Do you think that we have a dilemma regarding racial diversity? You probably never thought much about it, but the Supreme Courts sure has. Currently our liberal universities have gotten on the band wagon that "we" need for our colleges and universities to be populated by some diversity index for them to educate our children. They don't think that you can understand a person of a different race unless they sit next to you in a college class room, but there is a dilemma and that is the point of this blog.
I have been into genealogy for some time and have discovered many interesting things as a result. None of it has anything to do with diversity, but it helps a lot to understand why we have a dilemma. I think that one of the best ways to deal with this question is with a simple example. You know from your history lessons that a lot of white blood got mixed with the black slaves here in the USA. Even our President Thomas Jefferson mixed some of his. I am part Native American and in my research, I found that the Native Americans intermarried with both Whites and Blacks. All of my kids have blue eyes and pass for White. Rather, they are counted as White. In my research, I found that 90% of Blacks also have some Native American blood as well as White. By contrast, I found that 90% of Whites have no Black or Native American blood. With me so far on this? Now how does this affect diversity? This is where the dilemma comes in.
Another fact that I learned from my research is that Native American characteristics are recessive. That means that when mixed with another race, the children tend "not" to look like Native Americans. When people today, "ask where have all the Native Americans gone?" The answer is that they are all still here and mixed in with both Whites and Blacks. By contrast, the characteristics of the Black race tend to be dominate. That means if a Black person has kids with a White person, the kids tend to be Black. The affect of all this is to create a population that has a lot more people who look Black and a lot fewer who look Native American. If you were to consider them in terms of the amount of Black and Native American blood, there would be a lot fewer Blacks and a lot more Native Americans. See how this is leading to a dilemma?
When Whites, Blacks and Native Americans are considered as a group, there are more Blacks and fewer Whites and Native Americans than the true race defined by blood would indicate. Now when we create a policy based on race, we need to better define race than just the skin characteristics. We would never define any animal breed based on such a weak definition, yet we do when it comes to our colleges and universities.
There is another point to all this and that is the "base population" that is used. If we have a college in Alaska, do we define the diversity mix by just Alaska or the whole USA? Why don't we define it by the whole world? That is just about as logical. How about Hawaii. What is the base line there? What if it is a college in Detroit or Philadelphia? Should they use a different number? Unless a person has done some genealogy research, how would they or anyone else know what their true racial mix was. How about a person with a dark tan or an albino? See where this is all going?
The USA has been from the beginning, a place where a person is judged on their individual merits and not their race or prior station in life. Any attempt to screw with this simple and fair concept is doomed to fail in the end and that is exactly what appears to be happening right now. It is creating more harm than good. Notice how "one movers" only consider the good and never the bad affects of anything. I guess that we have a bunch of "one movers" promoting Racial Diversity too.
PS------Why isn't Obama considered the first half white President rather than the first "Black" President? See how stupid all this is?
PS----There was a token Black on the Fox News this morning who felt that we will figure out how to "create" more energy and thus compensate for Obama's war on coal. Think about the quality of life that we could have had, had we "created" all this energy and still had cheap power from coal. "One movers" forget about the "with" and "without" economic analysis principle. I guess that is why they are "one movers".
Friday, June 28, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Is Obama Going To Save The World?
To hear Obama read off the teleprompter, he is going to save the world single handed. You have to think, "Is it true, if a person tells a big lie very convincingly?" Obama has been doing this from the very beginning and many of the American voters seem convinced. My father used to tell me that it is a lot easier to get away with a "big"lie than a small one and Obama seems to have given proof to that statement. Now, this business of global warming. Let's look at the situation two ways. First, what happens if the Earth gets warmer? Second, what if it gets cooler or stays the same? Obama and all his green friend seem to only be worried about getting warmer, but we need to look at getting cooler or staying the same to be able to reach a logical conclusion.
First, we need to define the objective and the end game. For this blog, I will define the objective to be a combination based on two factors. Quality of life and the number of people on Earth. The scale for the two factors is "better quality of life" is good and a "lower quality of life" is bad. Got it? The scale for the number of people on Earth is "more" is good and "fewer" is bad. I don't think that you can come up with an objective based on just "one" factor and maybe there should even be more than two. Two will be difficult enough to deal with.
The main factor that determines the quality of life is energy and how much it costs. Cost is about the best measure that we have for human effort. All value or wealth can be traced to human effort. I have made this point before. Oil in the ground is worthless. Its cost is equal to the amount of human effort it take to get the oil out and refine it so it can be used. If follows directly that if you increase the cost of energy, it will reduce the quality of life for us humans. If with the current cost of oil or other forms of energy, a farmer can produce corn for $5.00/bl and we raise the cost of oil and other forms of energy by whatever means the corn is going to cost more. That means you will have to eat less corn or go without other things that contribute to your quality of life.
If you think that you can just earn more, then ask yourself how much more corn you could have bought if the corn still only cost $5.00/bl? That greater amount would have meant that you would have had a higher quality of life because of your greater earnings. Isn't this clear enough?
Now, how about the number of people here on Earth? If we had a lot fewer people, there would be no need to worry about CO2 because we would not be producing so much and thus the plants could recycle it as they have done for millions of years. You have to ask, what does the quality of life mean for a person who was "never" born in the first place? The only way that you can justify increasing the number of people is to add "quality of life" to those who are parents. Looks to me like a high price to pay for ego based quality of life.
The bottom line is that us humans think that we can change or control the world (Earth).. Us humans always make the same mistake and we are doing it again. Try this example. We have a small dam and the water behind the dam is rising. Rather than let some of the water out, we build the dam higher. It is like the Earth is getting warmer and we want to stop the process. Here is what always happens in the end. One day, the water tops over the dam and washes the whole dam out. When humans screw with natural systems, they always end up with a crash. It does not matter what it is. Us humans see something that appears as "good" and we want more of it until in the end it all crashes down. Look at low cost home loans or low cost loans for education or price supports for farmers, I could go on and on, but they would all end up the same. Crash. Look at our national debit. We all sit dumb and happy spending money that we do not have for the good life that we did not earn. One day, and it may be sooner than you think, no one will buy our IOU's. What then? Crash.
Obama nor anyone else is going to save the world. The Earth will come back into balance if we just don't mess with Mother Nature and Darwin. They will get the Earth back into balance sooner and with less damage than us humans. We may delay things, but the end will be a lot more destructive. The problem that the Earth has is due to just one animal that has gotten out of control and that is us Humans.
First, we need to define the objective and the end game. For this blog, I will define the objective to be a combination based on two factors. Quality of life and the number of people on Earth. The scale for the two factors is "better quality of life" is good and a "lower quality of life" is bad. Got it? The scale for the number of people on Earth is "more" is good and "fewer" is bad. I don't think that you can come up with an objective based on just "one" factor and maybe there should even be more than two. Two will be difficult enough to deal with.
The main factor that determines the quality of life is energy and how much it costs. Cost is about the best measure that we have for human effort. All value or wealth can be traced to human effort. I have made this point before. Oil in the ground is worthless. Its cost is equal to the amount of human effort it take to get the oil out and refine it so it can be used. If follows directly that if you increase the cost of energy, it will reduce the quality of life for us humans. If with the current cost of oil or other forms of energy, a farmer can produce corn for $5.00/bl and we raise the cost of oil and other forms of energy by whatever means the corn is going to cost more. That means you will have to eat less corn or go without other things that contribute to your quality of life.
If you think that you can just earn more, then ask yourself how much more corn you could have bought if the corn still only cost $5.00/bl? That greater amount would have meant that you would have had a higher quality of life because of your greater earnings. Isn't this clear enough?
Now, how about the number of people here on Earth? If we had a lot fewer people, there would be no need to worry about CO2 because we would not be producing so much and thus the plants could recycle it as they have done for millions of years. You have to ask, what does the quality of life mean for a person who was "never" born in the first place? The only way that you can justify increasing the number of people is to add "quality of life" to those who are parents. Looks to me like a high price to pay for ego based quality of life.
The bottom line is that us humans think that we can change or control the world (Earth).. Us humans always make the same mistake and we are doing it again. Try this example. We have a small dam and the water behind the dam is rising. Rather than let some of the water out, we build the dam higher. It is like the Earth is getting warmer and we want to stop the process. Here is what always happens in the end. One day, the water tops over the dam and washes the whole dam out. When humans screw with natural systems, they always end up with a crash. It does not matter what it is. Us humans see something that appears as "good" and we want more of it until in the end it all crashes down. Look at low cost home loans or low cost loans for education or price supports for farmers, I could go on and on, but they would all end up the same. Crash. Look at our national debit. We all sit dumb and happy spending money that we do not have for the good life that we did not earn. One day, and it may be sooner than you think, no one will buy our IOU's. What then? Crash.
Obama nor anyone else is going to save the world. The Earth will come back into balance if we just don't mess with Mother Nature and Darwin. They will get the Earth back into balance sooner and with less damage than us humans. We may delay things, but the end will be a lot more destructive. The problem that the Earth has is due to just one animal that has gotten out of control and that is us Humans.
Monday, June 17, 2013
What And How Much Should We Spend To Fight Terrorism?
This is the question that we should be asking and we should also be demanding an answer from all of our citizens. There has been enough talk from those with no brains. We need to get started on a serious debate and get rid of all this Political Correctness. Before I get to my main point, I would like to give you a little warm up.
What should we spend to eliminate bank robberies? Or better yet, what additional should we spend to cut the number of bank robberies in half? Never thought of that way before did you?
What should we spend to eliminate rape? Everyone is against rape, so how much should we spend to cut the rate in half?
How about murder using fists and blunt objects? Did you know that there are a lot more murders using fists and feet than there are by guns? How did a fact as important as that slip by you and the press? How much should we spend in addition to what we are now spending to cut this rate in half?
You know that 40% of our kids do not finish high school and that we rank about 25th in the world in level of education, but we spend the most per kid. Given that fact, how much more do you think we should spend to get the USA up to about 10th in the world in education?
How about life expectancy here in the USA? Did you know that we rank 33rd in the world in terms of life expectancy, yet we spend by far the most per person. How much more do you think we should spend to at least get our life expectancy to 15th or 20th?
My point is that we have problems all over the place and are worse on many counts than many countries around the world who are poorer and spend less. How can that be? Do you really think that spending even more is going to make a significant difference? Notice that these are all areas where the government is spending the money. Do they do a good and efficient job any place?
Here is another key point. For the government to spend all this money, they have to get it from some place and where do you think that is? Out of our own pockets. If you don't pay your taxes, they will send the cops to your door to collect or put you in jail. When you think that our government should spend more on some thing, ask yourself if you agree with the idea of sending a cop to your door to get the money? If you don't, then you have decided that the extra spending is not worth it. Now, don't pull a fast one and think that it is OK to send the cops to my door, but not yours. That would be dishonest.
Wait, what if you don't pay any tax, but have other benefits. To be fair, you would have to give up something. How about eliminating kindergarten for your kids. How about eliminating the free school lunch program. How about cutting food stamps in half or to the level they were just a couple of years ago? How about raising the requirements for workman's comp or disability? Everyone has something they could give up if they think we should spend more on fighting terrorism.
How about this. You don't pay taxes and you are willing to cut your own government benefits. What else do you have to give up for this important cause? You can give up some of your freedom and privacy from invasion from the government. You could give up confidential mail or telephone calls. You could be required to declare anytime you found a penny on the ground or won a price at the Bingo party.
My point is that we all have a lot that we could give up or be made to give up by our government, but the bottom line is the big question. "Is it worth it or not?" Life and the world are not perfect and they never will be. There will always be storms and crazy people who break the law and there is no way to stop them 100%. Get that fact thru your head. We can't stop forest fires nor can we 100% prevent your home from burning down. We can not guarantee that your daughter will have a perfect baby. We only have so much to spend and that means we need to get our monies worth for every dollar because each dollar came out of some hard working person's pocket and that person just might be you.
What should we spend to eliminate bank robberies? Or better yet, what additional should we spend to cut the number of bank robberies in half? Never thought of that way before did you?
What should we spend to eliminate rape? Everyone is against rape, so how much should we spend to cut the rate in half?
How about murder using fists and blunt objects? Did you know that there are a lot more murders using fists and feet than there are by guns? How did a fact as important as that slip by you and the press? How much should we spend in addition to what we are now spending to cut this rate in half?
You know that 40% of our kids do not finish high school and that we rank about 25th in the world in level of education, but we spend the most per kid. Given that fact, how much more do you think we should spend to get the USA up to about 10th in the world in education?
How about life expectancy here in the USA? Did you know that we rank 33rd in the world in terms of life expectancy, yet we spend by far the most per person. How much more do you think we should spend to at least get our life expectancy to 15th or 20th?
My point is that we have problems all over the place and are worse on many counts than many countries around the world who are poorer and spend less. How can that be? Do you really think that spending even more is going to make a significant difference? Notice that these are all areas where the government is spending the money. Do they do a good and efficient job any place?
Here is another key point. For the government to spend all this money, they have to get it from some place and where do you think that is? Out of our own pockets. If you don't pay your taxes, they will send the cops to your door to collect or put you in jail. When you think that our government should spend more on some thing, ask yourself if you agree with the idea of sending a cop to your door to get the money? If you don't, then you have decided that the extra spending is not worth it. Now, don't pull a fast one and think that it is OK to send the cops to my door, but not yours. That would be dishonest.
Wait, what if you don't pay any tax, but have other benefits. To be fair, you would have to give up something. How about eliminating kindergarten for your kids. How about eliminating the free school lunch program. How about cutting food stamps in half or to the level they were just a couple of years ago? How about raising the requirements for workman's comp or disability? Everyone has something they could give up if they think we should spend more on fighting terrorism.
How about this. You don't pay taxes and you are willing to cut your own government benefits. What else do you have to give up for this important cause? You can give up some of your freedom and privacy from invasion from the government. You could give up confidential mail or telephone calls. You could be required to declare anytime you found a penny on the ground or won a price at the Bingo party.
My point is that we all have a lot that we could give up or be made to give up by our government, but the bottom line is the big question. "Is it worth it or not?" Life and the world are not perfect and they never will be. There will always be storms and crazy people who break the law and there is no way to stop them 100%. Get that fact thru your head. We can't stop forest fires nor can we 100% prevent your home from burning down. We can not guarantee that your daughter will have a perfect baby. We only have so much to spend and that means we need to get our monies worth for every dollar because each dollar came out of some hard working person's pocket and that person just might be you.
Friday, June 14, 2013
What Is The Normal Human?
Did you ever think about just what is a "normal human"? I guess not. Several years ago there was a program on TV about the "normal dog". The idea was to see if we could figure out what the common dog would look like if it were free from human influence, like selective breeding. You might think that it would go back to the Wolf, but it did not. The research showed that it would revert back to a dog that looked like the Dingo. It would have a tail that turned up over its back and would have a long snout. It would also look like the wild dog of Africa. After seeing this TV show, I got to thinking about us humans and what a "normal human" would look like. Humans have been subject to selective breeding too, though much of it was by Darwin.
Realize first that we are 99% the same as an Orangutan. That means that if the selective breeding went in that direction, we could end up looking like Orangutans. Look at humans this way. We are not very strong or fast or have good eye sight or hearing. We can't swim very well or climb trees. We don't have a lot of body hair to protect us. If this is the case, why didn't we die out like the Do Do bird? I think that it was because of selective breeding carried out by Darwin. With all the bad features that we had, some within our group had hands that could hold things or pick up rocks. Some could also carry things. Few animals can pick up and manipulate things like tools or carry any kind of a load. I think that the few humans who could do the above survived, while those who could not died off. This is selective breeding, but the Orangutan characteristics are still there, deep in our genes some place.
The next thing that happened was that the humans got smarter and those who were smarter survived in larger percentages and the dumber ones tended to died off. This type of selective breeding went on for thousands of years and generations, until today, we have a lot of very smart humans. This worked very well for a long time until another thing happened.
We came up with a complex language where we could share "knowledge" and pass it on orally. I don't think that this made us any smarter, but we appeared smarter because we had all this "knowledge". The process continued until we had a written language and were able to write books. This appeared to make us even more smart, but what really happened is that we had more "knowledge" and the selective process that made us smarter had just about come to a stop.
The next phase was the formation of complex social groups or societies that could care for the weaker humans and allow inferior humans to breed. This was the beginning of the end for the humans and we did not even know it. Us humans built schools and colleges to accumulate and pass on more and more knowledge and if just one human in a million discovered something good, all could share in it. That was "not" the way that it had been for thousands of years. The formation of large cities is the "end game" in the process. In all human history, there has never been large cities where humans of all types could survive and breed. Historically, humans lived in small groups where a few mistakes could mean the end of the group and its ability to continue breeding, but not now.
This all brings me to my final point and that is this "tendency to the mean". This means that if biased selective breeding were to stop, the group would gradually return to the "mean" or the "normal human". You know this is true by just looking at dogs where you can see what human directed selective breeding has produced. The most significant point is that we were able to change dogs very rapidly by this process. To my way of thinking, this means that going the other way may also be rapid. I used the word "biased" above to mean "not" random. The bias can go in any direction, but its removal means "random" and a return to the mean or normal.
Now that I have that out of the way, what is happening now? Do you see any bias in the breeding patterns of us humans that would make us smarter, stronger or healthier. I don't. When you stop paddling your boat up a river, you don't stop, you start going backwards and that is exactly what I think is happening to the human race. Do you think the children of today are as smart as they were 100 years ago? Don't mix up knowledge with smartness. Using a computer does not make you smarter. Why do you think your kids do so poorly on standardized math tests compared to most of the world? Why do you think that the life expectancy of the USA is only 33rd in the world when we spend the most on health care? What do you think is the root cause of all of this?
What has happened is that us humans have acquired a lot of knowledge from our schools and colleges and it has made us able to "compensate" for a decline in our smartness. Darwin was making us row harder against the current of the river to get us to where we are now and us humans have taken over and stopped rowing. Now, what direction are we going?
Hey, we are going backwards and don't even know it.
PS-----Here is just one way that Darwin works. Did you know that nutrition affects our fertility rate? People who are hungry or starving can not get pregnant. That is why Ireland had the big population boom after they got the potato from America. They had been starving and thus had a low fertility rate. Humans who were not smart enough to find and store food did not have very many kids, while those who were smarter and could find and store food had "more" kids. This raised the average level of human smartness. That is just one way that Darwin worked over all those thousands of years. Now, how do you think that free food stamps will affect the future smartness of our average children?
A friend asked me why homosexuality has not died out with the way society treats it. I responded that I think that the "normal" rate of homosexuality is much higher than what you now see and that pressures from society have only just reduced it to its current level. You have to ask, "what is normal".
Why did all big cities through out history all fail? It happened in America, Europe and Asia. Was it the breeding patterns of humans in the big cities as described above? Is Detroit just a more recent example? Why are most hunter/gatherer and farming societies still around? What happened in the "limit"?
Realize first that we are 99% the same as an Orangutan. That means that if the selective breeding went in that direction, we could end up looking like Orangutans. Look at humans this way. We are not very strong or fast or have good eye sight or hearing. We can't swim very well or climb trees. We don't have a lot of body hair to protect us. If this is the case, why didn't we die out like the Do Do bird? I think that it was because of selective breeding carried out by Darwin. With all the bad features that we had, some within our group had hands that could hold things or pick up rocks. Some could also carry things. Few animals can pick up and manipulate things like tools or carry any kind of a load. I think that the few humans who could do the above survived, while those who could not died off. This is selective breeding, but the Orangutan characteristics are still there, deep in our genes some place.
The next thing that happened was that the humans got smarter and those who were smarter survived in larger percentages and the dumber ones tended to died off. This type of selective breeding went on for thousands of years and generations, until today, we have a lot of very smart humans. This worked very well for a long time until another thing happened.
We came up with a complex language where we could share "knowledge" and pass it on orally. I don't think that this made us any smarter, but we appeared smarter because we had all this "knowledge". The process continued until we had a written language and were able to write books. This appeared to make us even more smart, but what really happened is that we had more "knowledge" and the selective process that made us smarter had just about come to a stop.
The next phase was the formation of complex social groups or societies that could care for the weaker humans and allow inferior humans to breed. This was the beginning of the end for the humans and we did not even know it. Us humans built schools and colleges to accumulate and pass on more and more knowledge and if just one human in a million discovered something good, all could share in it. That was "not" the way that it had been for thousands of years. The formation of large cities is the "end game" in the process. In all human history, there has never been large cities where humans of all types could survive and breed. Historically, humans lived in small groups where a few mistakes could mean the end of the group and its ability to continue breeding, but not now.
This all brings me to my final point and that is this "tendency to the mean". This means that if biased selective breeding were to stop, the group would gradually return to the "mean" or the "normal human". You know this is true by just looking at dogs where you can see what human directed selective breeding has produced. The most significant point is that we were able to change dogs very rapidly by this process. To my way of thinking, this means that going the other way may also be rapid. I used the word "biased" above to mean "not" random. The bias can go in any direction, but its removal means "random" and a return to the mean or normal.
Now that I have that out of the way, what is happening now? Do you see any bias in the breeding patterns of us humans that would make us smarter, stronger or healthier. I don't. When you stop paddling your boat up a river, you don't stop, you start going backwards and that is exactly what I think is happening to the human race. Do you think the children of today are as smart as they were 100 years ago? Don't mix up knowledge with smartness. Using a computer does not make you smarter. Why do you think your kids do so poorly on standardized math tests compared to most of the world? Why do you think that the life expectancy of the USA is only 33rd in the world when we spend the most on health care? What do you think is the root cause of all of this?
What has happened is that us humans have acquired a lot of knowledge from our schools and colleges and it has made us able to "compensate" for a decline in our smartness. Darwin was making us row harder against the current of the river to get us to where we are now and us humans have taken over and stopped rowing. Now, what direction are we going?
Hey, we are going backwards and don't even know it.
PS-----Here is just one way that Darwin works. Did you know that nutrition affects our fertility rate? People who are hungry or starving can not get pregnant. That is why Ireland had the big population boom after they got the potato from America. They had been starving and thus had a low fertility rate. Humans who were not smart enough to find and store food did not have very many kids, while those who were smarter and could find and store food had "more" kids. This raised the average level of human smartness. That is just one way that Darwin worked over all those thousands of years. Now, how do you think that free food stamps will affect the future smartness of our average children?
A friend asked me why homosexuality has not died out with the way society treats it. I responded that I think that the "normal" rate of homosexuality is much higher than what you now see and that pressures from society have only just reduced it to its current level. You have to ask, "what is normal".
Why did all big cities through out history all fail? It happened in America, Europe and Asia. Was it the breeding patterns of humans in the big cities as described above? Is Detroit just a more recent example? Why are most hunter/gatherer and farming societies still around? What happened in the "limit"?
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Wood Canvas Canoe- PVA Tip
Now, I am building a traditional wood canvas canoe. It is mostly made of Northern White Cedar because the wood is light, rot resistant and can be steam bent. The ribs are 5/16" thick and the planking is 5/32" thick. The whole thing is covered with cotton canvas that is painted with standard oil based house paint.. Boiled linseed oil is on the inside and outside of the basic wood canoe. This is the traditional method. Boiled linseed oil takes a long time to dry and cure and tends to darken with time. The point of this blog is to pass along a simple tip.
I blogged before about some special uses of PVA glue like Titebond II and I have another one for the wood canvas canoe. One problem that happens with these types of canoes is that it is very difficult to get the long pieces of planking that are required. The canoes are about 16' long. This means that the planking has to be spliced. Historically they just butt spliced the planking over a rib, but the rib is only 2-1/4" wide. That means each end only has 1-1/8" of lap on the rib. In that short length, they used to put 3 or 4 nails. The joint was not that strong or even. If there was a bend in the area of the butt, the curve did not stay fair. Here is a solution.
In a prior blog, I showed how you can make your own "pre-preg" by putting thinned PVA glue on plain fiber glass and letting it dry. Once dry, the fiber glass can be cut with regular scissors very accurately into "patches". If the planking is 2-1/2" wide and the ribs are 2-1/4 wide, I cut the patches 2-1/2" by 2". I first cut the planking so that the splice ends up over a rib and butt glue the ends together. I hold compression on the joint with masking tape and let it dry. As the PVA dries, it shrinks so if you don't wait, the joint will not end up tight when you are thru.
Given that the butt glue is dry, sand the area smooth and apply glue just where the patch will be. Put on the patch in the wet glue. Since the patch is already "pre-pregged", you don't need much glue. When the glue is dry, press it down hard with a hot cloths iron. This will assure that the patch and glue are as thin as possible. When the plank has cooled down, the joint can be lightly sanded. For the record, I have put patches on "both" sides and only increased the total thickness by just 0.010"..
I don't see any other way that you could make such a splice this strong and this thin anyother way. I used fiberglass, but you could use Kevlar. The secret is the thermal properties of PVA glues and the heat and pressure that you can apply with an ordinary cloths iron.
Good luck.
PS----A slight variation to the above. Once the pieces are butt glued with the masking tape, apply a small amount of glue just to the area of the butt joint and next apply a small amount of glue to the pre-pregged patch and apply the patch over the butt joint. From there on, it is just like above. The advantage is that you don't get any glue where you don't want it with this variation.
I blogged before about some special uses of PVA glue like Titebond II and I have another one for the wood canvas canoe. One problem that happens with these types of canoes is that it is very difficult to get the long pieces of planking that are required. The canoes are about 16' long. This means that the planking has to be spliced. Historically they just butt spliced the planking over a rib, but the rib is only 2-1/4" wide. That means each end only has 1-1/8" of lap on the rib. In that short length, they used to put 3 or 4 nails. The joint was not that strong or even. If there was a bend in the area of the butt, the curve did not stay fair. Here is a solution.
In a prior blog, I showed how you can make your own "pre-preg" by putting thinned PVA glue on plain fiber glass and letting it dry. Once dry, the fiber glass can be cut with regular scissors very accurately into "patches". If the planking is 2-1/2" wide and the ribs are 2-1/4 wide, I cut the patches 2-1/2" by 2". I first cut the planking so that the splice ends up over a rib and butt glue the ends together. I hold compression on the joint with masking tape and let it dry. As the PVA dries, it shrinks so if you don't wait, the joint will not end up tight when you are thru.
Given that the butt glue is dry, sand the area smooth and apply glue just where the patch will be. Put on the patch in the wet glue. Since the patch is already "pre-pregged", you don't need much glue. When the glue is dry, press it down hard with a hot cloths iron. This will assure that the patch and glue are as thin as possible. When the plank has cooled down, the joint can be lightly sanded. For the record, I have put patches on "both" sides and only increased the total thickness by just 0.010"..
I don't see any other way that you could make such a splice this strong and this thin anyother way. I used fiberglass, but you could use Kevlar. The secret is the thermal properties of PVA glues and the heat and pressure that you can apply with an ordinary cloths iron.
Good luck.
PS----A slight variation to the above. Once the pieces are butt glued with the masking tape, apply a small amount of glue just to the area of the butt joint and next apply a small amount of glue to the pre-pregged patch and apply the patch over the butt joint. From there on, it is just like above. The advantage is that you don't get any glue where you don't want it with this variation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)