This image is from the Mendocino Headlands State Park. We have spent many a day snorkeling and diving in these waters. Em captured her first abalone here. Lot's of memories...
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Why do we like Northern CA?
This image is from the Mendocino Headlands State Park. We have spent many a day snorkeling and diving in these waters. Em captured her first abalone here. Lot's of memories...
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Sir Bertrand Russell on life
"What I Have Lived For...
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a great ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.
I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy - ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness--that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what--at last--I have found.
With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved.
Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.
This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me."
Friday, July 14, 2006
Wal Mart and the "rule of law"
Our former mayor in Centerville and his cohorts spoke incessantly about the "rule of law", essentially dictating to us why the monster store could not be kept out of the heart of our city. Well, it seems that a bunch of folk in California have concluded it is fair and legal to ban them from your town. The California State's Supreme Court agreed with the locals who opposed the Wal Martization of their communities.
Apparently, the brain trust of the mayor, city manager and their legal advisors got it wrong or maybe they did not want to get it right in the final analysis.
Here is the article:
The California Supreme Court rejected Wal-Mart's appeal Wednesday of a ruling that allows cities and counties in the state to outlaw big-box superstores.
The April 5 ruling by the Court of Appeal in Fresno upheld an ordinance enacted in 2004 by Turlock (Stanislaus County) that was backed by neighborhood supermarkets and labor unions. The court, setting a statewide precedent, said local governments can enact such restrictions to prevent the collapse of local businesses and resulting urban blight.
The state's high court denied review Wednesday without comment.
It was Turlock's second legal victory over Wal-Mart this month. On July 3, a federal judge in Fresno dismissed the company's constitutional challenge to the ordinance, saying the city was not interfering with interstate commerce or discriminating illegally against one type of store.
Rick Jarvis, a lawyer for Turlock, said Wednesday's state court action allows a city to "make its own land-use plans and decide for itself what's good for the community.'' It will also "make it much more difficult for Wal-Mart to file expensive legal challenges against other jurisdictions that decide to adopt similar ordinances,'' he said.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said the company was disappointed but believed the effect of the Turlock law would be limited. The appeals court ruling "is narrowly based on facts that are specific to Turlock,'' he said.
He said Wal-Mart had not yet decided whether to appeal last week's federal court ruling.
The Arkansas-based retail giant has been trying to establish a California network of discount supercenters -- stores that exceed 100,000 square feet and contain full-size grocery stores -- and has encountered resistance.
Wal-Mart estimates that 20 cities and counties in Northern California have passed ordinances seeking to limit or block the stores. San Francisco, Oakland and Martinez have banned them.
A ban on supercenters in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County was enacted by the Board of Supervisors in 2003 but repealed by voters in 2004. Alameda County supervisors then rescinded a similar ordinance, but adopted a more limited measure this March that requires big-box retailers to describe the effect of new stores on the local economy and give details of employees' pay and benefits.
Turlock has a Wal-Mart store but responded to the company's plans for a supercenter by passing the ordinance in 2004. Without mentioning Wal-Mart, the law prohibits any retail store larger than 100,000 feet that devotes more than 5 percent of its space to nontaxable items such as groceries. The City Council said the purpose was to preserve neighborhood shopping centers.
In its April 5 ruling, the appeals court said the city's motives were legal, even if its action hurt competition.
"While zoning ordinances may not legitimately be used to control economic competition, they may be used to address the urban/suburban decay'' that can result from the entry of a large new business, the court said.
The case is Wal-Mart Stores vs. Turlock, S143488.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
Monday, July 10, 2006
...para poder montar rápidamente
Q brought this interesting article to my attention and it merits a post. The question is how far can you ride in an hour? I think I hit 13 miles last week without too much strain.
"Thirty years after making the United States Olympic Cycling team, twenty years after winning the DuPont Prize for human-powered speed and ten years after retiring from professional cycling, "Fast" Freddy Markham won the Dempsey-MacCready Prize at the Nissan One Hour Challenge last week. He covered 53.43 miles in one hour, setting a world record, in his super-efficient Easy Racer recumbent bicycle. Markham, at age 49, wasn't considered a serious contender for a title or the record; he has won the One Hour Challenge three times previously, but not since 1989. As the owner of Easy Racers, Inc., the nation's largest recumbent bicycle manufacturer, he knows a thing or two about making bikes go fast; we tip our hat to him for proving that it's still tough to be a bicycle for getting yourself from here to there. Want to go 50 miles in an hour on a bike? He'll sell you an Easy Racer and you'll be halfway there."
Friday, July 07, 2006
Opponents of Global Warming...
Reasons given by opponents of the global warming theory from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia:
"Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include:
IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models. For example, even those who accept that there is a warming trend point out that there is a big difference between correlation and causality. In other words, just because temperatures have generally been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Industrial Revolution has caused the change in temperature (see post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument). On the other hand, the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has indeed produced ever-growing "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.
Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Ergo, because the issue has become so politicized, it is suspected that climatologists who disagree with the consensus as it is may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding.
Consensus is further compromised in this field of study due to students being attracted to the field by their belief that something should be done about global warming. They complete their education and add their voices to the consensus, which gives a perceived bias.
Earth's climate has been both colder and warmer than today, and these changes are adequately explained by mechanisms that do not involve human greenhouse gas emissions. There is no significant global warming relative to the expected natural trends.
CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere, most of which travels to the oceans. Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1%.
Climate science can not make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms. Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity.
Some global warming studies have errors or have not been reproduced. Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as: sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).
The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.
Some opponents of global warming theory give more weight to data such as paleoclimatic studies, temperature measurements made from weather balloons, and satellites which they claim show less warming than surface land and sea records, though early balloon records have been shown to be possibly erroneous due to mechanical design flaws in the sensors.
Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all the major questions about the global climate.
Opponents frequently characterise supporters arguments as alarmist and premature, so as to emphasize what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global warming scenarios.
Opponents also say that if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now because:
Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious and for less money.
A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.
There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions. A cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth."
"Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include:
IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models. For example, even those who accept that there is a warming trend point out that there is a big difference between correlation and causality. In other words, just because temperatures have generally been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Industrial Revolution has caused the change in temperature (see post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument). On the other hand, the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has indeed produced ever-growing "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.
Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Ergo, because the issue has become so politicized, it is suspected that climatologists who disagree with the consensus as it is may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding.
Consensus is further compromised in this field of study due to students being attracted to the field by their belief that something should be done about global warming. They complete their education and add their voices to the consensus, which gives a perceived bias.
Earth's climate has been both colder and warmer than today, and these changes are adequately explained by mechanisms that do not involve human greenhouse gas emissions. There is no significant global warming relative to the expected natural trends.
CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere, most of which travels to the oceans. Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1%.
Climate science can not make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms. Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity.
Some global warming studies have errors or have not been reproduced. Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as: sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).
The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.
Some opponents of global warming theory give more weight to data such as paleoclimatic studies, temperature measurements made from weather balloons, and satellites which they claim show less warming than surface land and sea records, though early balloon records have been shown to be possibly erroneous due to mechanical design flaws in the sensors.
Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all the major questions about the global climate.
Opponents frequently characterise supporters arguments as alarmist and premature, so as to emphasize what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global warming scenarios.
Opponents also say that if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now because:
Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious and for less money.
A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.
There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions. A cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth."
Proponents of the Global Warming theory...
This is from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia:
"Reasons given by supporters of the global warming theory:
Supporters of the global warming theory assert that gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together.
The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused, shown by isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels. We know carbon dioxide captures IR radiation and converts it to heat because we use these physics to measure carbon dioxide concentration the historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years. The urban heat island effect makes no significant contribution.
The current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
The warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity (see attribution of recent climate change), using analysis based on climate modeling; and that natural variability or solar variation cannot explain the recent change.
Carbon dioxide is a first order forcing on climate change—other effects such as water vapour greenhouse effects are either roughly constant over time, act as amplifiers, or do not have a large effect. Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future. Climate models can reproduce this trend, but only when using greenhouse gas.
Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects (sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves, etc) in the future. For instance, Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change, June 2006. Action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming (see Precautionary principle).
The IPCC reports correctly summarise the state of climate science. There is a scientific consensus behind all of the above.
Our existence is poised within a fluid-dynamic, ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system, where non-linear feedbacks are common and where climate states are only relatively stable (i.e., "metastable"). Unknown unknowns are likely to surprise us, particularly if they trigger a non-linear, positive feedback that flips climate to a new meta-stable state.
Proponents of global warming tend to support the IPCC position and thus represent a broadly unified viewpoint, though with considerable differences over what action should be taken. Optionally, supporters may go on to point out that there is a good chance that the future changes may be undesirable, and that planning to avoid or mitigate them would be a good idea. Only 2 of the 120 contributing authors to the IPCC TAR are known to have voiced any complaint.
Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003 (Oreskes, 2004). Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human
activity."
The IPCC referred to is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change". The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.
IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change. The reports have been influential in forming national and international responses to climate change. A small but vocal minority (less than 1.5%) of the scientists involved with the report have accused the IPCC of bias.
"Reasons given by supporters of the global warming theory:
Supporters of the global warming theory assert that gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together.
The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused, shown by isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels. We know carbon dioxide captures IR radiation and converts it to heat because we use these physics to measure carbon dioxide concentration the historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years. The urban heat island effect makes no significant contribution.
The current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
The warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity (see attribution of recent climate change), using analysis based on climate modeling; and that natural variability or solar variation cannot explain the recent change.
Carbon dioxide is a first order forcing on climate change—other effects such as water vapour greenhouse effects are either roughly constant over time, act as amplifiers, or do not have a large effect. Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future. Climate models can reproduce this trend, but only when using greenhouse gas.
Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects (sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves, etc) in the future. For instance, Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change, June 2006. Action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming (see Precautionary principle).
The IPCC reports correctly summarise the state of climate science. There is a scientific consensus behind all of the above.
Our existence is poised within a fluid-dynamic, ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system, where non-linear feedbacks are common and where climate states are only relatively stable (i.e., "metastable"). Unknown unknowns are likely to surprise us, particularly if they trigger a non-linear, positive feedback that flips climate to a new meta-stable state.
Proponents of global warming tend to support the IPCC position and thus represent a broadly unified viewpoint, though with considerable differences over what action should be taken. Optionally, supporters may go on to point out that there is a good chance that the future changes may be undesirable, and that planning to avoid or mitigate them would be a good idea. Only 2 of the 120 contributing authors to the IPCC TAR are known to have voiced any complaint.
Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003 (Oreskes, 2004). Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human
activity."
The IPCC referred to is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change". The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.
IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change. The reports have been influential in forming national and international responses to climate change. A small but vocal minority (less than 1.5%) of the scientists involved with the report have accused the IPCC of bias.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Cycling is good...but how much?
I found this info from Ken Kiefer's 'Bike Pages' on the net:
"One very interesting question is how much aerobic exercise should one get every day? Some medical authorities recommend as little as 20 minutes a day, three times a week, while others recommend 2,000 kCal, which would be at least four times that amount. Why the great difference? Well, most authorities recognize the more exercise the better up to some undetermined point, but many are afraid that if they expect too much, people won't exercise at all. Another reason for lowering the recommendation was due to the damage caused by jogging, a problem cycling does not share. I am afraid that those setting very low requirements are giving people the mistaken impression that they don't need any more exercise than their usual, basically sedentary activity.
How much exercise do I recommend? I find that 45 minutes of cycling six days a week (about 2,000 kCal) keeps me feeling good, but not great, two hours per day keeps me very strong and controls my weight, and six hours a day on my bicycle trips makes me feel like superman after several weeks. We might say that lower amounts of exercise improve one's health and higher amounts improve one's fitness. I would recommend a minumum of 45 minutes a day and as much addition cycling as time permits. The time spent cycling will not be wasted; in addition to having a good ride, the cyclist will be more productive during the remaining time and will live longer as well."
I find riding every day to be too much for me as I need recovery time. Two hours every other day seems to be comfortable for the present in allowing joints and ligaments to recover. I seem to be losing FAT at this schedule, The 19" shirts are roomier and I have dropped back successfully to 18 1/2" size after two months. The belt is one or 1-1/2 nothes tighter too. Who has time for 6 hours a day in the saddle?
"One very interesting question is how much aerobic exercise should one get every day? Some medical authorities recommend as little as 20 minutes a day, three times a week, while others recommend 2,000 kCal, which would be at least four times that amount. Why the great difference? Well, most authorities recognize the more exercise the better up to some undetermined point, but many are afraid that if they expect too much, people won't exercise at all. Another reason for lowering the recommendation was due to the damage caused by jogging, a problem cycling does not share. I am afraid that those setting very low requirements are giving people the mistaken impression that they don't need any more exercise than their usual, basically sedentary activity.
How much exercise do I recommend? I find that 45 minutes of cycling six days a week (about 2,000 kCal) keeps me feeling good, but not great, two hours per day keeps me very strong and controls my weight, and six hours a day on my bicycle trips makes me feel like superman after several weeks. We might say that lower amounts of exercise improve one's health and higher amounts improve one's fitness. I would recommend a minumum of 45 minutes a day and as much addition cycling as time permits. The time spent cycling will not be wasted; in addition to having a good ride, the cyclist will be more productive during the remaining time and will live longer as well."
I find riding every day to be too much for me as I need recovery time. Two hours every other day seems to be comfortable for the present in allowing joints and ligaments to recover. I seem to be losing FAT at this schedule, The 19" shirts are roomier and I have dropped back successfully to 18 1/2" size after two months. The belt is one or 1-1/2 nothes tighter too. Who has time for 6 hours a day in the saddle?
Thursday, June 29, 2006
A very sweet ride...
The pains associated with age and hazardous living have caused me to put a 'for sale' sign on the faithful Specialized Enduro and replace it with a "bent" Rans Stratus XP. Took the new ride for a round the block spin in Highland Utah and it was as comfortable as sitting in a lazy boy recliner in terms of body geometry. The dealer had this information posted on his web site:
"The Stratus XP borrows from the classic Stratus frame the passive suspension and adds the performance increasing aspect of dual big wheels. Only 2.875" longer over the classic Stratus, this is perhaps as compact as big wheel long wheel base recumbents get. The bike does it all well, climb, cruise, and handling. A potent racer, with and without fairings, and excellent touring or commuting machine, the Stratus XP is the amazing combination of a performance machine that will serve the novice well into the expert phase. Refined features include: Rad-Loc seat clamp, Mesh seat, Sculpted foam cushion, Reynolds tubing frame, beautifully TIG welded and powered coated to a sparkling Corvette blue. The frame features such design advances as “Y” chain stay, and single shaft idlers, disc brakes front and rear."
A very sweet ride.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Have you seen them?
If you have then leave a comment, two thumbs up, four stars or whatever. Intend to see Nacho Libre next week before I see Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", priorities you know...
There is a connection between the two movies. See them both and tell us what you think it is?
The plans are here.
A nice envelope arrived today from the Devlin Boat Company. I will be looking at them tonight.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
From the stern it turns counter clockwise...
The prop that is.
I have been in contact with Devlin Boatworks about the Surf Scoter and they recommend a new Yanmar Diesel called a Sail Drive. The design eliminates most of the problems of an inboard since there is no shaft and associated alignment problems including a leaking stuffing box. The Yanmar Sail Drive is manufactured in Amagasaki Japan, Kansai Prefecture. Several of us have been there including our missionary.
The Sail Drive is a three cylinder diesel and depending upon the recommendation of the Devlin folks we would either select the 50 or 75 hp. Likely the 75hp will be the engine of choice as sometimes it is useful when on the high seas to return to port quickly for whatever reasons and yes Eddie the 75hp is availble in a turbo version.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
"Master and Commander"
The plans are ordered. It will be a modified Devlin design--the 22' Surf Scoter. It will fit in the garage during construction. The truck will be parked outisde for awhile.
This image has been Photoshopped a bit. The top of the pilot house has been extended three feet over the cockpit area, which will provide some coverage from the mists and rain of the North Coast. Attached to it is a canvas cover for additional protection from the rain or sun. We can add more overhang once we are under contrustion and see how much we would like. The boat has also been lengthened a foot. This can be additional space inside the cabin. It would be nice to have an enclosed head in the pilot house. There is an anchor well in the foredeck of the factory design and that has been removed. I think it only takes up space in the V-berth.
No stainless steel stanchions and rails are shown. I think those will be mandatory for the smaller pirates. There is a dive platform attached to the stern. We will want to drive it where big abalones grow in areas not reachable from land. Howard will need to sit on the pilot house with his AK to pop any great whites that come looking around while we are diving.
We have learned some things about the ocean off the North Coast in the Lady Irma II and that will benefit our modifictions to the Devlin design. In heavy seas we will be able to seal the boat off with a self draining cockpit and several bilge pumps including a manual back up. A fish finder, a marine radio and a good GPS will help us coming and going fishing, whale watching and diving.
The NK will be powered by a 90 hp Yamaha outboard that is set into a well and covered in the cockpit. This simplifies and reduces the cost of an onboard diesel. RA does not like the smell of diesel. Top speed will be 20 knots and cruising with better fuel economy at 14-16.
I suggest all applicants for positions on the Noyo King begin reading any of Patrick O' Brian's series of Captain Jack Aubrey or rent the movie, "Master and Commander" to brush up on nautical jargon.
Ahoy ye land lubbers!
Step by almost step...
This is a description of one happy Surf Scoter builder and his photos of work in progress: "Construction on the Surf Scoter began in October 1997. At this point of construction the main bulkheads and transom have been aligned and leveled on the "strongback". The 1/2' plywood skin is then laid on the bulkheads.
After the bottom and side panels are applied, a layer of 1/4" plywood is added to the bottom for extra structure. At this point the entire hull is fared, and the keel is fit and glassed in place. The hull is then glassed with one layer of tooling cloth (two layers on all joints), sanded and coated several times with epoxy. In the photo below, Ed (Sorry about taking your head off) installs the iron bark chafe strip onto the keel. She's ready to be rolled over.
Now that she's rolled over it's time to start laying out the v-berth followed by the cabin and cockpit. Bulkheads get trimmed to shape, v-berth water tank and p+s settees are built, and Ed is fitting cockpit soles.
Structural glassing is completed in the v-berth and cockpit below sole level. Now that the aft bulkhead, galley and helm are fitted and tabbed in place, it's time for a structural glassing in this area. 2 1/2' PVC pipe is epoxied in place under the cockpit sole elevation to connect the ships systems from the pilot house to the engine compartment. It makes running battery wires, steering cables, heat exchange hose and all other wiring much easier come time to install ships systems.
After all the interior bulkheads, longitudinals and flats are fitted and epoxied in place, all final shaping and glassing can be completed. Once all wood gets epoxy sealed (usually takes two coats with sanding between coats). This particular boat gets interior paint below the sheer, so we'll use an epoxy primer. Once primed it's easy to see surface blemishes, and an automotive "bondo" is used to fill and Smooth out rough areas. A final sanding and we are ready for paint.
After the cabin is completed it's the same drill as above, final shaping, glassing, sealing and then on to primer and "bondo" on the entire exterior of the boat.
Now that she's painted, it's time to start hanging trim and hardware. Windows and a few finishing touches, and she's ready to splash.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
A couple views...
These are a couple fine photos of one of the Devlin wood epoxy homebuilts. Something as elegant as this deserves serious attention and certainly would put to shame most any of the new boats coming out of the fiberglass mills across the country. Who would not be happy to have a turn at the wheel under power going out of Noyo Harbor?
Friday, June 16, 2006
Another BYU part time instructor speaks out
This post is from Mormon Stories.org and is worth reading:
Margaret Young Jun 15th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
I am old enough to remember Hugh B. Brown, a courageous apostle who periodically came to BYU to calm the waters, after Ezra Taft Benson had left heavy turbulence in his outspoken support for ultra-conservatism. Brown said, “We are grateful in the Church and in this great university that the freedom, dignity and integrity of the individual is basic in Church doctrine as well as in democracy. Here we are free to think and express our opinions. Fear will not stifle thought, as is the case in some areas which have not yet emerged from the dark ages. God himself refuses to trammel man’s free agency even though its exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in the climate of freedom. I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent - if you are informed…Seek truth in all fields, and in that search you will need at least three virtues: courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, ‘From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth - O God of truth deliver us’.”
(Speech at BYU, March 29, 1958)
And Joseph Smith had a bold opinion on curtailing freedom of expression:
“It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have a creed which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”
As a part-time teacher at BYU, I feel pretty nervous about Lindsay’s dismissal. From what I can tell, the dismissal was SOLELY because of a letter to the editor. I know I have some unorthodox views. Would I lose my job if I were to express them–like on this blog, for example? (I would be considered liberal in Utah on most issues.) I am very aware that some (NOT the majority) of my students are over-ready to get offended by a writer’s use of a swearword, or an author’s depiction of a sex scene. I genuinely worry about these students as they leave BYU’s borders. Have they learned to incorporate the love of God into their academic pursuits? Have they developed empathy? Are they prepared to read the BEST books (like Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison and the many others in fields I don’t know), or will they spend most of their time reading _Ensign_ articles–always correlated and written on a sixth grade reading level? Will they consistently seek answers to the hardest questions from the many quotes of General Authorities included in the Sunday School manuals, or will they learn to turn inward to a mature and generous heart? Will they continually seek to frame their experience within the idealized Mormon portrait, or will they be free to really grow when life pulls an inevitable surprise? Homosexuality is a surprise for thousands of people, and thousands families. How do we react to it? My reaction, as I’ve had family members, friends, and students come out to me, has changed over the years. The first time it happened, some 30 years ago, I was appalled and begged the person to repent. Now, my instant reaction is to open my arms to anyone who might feel crucified between desire and faith. I can’t remove that heavy cross, but I will certainly not participate in torment or condemnation, nor will I indicate to them that they need to feel more guilt so that my testimony can stay intact. I will never know what it’s like to be gay. And I will never pretend to know. Since I’m a woman, I will never be a Judge in Israel (thank God!). I don’t want to be a judge in Provo or even in my own home if I can help it. My children have a gay uncle. It has mattered greatly to me that they understand that we love him–and please note that I’m not including any disclaimer like “hate the sin, love the sinner.” I’m not going to label my brother-in-law as a sinner. From many indications, he’s a better person than I am. I know God loves him, and from all I can tell, he loves God. So can I keep my job at BYU?
Margaret Young Jun 15th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
I am old enough to remember Hugh B. Brown, a courageous apostle who periodically came to BYU to calm the waters, after Ezra Taft Benson had left heavy turbulence in his outspoken support for ultra-conservatism. Brown said, “We are grateful in the Church and in this great university that the freedom, dignity and integrity of the individual is basic in Church doctrine as well as in democracy. Here we are free to think and express our opinions. Fear will not stifle thought, as is the case in some areas which have not yet emerged from the dark ages. God himself refuses to trammel man’s free agency even though its exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in the climate of freedom. I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent - if you are informed…Seek truth in all fields, and in that search you will need at least three virtues: courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, ‘From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth - O God of truth deliver us’.”
(Speech at BYU, March 29, 1958)
And Joseph Smith had a bold opinion on curtailing freedom of expression:
“It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have a creed which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”
As a part-time teacher at BYU, I feel pretty nervous about Lindsay’s dismissal. From what I can tell, the dismissal was SOLELY because of a letter to the editor. I know I have some unorthodox views. Would I lose my job if I were to express them–like on this blog, for example? (I would be considered liberal in Utah on most issues.) I am very aware that some (NOT the majority) of my students are over-ready to get offended by a writer’s use of a swearword, or an author’s depiction of a sex scene. I genuinely worry about these students as they leave BYU’s borders. Have they learned to incorporate the love of God into their academic pursuits? Have they developed empathy? Are they prepared to read the BEST books (like Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison and the many others in fields I don’t know), or will they spend most of their time reading _Ensign_ articles–always correlated and written on a sixth grade reading level? Will they consistently seek answers to the hardest questions from the many quotes of General Authorities included in the Sunday School manuals, or will they learn to turn inward to a mature and generous heart? Will they continually seek to frame their experience within the idealized Mormon portrait, or will they be free to really grow when life pulls an inevitable surprise? Homosexuality is a surprise for thousands of people, and thousands families. How do we react to it? My reaction, as I’ve had family members, friends, and students come out to me, has changed over the years. The first time it happened, some 30 years ago, I was appalled and begged the person to repent. Now, my instant reaction is to open my arms to anyone who might feel crucified between desire and faith. I can’t remove that heavy cross, but I will certainly not participate in torment or condemnation, nor will I indicate to them that they need to feel more guilt so that my testimony can stay intact. I will never know what it’s like to be gay. And I will never pretend to know. Since I’m a woman, I will never be a Judge in Israel (thank God!). I don’t want to be a judge in Provo or even in my own home if I can help it. My children have a gay uncle. It has mattered greatly to me that they understand that we love him–and please note that I’m not including any disclaimer like “hate the sin, love the sinner.” I’m not going to label my brother-in-law as a sinner. From many indications, he’s a better person than I am. I know God loves him, and from all I can tell, he loves God. So can I keep my job at BYU?
Monday, June 12, 2006
Troubling questions with few answers...
A web edition of ABC News Nightline report asks some difficult questions. Once you get past the silly ad for Florida orange juice, the price I guess for the use of this news piece, it merits very serious thought.
Click Here
Click Here
The crew quarters painting project
On our last trip to the coast after admiring our new shingles we decided the quarters for the Noyo King crew should be repainted. We accomplished about half thanks to the many hands and helpers. Part of a salor's life on the high seas is scraping, repainting and repairing the timbers. The next trip we may finish painting the crew quarters. Taja, the NK dog and mascot, approves of the work.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Que bueno and no rally for the R's in November!
US: Amendment banning gay marriage fails in Senate
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON
"The US Senate rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by a wide margin and delivered an unexpectedly strong defeat to President George W. Bush and other Republicans who still hope the issue will rally Republican voters for November's elections.
The senators' vote was 49-48 to stop debate and bring the amendment to a yes-or-no decision. It fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed to kill the measure in the Senate for this year.
The 49 votes to keep the amendment alive were one more than the measure received in 2004 the last time the Senate voted. Proponents had predicted publicly that the amendment would get at least a 51-vote majority in the 100-member Senate considering the gain of four Republican seats since then."
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON
"The US Senate rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by a wide margin and delivered an unexpectedly strong defeat to President George W. Bush and other Republicans who still hope the issue will rally Republican voters for November's elections.
The senators' vote was 49-48 to stop debate and bring the amendment to a yes-or-no decision. It fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed to kill the measure in the Senate for this year.
The 49 votes to keep the amendment alive were one more than the measure received in 2004 the last time the Senate voted. Proponents had predicted publicly that the amendment would get at least a 51-vote majority in the 100-member Senate considering the gain of four Republican seats since then."
Monday, June 05, 2006
The gay marriage ammendment
Harry Reid, US Senator (D), from Nevada gave a speech today outlining the critical topics our current administration must address. I excerpt some of that speech here:
"I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe in our federal system of government, described to me in college as a central whole divided among self governing parts. Those self governing parts—the 50 states—have already decided this on their own in state after state. For example, in Nevada the constitution was amended to prevent same sex marriage. Congress and President Clinton passed a law that gave the states the guarantee that their individual laws regarding marriage would be respected. The Defense of Marriage Act creates an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution so that no state can force its laws of marriage on another.
So why are we being directed by the President and this Republican majority to debate an Amendment to the Constitution, a document inspired more than two centuries ago? Why would we be asked to change this American masterpiece?
Will it next be to constitutionally dictate the cause of divorce, or military service, or even what America’s religion must be?
So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President’s efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this Administration’s way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day:
High Gas Prices.
The War in Iraq.
The National Debt.
Health Care.
Senior Citizens.
Education.
Crime.
Trade Policy.
Stem Cell Research.
Each issue begging the President’s attention, each issue being ignored—valuable time in the Senate spent on an issue that today is without hope of passing.
These issues are not Democratic issues. These issues are not Republican issues. There must be bipartisan efforts to address America’s ills."
"I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe in our federal system of government, described to me in college as a central whole divided among self governing parts. Those self governing parts—the 50 states—have already decided this on their own in state after state. For example, in Nevada the constitution was amended to prevent same sex marriage. Congress and President Clinton passed a law that gave the states the guarantee that their individual laws regarding marriage would be respected. The Defense of Marriage Act creates an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution so that no state can force its laws of marriage on another.
So why are we being directed by the President and this Republican majority to debate an Amendment to the Constitution, a document inspired more than two centuries ago? Why would we be asked to change this American masterpiece?
Will it next be to constitutionally dictate the cause of divorce, or military service, or even what America’s religion must be?
So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President’s efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this Administration’s way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day:
High Gas Prices.
The War in Iraq.
The National Debt.
Health Care.
Senior Citizens.
Education.
Crime.
Trade Policy.
Stem Cell Research.
Each issue begging the President’s attention, each issue being ignored—valuable time in the Senate spent on an issue that today is without hope of passing.
These issues are not Democratic issues. These issues are not Republican issues. There must be bipartisan efforts to address America’s ills."
Friday, June 02, 2006
Rat Saliva and George Bush
On a recent trip to the Redwoods, where we have breathtaking views of the ocean, hug our kids, grandkids, and the Redwood trees surrounding the house, we often pick up a daily edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. There was a fine editorial about my favorite place never to shop by Mark Morford. One of the summary paragraphs from his piece poetically demands to be published on this blog.
“I do not shop at Wal-Mart. I may never shop at Wal-Mart, given its notoriously horrible labor practices, brutal business tactics and effortless murder of all love and hope and joy from the retail experience. The stores are the George Bushes of the retail world -- drunk with power and cheaply made. Not to mention that vaguely nauseating feeling, when you walk through its (or almost any) big-box store, that your soul is being slowly coated in rat saliva.” Mark Morford San Francisco Chronicle 24 May 2006. For the complete article:
Click Here
(The oceanscape photo courtesy of Eddie, taken from Highway 1 near Westport.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)