, to look me in my eyes and tell me, don’t quit, keep fighting, stay in this race for us. There were days when I had strength enough for the both of us -- and on the days I didn't, I leaned on you.
This has always been your campaign, and tonight, there's no one I want to hear from more than you. I hope you're as proud as I am of what we've done and that you'll take a moment to share your thoughts with me now at my website.
I want to congratulate Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run. Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved, and our party and our democracy are stronger and more vibrant as a result.
Whatever path I travel next, I promise I will keep faith with you and everyone I have met across this good and great country. There is no possible way to thank you enough for everything you have done throughout this primary season, and you will always be in my heart.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
It isn't quite a concession speech, but it is close to one.
Dear David,
Over the course of this campaign, I have seen the promise of America in your courage and character, your energy and ingenuity, and your compassion and faith.
Your spirit has inspired me every day in this race. While I traveled this country talking about how I wanted to help you -- time and again, you reached out to help me. To grab my hand or grip my arm, to look me in my eyes and tell me, don’t quit, keep fighting, stay in this race for us. There were days when I had strength enough for the both of us -- and on the days I didn't, I leaned on you.
This has always been your campaign, and tonight, there's no one I want to hear from more than you. I hope you're as proud as I am of what we've done and that you'll take a moment to share your thoughts with me now at my website.
I want to congratulate Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run. Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved, and our party and our democracy are stronger and more vibrant as a result.
Whatever path I travel next, I promise I will keep faith with you and everyone I have met across this good and great country. There is no possible way to thank you enough for everything you have done throughout this primary season, and you will always be in my heart.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
It isn't quite a concession speech, but it is close to one.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Heavy Sour is cheaper than Light Sweet
The outrageous crude oil prices quoted on the TV news are not the whole story. The TV price is the price for the best grades of crude oil, thin (light) and low sulphur (sweet). The lower grade thick and sticky (heavy) and high sulphur (sour) sells for a third less than the premium grade. Heavy and sour crude can be refined to gasoline and diesel, but only state of the art modern refineries can do it. Plenty of older off shore refineries cannot handle heavy sour crude at all. Difficult as heavy sour crude is to refine, it's still enormously easier than refining oil shale or tar sands. Or making liquid fuels from coal.
If we had two or three more big refineries turning cheap plentiful low grade crude into gasoline and heating oil it would actually bring the outrageous prices down.
The US hasn't built a new refinery in decades 'cause of the NIMBY problem. NIMBY's buy gasoline and heating oil just like ordinary people. They just want the refinery located in some one else's back yard. Public spirited they are. Needless to say, the US no longer has enough refinery capacity to make all the gasoline and heating oil we need and is relying on off shore refineries to make up the short fall.
The US ought to build enough domestic refineries to satisfy domestic needs, and even do some export business. While we are at it, make the new refineries capable of handling the lowest grade crude on the planet. Refinery construction money spent in the US does more for the US economy than the same money spent in Aruba.
The Supreme Court recently ruled taking property by eminent domain for mere economic development purposes IS constitutional (the Kelo decision) . Take advantage of that. Pass a law declaring refineries to be a national security matter, and grant a major oil company eminent domain powers to take land for a new refinery. Declare that the small amount of land needed for a few refineries won't endanger any species. Stop the talking and the hand wringing and get on with it. Refineries take years to build, we need to start now.
Or do you like the idea of $5 a gallon?
If we had two or three more big refineries turning cheap plentiful low grade crude into gasoline and heating oil it would actually bring the outrageous prices down.
The US hasn't built a new refinery in decades 'cause of the NIMBY problem. NIMBY's buy gasoline and heating oil just like ordinary people. They just want the refinery located in some one else's back yard. Public spirited they are. Needless to say, the US no longer has enough refinery capacity to make all the gasoline and heating oil we need and is relying on off shore refineries to make up the short fall.
The US ought to build enough domestic refineries to satisfy domestic needs, and even do some export business. While we are at it, make the new refineries capable of handling the lowest grade crude on the planet. Refinery construction money spent in the US does more for the US economy than the same money spent in Aruba.
The Supreme Court recently ruled taking property by eminent domain for mere economic development purposes IS constitutional (the Kelo decision) . Take advantage of that. Pass a law declaring refineries to be a national security matter, and grant a major oil company eminent domain powers to take land for a new refinery. Declare that the small amount of land needed for a few refineries won't endanger any species. Stop the talking and the hand wringing and get on with it. Refineries take years to build, we need to start now.
Or do you like the idea of $5 a gallon?
Pre exiting conditions? Hi risk pool for you.
Once you get sick, the health insurers want to dump you. Insurers make money by depositing premiums paid by well people (or well people's employers). They loose money paying doctor and hospital bills. Dropping sick people, or refusing to insure sick people, does good things for insurance company profits.
More fair would be a law requiring insurance companies to sell their policies to all comers at the same price. The sick people are not responsible for their illness, they are unlucky. They encountered a virus, a microbe, a bullet, or some dangerous machinery. Or they inherited a genetic weakness, also a matter of luck. We, as a society, ought to give the unlucky sick people the same shot at health care as the lucky, and well, majority. Insurance is supposed to share the risk, the majority who do not have losses pay for the minority who do.
The insurance companies will oppose this law. Harry and Louse will make a TV come back. Insurers are cherry picking, offering low rates to low risk people to build market share, charging high rates, or refusing to insure, high risk people to keep the low rates low. Most health insurance is company paid insurance, which means the insured is well enough to hold a job, and hence is low risk.
The law ought to require insurers to sell policies to the public at the same price they sell them to big corporations. Employees get a better health deal than the self employed, the small business owners, the professionals, the contractors and consultants. The corporation gets a better price on the insurance, and pays for it with pretax dollars. It's free to the employee. The self employed have to pay more, get no tax break, and pay for it out of pocket.
More fair would be a law requiring insurance companies to sell their policies to all comers at the same price. The sick people are not responsible for their illness, they are unlucky. They encountered a virus, a microbe, a bullet, or some dangerous machinery. Or they inherited a genetic weakness, also a matter of luck. We, as a society, ought to give the unlucky sick people the same shot at health care as the lucky, and well, majority. Insurance is supposed to share the risk, the majority who do not have losses pay for the minority who do.
The insurance companies will oppose this law. Harry and Louse will make a TV come back. Insurers are cherry picking, offering low rates to low risk people to build market share, charging high rates, or refusing to insure, high risk people to keep the low rates low. Most health insurance is company paid insurance, which means the insured is well enough to hold a job, and hence is low risk.
The law ought to require insurers to sell policies to the public at the same price they sell them to big corporations. Employees get a better health deal than the self employed, the small business owners, the professionals, the contractors and consultants. The corporation gets a better price on the insurance, and pays for it with pretax dollars. It's free to the employee. The self employed have to pay more, get no tax break, and pay for it out of pocket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)