I just hadn't said it well, or fired near so many rounds to prove it.
Vuurwapen Blog Brings You Another Dead Link
and
Defense Review
Both articles confirmed something I had figured out on my own, the AR is already a piston system. The bolt carrier is a spigot piston. Those articles also show that the "shits where it eats" people should really shut up now. I clean my rifles after every trip to the range more out of a concern for corrosion than carbon because I don't get to shoot as often as I'd like.
In my experience with M16's in the Army, they jammed when using blanks. I never had a single failure with live ammunition. However, that doesn't say much since, as a tank crewman, I didn't shoot the M16 much. One qualification on an M16A1 in OSUT and two quals with my line unit with the M16A2 don't make me an authority, but I did shoot expert!
I noticed that both articles mention that they discarded magazine failures when considering the reliability. I think that is a very telling portion of this debate. I would be fascinated by a study that sees how the AR magazine affects the reliability of other guns.
When I got my first AR15 I still had a Daewoo DR200. I discovered that the AR mags I had on hand worked happily in the DR200 but would mis-feed the third from the last round with the AR. Replacing the black follower with orange Magpul cured the problem in my AR, but there was no issue in the Daewoo. I have always found that very odd.
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
All Comments
31 August 2010
29 August 2010
Truth In Sentencing
I wish to renew my strenuous objection to lifetime bans to owning firearms for felons.
If we feel we cannot trust someone with a gun, I don't think we can trust them outside of a prison.
If I can trust them with knives, gasoline or behind the wheel of a tractor trailer then we can trust them with a gun too.
Comments
If we feel we cannot trust someone with a gun, I don't think we can trust them outside of a prison.
If I can trust them with knives, gasoline or behind the wheel of a tractor trailer then we can trust them with a gun too.
Comments
26 August 2010
What's My Solution To The Fuel For Cars Problem?
Build nuke plants. Make gasoline.
Remember when I said there's naught difference in the tail-pipe emissions? That's because no matter if we're burning gas or E85 we've really got the tail-pipe to CO2, water and some trace compounds for aroma.
The engineers had essentially won the emissions war.
Notice that the debate changes from ozone, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur, etc. and becomes a debate about how much carbon dioxide is emitted once we have sequential multi-port fuel injection and cars that have 436 horsepower getting 30 miles per gallon? To put that in perspective, my '79 Camaro (not emissions legal) got 16 miles per gallon and put out about 200 hp; '86 Civic got 40 mpg, but only had 60 hp and the '91 Biscayne with a '95 engine gets 21 mpg with an output of 250 hp.
EDIT:
The pic is from a 34 mile run from a friend's place to home, almost all interstate running the speed limit.
Do you see the progression?
The irritating thing about this entire, tiresome, debate is that the solution is always the same; no more burning fossil fuels. Since the gas crisis in the early seventies, how many problems have arose where the solution was to stop burning? It's always the same people and organizations finding the problems too. That makes me suspicious.
We had one, count them, one incident with a nuclear reactor in this country. In that incident, the safety systems worked and there was no catastrophe. Compare and contrast Three Mile Island with Chernobyl. Three Mile Island killed nuclear power here because the environmentalists latched onto the accident and got outstandingly sympathetic press.
Step one: Tell the greenies to shut up, fuck off, and get them out of the way.
Step two: Fission baby!
Step three: Use the energy produced to make gas.
Step four: Burn baby burn!
The Germans were making gasoline from scratch in WW2. It's not efficient. We start doing it on a larger scale, we will learn more about the process and then we can refine and improve upon it. What manufacturing gasoline from scratch does is change is from an energy source to a method of energy storage. Other advantages should appear too; this will be very pure gasoline with hardly any of the contaminants found in natural petroleum. Synthetic motor oil has discovered this as well.
It's been said that if gasoline didn't exist, we would have to invent it. I think that's true. It's easily transported, stored, and transferred. It has an amazing energy density. All we have to do is admit that CO2 is not Sarin and let people burn it.
Comments
Remember when I said there's naught difference in the tail-pipe emissions? That's because no matter if we're burning gas or E85 we've really got the tail-pipe to CO2, water and some trace compounds for aroma.
The engineers had essentially won the emissions war.
Notice that the debate changes from ozone, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur, etc. and becomes a debate about how much carbon dioxide is emitted once we have sequential multi-port fuel injection and cars that have 436 horsepower getting 30 miles per gallon? To put that in perspective, my '79 Camaro (not emissions legal) got 16 miles per gallon and put out about 200 hp; '86 Civic got 40 mpg, but only had 60 hp and the '91 Biscayne with a '95 engine gets 21 mpg with an output of 250 hp.
EDIT:
The pic is from a 34 mile run from a friend's place to home, almost all interstate running the speed limit.
Do you see the progression?
The irritating thing about this entire, tiresome, debate is that the solution is always the same; no more burning fossil fuels. Since the gas crisis in the early seventies, how many problems have arose where the solution was to stop burning? It's always the same people and organizations finding the problems too. That makes me suspicious.
We had one, count them, one incident with a nuclear reactor in this country. In that incident, the safety systems worked and there was no catastrophe. Compare and contrast Three Mile Island with Chernobyl. Three Mile Island killed nuclear power here because the environmentalists latched onto the accident and got outstandingly sympathetic press.
Step one: Tell the greenies to shut up, fuck off, and get them out of the way.
Step two: Fission baby!
Step three: Use the energy produced to make gas.
Step four: Burn baby burn!
The Germans were making gasoline from scratch in WW2. It's not efficient. We start doing it on a larger scale, we will learn more about the process and then we can refine and improve upon it. What manufacturing gasoline from scratch does is change is from an energy source to a method of energy storage. Other advantages should appear too; this will be very pure gasoline with hardly any of the contaminants found in natural petroleum. Synthetic motor oil has discovered this as well.
It's been said that if gasoline didn't exist, we would have to invent it. I think that's true. It's easily transported, stored, and transferred. It has an amazing energy density. All we have to do is admit that CO2 is not Sarin and let people burn it.
Comments
25 August 2010
Assumptions
I don't go off half cocked about a lot of car things. I do a lot of research before making conclusions.
The previous post is seven points from a 400 level econ term paper. I got an A, but the paper itself is lost thanks to a failed hard drive.
I am not going to re-research the entire thing just to refute an anonymous commenter. I will point out that when you post chemical reactions, you should use real world data and not theoretical. The reactions listed (and deleted for not signing their post) were correct, for standard temperature and pressure in a pure oxygen environment. Those equations are not correct in an engine combustion chamber. Nitrogen is liberated from the air and sulfur from impurities in the gasoline and oil. No fuel is as pure as that theoretical reaction. You need to crack some college level dynamic forces engineering and do some calculus to get the conditions that you then apply to your chemistry equations. It's messy.
Tailpipe measurements trump theoretical output anyway and the measured results are not as wide as the theoretical.
Other advice, when doing a point by point rebuttal, actually address the point being made; don't change it to an unrelated tangent. For example talking about ease of filling the tank in the point about energy density. I never said E85 was harder to put into the tank than normal gas, I just said it takes a lot more of it to get the same work.
And sign your work! You're posting it, own it. If you don't own it, I toss it.
Do it like this; after you're done, hit return, hyphen twice, then put your name.
--Thag.
The previous post is seven points from a 400 level econ term paper. I got an A, but the paper itself is lost thanks to a failed hard drive.
I am not going to re-research the entire thing just to refute an anonymous commenter. I will point out that when you post chemical reactions, you should use real world data and not theoretical. The reactions listed (and deleted for not signing their post) were correct, for standard temperature and pressure in a pure oxygen environment. Those equations are not correct in an engine combustion chamber. Nitrogen is liberated from the air and sulfur from impurities in the gasoline and oil. No fuel is as pure as that theoretical reaction. You need to crack some college level dynamic forces engineering and do some calculus to get the conditions that you then apply to your chemistry equations. It's messy.
Tailpipe measurements trump theoretical output anyway and the measured results are not as wide as the theoretical.
Other advice, when doing a point by point rebuttal, actually address the point being made; don't change it to an unrelated tangent. For example talking about ease of filling the tank in the point about energy density. I never said E85 was harder to put into the tank than normal gas, I just said it takes a lot more of it to get the same work.
And sign your work! You're posting it, own it. If you don't own it, I toss it.
Do it like this; after you're done, hit return, hyphen twice, then put your name.
--Thag.
24 August 2010
E85
E85 is not a good idea.
1. It's burning food. We're going to need that food someday and having it committed to be burnt is foolish at best.
2. It's not economical. Without massive subsidies it would not be made or sold. It costs more than regular gas to make, ship and store. You might see a lower price at the pump, but that's only because taxes from other places have paid the portion you are not at the moment.
3. It's not economical. Ethyl alcohol is less energy dense than gasoline. To get the same energy out, you must burn more of it. This means you cannot go as far on a tank of fuel and need to fill up more often. This effect is noticeable with even E15 and E10.
4. There's an illusion of "more pep" because it's got a higher octane rating than normal gas. This allows the timing to be run more advanced. This makes things happen sooner, but unlike most other fuels with higher octane; it has a lower energy content. What you are getting is things happening sooner, but actually slower. Put a clock on it. 0-60 is slower. 1/4 mile is slower.
5. The entire reason it exists is based on an enormous fraud! Global warming; or rather Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. We don't have a large effect on the climate and because of that, burning food will not have a positive effect. See the big glowing ball of fusion in the sky that's there ALL DAMN DAY?? There's your climate change engine.
6. It's not doing what you think it's doing. CO2 emissions are essentially identical to normal gasoline combustion. Remember how it takes more E85 to get the same work done? That means that E85 emits more CO2 for the same work as gas. But wait! It gets better! Gas doesn't have the CO2 emissions from tractors planting, tending and harvesting grain. Gas doesn't have CO2 emissions from the distilling process of turning food into alcohol.
1. It's burning food. We're going to need that food someday and having it committed to be burnt is foolish at best.
2. It's not economical. Without massive subsidies it would not be made or sold. It costs more than regular gas to make, ship and store. You might see a lower price at the pump, but that's only because taxes from other places have paid the portion you are not at the moment.
3. It's not economical. Ethyl alcohol is less energy dense than gasoline. To get the same energy out, you must burn more of it. This means you cannot go as far on a tank of fuel and need to fill up more often. This effect is noticeable with even E15 and E10.
4. There's an illusion of "more pep" because it's got a higher octane rating than normal gas. This allows the timing to be run more advanced. This makes things happen sooner, but unlike most other fuels with higher octane; it has a lower energy content. What you are getting is things happening sooner, but actually slower. Put a clock on it. 0-60 is slower. 1/4 mile is slower.
5. The entire reason it exists is based on an enormous fraud! Global warming; or rather Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. We don't have a large effect on the climate and because of that, burning food will not have a positive effect. See the big glowing ball of fusion in the sky that's there ALL DAMN DAY?? There's your climate change engine.
6. It's not doing what you think it's doing. CO2 emissions are essentially identical to normal gasoline combustion. Remember how it takes more E85 to get the same work done? That means that E85 emits more CO2 for the same work as gas. But wait! It gets better! Gas doesn't have the CO2 emissions from tractors planting, tending and harvesting grain. Gas doesn't have CO2 emissions from the distilling process of turning food into alcohol.
7. It's not sustainable! There is not enough arable land on the planet to keep up with the US demand for vehicle fuel, let alone the world. That includes considering using non-edible plants like sawgrass for the feed stock. No matter how you slice this up you are trading food to eat for food to burn. You are deciding that, someday, people will starve so you can drive. Don't even try to say you aren't.
In short, alcohol based fuels are stupid. Crowing the advantages of them makes you look stupid. If this hurts your feelings, I am sorry. Pointing out stuff like this costs me friends. I can't help but think that people wish to be ignorant of how things work deliberately.
EDIT:
The terms "economical" and "sustainable" are used in rebuttal to claims made by boosters of E85. No source of energy is sustainable if you run the time table out far enough. Economical is used where "cheaper" should be, and E85 is not cheaper. If it truly was, then the developers would just put it out there for the market to buy; and a truly cheaper option would sell.
Burning food is really burning the food that food eats since it is made from field corn for the most part. The prices of beef at the supermarket are 50% higher than before the mandate. If that's not true at your local market, check to see if your state has a beef subsidy (Iowa and Texas reportedly do, but I have not confirmed that).
The lack of arable land will eventually matter. The world population is growing and someday we will have to decide between food or fuel on a field that's growing feedstock for alcohol. It's inevitable. It's just as true that we'll eventually have a large enough population that even growing food any place it's possible, there will be famine. Why rush it for nothing?
"True Cost" is exactly that. It's what something costs with all things considered. Cost at the pump is not the true cost, that the adjusted cost. $2.399 (say) for E85 is less the per gallon subsidy paid to the retailer, less the subsidy paid to the manufacturer, less the subsidy paid to the corn farmer. True cost would be $2.399 PLUS all the subsidies. Which is a lot more than the price of an unsubsidized gallon of gasoline, even premium.
Comments
In short, alcohol based fuels are stupid. Crowing the advantages of them makes you look stupid. If this hurts your feelings, I am sorry. Pointing out stuff like this costs me friends. I can't help but think that people wish to be ignorant of how things work deliberately.
EDIT:
The terms "economical" and "sustainable" are used in rebuttal to claims made by boosters of E85. No source of energy is sustainable if you run the time table out far enough. Economical is used where "cheaper" should be, and E85 is not cheaper. If it truly was, then the developers would just put it out there for the market to buy; and a truly cheaper option would sell.
Burning food is really burning the food that food eats since it is made from field corn for the most part. The prices of beef at the supermarket are 50% higher than before the mandate. If that's not true at your local market, check to see if your state has a beef subsidy (Iowa and Texas reportedly do, but I have not confirmed that).
The lack of arable land will eventually matter. The world population is growing and someday we will have to decide between food or fuel on a field that's growing feedstock for alcohol. It's inevitable. It's just as true that we'll eventually have a large enough population that even growing food any place it's possible, there will be famine. Why rush it for nothing?
"True Cost" is exactly that. It's what something costs with all things considered. Cost at the pump is not the true cost, that the adjusted cost. $2.399 (say) for E85 is less the per gallon subsidy paid to the retailer, less the subsidy paid to the manufacturer, less the subsidy paid to the corn farmer. True cost would be $2.399 PLUS all the subsidies. Which is a lot more than the price of an unsubsidized gallon of gasoline, even premium.
Comments
23 August 2010
About That Multi-Name Mosque
Rauf had better be careful about the tack he is taking to put his mosque in a provocative place. That exact same reasoning can be used to justify all manner of businesses that are offensive to Moslems.
Geff mentioned several in his post. http://fuzzy-geff.livejournal.com/3348.html
After getting the thing shoved up our ass under the "first amendment right" justification, you'd better bet that we're going to see all manner of things next door to and across the street from it. Rauf and his buddies had better suck it up and ignore it too. If they resort to the violence that Islam is famous for in retaliation the people opposed to the mosque can say, "Told you so," and rip it down.
Good news though, the heavily unionized construction industry in NYC is basically refusing to work the job. I would hate to attempt to build anything there without the union's cooperation since they are heavily entwined with the building inspectors and code enforcement. "I see the code calls for a type 252-R Pitney Flange here and I don't see one on your plans or on site; let alone the accompanying safety wire on the bolts and there's clearly inadequate grounding for it built into the electrical system. I'm afraid all work must stop until the plans are amended and approved and the site passes a second inspection for compliance. I wouldn't try to get a variance on this on, Judge Steinberg is a stickler for the code as written."
This brings me to another thought about this. I am sick and fucking tired of being told how I have to so gorram tolerant of visitors in my own gorram country while they can shit on the fucking carpet. Want some respect from me? Show some.
Comments
Geff mentioned several in his post. http://fuzzy-geff.livejournal.com/3348.html
After getting the thing shoved up our ass under the "first amendment right" justification, you'd better bet that we're going to see all manner of things next door to and across the street from it. Rauf and his buddies had better suck it up and ignore it too. If they resort to the violence that Islam is famous for in retaliation the people opposed to the mosque can say, "Told you so," and rip it down.
Good news though, the heavily unionized construction industry in NYC is basically refusing to work the job. I would hate to attempt to build anything there without the union's cooperation since they are heavily entwined with the building inspectors and code enforcement. "I see the code calls for a type 252-R Pitney Flange here and I don't see one on your plans or on site; let alone the accompanying safety wire on the bolts and there's clearly inadequate grounding for it built into the electrical system. I'm afraid all work must stop until the plans are amended and approved and the site passes a second inspection for compliance. I wouldn't try to get a variance on this on, Judge Steinberg is a stickler for the code as written."
This brings me to another thought about this. I am sick and fucking tired of being told how I have to so gorram tolerant of visitors in my own gorram country while they can shit on the fucking carpet. Want some respect from me? Show some.
Comments
16 August 2010
In Line With That Hope
I've been reading that the electorate is waking up and becoming engaged. Good! From what my friends have been talking about, that assessment is correct.
People are upset about the state of the State. Also good.
Americans are a generous people. Sometimes to a fault. We give where others pretend not to have heard the call.
Despite the "rude american" image we are also extremely polite. When we are being generous, all we ask is you wipe your feet and don't call Mom a whore. Easy.
While we are generous, we cannot stand moochers. The moochers have us examining the state of affairs with Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and the border.
What we are seeing is our generosity has given our government entirely too much power over our lives and we're not happy about it. The groggy giant smashed the snooze button when it attempted to let Congress know that we DID NOT WANT the health care monstrosity. Congress should have listened.
The upcoming election will be pivotal. If changes aren't made in DC, there will be an uproar. I am not exaggerating that the nation has not been this divided since the Civil War. The percentages are such that if the people in fly-over are ignored gallows could be erected. We want our country back and we're to the point where we're about ready to kill to get it. I would be far better for a vote to decide it.
People are upset about the state of the State. Also good.
Americans are a generous people. Sometimes to a fault. We give where others pretend not to have heard the call.
Despite the "rude american" image we are also extremely polite. When we are being generous, all we ask is you wipe your feet and don't call Mom a whore. Easy.
While we are generous, we cannot stand moochers. The moochers have us examining the state of affairs with Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and the border.
What we are seeing is our generosity has given our government entirely too much power over our lives and we're not happy about it. The groggy giant smashed the snooze button when it attempted to let Congress know that we DID NOT WANT the health care monstrosity. Congress should have listened.
The upcoming election will be pivotal. If changes aren't made in DC, there will be an uproar. I am not exaggerating that the nation has not been this divided since the Civil War. The percentages are such that if the people in fly-over are ignored gallows could be erected. We want our country back and we're to the point where we're about ready to kill to get it. I would be far better for a vote to decide it.
13 August 2010
Hope
Something I most definitely need now.
http://snarkybytes.com/2010/08/08/america-fuck-yeah/#comments
I'll add though:
The US has not been this divided since the Civil War. He's correct in pointing out that we were more divided though.
He points out Jim Crow and the Indian Wars as examples of the "police state" being worse than now; I beg to differ. The scope is smaller now, but the scale is far larger with a clear intent of making it worse.
However, I join him in his optimism for what the future holds.
http://snarkybytes.com/2010/08/08/america-fuck-yeah/#comments
I'll add though:
The US has not been this divided since the Civil War. He's correct in pointing out that we were more divided though.
He points out Jim Crow and the Indian Wars as examples of the "police state" being worse than now; I beg to differ. The scope is smaller now, but the scale is far larger with a clear intent of making it worse.
However, I join him in his optimism for what the future holds.
11 August 2010
10 August 2010
Quote Of The Random Interval
"The traditional reward for fighting out of uniform was a drumhead trial, a blindfold and a cigarette, (although we probably wouldn't use the cigarette these days because they cause cancer.)"
Tam. From: http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/08/like-twisted-disney-cartoon.html
Tam. From: http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/08/like-twisted-disney-cartoon.html
09 August 2010
06 August 2010
03 August 2010
Mayhem In Mass
Approximately thirty people were killed in Massachusetts during a "blogger shoot". The presence of semiautomaticassaultweapons is suspected to be the principle cause of the carnage.
Several of the bloggers slain in the massacre claim that nobody was hurt, let alone killed, but we all know how "those people" lie.
http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2010/08/bloggershoot-recap-round-two.html
Several of the bloggers slain in the massacre claim that nobody was hurt, let alone killed, but we all know how "those people" lie.
http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2010/08/bloggershoot-recap-round-two.html
02 August 2010
Everything Old Is New Again
The new M855A1 round has an exposed steel tip to increase penetration against hard targets.
Gene Stoner added a 4-40 screw to the nose of some early 5.56x45mm, creating an exposed steel tip, to accomplish much the same thing back when there wasn't even an XM16 yet...
Gene Stoner added a 4-40 screw to the nose of some early 5.56x45mm, creating an exposed steel tip, to accomplish much the same thing back when there wasn't even an XM16 yet...
I Suspected But Could Not Prove
I've said for a long time that the media spoke with a suspiciously unified voice.
I had attributed it to there being so very few owners of the large outlets and that they just happened to agree with one another.
The recent kerfluffle about JournaList shows that the members of the media are willing to conspire to push their agenda. Conspire and lie about it.
This explains a great deal.
It was impossible to talk about how Bill Clinton committed perjury when all we could talk about was that getting fellatio was OK or even admirable.
When the topic was how admirable fellatio was, it was impossible to talk about how that act was sexual harassment.
It was impossible to talk about how I disagreed with Bush Jr's spending when I had to prove he wasn't Hitler.
It was impossible to express my concerns about how Obama assassinated the character of Joe the Plumber while attempting to explain that Sarah Palin wasn't really a moron.
I couldn't talk about my concerns about how the Obama campaign squelched the local media in Missouri or how ACORN might have been committing voter registration fraud when the media flat refused to report on it and was unified about how the one channel, Fox, that talked about it was wholly owned by the Republican party. I notice that nobody is talking much about how the margin of error in the Minnesota senate campaign was determined by illegally registered felons.
Never mind that if the Republicans owning Fox is wrong, then the Democrats owning the rest is just as wrong.
A republic hinges on a well informed electorate. Intentional misinformation runs counter to the needs of a free nation. I would call it treasonous; I am not alone.
Comments
I had attributed it to there being so very few owners of the large outlets and that they just happened to agree with one another.
The recent kerfluffle about JournaList shows that the members of the media are willing to conspire to push their agenda. Conspire and lie about it.
This explains a great deal.
It was impossible to talk about how Bill Clinton committed perjury when all we could talk about was that getting fellatio was OK or even admirable.
When the topic was how admirable fellatio was, it was impossible to talk about how that act was sexual harassment.
It was impossible to talk about how I disagreed with Bush Jr's spending when I had to prove he wasn't Hitler.
It was impossible to express my concerns about how Obama assassinated the character of Joe the Plumber while attempting to explain that Sarah Palin wasn't really a moron.
I couldn't talk about my concerns about how the Obama campaign squelched the local media in Missouri or how ACORN might have been committing voter registration fraud when the media flat refused to report on it and was unified about how the one channel, Fox, that talked about it was wholly owned by the Republican party. I notice that nobody is talking much about how the margin of error in the Minnesota senate campaign was determined by illegally registered felons.
Never mind that if the Republicans owning Fox is wrong, then the Democrats owning the rest is just as wrong.
A republic hinges on a well informed electorate. Intentional misinformation runs counter to the needs of a free nation. I would call it treasonous; I am not alone.
Comments
01 August 2010
Out
Instead of the party of no, I want the party of out.
Out of my gun cabinet.
Out of my medicine chest.
Out of my cigarette case.
Out of my humidor.
Out of my liquor cabinet.
Out of my marriage.
Out of my bedroom.
Out of my bank account.
Out of my garage.
Out of my life!
That covers it; generally and specifically.
Out of my gun cabinet.
Out of my medicine chest.
Out of my cigarette case.
Out of my humidor.
Out of my liquor cabinet.
Out of my marriage.
Out of my bedroom.
Out of my bank account.
Out of my garage.
Out of my life!
That covers it; generally and specifically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)