This is one of those times that I recall that silly joke "When is a car, not a car?" If you've never heard it before the answer may not be so obvious, but I find that once the answer is known, the saying comes as naturally as anything. "A car is not a car when it turns into a driveway." So, I think that now that we've gotten through the answer we can agree that is 1) funny... in that stupidly obvious joke sort of way and 2) a pretty intuitive thing to say afterwords. This raises my question though. "When is a pie not a pie?"
Now, to first clarify a potential point of confusion (while intentionally avoiding formal definitions). When I say "pie", I am specifically referring to that (usually) round, edible, dessert/breakfast/snack food dish.I am not being tricky and referencing a letter in the Greek alphabet, nor am I thinking about the irrational number between 3 and 4... That would obviously be irrational to assume. So, we're now on the same page as to what "pie" I am thinking of, and we can now address when said pie is in fact... potentially... not a pie.
This question first came to me when I sat down at a friends house for some dessert. For said dessert, we were presented a beautiful Tart. That's right... you all thought I was going to say PIE!!! But no, twas not a pie, but a tart. Now, I have no doubt that you can all envision a tart without too much trouble. So, just as you might picture, we had that light brown, gram-cracker-like crust, with a custard filling topped with an assortment of colorful fruits. Now, before I begin to delve into my dilemma a bit more, I want to mention that the Tart was delicious.
So, moving on... we see a tart now, before us. We're eating and enjoying it. And then the question arises... "What is the difference between a Pie and a Tart?" Has anyone wondered this before? I'm sure you have! You may not know you wondered it... but the wonder was there. Well, I decided to pose a theory to debate as we ate (rhymed...). I raised the question, and proposed (foolishly) that a Tart was clearly made with fruit as a focus. This was quickly countered with examples of apple, peach, blueberry, etc... pies. So I retracted my theory and wondered a bit.
I thought about what my previous impressions of tarts had been, and there I thought I had it. In my mind when I envision a tart it is a small, single serving dish. I figured a tart was perhaps a small pie! But no, the tart we were in the midst of consuming was the same size as a typical pie, so that thought went out the window. My friend proposed then that a tart did not have a crust covering it. Nodding, it seemed to make sense. I can think of no tart I've ever had that was covered. But then... there were the thoughts of pumpkin pie. I do love pumpkin pie with whipped cream, but that's not the point. Were pumpkin the only exception we might have still gone with it, but there are other pies, like chocolate, that had to sway us to deny this theory.
With all current theories denied, we thought about the name, "tart". Was this a description of the dish? No! What we were eating was sweet, not tart. And if a pie isn't fully ripe, it can be tart, while still being a pie! Perhaps it was a flaky crust versus a gram cracker crust? Again, counters were provided. Frustrated, and out of ideas, I was defeated, gave up, and resided myself to another slice of tart...
With a bitter (not tart) taste in my mouth from losing an argument to my food, I sought the answers at home. I looked up the definitions, and discovered no clear distinction between the two. I even found the claim that the two categories frequently overlap. Still not satisfied, the question stuck with me. This last August I was at a 1 week seminar and dessert one night was... that's right... a tart! I got a chance to speak with the chef afterwords and inquired to the difference. Not knowing, she sought her resources to return with the answer. Upon her return, she went through the definition and claimed that she too saw no true distinction. With that I was willing to let the topic drop, as I figured if she did not know, nobody would.
I thanked her for checking, and she said it was an intriguing question. She asked about the history of this puzzlement to me, and I explained. Then, as she got up to leave, she mentioned... "What about a cheesecake?" AND I WAS DOOMED! Cheesecake falls into none of these categories and I cannot define it. I have not sought the definition. I've decided I will not lose another fight to this realm of dessert, and will instead continue to eat it and enjoy!
Monday, November 21, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Cutting Corners
There are times in life when we all like to take the easy road, short-cuts, cut corners. Many times in life this is acceptable. Sometimes in life it's not, but works out anyway. Some do like to say, "its better to be lucky than good". That said, cutting corners usually entails doing something more risky, or skipping steps, and has a much high risk potential.
I would say that this is most frequently experienced when people are on long road trips to places they are ... sort-of ... familiar with. Not familiar enough to actually have a local map committed to memory, but comfortable enough to think one does. So, as one approaches there location, they decide that rather than take an hour to go the safe route, they're save 10 minutes by taking a short cut. How does this result? Frequently in getting lost and having a short-cut turn into a 30-60 minute detour, just to return to one's original location prior to this foolish decision.
So, in the world of carpentry there is a saying "measure twice, cut once." The idea being, follow a procedure, double check your work, take your time. An object can always be cut shorter, but not longer. So, this whole system is designed to be a check, to prevent stupid and irreversible mistakes. I have adopted many of these exact sayings into my life, and find myself using them as rules to govern many of my choices.
I bring this up now to make a special aside to some of these rules, and point out a crucial flaw. Years ago I was helping my father build our new garage. The foundation was all set and ready to go. We were moving onto our favorite step... Framing. Few tasks in carpentry are as satisfying. You get massive amounts of visual improvement for the amount of time spent, as well as it being the most fun aspect. So, we were each assembling a wall after making the first one together as a template. By assembling a wall I am referring to attaching the studs to headers and footers, basically making the walls' skeleton. Once assembled we could just stand them up in place and fasten them in.
So, with the first wall done together we each set out to make the remaining two. Following proper carpentry procedure, I measured every stud twice before cutting them. Then, I checked to make sure all the studs were of equal length before fastening them into the headers and footers. All in all, there was much double checking. So, with the frame finished we stood up each section, and upon completion of erecting the walls we immediately noticed that my wall... was 4 inches shorter than the other two...
Huh... Well, turns out, the rule of "Measure twice, cut once" is only helpful when you know the correct size you wish to be measuring. Otherwise, you can be very confidant that your project is consistently incorrect. So, while I still firmly support that double checking is valuable, and that one should take the time to do so, one should make sure that they know what is correct, before confirming that they are consistent.
I would say that this is most frequently experienced when people are on long road trips to places they are ... sort-of ... familiar with. Not familiar enough to actually have a local map committed to memory, but comfortable enough to think one does. So, as one approaches there location, they decide that rather than take an hour to go the safe route, they're save 10 minutes by taking a short cut. How does this result? Frequently in getting lost and having a short-cut turn into a 30-60 minute detour, just to return to one's original location prior to this foolish decision.
So, in the world of carpentry there is a saying "measure twice, cut once." The idea being, follow a procedure, double check your work, take your time. An object can always be cut shorter, but not longer. So, this whole system is designed to be a check, to prevent stupid and irreversible mistakes. I have adopted many of these exact sayings into my life, and find myself using them as rules to govern many of my choices.
I bring this up now to make a special aside to some of these rules, and point out a crucial flaw. Years ago I was helping my father build our new garage. The foundation was all set and ready to go. We were moving onto our favorite step... Framing. Few tasks in carpentry are as satisfying. You get massive amounts of visual improvement for the amount of time spent, as well as it being the most fun aspect. So, we were each assembling a wall after making the first one together as a template. By assembling a wall I am referring to attaching the studs to headers and footers, basically making the walls' skeleton. Once assembled we could just stand them up in place and fasten them in.
So, with the first wall done together we each set out to make the remaining two. Following proper carpentry procedure, I measured every stud twice before cutting them. Then, I checked to make sure all the studs were of equal length before fastening them into the headers and footers. All in all, there was much double checking. So, with the frame finished we stood up each section, and upon completion of erecting the walls we immediately noticed that my wall... was 4 inches shorter than the other two...
Huh... Well, turns out, the rule of "Measure twice, cut once" is only helpful when you know the correct size you wish to be measuring. Otherwise, you can be very confidant that your project is consistently incorrect. So, while I still firmly support that double checking is valuable, and that one should take the time to do so, one should make sure that they know what is correct, before confirming that they are consistent.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Skeletons in the Closet
To anyone who may not know, I have spent much of the last month moving into my new apartment at the Millbrook School. That said, it is not the most up-to-snuff place in terms of finishing work. So, being that there are few things I love more than carpentry and the associated tinkering, I have been spending much of my time redoing moldings, pulling excess nails and screws, etc, etc.
That being as it is, I have done lots of projects in the past, be them professional, or just helping my family in the house. But, every now and then something really cool is found during a project. The first example of this was when we moved into our house on Sunnyside. The basement had a dividing wall, and due to some... structural irregularities... the floor above was sort of sagging, and thus the dividing wall was creating a ridge in the upper floor. So, long story short, we added some supports and rigidity, so that we could remove the troublesome wall. n the process of removing said wall, we found within it an old bayonet. It is now hanging on the workshop pegboard.
Last summer we began to demolish/rebuild our back porch. One of the first steps was removing the roof, so that we could remove the support beams without dropping what they supported onto our head. That would have been unfortunate... to say the least. So, when I cut through the roof and pulled off the plywood, I found an ancient slide-square with a build in miniature level. This is one of the tools that I find very useful in many construction projects. I in fact already owned and used one of my own. With a bit of work, we rubbed it down, cleaned it off, and it still works, is square, and completely legible.
So, from these two examples I think its clear that skeletons, or memories from the past in a sense, are often found when one digs deep enough in "closets". But, that brings me back to my current project. In my apartment there are 3 sets of drawers built into the walls. Unfortunately, they all bothered me. When pushed in, some where twisted and not straight, some sagged, some could be pushed in 2-3 inches too far and some stuck out an inch or two. So, I set about reworking the frames and adding spacers so that all the drawers were straight, even and functional. Now, the first step to this project is pulling the drawers out of the wall, which is quite easy. It was on my third and final set of shelves that I pulled out and in the bottom, I found myself a LOT of sawdust, a hanger, an instant coffee packet wrapper, and a full and intact skeleton of a bat.
I mean really... How often do you see a full and complete skeleton of a bat?!? It's awesome! A little bit gross and/or disconcerting... but awesome! So, always check your closets... you'll never know what you'll find. :)
That being as it is, I have done lots of projects in the past, be them professional, or just helping my family in the house. But, every now and then something really cool is found during a project. The first example of this was when we moved into our house on Sunnyside. The basement had a dividing wall, and due to some... structural irregularities... the floor above was sort of sagging, and thus the dividing wall was creating a ridge in the upper floor. So, long story short, we added some supports and rigidity, so that we could remove the troublesome wall. n the process of removing said wall, we found within it an old bayonet. It is now hanging on the workshop pegboard.
Last summer we began to demolish/rebuild our back porch. One of the first steps was removing the roof, so that we could remove the support beams without dropping what they supported onto our head. That would have been unfortunate... to say the least. So, when I cut through the roof and pulled off the plywood, I found an ancient slide-square with a build in miniature level. This is one of the tools that I find very useful in many construction projects. I in fact already owned and used one of my own. With a bit of work, we rubbed it down, cleaned it off, and it still works, is square, and completely legible.
So, from these two examples I think its clear that skeletons, or memories from the past in a sense, are often found when one digs deep enough in "closets". But, that brings me back to my current project. In my apartment there are 3 sets of drawers built into the walls. Unfortunately, they all bothered me. When pushed in, some where twisted and not straight, some sagged, some could be pushed in 2-3 inches too far and some stuck out an inch or two. So, I set about reworking the frames and adding spacers so that all the drawers were straight, even and functional. Now, the first step to this project is pulling the drawers out of the wall, which is quite easy. It was on my third and final set of shelves that I pulled out and in the bottom, I found myself a LOT of sawdust, a hanger, an instant coffee packet wrapper, and a full and intact skeleton of a bat.
I mean really... How often do you see a full and complete skeleton of a bat?!? It's awesome! A little bit gross and/or disconcerting... but awesome! So, always check your closets... you'll never know what you'll find. :)
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Second Cliche
Has anyone ever watched a movie where the hero disarms a bomb with 1 second left? How about in Armageddon when the asteroid is detonated literally at the "do-or-die" moment. Then of coarse there's Independence Day when the alien ship is blown up as the weapon is about to fire on the last civilization on Earth. Now, I'm open to hear more and potentially even better examples, but those are the two that for some reason come to mind first.
So... doesn't anybody think this is a bit silly? Why can the hero never save the day with like, 8 seconds to spare? I'm not saying it would be "better", just different. Because honestly, we all know that our hero is not gonna go boom. So, why do I write about this now? What brought this assault on common movie, story telling methods to the forefront of my mind? That would be the semi-final game of the Women's World Cup this year between the USA and Brazil. (Note: if you have not seen it, don't want to know the result, or any combination of those or other reasons that lead to a spoiler being undesirable... don't read on) (Note on the note: If you did not see it... and don't know what happened... and don't care then you and I are going to have to exchange... words.... cause it was amazing)
http://www.sportsonenetwork.com/videos/18265/usa%27s-megan-rapinoe-to-abby-wambach-goal-usa-vs.-brazil-2011-wo
(it is possible that this link will not work ... cause sometimes there are copyright claims made by FIFA that cause them to be taken down)
Anyway, I will not recite the entirety of the game. But rather, I wish us all to recall the game tying goal that occurred in the stoppage time of the second overtime. Now, when I watched the game, and when I look back at the event, (call me bias) but Team USA was my protagonist/hero. I watched the game start to finish, and all the heart-wrenching calls and plays in between that made me swear endlessly at the poor television. From the opening seconds, when the US took a one goal lead, to the questionable red card at minute 66. Watching Hope Solo deny Marta her penalty shot, only to have it called back due to another questionable call. Then, Team USA holds the score, carrying the game to overtime against the Brazilians, despite being down a player. Then, only a few minutes into the first of 2 overtimes periods, I watched as Marta gave the Brazilians the lead. Then, despite all odds, I watched as Team USA attacked again and again to score the equalizer. There was endless waiting as Brazilians fell to "injuries" right and left, burning out the remainder of the clock. As stoppage time in the final period of overtime seemed to draw to a close, team USA mounts yet another drive, and puts away a goal to tie the game!
From here there were at most 90 seconds left in the game, which was taken to penalty kicks where Team USA won. Having watched this game, and possibly the most intense and satisfying game of any sport I have ever watched, I had to notice that my protagonist pushed until the last second and pulled through in what seemed to be, the very last second. I have to admit, for all that is seems a bit cliche that heroes always pull through with a countdown stopping at 1 second, had Team USA scored the equalizing goal with 15 minutes left, it would have been great; fantastic even, but it would never then have been among the top most dramatic moments in sports... ever!
So, with all that said, I will now always second-guess myself when I think a last second "save-the-day" is cliche (...rhymed...). This Sunday I will be watching USA take on Japan in the World Cup finals. You all should be too!
So... doesn't anybody think this is a bit silly? Why can the hero never save the day with like, 8 seconds to spare? I'm not saying it would be "better", just different. Because honestly, we all know that our hero is not gonna go boom. So, why do I write about this now? What brought this assault on common movie, story telling methods to the forefront of my mind? That would be the semi-final game of the Women's World Cup this year between the USA and Brazil. (Note: if you have not seen it, don't want to know the result, or any combination of those or other reasons that lead to a spoiler being undesirable... don't read on) (Note on the note: If you did not see it... and don't know what happened... and don't care then you and I are going to have to exchange... words.... cause it was amazing)
http://www.sportsonenetwork.com/videos/18265/usa%27s-megan-rapinoe-to-abby-wambach-goal-usa-vs.-brazil-2011-wo
(it is possible that this link will not work ... cause sometimes there are copyright claims made by FIFA that cause them to be taken down)
Anyway, I will not recite the entirety of the game. But rather, I wish us all to recall the game tying goal that occurred in the stoppage time of the second overtime. Now, when I watched the game, and when I look back at the event, (call me bias) but Team USA was my protagonist/hero. I watched the game start to finish, and all the heart-wrenching calls and plays in between that made me swear endlessly at the poor television. From the opening seconds, when the US took a one goal lead, to the questionable red card at minute 66. Watching Hope Solo deny Marta her penalty shot, only to have it called back due to another questionable call. Then, Team USA holds the score, carrying the game to overtime against the Brazilians, despite being down a player. Then, only a few minutes into the first of 2 overtimes periods, I watched as Marta gave the Brazilians the lead. Then, despite all odds, I watched as Team USA attacked again and again to score the equalizer. There was endless waiting as Brazilians fell to "injuries" right and left, burning out the remainder of the clock. As stoppage time in the final period of overtime seemed to draw to a close, team USA mounts yet another drive, and puts away a goal to tie the game!
From here there were at most 90 seconds left in the game, which was taken to penalty kicks where Team USA won. Having watched this game, and possibly the most intense and satisfying game of any sport I have ever watched, I had to notice that my protagonist pushed until the last second and pulled through in what seemed to be, the very last second. I have to admit, for all that is seems a bit cliche that heroes always pull through with a countdown stopping at 1 second, had Team USA scored the equalizing goal with 15 minutes left, it would have been great; fantastic even, but it would never then have been among the top most dramatic moments in sports... ever!
So, with all that said, I will now always second-guess myself when I think a last second "save-the-day" is cliche (...rhymed...). This Sunday I will be watching USA take on Japan in the World Cup finals. You all should be too!
Sunday, July 3, 2011
A Simplified Solution
Continuing my attempt to catch up on blogs I've meant to write in the past, I've one that led to quite a family discussion between myself and my parents a few weeks back. The topic was raised of students having difficulties learning mathematics, because the subject matter terrified the teachers. Apparently early math concepts frighten many math teachers just as much as they do students. Lets look, for example, at a word problem where the objective is to calculate the area of a pizza.
First lets break this down to see its steps, and figure out why this is frightening. First, we assume the pizza is a circle. Then, we must know, or look up that the area of a circle is described as A = πr^2. (Unfortunately, I can not type superscripts here, or don't know how, so we will have to tolerate the "^" notation.) From there, one must know that π is no more than a constant number and they must calculate the radius of the circle. Then, plug and chug. However, that is the simple point of view. We can also look at the equation as such:
Obviously, A is the area, our goal, what we are trying to identify. But as for π? Pi is a symbol. It is not recognizable as a number or a letter. In fact, we are now introducing an entire new lever of language skills required to complete this problem. And lets be honest... Greek is not the most heavily taught language in schools. Then we must deal with r. When was the last time anyone has ever ordered a 6 inch radius pizza? (The answer is likely frequently... just in different words). But NO! Everyone orders 12 inch diameter pizzas (assuming you want that size). So what's with this r nonsense, when it is clear that radius is not a commonly used measurement to describe a pizza. Lastly, we started this all out by knowing that our pizza, like most pizzas, are rounds... like... a circle. And yet, now we have to square the radius? What does that even mean. How do you square a circle? And how did a square come into the picture at all?!?!
At this point in our discussion (we had not talked about all this in so much detail... but we'll go with it), I claimed that those who feared solving for the area of a circle had no perspective. I will now take some time to "edit" and "simplify" the area of the circle. Then, perhaps those who fear this clear formula will have a bit more perspective.
Let us begin by dealing with the objective: area. Area of what? The sheer vagueness of the letter A could lead many people astray. It could be our pizza, thought what if our pizza is square? Then we're clueless. So, we will clarify by introducing a subscript that labels the area. (Unfortunately, like superscripts I don't know how to do subscripts here so we will use underscores (_).) Now, we will be working towards solving for A_c. Much better!
Next, let us deal with the radius, r. Since we've reviewed that r is not the best unit to describe a circle, we will look at d the diameter. So, in place of r we will use (d/2). Therefore, when the diameter is known, the formula becomes plug and chug once more, with no thinking involved. This is a wonderful improvement to r where we had to do division simply to come up with the number required by the formula.
Now to simplify the confusion of shapes. We don't like dealing with squares when we're talking about circles, because lets face it.... that's just confusing. So, we know that to "square a number" means to multiply it my itself. So, rather than squaring r, or as we have now simplified it, (d/2), we will rewrite r^2, as (d/2)^2, which we can further simplify to: (d/2)(d/2). Then, to make it a single fraction so there is less to look at, yet avoiding any "squared" notation, we henceforth be using (d*d)/4 (note the * represents multiplication, for lack of a more clear symbol).
Lastly, we must remove π from the equation. Euler, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, came up with an identity, which to this day, I do not fully understand. But, I do know what it is. Euler's Identity is e^(iπ) = -1. So, if we are to proceed with our equation to a point of having no Greek letters in it, we can write an equivalent statement in terms of π. Then we find that, π = ln(-1)/i. Now, when we substitute this into our area of the circle, we have gotten rid of all characters belonging to foreign languages and don't have to deal directly with any irrational numbers.
So, at long last we have a new and "simplified" area of a circle:
A_c = (ln(-1)*d*d)/(4i)
So, to anyone who previously thought the area of a circle was terrifying, I have done my best to simplify it, and remove from the equation the elements that I thought would be the basis for confusion. I hope this helps and that you look forward to determining the area of the next pizza you buy!
First lets break this down to see its steps, and figure out why this is frightening. First, we assume the pizza is a circle. Then, we must know, or look up that the area of a circle is described as A = πr^2. (Unfortunately, I can not type superscripts here, or don't know how, so we will have to tolerate the "^" notation.) From there, one must know that π is no more than a constant number and they must calculate the radius of the circle. Then, plug and chug. However, that is the simple point of view. We can also look at the equation as such:
Obviously, A is the area, our goal, what we are trying to identify. But as for π? Pi is a symbol. It is not recognizable as a number or a letter. In fact, we are now introducing an entire new lever of language skills required to complete this problem. And lets be honest... Greek is not the most heavily taught language in schools. Then we must deal with r. When was the last time anyone has ever ordered a 6 inch radius pizza? (The answer is likely frequently... just in different words). But NO! Everyone orders 12 inch diameter pizzas (assuming you want that size). So what's with this r nonsense, when it is clear that radius is not a commonly used measurement to describe a pizza. Lastly, we started this all out by knowing that our pizza, like most pizzas, are rounds... like... a circle. And yet, now we have to square the radius? What does that even mean. How do you square a circle? And how did a square come into the picture at all?!?!
At this point in our discussion (we had not talked about all this in so much detail... but we'll go with it), I claimed that those who feared solving for the area of a circle had no perspective. I will now take some time to "edit" and "simplify" the area of the circle. Then, perhaps those who fear this clear formula will have a bit more perspective.
Let us begin by dealing with the objective: area. Area of what? The sheer vagueness of the letter A could lead many people astray. It could be our pizza, thought what if our pizza is square? Then we're clueless. So, we will clarify by introducing a subscript that labels the area. (Unfortunately, like superscripts I don't know how to do subscripts here so we will use underscores (_).) Now, we will be working towards solving for A_c. Much better!
Next, let us deal with the radius, r. Since we've reviewed that r is not the best unit to describe a circle, we will look at d the diameter. So, in place of r we will use (d/2). Therefore, when the diameter is known, the formula becomes plug and chug once more, with no thinking involved. This is a wonderful improvement to r where we had to do division simply to come up with the number required by the formula.
Now to simplify the confusion of shapes. We don't like dealing with squares when we're talking about circles, because lets face it.... that's just confusing. So, we know that to "square a number" means to multiply it my itself. So, rather than squaring r, or as we have now simplified it, (d/2), we will rewrite r^2, as (d/2)^2, which we can further simplify to: (d/2)(d/2). Then, to make it a single fraction so there is less to look at, yet avoiding any "squared" notation, we henceforth be using (d*d)/4 (note the * represents multiplication, for lack of a more clear symbol).
Lastly, we must remove π from the equation. Euler, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, came up with an identity, which to this day, I do not fully understand. But, I do know what it is. Euler's Identity is e^(iπ) = -1. So, if we are to proceed with our equation to a point of having no Greek letters in it, we can write an equivalent statement in terms of π. Then we find that, π = ln(-1)/i. Now, when we substitute this into our area of the circle, we have gotten rid of all characters belonging to foreign languages and don't have to deal directly with any irrational numbers.
So, at long last we have a new and "simplified" area of a circle:
A_c = (ln(-1)*d*d)/(4i)
So, to anyone who previously thought the area of a circle was terrifying, I have done my best to simplify it, and remove from the equation the elements that I thought would be the basis for confusion. I hope this helps and that you look forward to determining the area of the next pizza you buy!
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Not All Houses Were Created Equal
I discovered that my last post on this thread was over a month ago. I have been bored far more than once in the time frame... and by my description that means I should have written more. But, before I start... know that my song of the day is "Anna Sun" by Walk the Moon.
Anyway, I've been working construction on my house here in pville for the past two months or so. I have done a LOT of carpentry projects through my life, and in general, I enjoy building/renovating houses. Through the years I have learned my much about what is the norm, and regulations as well as some aspects of code. Knowing all of these facts is truly wonderful when you are working on a house. But, when you are working on an old house... all of these rules by which you structure your projects fall apart.
My first project, which took me through May, was removing and then replacing the plaster ceiling and walls in my parent's bedroom. (it was far past time... the plaster did not need much... encouraging... to let go of the lathe) Anyway, I tore down all the plaster, which was messy, and by no means fun, but it was fine. I was then prepping to install new sheetrock on the surfaces. Normally this means the following steps:
1) clean off the remaining surfaces of lathe so the sheetrock can lay flush
2) mark the rafter locations
3) cut sheetrock to size
4) hold and screw it
Now, all of these go fine (or so one hopes) regardless of the age of the house. Step 2 however... is not so simple. In a modern house, there will be a rafter directly over one of the side walls. Then, there will be a rafter, on center, every 16 inches. Thus, it is very easy to both measure and mark the rafters. This is not however the case in old houses. Not only are the rafters non-equadistantly spaced, but they are not all continuous. I found multiple cases of rafters where 2 2x4's were spliced together to span the distance. Therefore, the distance between any given 2 rafters is not even constant. It's so frustrating!
Long story short... new houses may not have the history of some old houses... but they follow certain rules... and some of those rules are nice if you're a do-it-yourself-renovator. I recommend keeping this in mind before you start your next project.
Anyway, I've been working construction on my house here in pville for the past two months or so. I have done a LOT of carpentry projects through my life, and in general, I enjoy building/renovating houses. Through the years I have learned my much about what is the norm, and regulations as well as some aspects of code. Knowing all of these facts is truly wonderful when you are working on a house. But, when you are working on an old house... all of these rules by which you structure your projects fall apart.
My first project, which took me through May, was removing and then replacing the plaster ceiling and walls in my parent's bedroom. (it was far past time... the plaster did not need much... encouraging... to let go of the lathe) Anyway, I tore down all the plaster, which was messy, and by no means fun, but it was fine. I was then prepping to install new sheetrock on the surfaces. Normally this means the following steps:
1) clean off the remaining surfaces of lathe so the sheetrock can lay flush
2) mark the rafter locations
3) cut sheetrock to size
4) hold and screw it
Now, all of these go fine (or so one hopes) regardless of the age of the house. Step 2 however... is not so simple. In a modern house, there will be a rafter directly over one of the side walls. Then, there will be a rafter, on center, every 16 inches. Thus, it is very easy to both measure and mark the rafters. This is not however the case in old houses. Not only are the rafters non-equadistantly spaced, but they are not all continuous. I found multiple cases of rafters where 2 2x4's were spliced together to span the distance. Therefore, the distance between any given 2 rafters is not even constant. It's so frustrating!
Long story short... new houses may not have the history of some old houses... but they follow certain rules... and some of those rules are nice if you're a do-it-yourself-renovator. I recommend keeping this in mind before you start your next project.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Unique Reasons for Awesomeness
I have realized that rather than blogging, I have been keeping a list of things to blog about. I will begin to rectify this condition in the coming days or so.
For now, anyone who doesn't know, I have been working on a construction project, redoing the plaster ceiling and walls in my parents bedroom. But that is not particularly important to the story. As I had appropriately prepared the room for demolition and the weeks of work to follow, I covered the floor with tarps and the remaining bed frame with some plywood pieces from the garage (cause we keep our own lumber like that...). At one point I was standing on one particular board when my father came in and after some other conversation said "You know you cannot cut that piece of plywood right?"
Well, I in fact did know that this was 1 of 2 sheets of plywood in the house that are forbidden to be cut. In this case, the reason is that it was the desk surface of the desk my mom had once made herself, and it now carried sentimental value.
During my work to follow the following thought came to me:
"My family is awesome! We keep lumber that we cannot cut for sentimental value, and we retire tools when they get too old."
To explain the latter, my father came up to me one day and explained that his old tape measure had reached an age when it should not be used any more. It is important to know that it still works... it's just old enough to earn retirement. So, we now store it in a drawer, which I have been made aware of, and have been told that this tape measure is to be kept forever, and saved, to be retired and remembered in all its glory.
Note, I am not being sarcastic and I do in fact think this is awesome!
For now, anyone who doesn't know, I have been working on a construction project, redoing the plaster ceiling and walls in my parents bedroom. But that is not particularly important to the story. As I had appropriately prepared the room for demolition and the weeks of work to follow, I covered the floor with tarps and the remaining bed frame with some plywood pieces from the garage (cause we keep our own lumber like that...). At one point I was standing on one particular board when my father came in and after some other conversation said "You know you cannot cut that piece of plywood right?"
Well, I in fact did know that this was 1 of 2 sheets of plywood in the house that are forbidden to be cut. In this case, the reason is that it was the desk surface of the desk my mom had once made herself, and it now carried sentimental value.
During my work to follow the following thought came to me:
"My family is awesome! We keep lumber that we cannot cut for sentimental value, and we retire tools when they get too old."
To explain the latter, my father came up to me one day and explained that his old tape measure had reached an age when it should not be used any more. It is important to know that it still works... it's just old enough to earn retirement. So, we now store it in a drawer, which I have been made aware of, and have been told that this tape measure is to be kept forever, and saved, to be retired and remembered in all its glory.
Note, I am not being sarcastic and I do in fact think this is awesome!
Monday, April 25, 2011
To Follow A Rule
Now, everyone has a set of rules, by which they govern themselves and the way they live. That is not to say rules cannot be made, changed or omitted in certain circumstances. But... there are also those rules that should be followed by everyone... always. The rule I have in mind at the moment is the following:
"Do not get off the highway in New Jersey."
Now, it is important to note that this can be omitted in the case that your final destination is in fact in New Jersey AND not on the highway. But, no exiting for gas, food, rest... anything!
I know many people have had their own experiences with this. I myself once needed gas and thought, "There is a Pilot station. They're huge, and for cars and trucks and food and everything. It'll be fine!" ...but it wasn't... I was lead about 2 miles down a road with a huge divider down the middle where I got to the station just fine. But, I couldn't take the same road back to the highway. Instead, I was instructed to travel out the back of the station, traversing the massive pothole (yes... I think cars went missing in these holes) field, and then headding down a series of back roads. After far longer then was pleasant, there was an entrance onto the main road, in the desired direction, and things ended up working out.
My family was discussing this rule just the other day when traveling to my dad's brother's house for Easter. And without going into too much detail of who was driving, or who said what (but the decision was not mine...), it was explicitly agreed that no matter what, even should one run out of gas, it's not worth exiting. But, no more than 10 minutes later our beloved driver exclaimed the need for gas... and a need to exit. The idea was justified with, "we aren't near I-80" and "it looks like a nice suburban town". And while those may both have been true, never underestimate New Jersey's ability to make your exit as complicated as possible.
As we reached the end of the off-ramp, we saw half the road blocked off by a police car. And upon turning we saw why. Turns out a crane was rolled off a flatbed and was blocking the vast majority of the road. As far as we could tell, there were police in all directions directing traffic, and there was no way back to the highway on the ramp we had just taken. As a result, we had to drive down side roads to the following town before we were able to get back onto the highway.
So... when you are next running out of gas on the high way in good-ole-Jersey, remember, if you just run out, help will have come to you and you don't have to exit!
"Do not get off the highway in New Jersey."
Now, it is important to note that this can be omitted in the case that your final destination is in fact in New Jersey AND not on the highway. But, no exiting for gas, food, rest... anything!
I know many people have had their own experiences with this. I myself once needed gas and thought, "There is a Pilot station. They're huge, and for cars and trucks and food and everything. It'll be fine!" ...but it wasn't... I was lead about 2 miles down a road with a huge divider down the middle where I got to the station just fine. But, I couldn't take the same road back to the highway. Instead, I was instructed to travel out the back of the station, traversing the massive pothole (yes... I think cars went missing in these holes) field, and then headding down a series of back roads. After far longer then was pleasant, there was an entrance onto the main road, in the desired direction, and things ended up working out.
My family was discussing this rule just the other day when traveling to my dad's brother's house for Easter. And without going into too much detail of who was driving, or who said what (but the decision was not mine...), it was explicitly agreed that no matter what, even should one run out of gas, it's not worth exiting. But, no more than 10 minutes later our beloved driver exclaimed the need for gas... and a need to exit. The idea was justified with, "we aren't near I-80" and "it looks like a nice suburban town". And while those may both have been true, never underestimate New Jersey's ability to make your exit as complicated as possible.
As we reached the end of the off-ramp, we saw half the road blocked off by a police car. And upon turning we saw why. Turns out a crane was rolled off a flatbed and was blocking the vast majority of the road. As far as we could tell, there were police in all directions directing traffic, and there was no way back to the highway on the ramp we had just taken. As a result, we had to drive down side roads to the following town before we were able to get back onto the highway.
So... when you are next running out of gas on the high way in good-ole-Jersey, remember, if you just run out, help will have come to you and you don't have to exit!
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
What to Have for Breakfast
To anyone here who is a fan of the show Castle, I trust you had the same initial reaction as most people to the "S'more-let" (technical spelling of this is up for debate...). I too had this reaction at first... and the second time that I saw that very same episode. However, when I came home for Christmas this year, I could not help but express the desire to make a s'more-let when my brother was home. Well, today the deed was done.
Serving for myself, my brother, his wife, and my dad (my mother was conveniently absent...), my brother and I prepared a 5 egg omelet. First we crumbled and sprinkled over the entire cooking egg layer a thin layer of gram cracker. As we planned to fold this omelet in half, we placed 6 marshmallows (torn in half to cover more area) over one half of the omelet and half of a "giant size" Hershey's chocolate bar over the other half. We let the ingredients heat and melt and we then folded it in half and resumed cooking. Once folded we frequently had to use the spatula to push foaming marshmallow back into the egg....
When finished, the outside of the s'more-let looked much like a regular omelet, but the cross-section looked like chocolaty goodness. We let it cool, as nobody likes to eat superhot sugar... and it then took me about 5 minutes simply to convince myself that I was indeed going to attempt this abomination... but in the end I did; and I was pleasantly surprised. None of us had trouble finishing our respective portions, and we were soon debating what appropriate ratios of ingredients would have been. We are certain that there was not enough gram cracker and it was far too well crumbled. Next time we will look to have more crackers and in larger chunks. We believe the marshmallow was the perfect amount, but we had too much chocolate and it was overpowering. We plan to reduce the chocolate by about half to make everything a more even blend of flavor.
...and yes, this does mean there will be a next time.
So, in short, I recommend to everyone a s'more-let with bacon, coffee and orange juice for whenever you are unsure of what to eat and are looking for a complete and balanced breakfast.
Serving for myself, my brother, his wife, and my dad (my mother was conveniently absent...), my brother and I prepared a 5 egg omelet. First we crumbled and sprinkled over the entire cooking egg layer a thin layer of gram cracker. As we planned to fold this omelet in half, we placed 6 marshmallows (torn in half to cover more area) over one half of the omelet and half of a "giant size" Hershey's chocolate bar over the other half. We let the ingredients heat and melt and we then folded it in half and resumed cooking. Once folded we frequently had to use the spatula to push foaming marshmallow back into the egg....
When finished, the outside of the s'more-let looked much like a regular omelet, but the cross-section looked like chocolaty goodness. We let it cool, as nobody likes to eat superhot sugar... and it then took me about 5 minutes simply to convince myself that I was indeed going to attempt this abomination... but in the end I did; and I was pleasantly surprised. None of us had trouble finishing our respective portions, and we were soon debating what appropriate ratios of ingredients would have been. We are certain that there was not enough gram cracker and it was far too well crumbled. Next time we will look to have more crackers and in larger chunks. We believe the marshmallow was the perfect amount, but we had too much chocolate and it was overpowering. We plan to reduce the chocolate by about half to make everything a more even blend of flavor.
...and yes, this does mean there will be a next time.
So, in short, I recommend to everyone a s'more-let with bacon, coffee and orange juice for whenever you are unsure of what to eat and are looking for a complete and balanced breakfast.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)