Posts Made By: James C Chandler Jr

Maurice Clark said:

Hi Jim,

Interesting question. In Australia the govt offers a $3000 rebate for anyone converting a car from petrol to LPG (from a cost of about $3500). Petrol is currently around $1.40 per litre against LPG around $0.45. So many people are converting their cars. I have just bought a car already converted for this reason.

Thanks Maurice

What is the relative km/liter of gasoline versus LPG? IOW, does a liter of LPG have less, more, or about the same energy as gasoline, as is usable by an auto?

Just curious, because alcohol or hydrogen for instance in the USA, do not currently have as good mileage as gasoline or diesel in current-implemented vehicles. So to drive the same distance, you need a bigger tank for alcohol or hydrogen. And of course one considers miles-per-dollar rather than miles-per-gallon, at least if using economics to make the decision.

Hi John

If the gene treatment were perfect in every way, unambiguously 100 percent effective with no side-effects and no unintended consequences, and everyone could be convinced of those 'facts', am still not certain if everyone would go for it. Or even if a majority would go for it.

In the real world, even if the treatment were perfect, few would be convinced of its perfection.

And in the real world, it WOULD have side-effects and tragic examples where individuals were crippled from the treatment (as statistically happens with ALL 'good' treatments).

It seems likely that there would be HUGE unintended consequences. Any aggression gene complex is probably intimately interrelated with such 'good' characteristics as creativity, industriousness, innovation, bravery in fighting fires or rescuing natural disaster victims.

If a totally non-violent person happens to remain motivated to wander into the woods, and is attacked by a bear or wild dogs or whatever, would he be able to capably defend himself? Maybe there wouldn't even be much motivation to use the can of Bear Spray?

===

A workable end of war might be some variant of Pax Romana, or the method from the SF Movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still"-- Essentially, "You folks settle down or you will all be killed."

Nuclear weapons have been amazingly successful (so far) in avoiding WW III. I sometimes think the world needs MORE nuclear nations, not less. If most nations, even the wacky ones, were nuclear-armed-- Eventually a couple of squabbling nations would wipe themselves off the planet, and it would be an object lesson which would bring great sanity to international relations for a long time afterwards. Though people are such slow learners, the lesson might have to be repeated every century or so...

Hi Tom

I bought a CPC 1100 (slightly) used and the original owner supplied some nice addons. Am not expert on C-11. Here are some speculations maybe someone will kindly correct if they are wrong.

I measure about 54mm diameter in the rear of the internal baffle. Just peering up thru the baffle from the rear, it looks like the baffle is about 12 inches long, and appears to widen out slightly toward the front of the baffle.

A refractor 2" diagonal is about 50.4 mm diameter on the 'outside', and a few mm less on the 'inside' light path. Since the converging light path has to travel several inches thru the diagonal to the eyepiece, then whatever is vignetted by the front aperture of the diagonal would be 'smaller than that' by the time the light cone reaches the eyepiece field lens.

Am guessing that a 2" diagonal is about as wide-open as is practical on a C-11. One would only get a few mm diameter increase by finding some esoteric diagonal/focuser with inside diameter larger than 2"? The widening diameter at the front of that long baffle-- the widening doesn't look extreme enough to me, that you would have a 54mm diameter un-vignetted light cone at the rear of the baffle. Am guessing the light cone gets vignetted somewhere farther up that long baffle. Am guessing the practical light cone is somewhat smaller than 2" at the rear of the baffle.

My CPC 1100 came with an addon Astro-Physics 2" visual back which screws onto to 3.25" C-11 back threads. This AP part is a fine impressive hunk of machining for such a 'surprising low' price. Its great!

http://www.buytelescopes.com/product.aspx?p_id=5668&store_id=2&did=4

Already had a 2" refractor diagonal, which works just fine in the AP visual back. The AP visual back is probably about as 'open' as one will get.

Some have alleged that the C-11 max true field of view is about 1 degree. An Orion 38mm Q70 doesn't seem to vignette in the CPC 1100, about 70 degrees AFOV, about 0.95 degree TFOV and 74X mag. With a pricier/heavier eyepiece-- ferinstance a Celestron 2" Axiom LX 31mm would have about 0.91 degree TFOV at 90X.

OTOH, in 1.25" eyepieces, a Pan24 gets about 0.58 degree TFOV at 117X. An 18mm Meade 5000 UW has about 0.51 degree TFOV at 156X. A less-expensive Celestron Axiom LX 15mm (nice for the money IMO), has about 0.44 degree TFOV at 187X.

So I doubt if will anytime soon buy any 'premium' big heavy UWA 2" eyepieces with focal length > 24mm. The $100 Q70 works pretty well, but since about 1 degree TFOV is the max, it seems easier to mainly use 1.25" 'good quality' medium-focal length EP's. The Pan24 or Meade 18mm UW TFOV's are not drastically narrower than 'the max' available from the C-11. I don't often use the Q70. The Meade 18mm UW seems the 'most-used' EP so far in the CPC 1100.

Folks say that a 2" dielectric diagonal is better than 1.25" dielectric diagonal, even with 1.25" eyepieces, because the central area of a 2" diagonal can be more accurate than the 1.25" diagonal. Given so much money spent on a C-11, it doesn't seem irresponsible to spend a little on the AP visual back and a 2" diagonal, even if mostly using 1.25" eyepieces?

Tom Duncan said:

Does the use of the standard 1.25" visual back restrict the visual image in any real way with a C11 Celestron? I have read various discussions but haven't run into the definitive treatise yet (except for Eye Openers webpage, but its still very fuzzy to me). It seems it may be an issue with long focal length eyepieces, and it seems obvious it is not with shorter eyepices, but at what focal length eyepiece does it start to become an issue? Is there a chart or diagram somewhere? I have virtually no interest in imaging, and I want to make sure I am getting all the C11 is willing to deliver. Seems like a pretty small hole back there compared to the size of the tube! I like Moonlights solution for both restricted light path and a truly awful focus feel of the C11 whereby they just bolt a spacer block onto the 3.5" threads on the back of the C11 tube, and then have a 2" Crayford hung onto that. I am planning on doing that to improve the focus experience when the budget allows.

Thanks in advance for any and all responses.

Oddog

My CPC 1100 came with an addon FeatherTouch SCT Microfocuser knob. This one:

http://starizona.com/acb/Feathertouch-SCT-MicroFocuser---Celestron-CPC-1100-P2518C654.aspx

That one is for CPC 1100 only. They sell a slightly different one for other C-11's--

http://starizona.com/acb/Feathertouch-SCT-MicroFocuser---Celestron-11-except-CPC-1100-P982C654.aspx

Dunno if the replacement Microfocuser is 'smoother' than the stock knob when twisting the 1:1 knob. Dunno if the Microfocuser is supposed to reduce mirror flop, or whether the only advantage is the 10:1 fine focus knob.

I do see some mirror flop, but it isn't bad for visual use on mine. Unless the Microfocuser somehow makes the thing work smoother, I'd be happy with the original stock focuser. Turning the 'big' 1:1 knob easily gets real close to focus on mine, though supposedly there is product variation and some are not so good. In fact, I rarely can get focus improvements using the 10:1 knob. There is some backlash in the mirror movement. To avoid backlash, have tried moving the 'big knob' till it is a little out of focus in one direction, then using the 'little knob' to take up the backlash and move to a perfect focus. But in my experience, the end result doesn't seem much better than just carefully adjusting the big knob. Using the little knob, it gives about the same focus result, but takes longer to achieve .

If I add another focuser, will probably use some kind of helical focuser on the front or back-end of the diagonal. Borg makes some nice helical focusers. I have one of the small rotating Borg helical focusers which works nicely, but haven't yet tried it in the CPC 1100.

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/vis-acc/diag.htm

For 1.25" use only, the one I have is DP36.4 prism diagonal with Borg 4317 rotating helical focuser.

You can also find 1.25" helical focusers that sit down in a 2" diagonal. Orion sells one, though some folks say the thing isn't very precisely made.

Borg also sells big-aperture non-rotating helical focusers that could be attached to the front-end of a 2" diagonal. But those get into similar price ranges as crayford focusers. But if dropping the big-bucks on a focuser, perhaps a big Borg non-rotating focuser would add less distance on the back of the scope, compared to the Crayfords.

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/borg/parts/html/7835.htm

They sell an SCT adapter for that 7835 focuser, but it looks like it uses the sct 'small threads' rather than the 'big threads', so might affect aperture.

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/borg/parts/html/7428.htm

The Hutech folks are very nice answering email, and they have about a zillion parts and adapters.

Am gonna try making a simple rotating 2" to 1.25" drop-in helical focuser to experiment with on the CPC 1100. I don't use 2" eyepiece with it very much.

Hi Lee

That seems a good linked article.

Some random thoughts-- One must practice somewhat to be accurate enough to 'safely' use a handgun, so the firearm ought to be comfortable enough to run some rounds thru for some practicing.

If the arthritis reduces finger strength, then a light trigger pull would be desirable.

On the other hand (and I may be too conservative here)-- I have some pistols with light triggers that I use for target practice, but the ones I carry or would grab the middle of the night, are double-action with stiff action. A self-defense shooting is about as serious an action as a civilian might ever take, and I don't want a trigger action light enough that there is much chance of accidentally firing the weapon under stress. But unless someone is REALLY GOOD, target-practice accuracy suffers with a stiff double-action trigger.

When taking concealed-carry course, the instructor told of a Glock lawsuit case of a fellow who owned (IIRC) a pizzaria, who bought his Glock and never fired it at all. Just loaded it an put it under the cash register for defense.

Later on, defending a robbery, the fellow fired the first round so limp-wristed that the action didn't cycle correctly, and the robber shot him after the store-owner could only get off one round. The customer sued Glock because the gun was 'defective', but Glock won because it was judged that the shooter was the defective part of the system. However, if someone with arthritis doesn't have sufficient wrist strength to hold a semi-auto fairly rigid, then maybe they could have the same problem of the weapon not cycling properly?

Maybe a double-action Glock for the mother-in-law, since the action is simple, but much lighter/smoother than most double-action pistols? Assuming her wrist is strong enough?

The S&W J-Frame revolver grip is the 'easiest to grab and hold tight' grip I've used. A very secure, comfortable grip. Maybe a .38 stainless S&W J-Frame? They are heavy enough that .38 recoil ain't all that bad. The factory trigger is usually pretty stiff, but a good gunsmith could inexpensively do a trigger job to smooth up the action and optionally lighten it up a little.

This S&W 649 has the style of grip I like so much-- Slim & long with the three finger slots (S&W has some other style grips on some other J-Frames)--

http://tinyurl.com/2alhq7

Had trigger jobs done on the S&W 586 and the little 649, and they work pretty smooth double-action. In single-action, the trigger is so light that you really don't want to cock the thang unless it is pointed at something you already definitely decided to shoot-at. But the single-action pull was really light on those two specimens before the trigger job, so the trigger job didn't really make the single-action 'more hair-trigger' than it was from the factory.

Unless mother-in-law wants to carry in her purse, a revolver with a longer barrel ought to be as-good-or-better for home defense. More accurate. But that style of grip is to be desired IMO, to keep a good hold on the thang.

Here is a 5" barrel J-Frame revolver (they also have a 3" barrel, in addition to the snubbies):

http://tinyurl.com/25xv5s

A dedicated .38 might be better than a .357, though .38's shoot fine in the .357's. When first learning, I shot a few hundred .38's in the 649. Thought I was cleaning the gun adequately, but after hundreds of .38 rounds, there was enough 'hard to see' burnt-on residue in that deepest tenth inch of the cylinder, that it took a REALLY dedicated scrubbing before .357's would chamber. So if mother-in-law got a .357 to exclusively shoot .38's, and then you eventually inherit the gun, it would be a serious cleaning before you could use .357 in that gun...

Lee Spain said:

Has everyone given up on investing? Things must be getting bad. Are you guys investing in jiffy corn bread mix, ramen noodles, flour, canned ravioli, ammunition, extra fishing hooks, etc.? 8O

Precious metals deflated about the same time as the stock/bond market last fall, and spent a few months chopping sideways. But the last week or two it seems to be heading consistently up. Folks who buy personal-storage metals are a different type than the ones who trade paper money for paper (or electronic-recorded) stocks/bonds. But one might suspect that the type of person who invests in metals has decided that they are printing SO MUCH MONEY, that inflation will make money more worthless than metals?

A shame the metals price dip was so short-term, because I'm too conservative to buy ANYTHING except at fire-sale prices. And too conservative to 'bet the farm' putting a lot of money on one thing. Prices have risen enough that it's no longer a no-brainer to buy metals at this moment. More of a gamble, but still better prices than the last couple of years. The last few years prices were so high I didn't buy any metals at all. At least metals prices haven't yet recovered up to the "You've got to be kidding" range.

On modest metals purchased last fall, I could convert it back to cash at about a 20 percent profit right now. Not bad for holding a couple of months. Of course it would be foolish to convert it back to dollars unless one needed dollars to spend RIGHT NOW. And of course the price of the metals could fall thru the floor tomorrow. Aint no sure thang.

I have a couple thousand rounds of ammo, but that is another possible no-brainer investment to think about. Haven't checked availability recently, but seems a no-brainer that ammo ain't gonna get cheaper. Maybe a sure thang to invest in the metals brass, lead, copper, conveniently bundled in those little cylindrical packages with the tasty nitrate nougat (grin).

Chris Nisbet said:

I live in the Minneapolis MN area and cannot find ammo for my 9mm and .45 Ruger pistols. The stores say that when they get a shipment in, people come in and buy the whole shipment. I've been to several Wal-Marts and sports stores to no avail. Even the stores that are charging 40-50% more than the Wal-Mart price are out. Anybody else seeing this in their area of the counrty?

Chris
Cedar,MN

Hi Chris

Haven't looked at local stores, but would guess the same is true. Called a local store last december about a Beretta Storm, and he said 'just call back' that he was sold out to the bare walls waiting on stock.

Midway.com is sold out of the pistol ammo I would want. They seem to have FMJ and LRN available, and some flat point, but no types of hollow point. The main reason I like hollow point is because it cuts easily-visible holes in paper targets. Often with LRN or FMJ, can't even see if I hit the target, because it cuts a 'flap' in the paper rather than a clean hole. And I prefer to shoot the same style ammo as defense rounds, even if loaded to light target loads, just so it would expose any potential feed problems. Flatpoint or wadcutter lead would cut a clean hole, but it is too much hassle cleaning lead out of the barrels.

Midway is also sold out of any reload bullet components I'd want.

sportsmansguide.com lists some pistol ammo I could use, but rarely exactly what I'd want. I have certain preferences in bullet weight, because accuracy seems better if you always shoot the same thing. But the ammo prices are not fabulous, and it isn't guaranteed they actually have stock. They are a good reliable company to order from, but sometimes they will take an order then email the next day on a few items which might be 'recently sold out'. So they don't charge for out-of-stock items, but its not 100% known if they are in-stock until after you order.

dillonprecision.com lists a few things sold out, but most reloading components are not listed as out-of-stock. So unless Dillon has not been maintaining their website, perhaps dillon has stock of the requisite reloading components. But they don't seem to carry much loaded ammo. Its been awhile since I looked at dillon until this weekend, so maybe they routinely carry loaded ammo but have removed listings for sold-out items. Dunno. In the past they would carry some loaded ammo.

Dillon is a fine company with some of the best customer service in the biz, the only disadvantage being they are a little on the high-price end of the spectrum.

I haven't been shooting much the last year. Been busy remodeling the house, and adopted a separation-anxiety neglected coonhound who is the sweetest dawg you could find, but he has severe ADHD and just about has a nervous breakdown if I leave him alone. He's getting a little better.

Been reloading with a Dillon Square Deal B press for about 8 years. Only light JHP target loads. Am not confident enough to handload defense ammo. Am not mechanically-inclined, and got into the reloading to save money on ammo. Self-reloaded JHP ammo seems at least half-price compared to retail.

After getting into reloading, the big surprise, even considering how klutzy I am with mechanical things, is that my hand-load ammo turned out MUCH more accurate than top-of-the-line commercial loaded ammo. One would expect that a big factory like Winchester or Federal could make more consistent ammo than a thumb-fingered amateur could manufacture. But for whatever reason, it seems that carefully hand-loaded ammo really is more accurate than the factory stuff. So the accuracy keeps me handloading in addition to the cost savings.

I have a few hundred rounds in stock of favorite calibers, and components for a few hundred more. Been figuring on ordering a thousand or so more in 9mm, .380, .357, if Dillon really does have stock. Then try to find time to turn the components into ammo. The JHP preference, and weight preference is the same for reloading components. Am klutzy enough, that once I get the press setup for a certain size/weight of bullet, don't wanna go to the hassle of calibrating the press for some other bullet. Am a very lazy feller .

By Biden's definition, the tax evaders in the cabinet are un-patriotic. Daschle himself, a few years back, said that people who don't pay their taxes cheat us all.

Charles Cunningham said:

You'd really rather see the country crash and burn than have to admit you were wrong? Some might think that was un-American.

I can't speak for JB, but IMO if such as this stimulus plan passes it will cause the country to crash and burn.

Years ago on the Compuserve gun forum, there were a lot of purportedly knowlegable folks, but they couldn't agree about defense rounds. Any brand praised by some guys, would be slammed by others. I couldn't find a round 'generally recommended by everybody', and the premium defense ammo is way expensive (duh).

Right or wrong, decided that it is low-probability that a gun would ever be used for defense. Even lower probability of confronting King Kong on PCP . Figured it is most important that you can hit the target and that the ammo always goes bang. Decided to go with mid-price ammo with good reliability reputation.

9mm 115 gr JHP Winchester or Remington
357 Mag 158 gr SJHP Winchester or Remington
.380 ACP 95 gr Winchester Personal Protection SXT

There was thought given to those bullet weights at the time, but it was so long ago I can't recall the reasoning.

On each range visit I'll shoot empty the defense ammo loaded in each pistol, to make sure it always goes bang. Then maybe run 50 or 100 rounds of practice ammo. The defense ammo only gets gradually depleted.

Needed to order more defense ammo and decided to try Hornady JHP XTP. Some folks say the Hornady JHP XTP is OK ammo.

Sportsmans Guide wasn't terribly backordered on Hornady JHP XTP. It comes 25 to a box and is supposed to arrive sometime this week.

.357 Mag 158 gr JHP XTP, 50 rds-- $35
9mm 124 gr JHP XTP, 50 rds-- $28
.380 ACP 90 gr JHP XTP, 50 rds-- $28

Not horribly expensive, but would be too expensive except occasional test-firing. It is hardly the most expensive ammo one can find .

Decided to switch from 9mm 115 gr to 9mm 124 gr because that is the weight I always use for target reloads. It would give the same bullet OAL between defense and target ammo, for more confidence against surprise feeding failures.