LilBeaver

Haha - You know I would ask 'him' but I hear the cellular device has a tendency to clean itself so I'm not sure I could get through. Glad you enjoyed it. As for sending it to the media - nope and I have no interest in that. I used to write for a newspaper and even the small scale newspaper didn't go for the 'real and factual' stories. The editors told me time and time again that 'no one wants to read THAT kind of news'. So oh well. What was I thinking, writing NEWS stories for the NEWSpaper. Needless to say, I did not dabble in that too long. I miss the writing and especially the photography, but Physics is really where I belong. As a bonus, I still get to write and publish papers.

Agreed. I used mine quite a bit too. Seemed to get an extra work out last summer when I was up in that little town of yours too. My only regret with mine is that I DID NOT INSTALL IT SOONER!!! One of these days I'll get around to putting a second one on too

I am pretty sure that Tx2Sturgis's updates to this thread are meant to be informatory and not as an "I told you so" type of situation. My above comment was simply what I had though as I skimmed the two postings that Tx2Sturgis made above there. I agree with you, I choose to use it full well knowing the risks and don't see it as a big deal. As for some of the back and forth earlier in the thread - well that is a different question which may be what you were addressing here but it is unclear to me. no biggie.

Now that is surprising!

Well, the technology is there but is just pointed in a different direction and not necessarily with visible light... Which is sad because that would be pretty fricken awesome to see.

I will likely have an update sometime in the next week or so. Both of us have been pretty busy at work so not much has been happenin'.

Well put - with all of the points. I don't know what 'science advisors' they got their info from but either the author of the story grossly misunderstood the explanations that were given to him, the facts were grossly misconstrued or the 'scientists' that the author consulted with are not as up as they should be on the topic. I will explain more below. I realize you were just being funny but there is more truth to this than you may realize. A little background on myself and my qualifications here then a brief introduction to radiation and the REALITY of the situation with respect to the nuclear sources in Japan. I am an experimental physicist currently working in the field of condensed matter. A result of the specific type of research I am working on requires that I use beamlines from particle accelerators (Cyclotrons, synchrotrons) as well as a nuclear reactors. In order to safely work around this equipment we all must have a good working understanding of the risks involved and how to manage them. Radiation is actually rather well understood (by scientists) and can be broken down into some very elementary parts and concepts. Unfortunately it is quite rare that media such as the news, Sci-Fi, TV programs or movies actually take the time to understand 'radiation' before they start capitalizing on the fact that they can throw that word around and get a big response out of people that either don't understand it, have a warped or incomplete understanding of it. Just like lighting a campfire, getting on a motorcycle, going for a walk or any other standard activities have their risks; working in or around an environment that contains a higher than normal concentration of radioactive materials requires some special care but most importantly a good understanding of what it is that can be problematic. For example I suspect that almost all of us would agree that grabbing a red glowing log from a fire that has been burning for several hours may be hot when you touch it, but if you understand what you are doing, think ahead and put on fire gloves or use the proper handling tools you can move that log around with no problems such as burning your hands. Radiation 101: All matter beyond that of elementary particles are made up of atoms which in them selves contain two parts; the positively charged core (nucleus) and the negatively charged exterior 'shell/cloud' comprised of electrons. Electrons are considered to be an 'elementary' particle; meaning that it is the smallest entity and there are no 'constituent' particles 'inside' the electron as it IS as small as it gets (in terms of stable particles that can exist on their own; that is, ignore quarks for now). The nucleus is made up of smaller particles that are within this 'hard sphere' of confinement containing protons and neutrons. As just about anything in nature, there is a natural force that works to essentially stabilize the nucleus (by lowering the energy as much as possible). When nuclei are in the most stable state, nothing really interesting happens as they are content the way they are. For an unstable nuclei, the internal forces work to get to the stable state; in doing this excess quanta of energy may be bled off or the nuclei may emit a particle. This emitted energy [atomic] or the emitted particles is what is known as radiation. Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation are the two most common types of radiation. Radiation that contains sufficient (and appropriate) energy to strip an electron from another atom thereby creating an 'ion' (~loosely speaking an atom with a net charge) is known as ionizing radiation. Radiation that does NOT contain the appropriate amount of energy to make these ions is known as non-ionizing radiation. Some common examples of each are: Ionizing radiation: alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays and neutrons Non-ionizing radiation: microwaves, radio waves, visible light, lasers, etc. Both types of radiation have their own risks associated with interacting with other matter and some are greater than others. I will now specifically discuss some of the particles, properties and the risks associated with each (one could probably skip this section without prohibiting the further understanding of the content of the rest of the post). Alpha particles tend to have a large mass, have two neutrons, two protons and no electrons. That is, they tend to be particles emitted from the nucleus of an atom that contain a high charge. Due to their physical characteristics, the alpha particle has a very limited penetration depth and can only really go about 1-2 inches in air. Alpha particles are NOT considered to be hazardous from an external radiation standpoint since they are easily stopped by the outermost dead layer of skin (or clothing) on a person. They are, however, a pretty severe INTERNAL hazard as if ingested can do a lot of damage if in close contact to body tissue (due to the fact that they deposit a large amount of energy in a very small space). Beta particles are very similar to electrons and have a charge of either + or - that of an electron. Positrons (positively charged beta particles) are considered to be anitmater and when combined with an electron the pair goes through a process known as 'pair annihilation' which results in a produced gamma ray. Beta particles have a mean travel distance of about 10 feet in air and only a few millimeters in skin (but those numbers vary greatly depending on the energy level of the initial beta particle). Beta particles can be particularly hazardous if inhaled or ingested or exposed to the soft tissue such as eyes or skin. Gamma rays and x-ray radiation contains no electrical charge and is electromagnetic in nature. In air, these can travel several hundred feet because they contain no charge or mass. Both Gamma and x-ray radiation is considered as an external hazard and ones whole body could be exposed to it. Neutron radiation is simply that; radiation that is a result of the neutrons being ejected from a nucleus. Neutrons can travel quite well through air and due to its properties is best shielded by matter containing a high concentration of Hydrogen (ie. water). Neutrons in themselves are not really what is problematic, it is their interaction with the constituents in human tissue that could cause problems (to people anyways). Not ALL neutrons are 'dangerous' as there is a vast energy range of neutrons and they are classified accordingly. The neutrons in the 'thermal neutron range' (0.025-0.5 eV) are the ones that pose the highest hazard to humans as in this range they can be 1) captured by Hydrogen and released in the form of a deuteron and a gamma ray which then interacts to produce electrons that leave an ionization track along the path of which they move (which is not good for you or your tissue) 2) capture in the nitrogen in your system which in-turn emits a proton that then interacts with your system Bottom line: If the neutron has sufficient energy it may interact with the conttuents of the tissue and scatter off the hydrogen nuclei, which then transfers a significant amount of energy to the Hydrogen that was otherwise content where it was, and potentially breaking the Hydrogen free from whatever it was attached to in the system. This process usually occurs within about 5cm after entering a hydrogen-rich environment (such as your body) and on average has ~20 interactions before being captured/stopped. The Nuclear Reactor to generate electrical power I will keep this short enough to get the relevant point across with respect to the current situation. To generate electricity in almost any form (except for solar) one uses electromagnetic induction to induce current in wires by creating a time varying magnetic field across a coil of wires thereby generating current. The stator on our motorcycles do this very same thing; there is a magnet that spins inside a coil of wire which generates electricity. In commercial power generation for consumption by the public the power industry relies on the same concept, just scaled up for the appropriate amount of power generation. That is they use bigger coils, more wire and bigger magnets. The trick is to find the most efficient way to turn the apparatus that either moves the magnet or the coil of wire. Coal and nuclear both rely on steam to turn large turbines that are essentially connected to these big magnets in the generators to generate the electricity. Coal is obviously burned to heat the water (think of it like a big kettle under a turbine). Nuclear power generation, in the very simple picture, relies on the same basic principle: Heat water to make steam to turn a turbine. The method used to heat the water is much different than smoldering coal; that is it is the process of nuclear fission. Fission is the process of an unstable nucleus splitting into two (or more) smaller nuclei. This process releases a huge amount of energy which is then absorbed by the water thereby heating it up. "Fuel rods" containing such unstable nuclei are the primary constituents in the ractors and really where all of the good stuff happens. Once these fuel rods use up the fissionable material inside (practically speaking, once they are producing below a particular level) they are considered to be 'spent' and are replaced by 'fresh ones' and then should be stored appropriately until they are no longer 'active'. An appropriate way to store these 'spent rods' (whether they are metal-oxides, actinides, uranium dioxides or what have you) is to basically keep them cool enough to moderate the ongoing fission until it basically 'runs out of gas'. This brings us to what is going on right now in Japan. It is my understanding (Multiple BBC news sources, etc) that one of the spent rod storage pool facilities was rather severely damaged by the earthquake/tsunami which knocked out the cooling system for the pools themselves. What this means is that if the pools are not kept cool, the water that surrounds the rods would continue to heat up (and of course vaporize) and without the active cooling system to cool and replenish the water supply the spent fuel rods may be allowed to continually heat up until the oxidized surface of the MOX rods that they are using actually catch fire do to the heat generated in the rods themselves. This is VERY VERY VERY much different than the Chernobyl disaster because it is simply the spent rods and the water that surrounds them that is heating up instead of a full blown melt-down/explosion/event that released a huge amount of fissionable materials into the atmosphere. Spent rods contain nuclei that are no longer undergoing the fission process but primarily going through a 'beta decay' process which is doing the majority of the heat generation. This 'beta decay' process is aptly named for the process of which produces beta particles. The Point The water that is evaporating from these spent rod storage pools is dangerous in the sense that if the rods' oxide layers catch fire (due to lack of cooling) there will be a high concentration of what the materials that the rods contain. Now, recall that beta particles penetrate air on average of 10 feet or so. This distance is, of course, a probability distribution so yes, some will go A LOT further than 10 feet and a lot more will travel much less than 10 feet. Radiation from beta particles as an external hazard is not nearly as dangerous as it is an internal hazard. That is if inhaled or ingested it will to much more harm to your body than it would if just exposed to it externally. So the likelihood of a 'radioactive cloud' coming all the way across the ocean and bombarding the western shores of the U.S. is preposterous UNLESS there is something more than just these spent rod storage pools that has a problem; even then, the likely hood of something making its way all the way across the ocean without decaying to its much less harmful parts is quite slim. Quite frankly, even people that are nearby are probably quite safe so long as they don't drink or eat anything that has been directly exposed to this beta radiation until the particles have had a chance to continue the natural decay process and get to a state that is not harmful to our soft tissue. It is very unfortunate that the U.S. media has reported on this matter the way they have as it is my opinion that they could have done a much better job of delivering a more useful, informative and factually accurate report on the events related to the nuclear plant in Japan. That however, is another debate for a different place and time. I hope that this is somewhat informative to anyone that has read it and that if you have questions please don't hesitate to ask. I wrote this on the fly so hopefully I got all of MY facts straight too Anyways, I'm going to go back to my lab and glow in the dark for a while .

Looked the same to me... But then again I was working and had 'a little' magnification that helped me out...

Or any type of interaction with anyone through any medium of communication... Too bad 'common sense' is far from common anymore...

Maybe this is a dumb question but what in the world does the type of oil you use have to do with #2? I completely understand #1 with respect to the use of synthetics but maybe you could clarify the relation with #2. Thanks

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/info/images/franklinwithkey.jpg

Looks like I will be coming in from New Zealand (p.s. Yes, I love my work) just a few days before - I suspect the 'slight' jet lag will be non-condusive to boogie-ing on up to either Cody or Sturgis. Maybe you can snap a few pictures while you are there. Although for viewing it would be helpful if I did not have a female friend accompanying me...

:think: Was there a question???

I think you Minnesoooooooooooooooooooooooooooootans are just too close to canadia and some of the 'weird' stuff rubs off on you. I know the U.P. had some interesting canadian rub off shenanigans... Ya, don't-cha'know eh?

Very cool! My first 'long haul' bike trip was not too long ago, but then again I am not much older than your son. I never thought about the 'worry factor' of the parental units (they told me they didn't worry), but I know they were sure happy (and relieved) to hear from me whenever I called. I hope your son has a great trip and can get back home safely, despite some of the 'awesome' weather that has been graciously delivered to you.

+1 to just removing the tank and taking a good look at what is down there. As MikeWa said, it is not hard to do... at all. 1) Turn fuel petcock to 'off' and let bike run for a few minutes to drain the hose a tad 2) Two screws on the top of the tank to remove the plastic cover 3) unplug fuel sending unit, remove headset connector, remove/detatch vapor vent hose 4) remove seat 5) remove 2 bolts on front of tank going into neck of bike, remove 1 bolt at rear of tank (right under the upward lip of where the seat would be) 6) Disconnect fuel line from petcock 7) Lift off tank DONE. It really is quite simple. I have had to do this on the side of the road once, did it with no problems and have done it more times that I care to count in my garage.

Too bad you didn't get a chance on my bike BEFORE I shattered my clearview. I too typically prefer to NOT like to look THROUGH the windshield but found that with the clearview I had, if I kept it polished it really was not all that bad. I ended up not cutting it down because the weather protection was amazing. I had my shield 'rain-x'ed and have been through all sorts of 'fun' weather with it. Everything from slight drizzles/mist to heavy down pours. I found that in all cases (except for a real fine mist/frost/crap that I got riding through some of the rockies) EVERYTHING just rolled right off that shield (obviously provided I was up to speed, say 35mph+). Most of the time, the water build up on my eye glasses, sunglasses or visor was more distracting than the water on the shield. I did find that after several hours in less than ideal riding conditions, I did have to stop and give it a good cleaning before continuing on because it got sunny and my shield was filthy - but that is just how it goes. I also found that the Clearview I had was noticeably heavier than the OEM shield, which I did not like. It did change the low speed handling characteristics quite a bit - but nothing that I didn't get used to. ---- Now back to your regularly schedule programming...

For me, proper wind and weather protection CAN make the ride MUCH more enjoyable. Especially if it is a long one.

This has been my experience too -- well at least what my passengers seem to indicate. Although it gets mighty windy here in 'West' Texas so frequently the crosswinds negate any effects that the different windshields would have anyways. Lets see I am on windshield number 4 in less than 2 years. My first was replaced because I couldn't see through it. The best I could tell it was a Yamaha 'extra wide' one. That was pretty good on the passenger. My replacement for that was a standard width Yamaha one. that lasted less than 5 hours on the bike thanks to a friendly bird. My passenger did notice an increase in wind buffeting on her body but not necessarily on her face. The next replacement was a Clearview XL or XXL (tinted with a vent), courtesy of fellow member here. That was a huge improvement (over OEM height/width) for both driver and passenger in weather protection as well as wind protection. Thanks to a wet and oily parking garage the clearview snapped off and now I am back with an OEM shield. I am pretty sure it is a wide one because going back to the OEM from the clearview I did not notice a big difference in wind or weather protection (for the driver). I put on about 2500 miles within a few days of replacing the clearview (and a bit of riding without a windshield) so my perception may have been skewed a bit. Point of story: I am quite certain that the extra couple inches in width greatly helped limit the wind buffeting that MY Passengers experience.

Howdy and welcome. 1) You say your emergency flashers do not work but your turn signals do. I believe this pairs the problem down to one or two things. The turn signals and 'hazard/emergency flashers' have SEPARATE relays. I believe the emergency flasher relay is inside the front fairing on the right side (brake lever side) -- but it has been a while since I have checked this so you can verify this in the service manual (I do not have my copy handy otherwise I would look it up for you). The other option is that it is something wrong with the handlebar switch itself. The switch can be tested with a multimeter and the electrical diagrams (available in service manual, or better yet, a full color VERY WELL put together set from dingy -- available in the 2nd gen tech library). If you need more info on how to go about testing this just say so 2) What to do with your radio... Well, if it were me I'd put it up for sale. You might have to sit on it for a while but that's how it goes sometimes. A while back I had to buy a handlebar controller then a radio unit to fix a problem I had and it turned out that my original handlebar unit was fine. I sold my replacement within a few weeks to another member here. ~$300 for a replacement radio is nothing compared to the 1200+ for a NEW one. Again, welcome to the site!! :080402gudl_prv:

:sign yeah that: :sign yeah that: :happy65:

Nice; well done. Sounds good! I don't know about that passing on the double yellow though I've got a set of baron pipes on mine that I can only have on for short rides. Love the sound (not necessarily the volume though) but they get annoying after 1hr+ rides.

Good info here boomer, thanks for posting. I have only encountered (while on/with the bike anyways) some of these groups two or three times. For each, I just minded my own business and had no problems. Yaarrr matey.

I've got mine on the crash bars (obviously) as high as they will go. It was the only arrangement I could find so that they wouldn't interfere with my feet as I worked the controls. I can post some pictures tonight when I get home (to my other computer) if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Also, I installed mine so that they fold back torward the rider (parallel to the ground) so that if I bump something with them they FOLD BACK instead of bending something. I have seen plenty of folks install them so they 'fold up' or something goofy like that -- I don't understand the rationale for that, but to each his/her own. They are great for the summer as throwing the feet out in the wind really feels nice directing the air up the pant legs and whatnot.

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/smiley-face-popcorn.gif