Beyond Hype

Look, right now, the world is screaming at us to try "Beyond Meat," or similar products; plant-based meat substitutes (PBMS).

I want to be clear: I'm ignoring the hype.

There are two conditions together under which I'll try plant-based meat substitutes:

1) Independent research indicating that PBMS are actually better for you than meat;

AND;

2) A price drop so that PBMS are cheaper than the meat they 'replace.'

That's it.

At the moment, everybody's jumping on the PBMS bandwagon because of some perception that it is 'better' for you. But, wait a minute--aren't PBMS highly processed, to begin with? That makes me leery, right there. Nothing simpler than meat.

And PBMS manufacturers are taking full advantage of the ignorance vacuum in this fledgling industry. We've all seen the fake-burgers commercial, where the old-fashioned meat world is dull and drab (even the burgers), while the PBMS side is colourful. The conclusion is obvious: PBMS must be better for you! And so we start stogging it in, without being aware of what it is that we are actually putting inside our bodies.

I think the historical record is full of enough mistakes (a few: DDT, leaded gasoline, and thalidomide) that it behooves us to do some research on this new food type before wantonly sucking it down.

No, until my Personal Advantage formula, above, is met, I won't be trying PBMS.

I encourage you to think for yourself, as well!

-Bill

Not a Raptors Fan


It's not often that I mention sports. Although I was one heck of an athlete in my youth, these days arthritis prevents me from exercising vigorously. I've never been much of a sports fan, save for hockey--and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Canadiens fan.

Now, unless you've been underground these past two months, it seems that Canada's sole entry in the NBA--the Toronto Raptors--are currently fighting for an NBA championship. While I think the odds are stacked against them, I think it would be a fitting in-your-face for the 'foreign' team to steal basketball's ultimate prize.

That said, I am not, and will never be, a Raptors fan. At approximately knee-high to a grasshopper, basketball is not a sport I can relate to. Took it in high school; was already short; sucked. End of story. The look and feel of the game, the rhythms of play, the particular rituals---they just don't appeal to me.

Hockey, improbably, is my favourite sport. I'm sure part of that is sustained by patriotism; but I just enjoy watching hockey. For the NHL alone, I can name all of the teams, and the divisions in which they play.

I've tried watching other sports, with limited results. Canadian Football was fun--in the 1970s and 1980s, when players tended to stick around, and there was a stronger sense of community. Today, they're just all NFL third-stringers--no thanks. Baseball is like a life-sized board game. Who wants to watch D&D? Not me!

Although I was heavily into golfing about 40 years ago, I can't stand watching it; it's like an hours-long opinion column, with occasional shots from the green. Maybe if they had a hockey game going on in an inset screen. Lacrosse is cool, but there's nowhere near enough of it. I was wicked in track, in high school, and still enjoy watching it.

But of all the sports, it is to basketball that I can least relate.

It was recently suggested to me that I'm being unpatriotic by not cheering for the Raptors. My answer to that was seven letters long, ending in "-you!" After decades of tying patriotism to hockey, one year our basketball team makes a breakthrough, and everything changes? How hypocritical!

Hey, if they win it, good on them. But you will excuse me from the celebrations in the street; because nothing spells poser more strongly than some johnny-come-lately fan, dancing in the streets for a team they didn't give a rat's ass about, two months ago.

It must be noted, too, that all of you bandwagon fans must be pretty annoying to long-term raptors fanatics, who know that in four months' time you'll be screaming yourself hoarse for the Leafs, the Raptors forgotten and relegated to some future garage-sale items in your closet. Where were you, they will--rightly--point out, when times were tough, when the team was building? And where have you gone, now that the excitement is over?

I know when my team is doing well in the playoffs, there's always some yahoo who will suggest that they are "Canada's Team." Which really grates on the anti-french knuckle-draggers out there. And grates on the nerves of the true fans, who were doing just fine without your help, thank you very much.

So, I'm going to continue not to be a Raptors fan, and you are going to respect that. You, go cheer for whomever you want; just don't try to force it on me.

What I Learned Today

I'm just back from an install job. I ran into some unusual stuff and want to leave some record, in case someone else runs into the same.

So, this morning my job was to install a replacement computer, copy all the files over, and then install a couple of CAD/CAM programs--MasterCam 8 and MasterCam X3.

Now, this was a machine shop, with some older equipment; he was using serial port networking, for compatibility. We were installing a Windows XP machine (for backward compatibility). The only thing that was relatively new was the replacement computer.

Not that I don't understand. I'm a great one for holding onto something that still works, until it doesn't. These guys were early adopters of computerized milling; they have big bucks tied up in their investment; and so they need special, obsolete equipment to support it.

So, I turn on the machine, do a little setup, copy over the files. Good so far. Next, I installed Aladdin drivers (MasterCam uses a hardware hasp for registration), and then MasterCam 8. Ran it to confirm that all was good.

Now I installed MasterCam X3. Ran it to confirm that all was good.

Just for fun, I tried running MasterCam 8 again.

Wouldn't run. Couldn't find an ocx file.

I did a repair install. Ran it. Tried to open a file. Crash.

For the next couple of hours, I tried various permutations of the install order, while searching online, for answers, til I was blue in the face. Crash. Crash. Crash. You get the idea.

I took five, had a think out in the brilliant sunshine. Immediately after installing X3, 8 couldn't find an ocx file. Now, I knew that an ocx is so named because it is an "OLE Control Extension." I also knew that it had to be registered. What if, somehow, during the install process it had been unregistered?

On the machine, in Windows Command Prompt, I ran:
  regsvr32 mcbitmap.ocx -u
then
  regsvr32 mcbitmap.ocx

(The first iteration unregisters object, just in case. The second reinstalls it.)

And it still didn't work.

Ah, said I. Windows XP is old stuff, and quite frequently needs rebooting after system changes.

I rebooted, and we were off to the races.

Oh, and the serial port networking? It just worked.

*Phew!*

-Bill

"Is That a Star, or a Planet?"

Occasionally, you'll notice a passerby spotting a particularly bright star and asking, "Is that a star, or a planet?"

Here's how to tell the difference--and why there's a difference.

In real short form, the difference is that stars twinkle, while planets shine steadily.

Now, why is that?

The answer lies in the apparent diameter of a planetary disc, versus the apparent diameter of a 'turbulence cell' in the upper atmosphere.

Let's go back to the beginning. In any amateur telescope, a star is an infinitesimal point of light. You can magnify it to the limits imposed by the physical parameters of your telescope; but unless you're using a huge, research-grade instrument, you'll never get a measurable disc from a star. What you see in your telescope is a 'diffraction disk,' whose size is a direct measure of the perfection of your instrument; the smaller, the better.

A planet, however, being much smaller than any star, but also much, much, much nearer, displays a measurable disc. Some--Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, for example--show a measurable disc in binoculars. Some people with very sharp eyesight can actually see for themselves. The point is that a planetary disc is much larger than a star's.

Now we must shift our attention to the upper atmosphere, where cells of air are shifting up and down and otherwise roiling with motion. On most nights, the cells tend to be of on the order of a metre or two in diameter. From the ground, that makes their apparent diameter larger than a star's, but much smaller than a planet's.

So, a star--that point source of light--is affected by every turbulence cell between you and it, and it will twinkle in all but the most exceptionally stable sky. In a telescope, you'll find that it will even change apparent position minutely, from instant to instant, the result of refraction effects.

With a planet, it's very much different. The entire planetary disc is covered by dozens, even hundreds, of individual turbulence cells; their combined effect is negligible.

That's not to say that a particularly unstable sky won't still ruin planetary images. In 'bad seeing,' the planetary disc will appear 'smeared,' with lower definition, at times misshapen and shimmering, because of all those turbulence cells roiling away.

So now you know; and now you know why. Another Useless Fact for your exploitation. You're welcome again. ;-)

-Bill

HEY, CHINA!

Well, well, things are coming to a head. Canada and China are engaged in a diplomatic squabble, and China's true colours are showing. China has been dismissive of Canada, suggesting that such a pipsqueak little country should just keep its mouth shut.

I think it's just about time somebody grabbed a switch and took China out behind the shed. I can think of about 35,000,000 people who are perfect for the job.

(That's the approximate population of Canada.)

And I know how to do it.

China, for all its hideous, almost-uncountable human-rights abuses, its crushing yoke of communism, is rewarded for bad behaviour by way doing huge amounts of business with Canada. As a result, an inordinate amount of the things we purchase in the course of a year has been made in China. What's more, most of the raw materials in the products originated --wait for it--in Canada!

What if we all, collectively said, "Enough is enough" and simply stopped buying chinese crap. No more tissue-thin tee-shirts, or pants with tiny pockets, that don't zip up correctly; no more iPhones (look it up!); no more little piles of junk from the dollar store; no more piles of shoes for midgets.

I think it's time for Canada to look to stop doing business with China. China has proven itself unable to participate on the world stage as an adult; therefore, it needs to be spanked.

Henceforth, I'm going to be checking the labels on everything I buy. If it's made in China--if there's any possibility it was made in China--it's going back onto the shelf. I will buy no Chinese-made electronics, clothing, foodstuffs. I won't see their travelling exhibits or cultural shows. In short: I am going to minimize the amount of business done with China on my behalf.

My new mantra: no more chinese crap!

If enough Canadians stuck by this policy, there would be rapid changes. Dollarama, for example, would have to scramble to replace almost every product on its shelves. Wal-Mart would founder. Our retail landscape would be in for some reconfiguration; but that's not a bad thing.

There are other consequences. China's purchasing of raw materials would somewhat slow down; wouldn't it be wonderful if Canadians suppliers to China began to say, "Sorry, can't help you." We could bring China to its knees in about six months.

China can be dismissive of Canada, but at its own peril. If you look at the percentage of global trade Canada does with China, it's easy to see that the removal of that trade would cause a recession in China. It's easy to see that our trade cannot simply be replaced on the chinese side of the equation; far easier on the Canadian side.

As for Canada? I don't think it would be that bad. It would be a boon for Canadian manufacturers (if there's a demand for something, someone will make it--and incidentally need raw materials)--and the loss of jobs in retail chains that failed to adapt would be made up for by increases in employment among chains that did.

China is a huge consumer of Canadian raw materials, and a huge supplier of cheap crap, highly dependent upon overseas trade. Let's start using that leverage.

-Bill

TELESCOPES

An Introduction

If you're involved in amateur astronomy for any amount of time, you'll start getting interested in a telescope.

These days, there are a number of different types, along with different mounts. We'll explore each of these.

Refractors

Refractors are the oldest type of telescope. They feature a primary, or objective, lens up front, and an eyepiece at the viewing end. You can kit it out with numerous accessories (image erectors, right-angle viewers, finderscopes), but the main design of big lens, little lens, and a shape similar to a baseball bat, usually are the giveaways.

Reflectors

Reflecting telescopes have been around for hundreds of years, in various sub-types. Generally, a reflector can be recognized through its usually more-squat shape, and often the placement of the eyepieces.

Newtonian Reflectors

This sort of telescope, invented by Sir Isaac Newton, features a primary mirror at the end of a long tube. The mirror reflects light back up towards a small secondary mirror, canted at a 45-degree angle, and out the side of the telescope. You can usually spot a Newtonian telescope by the placement of the eyepiece; if they're near the front, it's probably a Newtonian.

Cassegrain Reflectors

This sort of telescope, often referred to as a Catadioptric Telescope, features a mirror mounted flush; the light is bounced off the parabolic primary mirror, up to the secondary mirror, and back down and out through a hole in the primary mirror.

Schmidt-Cassegrain Reflectors

These are similar to cassegrains, except that a correcting 'lens' up front combats spherical aberration. The primary mirror may also be spherical.

Maksutov Reflectors

These are similar to Schmidt-Cassegrains, but the nature of the correcting lens is a little different. Adherents swear by it.


MOUNTS

The telescope mount is just as important as the type of telescope. Again, there are several mount types:

Alt-Azimuth
This is a simple up/down, left/right kind of mount. It's usually the cheapest, and with the advent of computer-controlled mounts, they are much more useful.

Equatorial
This is a more-complicated version, best described as an Alt-Az mount which itself is mounted on a wedge that corresponds to the local latitude. This has the effect of 'tilting' the mount to match the sky; circles in the azimuth will correspond to latitude circles in the sky. This type of mount is unwieldy on larger telescopes.

Dobsonian
This is an exceedingly simple type of mount, usually applied to reflectors more than refractors. Basically, it two arms which come up from a circular, rotating base; each 'arm' cradles a short arm extending from the telescope. This allows the telescope to be moved in altitude and azimuth, manually. Some have turned their 'Dobs' into de-facto equatorial mounts by putting them on a wedge (and taking great care to balance the instrument).

Most people cut their teeth on something like a 60-mm refractor, often on an alt-az mount. I have one of those. I also have one on an equatorial mount; and a four-inch reflector on what I can only describe as a 'bowl-mount'.

If I can offer one piece of advice: don't buy your first telescope at a camera shop or department store. Those tend to be underpowered, overpriced, and on cheap, rickety alt-az mounts. Take some time to peruse Internet ads for telescopes and mounts; it'll give you a feel for the prices of various types of instruments, plus a decent mount. Watch out for "200-power" and "400x" telescopes; generally, magnification that high is useless for astronomical viewing; and if that's what they're emphasizing, you don't want their product.

Have fun! Till next time,

-Bill

A Tuned Three-Foot Cardboard-Box Loop Antenna

In advanced DX'ing, the user almost always turns, at some point, to a tuned loop antenna. Such an antenna vastly amplifies the incoming signal, and is fairly directional; moreover, it can be tuned for maximum performance.

Over the years, I've constructed a number of cardboard-box loops, and in doing so I've hit on some key construction techniques which can save you time.

This particular loop was constructed from four shipping boxes, each approximately 19" x 15"-- a fairly standard size. I've mounted them each on a 90-degree angle from the one before it, to make a strong core and a large box, approximately 34 inches on a side. Here are some pictures--you can see that I've bound the boxes together with duct tape.

As for the wiring, this, too, is easily accomplished. This procedure is for each corner, to make guide holes for your wires: 
- first, measure in a fixed distance from the edge
- second, mark 15 ticks, spaced 5mm to 15mm (I used 10mm).
- now, using a paring or other small knife (in fact, a steak knife works quite well), cut an incision
at each tick mark; make it on a 45-degree angle and about 1 cm deep. Wiggle the knife slightly, to enlarge the hole.

Punch two holes near the first 'corner' you're about to wire. Punch two more near the final hole. You can see what I mean in the finished product:

Take about a foot of one end of your wire, and push it through and around so that it loops between the two holes and then enters the box. (You may have to lift a flap away for this.)

Now, counting from your first corner, wrap 13 turns of wire. Stick with the same hole at each corner, until you reach your starting corner; then move one hole in. Continue in this fashion, then loosely loop the wire through one hole and into the box.

Connect the two loose ends of wire. At this point, your loop should have some basic pickup. If it doesn't, try adding one turn to your wire.

Connect the ends of wire to a tuning capacitor. Try tuning around the band. Remember that for maximum performance, you'll have to re-tune the antenna at every stop.

I note that tuning capacitors are becoming a little scarce. I had the sense to buy up a few, surplus, some years ago; plus I've been cannibalizing old radios as they wear out.

When you are satisfied with the performance of your loop, fasten the far end of wire through the two holes, for a permanent fit.

Other improvements:

You can add some improvements to the loop. One, you'll probably be sitting it on the floor, so protect the underside of it from snagging and stretching. I've used several bands of duct tape, perpendicular to the wires. You might consider adding a cardboard bottom plate.

You can also mount the tuning capacitor, perhaps along the inner core of your loop.

Finally, one benefit: your receiver and even logsheet can rest comfortably on the inside shelf formed by a box. Quite handy--but remember it's in there before you go to move the loop!

Conclusions:

This sort of box design is big--you have no idea how big until you see it physically in front of you. It seems larger than an equivalent framed loop, but it occupies the same dimensions. It can be built in minutes, but is sturdy enough to last a few years. May it give you much entertainment.

-Bill