The Subtle Ramblings of a Not So Madman

Birth of a Telescope

2010-12-13T11:56:00.000-08:00

I've been lagging on posting things, but I try to catch up.
This is an ongoing project I've been wanting to do for some time. I've always wanted a telescope where I could actually see things: rings of Saturn, stripes on Jupiter, and even their moons. So, I eventually set out to do this, and here is that story.

Parts List (so far):
NOTE: I did get most parts from Surplusshed.com
Telescope objective 102mm x 900mmFL Item No: L2801
1-1/4" FOCUSER Item No: L3631
1-1/4" MIRROR STAR DIAGONAL Item No:L2177
4 feet of black 4" ABS sewer pipe
4"-2" ABS Pipe reducer
8' board of select pine (1"x8")
1/4-20 threaded inserts
1/4-20 stainless machine screws, washers
Aluminum 'strap', 1/4"x1"x36"
1 baby formula can (no kidding)

All of this together was less than $200, I'm guessing I spent $160-ish. Not bad for something close spec-wise would be in the $700+ range. I also did some research ahead of time for dimensions and on optical-theory.
1. Pipe prep.
The objective lens housing accepts a tube of 109mm OD. The pipe was 114mm OD. Problem....
So using a combination of Dremel, files, and sandpaper problem solved.

I was surprised to find out the focuser fit perfectly into the pipe reducer. I was sure I would have to sand it out to make it fit. Lucky me.
So, after that I decided it was time for a mock-up.

After some trimming for focal length, time to paint a little:

Here is an annotated picture of basic components:

More to come soon.....

AZ Voting Guide: Why Prop 113 is Good.

2010-10-26T10:17:00.000-07:00

http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop113.htm

Prop 113 states: "PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE II, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTION 36; RELATING TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE A SECRET BALLOT REGARDING EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION."

This a preventative bill, like many others on the ballot. This would ensure that employees would remain to have a secret ballot to enact a 'union'.

There is a pending Federal bill that would change this. It changes it from having an election to mearly having a 50%+1 ratio of employees signing a 'desire for union representation' card, then BAM, you just became union. No vote, no election, no say.

AZ Voting Guide: Why Prop 109 is Bad.

2010-10-26T10:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop109.htm

Prop 109 sates: "PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE II, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTION 36; RELATING TO HUNTING AND FISHING."
and
"EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO ENACT LAWS TO REGULATE THE MANNER, METHODS OR SEASONS FOR HUNTING, FISHING AND HARVESTING WILDLIFE IS VESTED IN THE LEGISLATURE,...."

That's where they lost me. The legislature? Seriously? What does the state legislature know about migrating game populations? What do they know game population numbers?

Right now, the Department of Game and Fish handles these issues, and handles them well. So Billy-bob and Joe-joe didn't get a deer tag this year. Tough. There's an estimated 900,000 hunters in the state, far more than the deer/elk population combined.

There is a reason that Arizona does not have any Grizzly bears, Beavers, Native wolf, Black-footed Ferrets and a few other species. Yes, many of these have been re-introduced here in Arizona, but only after they were wiped out by, as you may guess, over-hunting and trapping.

The only real reason I could see a need for this bill is there was some perception that hunting would be banned all together, which isn't very likely.

AZ Voting Guide: Why Prop 107 is good.

2010-10-26T09:54:00.000-07:00

http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop107.htm

Prop 107 states: "PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE II, BY ADDING SECTION 36, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITION.".

At first, I saw this as a no-brainier. Why would allow discrimination in employment? Is it right to allow employers to pick men over women, 'whites' over 'minorities', Natural born citizens over Nationalized citizens? I doubt few would say that it is justified.

People should be hired based on experience, qualifications, and ability- not because this guy is white, black, asain, hispanic, blah blah blah.

AZ Voting Guide: Why Prop 106 is good.

2010-10-26T09:47:00.000-07:00

http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop106.htm
Prop 106 states "PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE XXVII, BY ADDING SECTION 2, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES.", which prevents forcing any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.

Unless you nationalize the entire health care system, making all health care employees of the state, you have no justification in forcing me, my employer, or my doctor from 'participating' in a pseudo-national health program. That simple. I.E. air traffic controllers.

Civil Rights History Quiz

2010-08-26T13:31:00.000-07:00

Anyone care to guess who was the first legal slave owner in the United States?

It's probably not who you would think.

This also depends on what you call "slavery".

There are two cases, the first ones, where "indentured servitude" turned into "slavery".
The most recognized was the case of John Punch. He and two other servants, James Gregory and a man named Victor(?), had escaped from their 'contractor' Hugh Gwyn in 1640. The three were re-captured and sentenced to 30 lashes each. Also Gregory and Victor had their servitude extended by 4 years. Punch, unfortunately, was sentenced to "servitude for life". What was the difference? Punch was black, the other two weren't. Many argue he became the first legal slave.
There's one problem with that theory. He wasn't taken as a slave, and his servitude was extended as a punishment for breaking his contract. Think Cali's three-strikes law.

The second case is that of John Casor. He was an indentured servant to Anthony Johnson in 1654. Now, Casor was imported as an indentured servant, to be freed after a certain amount of time. But, as Casor was trying to transfer his remaining time to Robert Parker, Anthony Johnson argued to the court that Casor was "ye Negro for life". The court agreed, making (in my opinion) Casor the first legally owned slave in the US. This wasn't a punishment, this was injustice.
One more interesting thing about Anthony Johnson, he was a freed indentured black man, and became the first legal slave owner in the US 13 years after John Punch was punished.

Don't take my word for it. Read history, all history even if it contradicts with your personal world view. Then at least you will be educated enough to make an intelligent decision.