Posts Made By: James C Chandler Jr

Hi Thomas

I shopped for electronic muffs about a year ago and read a lot of user reviews, and the $60 Howard Leight Impact™ Sport Earmuff seemed better-reviewed than many of the more expensive units. I think review 'stars' tend to be higher for less-expensive gadgets that do not have obvious serious problems, compared to more-expensive gadgets that are relatively defect-free. But many of the more-expensive electronic muffs had too many user reports of failures and mis-performance for my taste.

The Howard Leight electronic muffs have worked fine for a year. The amplification seems relatively clean, and the sound-reduction seems immediate enough to protect against sound pain from gunfire. I've only used them outside, and they seem adequate by themselves for protection on non-loud guns.

===

I've always used earplugs + muffs even with the old passive muffs, especially with loud guns. Hearing is worth protection.

One earplug I've used since the 1980's, initially for sound protection on loud music stages, is the etymotyx ER-20 (which last a long time and cost about $15)--

http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/er20.aspx

These do not have the absolute max sound attenuation, but they are comfortable and they have a relatively flat frequency response. They don't have a 'plugged up' feeling in the head.

Most high-attenuation earplugs are not flat, and attenuate high freqs more than low freqs. For music use, from my experience an earplug is useless unless the frequency response is relatively flat. There can also be annoying 'rumble' problems with non-flat frequency response earplugs.

The ER-20 flat attenuation is also (to me) more pleasant for protection from machinery noises or gunfire, because it is easier to understand speech when the frequency response is flat.

For ultra super loud sounds, an ER-20 or a typical muff is not sufficient protection alone (in my opinion). But using both together works well.

===

Another not-expensive earplug I've used since the 1970's are the 'sound valve' type. Sold under various names. Here is one apparently aimed at the shooting market and perhaps more suitable than a generic sonic valve.

http://earplugstore.stores.yahoo.net/health-enterprises-acu-life-shooters-impact-ear-plugs.html

The plug is not quite as comfortable if used for many hours on my ear canal, compared to ER-20, but it doesn't get annoying for a couple of hours. They may fit other folks better. My ear canal may be a little smaller than average.

They have a small metal cylinder containing a captive silicone diaphragm. Under low-noise conditions the valve is 'open' and the plug only has about 6 dB attenuation. Loud sounds flutter the valve against the seats, stopping loud impulsive sounds with a much higher attenuation.

They are good for hammering or machine noises because they don't affect hearing except in presence of loud noise. The stock sonic valves are not so good for gunfire (by themselves), because they don't seem to work fast enough to stop the first loud impulse. The item listed above may be better. Haven't tried that model.

They are also not good for loud music protection for a musician or soundman, because the valve fluttering causes too much intermodulation distortion for hifi sound.

But I use them a lot along with earmuffs when shooting. The extra 6 dB attenuation adds significantly to the muff attenuation, and if an awesomely loud gunshot happens close by, the valve increases attenuation more if the muff can't handle it alone. Since the low-level attenuation is only 6 dB, it is a little easier to hear speech with passive muff + sonic valve. Hearing speech is mostly impossible with passive muff + ER-20. You might as well be stone-deaf.

===

The combination of electronic muff + earplug is very good IMO. I can crank the gain of the electronic muff loud enough to offset the attenuation of the earplug, so that hearing is as good or better than normal when there is no shooting. I can hear folks talking down at the other end of the range. But on each gunshot, the electronics mute, and I get the full protection of muff + plugs, which ought to be in excess of -30 dB.

jeff glancy said:

When you're in power give away the ranch (via tax cuts, non enforcement, etc.) to those who own you and toss a bone to the peasants. Wrap your agenda in the God and the flag then spend like hell and borrow, borrow, borrow. Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.

Time for a third party.

Yup, Barry Goldwater and George McGovern were not all that far away from each other, compared to the polarization of today.

A well-reasoned message, Floyd.

A year ago I was wondering why they need 2000 page omnibus bills. Too many possible unintended consequences and legislative mistakes and even simple typing errors that might cause massive problems down the line once the bureaucrats interpret and implement the faulty paragraph 8 on page 1207 or whatever. With something that big, such things are inevitable.

Was wondering why they can't just pass one or more focused 1 page laws that do one thing in a quasi-predictable manner. If the one-page law turns out a bad idea, just repeal or modify that simple single thing rather than doing the equivalent of metastasized cancer surgery trying to rip a single flaw embedded thruout a 2000 page document. Modifying the one-page law is much more do-able.

My first preference would be a simple drug reimportation law. It would have some flaws, because it would basically be using nations such as Canada as bludgeons to move drug companies down on their USA prices. But supply and demand would take over. If the drug company can't make enough money selling drug X and quits making it, but drug X has enough market, it would eventually be made and sold again at a price that the seller can afford and the market will bear.

Was surprised watching the moaning on MSNBC last night, that one of the liberal pundits was saying that they should have made a series of targeted small laws rather than trying to cram thru the omnibus reform. So its not exactly like this idea is a wacky right-wing concept.

I hope Obama spends lots of time this year personally campaigning HARD for each and every democrat up for election this fall. Not only for the effect of his reverse-polarity coat tails, but it would keep him too busy to spend much time further 'improving' the economy. There is only so much of his help we can stand before it falls apart entirely.

Paul Kammueller said:

In yet another 5-4 decision, the activist court has decided it's time to privatize government. Now Exxon or whoever the biggest most moneyed corporation (or maybe domestic subsidiary of a Chinese corporation 8O ) is will be able to buy up all the airtime for whatever elections/districts they need to go their way.

I find it unnerving the court's notion that a corporation or association has the same constitutional rights as a human being. I would think our inalienable rights would be reserved for humans. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned. But to me a corporation (or association or labor union or whatever) is basically a machine, not a person. A corporation is a tool for accomplishing things. It is not a person with an emotional need for civil liberties or human rights. This is like giving rights to a refigerator or a toaster or something. So, having gone this far, do we start letting corporations have votes in the next elections as well?

Two corporations that joined hands opposing McCain-Feingold awhile ago, were Planned Parenthood and National Rifle Association. The law hurt both of em in politicking for their hobby horses. All those millions of evil special interest individual citizens sending in their $25 apiece, muzzled in their 'aggregate freedom of speech' in days prior to elections. Sierra Club. SPLC. Unions. Evil corporations muzzled.

Just enforce strict disclosure laws and let it go.

Thats a sweet pup, Lee!

Unless tech progress makes space travel cheap enough for private enterprise, the USA will never return to the moon (or beyond) until all earthly problems have been solved. IOW, NEVER.

From the 01-28-10 Tampa town hall.

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/01/28/HP/R/28952/President+in+Florida+Announces+new+highspeed+rail+program.aspx

Biden spoke about 9.5 minutes, at a reasonable rate of 1.6 personal references per minute. One personal reference per 38 seconds.

Then BHO made 115 personal references in 29 minutes. 3.92 personal references per minute. One personal reference per 15.13 seconds.

This is a much lower rate than the amazing Ohio speech a few days ago. Perhaps he just didn't feel so stuck on himself at Tampa, but there were mitigating factors which suppressed the score--

1. It was an unusually slow-paced speech with many "contemplative pauses".

2. The speech contained numerous long applause gaps.

3. Appearing with Biden, BHO delivered many of his stock lines "I don't quit", "I won't stop fighting", etc, using "we" rather than "I", because he was speaking for both himself and Biden. The same speech solo sans the Biden prop, using the same stock phrases, would have boosted the reference count immensely.

This may be a good strategy so he can avoid the compulsion of using inordinate personal references which an ordinary person could avoid-- Make more appearances with Biden so that BHO can substitute "We" for "I" more often.

Another option, if he begins to spend larger percentages of his time at Hotel Megalomania-- Just adopt the royal "We" as commonly used by Tudor kings and other European royalty.

The man's stammer seems worsening. If the speech pattern continues to degrade, BHO may eventually become as incomprehensible as GWB. GWB's speech patterns also degraded over time, though GWB was never a talented speaker. Stress of office in both cases perhaps?

The distilled essence of the speech:

http://errnum.com/tmpaudio/I_Me_Obama_Tampa.mp3

There was one idea that perhaps a near-term achievable interstellar probe could use a very small probe accelerated to high velocity with a light sail or magnetohydrodynamic ion sail. Dunno enough to judge feasibility.

The launch power would come from massive solar power stations at about the orbit of Mercury. The solar power stations would drive enormous lasers which would track the out-going probe for months or years constantly accelerating it out of the system. That way the probe wouldn't need onboard reaction mass or propulsive power, and could be accelerated to a pretty decent velocity.

Unless robotics gets awfully dern fancy, that plan would imply at least a few folks out there mining asteroids and building massive solar-powered laser stations. A pretty far-fetched task for a nation that soon can't even afford to shuttle astronauts to low earth orbit;

jeff glancy said:

Spend 45 minutes with Jeff Rubin. Lots to think about, and if he's right it's a pretty good road map as to where and on what to place your bets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg&feature=player_embedded#

Rubin presents interesting ideas.

It covers similar ground with a bit more optimism, as James Howard Kunstler's 2005 "The Long Emergency". His article was also later expanded to a book with the same title.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency

Kunstler's future is slightly more optimistic than "We're all gonna die", but only slightly .

Kunstler is for instance more optimistic than famous Gaia Theorist James Lovelock, who seems convinced that almost everyone will die shortly after he does.

http://tinyurl.com/3gektn

Such predictions somewhat resemble secular variants of Millenarianism. Ain't criticizing. Maybe the predictions are right-on. Regardless of the veracity of the predictions, they seem sociologically similar to millenarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism

"Millenarian groups claim that the current society and its rulers are corrupt, unjust, or otherwise wrong. They therefore believe they will be destroyed soon by a powerful force. The harmful nature of the status quo is always considered intractable without the anticipated dramatic change. "

=====

Rubin makes fairly specific short-term predictions. He can be fact-checked as soon as 2015.

I've wondered whether increased transportation costs would make domestic manufacturing more cost-effective. Perhaps.

On the other hand, coal-powered container ships are not impossible. Nuclear-powered container ships are not impossible. Perhaps a world of expensive oil would see gigantic coal-powered container ships delivering cheap goods from China, returning to China filled to the brim with cheap USA coal. Tennessee has lots more oil than Saudi Arabia if TN coal were converted to liquid form (which is quite industrially feasible).

Anyway, am not a forecaster and dunno what the future will bring. It just seems assumptive that expensive oil will definitely cause X or Y. There is the off-chance that new tech would change the game at the last minute. I'm not relying on this deus ex machina, but OTOH new tech factors turned Malthus' and Paul Ehrlich's predictions to crap .

The argument that carbon credits will allow punitive tariffs on Asian goods-- Tariffs rarely turn out beneficial. History shows that tariffs and economic warfare often warm up into real warfare. Maybe it would be all different this time.

=====

Dunno if expensive oil would depopulate the burbs. Folks move to burbs because they don't like cities. I suspect expensive oil would just cause burbanites to stop commuting to the city. For instance, I doubt if Tony would be all that eager to move downtown just because gas gets expensive .

So how do you make money off Rubin's crystal ball? Invest in Al Gore's carbon credit company? Buy US Steel stock?