"Ask Jim"...

February's Lunar Eclipse...

2008-02-22T16:59:00.007-06:00

Jim's first attempt at astrophotagraphy netted him several respectable pictures of February's lunar eclipse.

These pictures were taken through a 32mm eyepiece on a 8" SCT telescope. Magnification would be about 60x.

2007 CARDINALS RETROSPECTIVE

2007-10-04T21:38:00.000-05:00

Adam writes: “It's been a LONG freakin time, but I want to hear your perspective on something. How come the Cardinals, reigning MLB world champs, have such a mediocre season this year? We were in the easiest division in baseball. What are the top reasons, in prioritized order, for why we went downhill?”

Why were the Cardinals so mediocre this year? A better question may be how did they manage to do so well this year.

Let’s start by taking a look at the pitching. Last year our main rotation was Carpenter, Suppan, Weaver, Marquis, and Reyes, with Wainwright as the closer. During this winter we lost Suppan, Weaver and Marquis to free agency. Were Jockety and the owners pinching pennies or were spending responsibly? The money those three pitchers were offered were outrageous so I can’t blame them for letting them go but they should have had a better plan to replace them. They did obtain Kip Wells who turned out to be probably THE worst acquisition of Jockety’s tenure here. Wells was a total bust and couldn’t be salvaged even when moved to the bullpen. Then they brought Looper, Wainwright, and Reyes in from the bullpen. Wainwright’s transformation was inevitable, he was being groomed as a starter anyway. Looper did quite well considering he pitched more innings by June than he had pitched in any previous season. Reyes is just one pitcher that can’t pitch in the Duncan school of pitching.

So, at the best, you have a fragile rotation that you hope can keep you in the race until Mulder comes back. Then Carpenter pitches one game and he’s out, Wells falls flat on his face, they keep throwing band-aids on the rotation, Mulder comes back at the end of the year, pitches a couple of games and he’s back on the DL and getting surgery. In the course of the year eleven men were marched out to start games including the likes of Thompson, Welemeyer, Maroth, Keisler, and Piniero. A collection of relief pitchers, minor leagers and has-beens.

Now we go to the position players. Pujols was banged up and had a sub-par (for Pujols) season. Second base was split between Kennedy and Miles. Miles was a bench player that only played because Kennedy was such a bust (another failed Jockety move). Eckstein missed 50 games. Rolen missed 60 games (no surprise, he’s always been fragile). Edmunds missed 63 games. Duncan started only 91 and Encarnacion 72. Ankiel was about the only positive story all year (and that silver lining had a dark cloud in front of it).

I haven’t even mentioned the tragic death of Josh Hankock.

With all that went wrong and all the injuries, the Cardinals were in it right to the very end and played hard even after they were eliminated.

If you just change a few small things, the Cards would still be playing and the Cubs would be on the links by now. If Carpenter wasn’t lost, we’d be in it. If Mulder came back, we’d be in it. You could go down the line and name a dozen “if onlys”.

That being said, especially with Jockety gone, I hope Larussa decides to not come back. I’d like to see a whole new organizational structure. Make a clean slate and start a whole new rebuilding process. Larussa and Jockety did a great job. It has been very entertaining to watch them build a team, fill in the wholes, patch up the cracks and put it all together. The 2004 team was awesome. 2005 was even better. 2006 was starting to show wear even though it was the year they went all the way. 2007 was like watching a once great locomotive sit out in the weather and rust. It’s time to cut your losses, get some young faces in here and see what they can do.

The Jockety-Larussa era has been one of the most productive eras in the history of the franchise but it has run it’s course. Let it go.

Ask Jim's Theme Song!!!

2007-06-30T08:43:00.000-05:00

Thanks to my favorite daughter, Ask Jim now has a theme song. If you know what's good for you, you'll click on this link to listen to it!

Too many questions... too little time....

2007-05-07T21:32:00.000-05:00

Adam writes:hey jim,

it seems like you haven't been answering a lot of questions lately. is it because you don't have time to tell, or is it because you don't want to be asked anymore? i hope it's not the latter.

I apologize to all. It's definitly not a matter of not wanting to be asked the questions. It is simply a matter of not enough time. My sweetheart Bluebelle has been a very bad girl and has been demanding much of my time. After rebuilding her a nice new engine, she has responded by not wanting to start which has been a vexing development that has preoccupied most of my time lately.

Hopefully things will get back on track soon and I'll be back to answering all your questions.

BTW Sarah...

The simple answer to your question is nipple rings are like little time bombs that could go off at any time. You would do well to go straight to anyone you would know that would have such abominations and quickly tear them out. Believe me, once they realize you have their best interest in mind they will thank you for making them better, healthier people!

If my children were fish...

2007-03-24T10:18:00.000-05:00

What's Your Excuse?

2007-03-22T21:46:00.000-05:00

Hangovers and Headaches...

2007-03-10T18:46:00.000-06:00

ADAM WRITES...Say, I was getting crunk this weekend with some friends and they were ordering mixed drinks with Stoli vodka. I told them they were silly - why pay for nice vodka when you're just gonna mix it with a bunch of stuff anyway? They said that higher quality vodka will give you less of a hangover the next morning. I then told them they were extra silly - hangovers are caused by alcohol, not by the other stuff in booze that makes it taste better or worse.

So I want to know - what causes hangovers? And, is a hangover affected by...

1. the type of grain used to make the alcohol?
2. the minerals or other "impurities" that are in cheaper alcohol?
3. the number of girls who shoot down my pickup attempts?

Well Adam, there can be several factors to what causes hangovers which can make the answer to this question very complicated. Hangovers are accompanied by headaches and many things can cause headaches, especially migraines. There is a whole list of foods that can induce headaches in some people and one that is often listed is red wine. So how would you determine if what you drank gave you a headache or a hangover?

That is simple, if you drink one or two glasses of red wine (or certain brand vodka or name the drink) and you get a headache, there is probably something in that drink that you should stay away from. If you drink a glass of red wine and don’t get a headache, but you drink 5 glasses of wine and do get a headache, we can reasonably assume that it is the alcohol.

The single biggest factor of hangovers is the alcohol. Your not going to find too many reputable sources deny that. That being said, there are many who believe that there are "impurities" that can be a factor. Let me show you a quote from Robert West, a Post-Doc\Functional Neuroanatomist at the VA Hospital in Syracuse, NY:

“Some people believe that certain impurities or toxins that can be found in alcoholic drinks, called congeners, can cause hangover. In fact, there is a brand of vodka that used to market itself as so pure that it was hangover free; I believe some governmental agency has since made them stop saying that. In any event, drinks like vodka and gin have fewer congeners, and are supposed to produce less of a hangover, whereas drinks like whisky and red wine, which have lots of non-alcohol ingredients, are supposed to insure a big headache. Along these same lines is the idea that a toxic byproduct of alcohol metabolism (acetaldehyde), builds in the bloodstream and causes hangover.

I suppose I just have a couple of things to say about congeners and acetaldehyde. First, the acetaldehyde hypothesis simply is incorrect; blood levels never really get very high, the levels aren't correlated with hangover symptoms, and it's all gone by the time you actually have the hangover. Regarding the congeners, most of the studies done on hangover used pure alcohol as the drink, so its pretty clear you can get a whopper of a hangover just by drinking alcohol. Second, the scientific studies are all over the map on this point. Some say congeners definitely make a difference, other found no difference whatsoever. It could be that some people are more susceptible than others, or that people get the result they expect to get. Scientifically though, the question hasn't been adequately answered yet in my mind.”

So, the good doctor tells us that there may be some merit to this impurities theory.

Let me ask everyone this question. If it is the “impurities” in the drink that cause the hangover, then shouldn’t the drink with the least amount of hangover be Everclear? That is 95% pure alcohol. Has anyone ever known anyone to mix Everclear with fruit punch or Red Bull? And did they have a hangover free morning the next day? We know it is not the fruit punch or Red Bull that gives us the hangover don’t we?

Furthermore, impurity theory proponents are talking less about one brand vodka vs. another brand vodka, they are talking about different liquors altogether. High on the list of drinks that cause hangovers is bourbon and red wine. Low on the list is vodka and gin.

I’ve heard many people in St, Louis say they won’t drink Budweiser because it gives them headaches. I can’t believe there is much truth to that statement but I have heard it from so many people that I could never call them a liar (I still can’t believe there is much truth to that statement).

I agree with you that if you’re mixing your liquor, you are usually wasting your money by asking for higher priced brands. That is based on the fact that most of the time you can no longer taste the difference in quality. Some drinks are not mixed with much of anything. Martinis are mostly gin and dry martinis are sometimes nothing but gin. If that is the case, you probably can taste the difference. Your mother enjoys cosmopolitans. She always asks for Absolute brand vodka because she says she can taste the difference. Actually she says it is less the taste than it is the bite. She feels the brand vodka is smoother than the bar vodka. Could she tell the difference blindfolded? Maybe, maybe not. It really doesn’t matter, if you think your going to enjoy something better if you make it a certain way, you probably will and I’m all about going with what you enjoy.

When you tell me that you ask for the higher priced liquor because you think the less expensive brand will give you a migraine, again, I’d never argue with you.

If you think you get worse hangovers from drinking less expensive drinks, you have to ask yourself if you drink more when it is less expensive.

Lets face it, the best way to avoid a hangover is to not drink as much. When it comes to true hangovers (as opposed to food allergies), the greatest factor is ALWAYS the alcohol but when it comes to headaches, it is directly proportional to the number of girls that shoot down your pickup attempts.

TWENTY FIVE OR SIX TO FOUR

2007-02-07T13:10:00.000-06:00

DAN WRITES... Hey Jim,

While spending a fine evening of good company and spirits with your son, we happened across an extremely catchy tune that is still in my head to this day. The song was "25 or 6 to 4" sung by the band Chicago. Although I now know the correct words (I was singing it 250624) what exactly do those numbers mean? are there multiple meanings that I am missing?

Well, it’s not a terribly complicated song. Lets look at the lyrics:

Waiting for the break of day
Searching for something to say
Flashing lights against the sky
Giving up I close my eyes
Sitting cross-legged on the floor
25 or 6 to 4

Staring blindly into space
Getting up to splash my face
Wanting just to stay awake
Wondering how much I can take
Should I try to do some more
25 or 6 to 4

Feeling like I ought to sleep
Spinning room is sinking deep
Searching for something to say
Waiting for the break of day
25 or 6 to 4
25 or 6 to 4

So... our young man from Chicago is having a rough time “maintaining”. It’s after 3:30 in the morning (more accurately, about twenty five or six to four*) and he just can’t seem to figure out whether he should go to sleep or stay awake. He wants to sleep, he wants to stay awake, he wants to say something... Oy! He just doesn’t quite know what he wants does he? Along with these lyrics is music that is a bit topsy-turvy, edgy and unnerving.

When we put this music and lyrics into the perspective of when the song was released, 1967, it can only mean one of two things. He’s either coming down from an LSD trip or a night of speed. From the line “Should I try to do some more?” you would have to assume it wasn’t LSD. You wouldn’t take another dose of LSD to get you through those moments at the end of your trip when it’s just no fun anymore. On the other hand, he may be coming down from LSD and thinking about taking some speed to get him through until dawn but that is really neither here nor there.

Think about it. I mean we’ve all been there before, haven’t we?** You’ve been up all night, speeding or tripping your brains out, you’re dead tired, you're crashing so what was fun is no fun anymore. You could either wait it out and try to get some sleep but the sun will be coming up before you know it so maybe you should take another snort and stay up and go to bed early tomorrow. Tough decision. So now all this stuff is racing through your head... “What do I have to do tomorrow?”... “If I go to bed can I even sleep?”... “If I get to sleep, what time do I have to get up?”... “If I stay up, what time can I go to bed?”... “What do I have going tomorrow night?”... “Would I feel better if I got some sleep or would that just make me feel worse?”... “Geeze-Louise! What the hell was I thinking?! I’m NEVER going to do this again!” (Yeah, right!)

So there it is in a nutshell. Now that you think of it, it was pretty obvious wasn’t it?

*I’m not sure you would use this phrase anymore. Today everyone has digital watches so you would look at your watch and say “Three thirty four or five”. Back in the days of analogue dial watches, any time between 30 minutes and 59 minutes past the hour was referred to as time until the hour. Quarter ‘till or “to” the hour was H:45.

Sorry if this is already obvious to everyone, but I just wasn’t sure if this was lost lingo or not.

** See the previous post about “I lie a lot, but I wouldn’t lie about that, unless I’m lying about this”.

Officiating Super Bowl LXI

2007-02-06T20:25:00.000-06:00

ADAM WRITES... Hey Jim,

After watching the SuperBowl last night, I learned a disturbing fact. The NFL Field Judge who officiated was #58, Jim Saracino.

When I "ask Jim," how do I know that I'm asking Jim Saraceno and not Jim Saracino?

And Jim, when you provide me an answer to this question, how will I know you're not lying?

And how will I know that you're not lying when you answer THAT question???

And Droz writes... Hey Jim,

I also noticed the official during the Super Bowl. Unfortunately I noticed him because he got a call wrong. Do you think this ruins any chance you had of becoming a referee in the NFL? Did you ever aspire to be referee in the NFL?

Thanks
-Droz

So first, let me say that I can’t get all the calls right all the time. This was my first game as a ref. I usually just watch the game on TV but I came up with this great idea to get a better view of the game. Just show up in a striped shirt and tell them I’m one of the refs. Who’d know the difference, right? So it worked fine until I had to make a call. Hell I wasn’t even watching that guy, I was checking out one of the cheerleaders when I realized I was supposed to say “In” or “out” or “safe” of something. I figured I had a 50/50 chance. Oh well, C’est la vie!

Anyway, here is the announcement of the officiating crew for Super Bowl LXI:

Corrente Named Referee For Super Bowl XLI
January 31, 2007
By SportsTicker

MIAMI (Ticker) - Tony Corrente has been bestowed with his first Super Bowl assignment as a referee.
The NFL announced Wednesday that Corrente, who is concluding his 12th season as a game official, will head the seven-man crew of game officials selected to work Super Bowl XLI between the Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts.
Corrente served as the alternate referee for last year's Super Bowl between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks.
The rest of the Super Bowl XLI officiating crew will consist of umpire Carl Paganelli, linesman George Hayward, line judge Rod Marinucci, field judge Jim Saracino, side judge John Parry and back judge Perry Paganelli. The Paganelli's are the first set of brothers ever assigned to officiate a Super Bowl.
Under the NFL's officiating program's evaluation system, the highest-rated officials at each position with the appropriate experience earn the right to work the Super Bowl. Officials must have five years of experience and previous playoff assignments.

Mark Burns is the replay assistant and will be working his second Super Bowl. Jeff Triplette, Butch Hannah, Carl Johnson, Buddy Horton and Rich Reels will serve as alternate officials.

So here is what a couple of Bears fans had to say about me and my crew:

>

I don't understand, why would you pick the WORST crew for the Super Bowl?????

This looks like the all-Italian team!! I'm just glad we don't have to endure 3 plus hours of Hochuli!!!

Well, everyone is a critic and the Bears fans are just plain sore losers. But some time you just have to say “What the Heck?!”

Oh, and the question about lying... well I lie a lot but I wouldn’t lie about that, unless I’m lying about this.

p.s. My son reminds me that this is neither the first nor the worst call in sports history. For those who may be new here and want to read about a truely bad call, one that probably affected the outcome of the 1985 World Series, you may want to follow this link to an older "Ask Jim" post. http://askjimblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/worst-umpires-call-in-cardinals.html

THE WANKEL WRINKLE

2007-02-03T13:25:00.000-06:00

ADAM WRITES...OMG JIM!

Today, Feb 1, 2007, marks the 50th anniversary of the Wankel engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine#History

When are they going to put Wankels in all cars? Aren't they of simpler design, with less moving parts and more efficient operation?

Though Wankel engines are simpler designs with higher outputs per physical size and displacement, they are less efficient and have higher emissions. The lower compression ratios inherent in the Wankel engine mean there is a smaller percentage of the fuel actually being burned. This means two things, higher emissions and lower gas mileage. In today’s market, neither of these would matter as big engines with huge torque and horsepower numbers accompanied by poor gas mileage lead sales, so I’m guessing that they are wanting in the torque and horsepower department too. Even though the idea of a rotary piston is simpler, that is only for a single cylinder engine. Once you go to multi piston engines, it becomes very complicated again.

In the past, there has also been a reliability issue. Seals were always a problem and though they have come a long way in fixing that problem, I don’t know if they have gained the confidence of the public.

Basically it boils down to which engine is going to be the most reliable, powerful, and efficient for the price. As soon as someone comes up with an engine that will beat the reciprocating piston internal combustion engine, the car manufacturers will put them in their cars and the public will buy them.

There are no more "Leagues of Their Own"

2007-01-28T17:34:00.000-06:00

Anna writes... Dear father Jim,

Why do sports have leagues? What's the difference between national and american leagues? Who decides what teams play on what leagues? Do the "final" games (World Series or Super Bowl, etc) always have to have teams from both leagues? Has there always been 2 leagues? How deep is 20,000 leagues?

Two is just the number that seems to work out the best. The reason that sports teams have more than one league is if one league is profitable then someone else will start another league to compete with it.

In baseball, since the National League started in 1876, there have been many other leagues started. There was the American Association, the Federal League, the Union League, the Players League, and the American League. There are also dozens of minor leagues and independent leagues. These don’t even count the negro leagues and the women’s leagues that the movie “League of Their Own” was based on.

During times when there was only one league in existence, it never did as well as when two leagues were present. The champion of one league just does not hold the interest of the champion of one league playing the champion of another league.

Football also started with the National Football League. The American Football League started in the 1960. By 1970 the two leagues merged into one keeping the original leagues separate as conferences. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating competing leagues. In 2000, the people who run the WWF wrestling circuit decided to start their own “Extreme Football League”. They never survived as they put out an inferior product that neither had the quality football that the football fans wanted, nor the theatrics that the wrestling fans wanted. That’s not to say someone couldn’t make a go of a new sports league tomorrow. If they were successful, no doubt their best team would be included in the playoff system and the new league would probably merge with the older league.

I’m not familiar with hockey, soccer, and basketball, but time has proven that it is not enough to just win more games that other teams, fans want to see the best teams face off for a final showdown. By having two leagues or conferences, you can pit the best of one against the best of the other. Most sports divide their leagues into divisions and figure out a way to get more teams involved in the playoff system. There is much more fan interest in a team that has a chance to make the post season play off tournament. The more teams that are invited to that tournament, the more fans will be interested in their teams. The only problem comes when you invite so many teams to the tournament that the regular season has very little meaning. Hockey is close to that break even point right now where it is so hard to not make it to the post season that many fans pay little attention to the regular season. Their interest in the sport doesn’t peak until the start of the playoffs or “second season”.

There are also many sports with only one league or where different leagues do not compete against each other. Golf, tennis, and horse racing have circuits that all the best compete in. Auto racing has different leagues with different types of cars and different rules and one league does not compete with the other. Of course these sports are individual sports and not team sports so that may be the difference.

And finally, about the 20,000 leagues under the sea, that continent of Atlantis was sure one heck of a sports town!

NASA goes Metric

2007-01-28T16:57:00.000-06:00

Brian writes...Hey Jim, so NASA recently decided to go metric. What do you think about this? Are units such as AU, parsec, and light-year considered metric or English?

I’m surprised to hear that NASA is going metric. I thought they had been for years. It’s about time that NASA and the rest of this country did it. Back in the ‘70s. the US had been legislated to go to the metric system over a 10 year period of time but it all fell through. The only business that went metric was the liquor industry that changed bottles from 1/5 gallons to 750 mls. That gave them the ability to give us less product for the same price. I never did understand the problem. If we went to the metric system overnight, where every place of business had to make all measurements meters, it would take us about 3 months for it all to sink in.

The metric system is such a much better system that it just does not make any sense to stick with the English system. Take for instance the millimeter. It can easily be measured and read with a metric rule where as a sixteenth of and inch, which is larger, therefore less accurate is cumbersome and unwieldy. Construction workers use measurements all day every day, but few use sixteenths. In trades where they have to be accurate to a sixteenth you will hear people to refer to “heavy” and “light” measurements. That is to say a “heavy half inch” is actually nine sixteenths inch. A “light three quarter inch” is actually eleven sixteenths.

The one exception to this is the metric measurement of temperature. One degree of Celsius is 1.8 degrees of Fahrenheit. Almost half as accurate. The temperature of water freezing and boiling are still arbitrary points on a scale. Two degrees is not twice as hot as one degree. One hundred degrees is not twice as hot as fifty degrees. Celsius was and is a bad idea. Do something that make sense and is practical like meters and then have everyone change to the third system.

As far as the AU, parsec or light-year, all three are unit neutral, they can be expressed in either metric or English measurements.

Wine and Wine Racks

2006-12-19T20:39:00.000-06:00

Anna writes... I have questions that will be pertinent to our super fun father-daughter activities over break:
-Why are wine bottles usually stored horizontally? Does it make a difference?
-Is there a right and wrong way to organize wine on a wine rack... by type? age? cutest label?
-How awesome will the wine rack be that we build?

Wine is stored horizontally in order to keep the cork wet. If a bottle of wine spends too much time upright, the cork will dry out and lose its seal. Then oxygen will get in and spoil the wine. When you go to a restaurant and order a bottle of wine, they will often open the bottle, put the cork down in front of you and pour a little wine in a glass for you to taste. You can tell by looking at the cork if it has dried out due to poor storage. Also, the wine has a very distinct flavor if it has become oxidized. This is mostly a formality as most places know how to store their wines and would recognize a bad cork before they would serve it to you.

Many things about wines and their bottles are steeped in tradition. If you look at the bottom of many wine bottles, you will see that they are indented instead of flat. This is because wines used to have sediments that would keep settling out long after they were in the bottle. Before you would drink the wine, you would store it upright for some time so those sediments would fall to the bottom. It was then easier to decant the wine leaving the sediment but very little of the wine behind. Traditional decanters are still made and sold today but their only purpose is a nice way to display your wine while it is served, much like one would find nice "cat" or "trout" plates at finer eating establishments.

If your bottle has a screw top, there is no need to store the bottle on its side. As corks are becoming more and more expensive, wineries are trying their best to talk the public into accepting screw tops. There is nothing wrong with screw tops other than in the past they have been associated with cheaper wines. People judge things by their appearance so wineries are reluctant to use screw tops though some who have already made a reputation are now going to screw tops. I have recently had several very good wines with screw top bottles. Wines in a bag in a box, however, are still associated with cheap, low quality wines.

When it comes to organizing your wines on the wine rack, you should order them either by age or by price. Democrats usually order them according to age as the older wines should be drunk before the newer ones. Republicans usually sort them according to price, with the most expensive ones on top. After all, what would be the point of buying expensive wines if your friends couldn't see them and be impressed with your lavish life style? European tradition is to stack them left to right, but Jewish tradition is to stack them right to left.

Finally, the wine rack that we will build will be TOTALLY awesome. It will be something you will be able to hand down to your children and grandchildren just like the doll house we built.

Puppies and CDs

2006-12-18T21:04:00.000-06:00

Jen says...

Hi Jim,

Why does my roommate's puppy want to poop in my room instead of his? How can I train her to poop in his room instead?

Also, how do CD players work?

Jen, the question as to why a dog poops in one part of the house and how to make it poop in another part of the house is a misguided question. Dogs should not poop in the house anytime, anywhere, without some extenuating circumstance. Throughout the country there are farms that accept animals that don't behave. There they can live outside and poop anywhere and anytime. They are usually owned by a very nice elderly couple whose greatest joy comes from rescuing these wayward animals. Those dogs who insist on pooping in the house should be brought to one of these farms where they can romp freely and act badly. Tell your roommate to take his dog to the farm. If the dog poops in your room more than once, it is perfectly acceptable for you to take the dog to the farm. Remember, we have pets to bring joy to our lives. If we stop receiving joy from having pets, they need to be passed on to someone who they can bring joy to.

As far as how a CD works, there are plenty of web sites that get into the technical explanations of how they work, but let me give you the simple version. A laser is used to engrave "ridges" into the shiny CD media. During playback, the laser in your CD reflects off the high spots but not the ridges. A photo eye will pick up those reflections and turn that information into electronic pulses which in turn are turned into the music that you hear through the earphones or speakers. For a more detailed explanation, visit the following web site.

http://www.cdman.com/technical/howdocdswork1.html

Winter Wonderland

2006-12-02T11:05:00.000-06:00

December came in with a roar here in the 'Lou. Here is what it looks like...

Comet SWAN

2006-11-11T21:52:00.000-06:00

So, where oh where has Ask Jim been, you might ask. Well amongst other things, Jim has been pursuing one of his many hobbies lately. Jim is a part of a very rare breed. One that few people even know exists. Jim is an amateur astronomer who can’t stay up past 10 pm. That means he has but two seasons for observing. In the fall, after the time change, when it gets dark early but is warm enough to be outside and again in the spring before the time changes back, for the same reasons.

November 1st

As good fortune has it, this fall, there is a comet visible in the evening. It’s name is Comet Swan (Swan being an acronym for “Solar Wind Anisotropies”, an instrument on the Soho satellite {Soho, also being an acronym for “Solar and Heliospheric observatory} not the bird).

November 2nd

Let me share some of my observations with you.

November 9th

Comet Swan is visible in the western skies after sunset. You would probably have to go away from the city lights to see it with binoculars, I have been using by two telescopes to watch them. Back at the beginning of November, I was using my 4 ¼” telescope, but lately I have needed to get out the 8”. It is quickly fading and will probably not be seen for long from Glendale,

November 11th

Finder Chart

Tribute to Sir Albert...

2006-11-02T19:27:00.000-06:00

Kind of sounds like the old song "Joltin' Joe Dimaggio" to me. Click and enjoy!

FLASH: LARUSSA LEAVES AFTER POST SEASON, OQUENDO TO TAKE OVER

2006-10-18T06:01:00.000-05:00

Close sources confirm that after the post season play, Tony LaRussa is headed home (probably San Francisco, but possibly back to Oakland) and Jose Oquendo will be the Cardinal’s new skipper next year. That’s right, you heard it here first. It can not be verified how accurate the information is from one source and other source may be one of those voices I hear when things are quiet, but all the pieces are falling into place. Okay, so my boss, who know some people in the industry, has been kicking this one around for a while and I’ve been ignoring it but now with the firing of Macha and the bickering with Rolen, I’m starting to see the pieces all come together.

Tony has never felt comfortable here nor has he ever really been accepted. He has had his teams and his time and has not been able to put it all together. His 2004 team was great, his 2005 team was even better. In 2006, he was dealt a bad hand and as the summer rolled on he (as we) thought the owners would shore up some holes. They never did. There were several times this past summer that he left players on the field when they clearly didn’t belong there just to make a statement to the owners saying in essence “these are the players that you gave me, this is what they can (or can’t) do”. The owners got the message and they were not happy with it. He is also getting fed up with players grumbling about injuries they should be playing through (Edmonds), players that should be keeping him informed about injuries they can’t play through (Rolen), a fan base that has never forgiven him for not being Whitey Herzog, and a parochial attitude that he will never be welcome in St. Louis if he doesn’t like it enough to move here.

He has a chance to manage close to home so he can spend more time with his family and he will be better appreciated.

Ownership is tired of listening to the squabbles in the media. They have been trying to be fiscally responsible (or they are too cheap) and have put the best line up they can afford on the field and they feel that Tony has slighted them on several occasions this past year. LaRussa feels like he’s been trying to polish a potato and the ownership feels that Tony is the chef, he should know what to do with a good potato.

Most of our pitching staff and many of our bench position players are either in a walk year or are getting long in the tooth. NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE!

Tony has had a long uphill climb with the Cardinals and he peaked somewhere between 2004 and 2005. He has done a good job, maybe a great job, but he can’t grasp that ring. When you bring in a new manager, the first thing he does is to rebuild the team with his type of players. There is sure to be many new faces on the Cardinals next year so if you’re ever going to hire a new manager, this is the time to do it.

Oquendo has been being groomed for this job. He will be embraced by the fans as “one of us” like Herzog was and the ownership will get him for a fraction of the cost of Tony LaRussa. He is bound to be loved by the players, especially the Spanish players and his presence may help to attract some of them for a reasonable price which will also be attractive to this ownership.

Don’t get me wrong, Tony will not be fired. Whether the Cards win it all this year or not, Tony can say he has done everything he can in this town and it’s time to move on, time to go home. If they can’t put a good spin on it, nobody will pull the trigger, but the finger is there, it’s squeezing and I don’t see anything that can stop it.

MIXED BAG

2006-10-08T10:57:00.000-05:00

Anna writes... Why does askbobwillis.com SUCK?

Well, there are actually two reasons:

1. Because it is not Ask Jim.
2. Because it does!

Anna also writes... Why are my earphones labeled "Left" and "Right"? I have 3 different pairs of earphones, and they're all labeled. However, if I put the "left" earphone in my right ear and vice versa, I don't notice any sound difference.

What the HECK?

It’s not just your earphones that are marked left and right, speakers are also marked left and right. Chances are most of the time, you won’t notice a difference and it doesn’t really matter. Both tracks are often different, but it usually won’t matter whether you have the earphones on backwards or not. The only time it would make a difference would be if you were watching a video where something was moving from left to right, the sound would be from right to left.

In the late sixties, when stereo was first becoming commonplace, many audiophiles considered it a gimmick. Those who were classical music fans thought the only time stereo would make any difference was during a crescendo from one side of the stage to the other, but those were far and few between. It was the “pop” music scene that really made strides with stereo when they started recording each instrument on a separate track. They would then use mixers to place those tracks on separate speakers. Quite honestly, I haven’t paid attention to music for 30 years, but if when you say “, I don't notice any sound difference” you mean there is no noticeable difference between the left sound and the right sound, you should listen to some old Beatles songs from their Sgt. Pepper of White album. They did a lot of experimentation with stereo. You will notice a difference, though it still probably wouldn’t matter if you swapped earphones.

Adam writes... Last night I locked myself out of my car. AAA came and stuck a tool called a "slim Jim" (ha-ha, that's you're name too!) inside the window jam and just popped the lock open. Note, this is not at all related to "popping and locking," a widely practiced hip hop dance move.

So can you use a slim Jim to open any door on any car? If so, why don't more cars get broken into with these things?

I can’t say for certain that a slim Jim will work on any car, but it will work on most. The reason that there aren’t more break-ins is because most people don’t know how to foil locks. The only thing locks do is to keep honest people honest. Someone who wants to defeat a lock can usually do so. The more knowledgeable you are about locks, the easier they are to defeat. People who are locksmiths and those who work for towing companies understand how a lock works and where their “soft underbellies” are located. There is actually a profession called “Repo” man. That is a person who will repossess cars from those who run afoul of their payments. They are armed with a slim Jim to get the door open, plus a tool that fits on a ratchet wrench that will pull the ignition out of the steering column. With their knowledge, tools, and practice, they can get into a car, start it up and take off faster than if they had keys.

Slim-Jims are probably sold by J.C. Whitney plus dozens of web based auto parts places. Another handy way to break into a car is a simple coat hanger. You only need to get into the door where the lock mechanism is located, and pull it up to unlock the door. Jim once made his own Slim-Jim and has had occasion to use it successfully, as well as the simple coat hanger method. It’s all about the tools.

Brian Writes... Not to age you, or anything, but I was wondering if you could give me some basic info about the Slide Rule. Whenever I come across one, it completely baffles me, and I can't even figure out how to do simple arithmetic... much less use it to land a man on the moon.

Not that slide rules were before my time, but they were beyond my educational experience. Other than some basic principals, slide rules were not taught or used much until you got to some advanced classes in such fields as engineering. As Jim is way behind on his answers, let me just refer you to the HP museum website for a full explanation about slide rules, their history and how to use them.

http://www.hpmuseum.org/sliderul.htm

WEATHER IN NORTHERN MEXICO...

2006-09-12T18:10:00.000-05:00

BRIAN WRITES... Hey Jim, I always thought that the closer you get to the equator, the hotter the temperature. However, Mexico tends to be much more mild than here in Texas, even though Texas is more northern. What in the world is going on?

First of all, let us define our terms properly. When we refer to Mexico, we will be using weather data from Mexico City in southern Mexico. When we refer to Texas, we will use weather data from Austin, a town in northern Mexico as seen in the map of Mexico from 1851.

Latitude is only one of many factors that influence weather. Mexico is cooler than Texas only in the summertime. In the winter, Mexico is warmer. Let’s take a look at some average high temperatures for Austin and Mexico City.

Austin’s hottest months are June, July, and August with average monthly highs of 91, 95, and 96, respectively. Mexico City, on the other hand, has it’s hottest weather in April and May with monthly average highs of 79.

In the winter, Austin’s coldest month is January, with an average monthly high of 60, while Mexico City’s average monthly high is 70.

So Mexico’s weather is milder in all seasons. The reason for this is, besides latitude, major factors that influence weather are oceans, prevailing winds, and terrain. As Mexico city is closer to the Pacific in a latitude that has prevailing westerly winds, its temperatures are modified by the cool Pacific Ocean. Austin, on the other hand, is many miles from the Pacific and has much land and many mountains between it and the Pacific. Even though Austin may be close to the Gulf of Mexico, with the wind coming out of the west, the Gulf has little influence on Texas’s weather.

The same moderating affects can be seen when you compare weather in Europe with weather in North America. Paris, which has relatively mild winters is on the same latitude as International Falls, Mn., which has incredibly harsh winters. That is because Paris’s weather is greatly influenced by the warm Gulf stream that flows from the Caribbean, up the eastern seaboard of the U.S. then across the Atlantic from Virginia to Ireland. That was one of many factors that left the Pilgrims so il-prepared for such harsh winters when they arrived at New England. They had no way of knowing the winters would be so much harsher even though they were actually south of their homeland.

BIG BROTHER CABLE TV

2006-09-06T18:53:00.000-05:00

JUSTIN (SAME NAME AS YOURS) WRITES... How does the cable TV company know how many TV sets I have hooked up to their service? I called them about a service question and they knew I had 3 without me telling them.

Well Justin (same name as mine), welcome to Ask Jim. I’m not sure I can tell you technically how they can tell you how many TVs you own, but I can give you a guess as to some of the methods they might use. These are going to be guesses based on electronic systems, such as fire alarm and security, that I have installed in the past.

One thing that is not clear in your question is what equipment you have. For instance, do you have a cable box? Do you have a cable box for every TV? Lets start with the assumption that you have one cable box for each TV. Each cable box will probably have some type of internal address like an electronic serial number. The cable company will send out electronic probes that will look for these electronic serial numbers. As each cable box is “pinged” it will answer back with it’s own address. Depending on how sophisticated the inquiry is and what information the box tracks and stores, it could be telling the cable company when the TV is on, what channels are watched and when. I’m not real sure how they would determine a specific address belongs to a TV in your house as opposed to the house next door unless they assign that address to you when they first install the cable and box in your home. Often there is a SKU number on the box somewhere that they can scan (or just write down the number). That way they have your box number in their system. This would be the simplest of scenarios.

Now let’s assume you have one cable box that feeds all three TVs. In that case, the cable box probably has the capability of monitoring it’s output. One brand of fire alarm system I have installed has the ability to not only poll all the devices installed and ask them what status they are in or command them to take a certain action, but the system can tell how much wire is between each device and where, in the circuit, there are splices. This is done by measuring minute differences in voltage and current.

There is also the possibility that there is something in each television that the cable company can “ping” that will tell them how many televisions are in your household.

Ever since there has been cable television, there have been people trying to steal it. I’m sure the cable company has gone through great lengths to detect unauthorized televisions on their system, not to mention the vast sums of money they could make my selling such information as number of TVs in a household and what they watched and when they watched it. (Not that they would ever actually do that, would they?)

THE CASE OF THE DISAPPEARING COIN!

2006-09-01T17:03:00.000-05:00

NEIL WRITES... If you put a coin on the track of a small commuter train, what will happen to it? I ask this because when certain persons have done this very act nothing is left but a dark smear and a faint image (not indentation) of the coin in the polished steel of the track. It appears that it is effectively vanishes, but surely a small commuter train isn't sufficient to do that, is it?

Yes, it is!

I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist. Actually putting a coin on the track, especially a commuter train, is a very dangerous practice. If the train hits the coin at the right angle and speed, the coin can actually de-rail the train. Such was the case in September of 1984 in Birmingham, England. The eastbound train to Liverpool had just reached it’s cruising speed of 63 miles per hour. It is suspected that young children from a nearby schoolyard had put a shilling on the track to see what would happen. When the train hit the coin, the second car jumped the track dragging the rest of the train with it. Thirteen people and three sheep were killed and no one ever found out who put that shilling on the track. The only trace of the coin was a dark smear and a faint image (not indentation) of the coin in the polished steel of the track.....

Okay, okay, I’m sorry. It must be the coffee talking. The real answer is the coin gets thrown off the track. You have to do some searching to find it, but it is there. I’ve never put a coin on the track of a commuter train before, but when my larvae were young, we would put coins on the track of regular trains and they would get flattened and thrown a few feet from where we put them on the track. Sometimes it would take a while to find them and occasionally we would lose one, but most of the time they showed up.

HOW TO TELL PLUTO FROM URANUS (title by Adam Saraceno)

2006-08-30T19:44:00.000-05:00

BRIAN WRITES... So tell me Jim, what do you think of the International Astronomical Union's recent definition of a planet?

For those who may have missed it, our solar system has just lost a planet. There is a new definition what constitutes a planet and Pluto doesn’t make the grade. Pluto is now in the new category of “dwarf planet”. That new designation also includes the large asteroid belt object Ceres and the recently discovered Kuiper belt object “2003 UB313” or “Xena” the 10th planet.

The questions boil down to this... If a body in space revolves around a star, is it a planet? If it is big enough to be spherical will that make it a planet? What about if it is only one of many objects in the same general orbit? Is Pluto a planet with a moon or a double planet? They just keep finding more and more stuff and it is all different. It just gets confusing as to where to draw the lines.

My opinion on this is they finally got it right. In 1930, when Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto, astronomers were looking for another planet that would explain some discrepancies in the known planets motions. When he found Pluto, he had no way to tell what it’s size or proper motion was. If they knew what they know now, it would have never been classified as a planet to begin with. It is very different, in many ways, than the eight “classic” planets. It also never did explain those discrepancies.

The debate is really much ado about nothing. What’s the difference between a hill and a mountain; a pond and a lake; a creek and a river? As astronomers made more and more discoveries, the whole planet thing was bound to get messy and we probably haven’t heard the last of this debate.

It’s not all that different from the debate about when the new millennium started. 2000? 2001? Who cares as long as we can party like it’s 1999!

WHY KITTENS ARE CUTE...

2006-08-28T18:05:00.000-05:00

ANNA WRITES...Why are kittens so cute? Actually, this is kind of a serious question... Why do many people (like me) find small, furry things so damn cute? What constitutes "cute" and why do we see some things as cute and some things as ugly?

There have been many studies as to why one thing is cute but not another. They all come to the conclusion that it has to do with proportion and symmetry. Large head and eyes, small ears and body plus symmetrical features are often sited as those characteristics that determine that something is cute.

I don’t think these studies really tell us anything. First of all, the researchers look at babies, kittens puppies, etc. and classify all the characteristics they have in common and tell us that this is what makes something cute. This is just bad science. They are really just telling us that babies, kittens and puppies are cute (because they have these characteristics) but we already know they are cute. These studies don’t actually tell us why. Defining what is cute by proportion would be similar to defining what is funny. You can make all kinds of rules and generalizations, but in the end, if you have to explain why it is funny, it isn’t funny.

So I’m going to go beyond science and reach into the world of Jim’s brain and really tell you why things are cute (because I don’t know why things are funny). Cute is an evolutionary tool programmed into living things to help young survive. Animals are always cutest when they are the most vulnerable (with the exception of the first hours after birth). It is when they are young and helpless that they are the cutest. As they get older and more self sufficient they become less and less cute. We see these things that are cute and we want to hold them and feed them and clean up their poop. All the things we would consider very disgusting if they were grown, able bodied adults. That is why we can laugh at a three year telling his father he is stupid while if the same son were to do that when he was 23, there would be little chance for that the father would see the humor. (Hey! Maybe I do know what’s funny!)

The second part of your question, “why do we see some things as ugly?” is really unrelated to the cute question. Ugly is the opposite of beauty, not cuteness. Beauty and ugly are less definable as both are in the eye of the beholder. The reason for this is beyond even Jim’s vast knowledge.

He then went on to make Superman Cartoons in the early 40's...

2006-08-06T20:57:00.000-05:00

And here's another....

2006-08-02T18:46:00.000-05:00

JIM'S FAVORITE CARTOON...

2006-07-27T18:53:00.000-05:00

What do you get when you get Cab Calloway (one of Jim's favorite singer/bandleaders) together with Max Fleisher (one of Jim's favorite animators)?

You get Betty Boop and Bimbo running from ghosts to the tune of "Minnie the Moocher" (one of Jim's favorite songs).

Enjoy!

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

2006-07-24T20:58:00.000-05:00

ANNA WRITES... So Jim, tell me how air traffic control works. Why don't planes run into each other? Do you know of any incidences where planes have collided due to poor air traffic control? Who "owns" the air? In international flights, when do the planes switch from being under U.S. air traffic control to another country's air traffic control? And one last question-- When I fly on a plane, why do I always sit in near vicinity of a very poopy baby?

Well Anna, air traffic control is huge and complicated system but I can give you the simplified version of it.

Every commercial airplane must file a flight plan with the air traffic control system. This information includes departure time, destination, flight number, intended airspeed, cruising altitude, and route. That information is entered into a computer and checked by a flight controller to verify there are no conflicts with other flights or weather. When approved, a strip of paper is printed out and handed to the person in charge of ground control.

This person is in charge of all movement on the ground of an airport including vehicles. He will tell the pilot when he can leave the gate, which runway to use, what route to take to get there, and what order the aircraft will be in to take off. Once the pilot has left the gate, headed safely down the taxiway and is ready for take off, that piece of paper is handed off to the local controller.

The local controller is in charge of all planes taking off and landing at that airport. He is responsible for maintaining safe distances between planes as they take off and land. The local controller gives your pilot final clearance for takeoff when it is deemed safe. Once the plane is in the air, it turns on a transponder that will give radar the aircraft's flight number, altitude, airspeed and destination. The airplane is then handed off to the departure controller.

The departure controller is in charge of all aircraft within a 50 mile radius of the airport. Once outside that 50 mile radius, the plane is then handed off to a center controller. Every bit of airspace in this country is monitored by at least one center controller. As the plane get closer to it’s destination, the whole process is reversed until the plane is sitting at the gate.

Besides monitoring all commercial flights in the air, some methods they use to keep aircraft away from each other is to keep them at different altitudes. They may keep north bound flight at odd altitudes (21,000’, 23,000’, 25,000’) and south bound at even altitudes (20,000’, 22,000’, 24,000’).

To complicate things a bit, you also have private aircraft flying around that have no specific flight plan. If I was a private pilot, I could take an airplane up and just go for a joy ride. I may have to file a plan that tells where I intend to fly but it is not specific like the commercial flight plan is. These private pilots are responsible for themselves. It is up to them to know exactly where they are and where they can fly. Commercial airports have airspace around them that is reserved for their traffic only. If a private pilot should stray into one of those areas, he is notified immediately and must vacate that zone. I once had a friend take me up in his private plane and he did just that. We were in Illinois, yet we had strayed into airspace reserved for Lambert, a good 8 to 10 miles away. They let him know right away that he was in violation and directed him to correct his path at once.

As far as international flights go, much of airspace is controlled by someone. Over the ocean, many areas are outside of radar so planes have to report to controllers giving them there location as determined by GPS receivers.

Have there ever been midair collisions? Absolutely. As in any human endeavor, if anything can go wrong, it will. There have been planes that have collided in mid air and planes that have collided on takeoff and landing. Planes have collided with birds, crashed because of pranks, pilots not paying attention,and Air Traffic Control not paying attention. Once a plane crashed into a balloon (hot air I assume), and in 1945 a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building. Of course, these crashes are few and becoming fewer. Commercial airliners have collision avoidance systems that monitor the flight path of the airplane and flight paths of other airplanes on local radar. If the system sees a conflict, it will go into alarm and tell the pilot the best action to take to avoid that conflict.

And finally, why do you always sit near poopy babies? That is because of the system that has been put in place by John Ashcroft’s Patriot Act. As passengers are issued boarding passes, the security computer assesses potential risks Some, such as potty risks become linked with others such as potty mouths. The security computer then seats them all together so air marshals can keep an eye on them. Maybe you should consider distancing yourself from talking dirty.

CARDINAL'S REPORT CARD

2006-06-01T17:49:00.000-05:00

Brian writes...
So tell me Jim, what's your assessment of the Cardinal's season so far? Some blogs are giving out "grade reports" for each player. Feel free to do something like that. Or, feel free to completely ignore that idea.

And Adam writes...
Yeah, Jim. Tell us something for Christ sake. I hear you've been farting around for the last week. Let's hop back on the BLOG trolley and take it for a ride down to rant town.

Then Brian writes again...
Hey did that guy who hosted that one trivia night ever win his election?

So what do I think of the Cardinals so far? Quite honestly, not much has changed since the beginning of the season. The same questions that were there at the beginning are still there now. The only difference is Edmonds health is more questionable the Rolen's health.

They keep on winning series after series, even though they often look bad doing it. I still think they WILL contend for the division title but not for the World Series and maybe not for the Pennant. The bigger surprise than what the Cardinals are doing this year is what the other teams, especially in the Central Division, are not doing.

The Cubs have fallen apart, the Reds realized that they are not the team they thought they were, Milwaukee is playing close to .500 ball, which is respectable for them, and Pittsburgh is getting very comfortable in the basement where they belong. The 'Stros are getting off to a slow start but not as slow as last year, and with the re-signing of Clemens, they will be poised to make a run for it again.

In the National League, the only other team that is looking really good is the Mets. Again, no surprise there. When it comes to Divisions and the Wild Card races, the west is looking the best, with all teams playing above .500. This could be the first time in 11 years that the Braves don't make it to the playoffs.

My biggest concerns are... Can Rolen stay healthy? What's going on with Edmonds? What's going on with Carpenter? and Which Izzy will show up to close the game? One thing I can't seem to comprehend is how the bullpen can have a league-leading ERA when they seem to let at least 50% of the inherited runners score. I realize that some of that ERA is tagged to the starters, but some of it has to be rubbing off on each other. I don't understand it, and it makes me nervous.

To change the subject slightly, for those who enjoy baseball but find it hard or too expensive to get good tickets, let me suggest several alternatives. One is the independent Frontier League. The two local teams are the Gateway Grizzlies who play in Sauget, Illinois and the River City Rascals who play in O'Fallon, MO. We went to see those teams battle each other over at the O'Fallon facility and found it quite enjoyable. For $10, you can buy field box tickets, which we did. We walked up to the gate 1/2 hour before first pitch and got six seats in the second row between home plate and the home dugout. The only glitch is you can't bring in ANY food or drink. Bonny had a bottle of water when she entered and was stopped. They let her take it in, but they let her know you weren't supposed to. Of course, you won't see the talent that you would expect from Major League baseball, but you see the heart that can be lacking in the big leagues.

The other baseball that we have seen and enjoyed is the Vintage Base Ball League. Our local teams include the Unions, whose home field is in Florrisant, and the Perfectos, whose home field is Lafayette Park. They are teams that play by the rules of 1862. The main differences are no gloves, no balls called, no called strikes (if you swing and miss it's a strike but if you don't swing it's not), the ball is fair if it touches the ground in fair territory, even if it rolls foul before reaching one of the bases, and the batter is out if the ball is caught on either the fly or the first bound (the difference is any runner on base must tag up if caught on the fly but not if caught on the bound). These teams are played by regular folk like you and me so the level of talent is very unremarkable, but you are watching a game that is based on baseball (base ball as it was known back then) that was a gentlemen's game, having teams made up of social clubs rather than athletes. It all becomes very obvious when you see the umpire ,who is in a poor position to make a call, ask a runner if he got to the base before the ball. The runner is obligated to tell the truth and once answered, there is no argument. There is a VBBL tournament this weekend at Lafayette Park that we plan to attend.

As far as the "guy who hosted that one trivia night", he lost, which I take full responsibility for. I always support the losing cause or candidate, and Jack was no exception.

THE NEW BUSCH BALLPARK

2006-05-10T19:11:00.000-05:00

So tell me, Jim, what are your thoughts on the new ballpark, Busch Stadium?

Well, as you know, Bonita and I had a chance to go to the new Busch Stadium and see what all the fuss was about.

Someone said that new Busch Stadium was like getting a new pair of shoes. Nice and shiny and new, not very comfortable yet, though probably will be when you get used to them. I find that to be very descriptive. You go into the ballpark and everything is nice and shiny and new. You're not familiar with it yet so everything looks different. You don't know your way around. It has things that the old stadium didn't yet the old stadium had things that this stadium doesn't. As you look around, even though you've never been there before, things look familiar, strangely familiar... like you're having a deja vu. Then you realize that it's not deja vu, you HAVE seen this place before. Yes, you've seen it in Baltimore and Milwaukee and Houston and the other 15 stadiums that have been built in the past fifteen years!

Okay, so I'm not the one to ask. I liked the old Busch Stadium; I didn't want to see them tear it down, and now that I have seen the new ballpark, I saw nothing that changed my mind. A better analogy to me is growing up in an old neighborhood like Glendale, where all the houses are old, and look different because they were built by different families and contractors, and there are trees in everyone's yard. The whole neighborhood has a character and flavor to it. Then you move into a nice new subdivision. The houses are new and large and even though there are several choices of floor plans and trims, all the houses look similar because they were all built at the same time by the same contractor who started the project by bulldozing all the trees. Everything is new, clean, and beautiful, but that flavor and character are gone. But then again, I probably would have said the exact same thing when they tore down Busch I (Sportsman's Park) to build "old Busch" stadium.

You know what? This is just "old man rant". It's fine. It's beautiful. I just can't get past the fact that old Busch represented a whole era of baseball that does not exist anymore... the first stadium of that era... the best stadium of that era... the last stadium of that era to still be standing... was torn down to build a new ballpark that looks like every ballpark that was built since 1990. I really don't give a rodent's pooper that the concession stands on the terrace have the essence of an open air mall a la THE BOULEVARD in Brentwood. I'm not there to shop, I'm there to watch a baseball game. I'm more concerned with what is happening on the field, not the venue. Heck, they could put a contending team in a cardboard box and I'd be happy. I'd be even happier if I could get affordable tickets, but that is going to be tough this year, for the second year in a row.

But let's put that all into perspective. We only have to look west to our cross state counterparts, the Kansas City Royals. If you compare The Royals to the Cards, the average cost of tickets is half, their payroll is half, their wins are half, ticket availability is twice, etc. How many of us would be happier getting cheap and easily available tickets to watch a team that is out of contention at the end of spring training? We fans complain about the high prices and the lack of availability of tickets; not only are they sold out, but many are paying huge premiums for ticket through ticket outlets. And why? Because the "evil millionaire" owners have paid to have "evil millionaire" players on their team, and have put quality teams that are always in contention on the field, year after year, since August Bush III sold them in 1995.

Thus goes the love-hate, yin-yang, duality of the sport of baseball. Heaven help me, I love the game (no matter what stadium it is played in)!

Back to the actual question, one thing I like about the new stadium is the running pitch count board. It tells the total number of pitches, number of strikes thrown, and number of balls thrown. Those are stats that I don't keep on my scorecard but help me better understand the trends of the game. One thing I miss is the manual scoreboard. I loved it when they put it in Busch II and I hope that they will eventually put one in Busch III. I also prefer the old scoreboard that gave you the player's number and position for the batting lineup instead of the new one that gives the player's name, though I like that it gives the player's running batting average. Most of all, we have to remember that the new park is not finished yet. Busch II stood for 40 years and they did nothing but improve it year after year, so we can only expect them to do the same with the new ballpark.

KEEPING BASEBALL SCORE

2006-04-29T23:22:00.000-05:00

We had the pleasure of going to a Cardinal's baseball game the other night and as usual, Bonny and I kept score in our homemade score books. The wife of the friends we were with mentioned that she would like to try keeping score so I told her I'd send her the files I use to make those score books. By the time I finished with the E-mail explaining my system of scoring, I decided I had enough information for another BLOG entry, so here goes...

First of all, why keep score? I do it simply to keep track of what has happened so I can enjoy the game more. By the time the batter comes up in the 8th inning, I don't remember what he did when he came up in the second and sixth. I also don't remember how many strike outs the pitcher has, how many ground balls he's induced, how many fly balls etc. etc. The score book gives me the tools to see the trends so I can better anticipate what may happen next or put plays in better context. I know people who don't want to keep score because it's a distraction to them. God love them, they keep all that information in their brains as the game progresses and I'm a jealous man, but for those of us who can't, a few stroke of the pencil can. When the kids were little, I taught them how to score almost from the "get-go". It helped them to keep their interest in the game longer, just as it helps me to focus today.

Here are the files I used for making my score books. You can go on the Internet for dozens of different score cards. Everyone wants to keep track of different information. Some want to keep track of balls and strikes; some keep track of where the ball are hit to. I've seen simple scorecards with "out" for any out, then "XB" for the hits and that is the extent of the scoring.

Most of the scoring systems are just small variations. I have my own and after you do this for a while, you will too. To me, there is the trade off of keeping track of what happened, but not keeping track of so much detail that you miss the action by writing instead of watching the ball game.

Here is my system:

Fielding positions:
1 - Pitcher
2 - catcher
3 - first baseman
4 - second baseman
5 - third baseman
6 - short stop
7 - left fielder
8 - center fielder
9 - right fielder

For each square, you record what each batter does at the plate.
1B -single
2B - double
3B - triple
HR - home run
BB - base on balls
IBB - intentional walk
HBP - hit by pitch
FC - fielder's choice
SF# - sacrifice fly out
SACB - sacrifice bunt
F# - fly out (# - position of fielder who made the out, i.e. F9 means the batter flew out to the right fielder)
L# - line drive out
P# - pop foul out (I use P for any foul ball caught for an out)
K - swinging strikeout (printed backwards for strikeout looking)
E# - advanced on error
DP - double play
! - great defensive play

running and pitching plays

SB - stolen base
CS - caught steeling
PB - pass ball
WP - wild pitch
BK - balk

I use the diamond method of keeping track of what the base runner does. I add one side of the diamond for each base the runner gains plus a "tick" at each base they stop at.

In the corners, I keep track of if the runners advance by anything other than batter's performance.

In the lower right hand corner, I add a dot for every run batted in.

In this picture of a single square, the opposition has just brought in a new pitcher, the batter hits a double driving in two runs, then steals third and scores on a wild pitch.

Unless it is a really big game, I don't bother adding up the totals. When I get home, I staple my ticket to that page for a keepsake. You may want to score a couple of games before you make a whole book.

So, that's it. If one reason you don't like baseball is because it is too slow, you're not paying attention to enough detail. Your score card will help you out.

Control Arms and AWD

2006-04-28T20:50:00.000-05:00

Christena writes...
On the topic of cars, here's a question I've been curious about. I broke a control arm on the front driver's side or my car (a 96 audi A4, quattro). What is that? People mention the bearings, and make very sad noises when I say it's an all wheel drive. What does that have to do with anything?

Well Christina, I'm not familiar with the Audi Quattro but most cars have control arms in their suspension. Basically, a control arm is a bracket that pivots at both ends. Its purpose is to let two things, (say the body of the car and the wheels of the car) move in one axis (up and down) but not the other (side to side). From what I know, the most common problem with the control arm is the bushings at either end that wear out and have to be replaced. Sometimes, if you hit a major pot hole, the control arm will bend out of shape and the whole arm has to be replaced. When you say "people mention bearings" I would guess they are talking about bushings. Bearings are used on the axles and let the wheels spin around the axle with a minimal amount of wear. Of course, the '96 Audi A4 Quattro may have bearings in their control arms and their control arms may break so then I have no idea what is going on, which is standard operating procedure for me.

The reason that All-Wheel Drive makes a difference is that there are more parts and and a more complicated system. With the old system of rear wheel drive, we ask the front wheels to steer while we ask one of the rear wheels to drive. A very simple system. With front wheel drive, we are asking the front wheels to steer and one of those same wheels to drive. That becomes more complicated in the front end but simpler in the rear. When we move up to 4 wheel drive, we are asking one wheel in front to drive and one wheel in back to drive and both the front wheels to steer, but we have to decide when we need 4 wheel drive and when we need 2 wheel drive. Finally we have All-Wheel Drive, where we tell the car to figure it out by itself. If one wheel on either axle slips, the other is supposed to pick up the slack. If none are slipping, then we go back to the original one wheel to drive the car. In the mean time, the front wheels still have to steer. It is a great system, but it is very complicated. In a rear wheel drive you probably have direct access to the control arms and when you replace them, that is all you have to work on. With a modern all wheel drive, you may have the transmission, steering, or transfer case or any number of adjoining parts added to the equation. It would be akin to changing your underwear. If you were wearing a skirt, it may be a simple project. If you were wearing pants, it could get more complicated. If you have all wheel drive, you may be wearing pants, two pairs of socks, a snowsuit, hiking boots and snow shoes, AND you may have to take your pants off over your head before you can change your underwear, and that can get VERY complicated.

SIDEREAL TIME

2006-04-20T20:09:00.000-05:00

Brian writes...

Now tell me, Jim, what exactly is sidereal time, and how is it calculated?

Sidereal time is simply star time instead of sun time. One solar day is the time it takes for one spot on the Earth to rotate so the Sun is in the same place. That is, the time it takes from when the Sun is highest in the sky until it sets, rises, and is highest in the sky again. The 24 hour day that we all know and love. A sidereal day is the time it takes from when one star is highest in the sky until it sets, rises and is highest in the sky again. That day is approximately 23 h 56 min. The reason for this is the Earth is always moving around the Sun so as the Earth revolves, it is actually rotating a bit more than 360 degrees to complete a day. If you were to take that approximately 4 minute discrepancy between the two days, multiply it by 365, you will get 1460 minutes or approximately 24 hours. Well now, I have never thought of it before, but if you were to count the sidereal days in a year, it ought to come up to 366, as one sidereal day is lost with each revolution around the Sun!

Sidereal time is measured in hours but is called "Right Ascension". Zero hour (the sidereal international date line) starts in the horiscopic constellation of Pisces, where the Sun passes the celestial equator on the first day of spring. If you were to extend the longitude and latitude lines onto the sky, you would have Right Ascension (measured in hours and comparable to Longitude) and Declination (measured in degrees north or south of the equator comparable to latitude). If your local sidereal time is 14:00 (Sidereal uses 24 hours, not two sets of twelve), then any star on the 14 hr line would be highest in the sky at that moment.

Now how do you calculate that? That can get very complicated. How would you calculate regular time? Taking into consideration that actual Solar time has no time zones. It is slightly different for every mile you travel to the east or west. I will assume you don't want an exact formula but only want to know what it would be based upon. Basically, to find local sidereal time, you would use the 23 h 45 m day then add or subtract your longitude from Greenwich solar time. Or if you had a computer you could just go on the Internet and find one of many programs that will calculate it for you. If you have a planetarium program (WinStars is my favorite and it's free) you could just open the program to your location and time and see what the Right Ascension is directly south. Should you want to know the exact formula, Sky and Telescope still carries an old BASIC program "GMST.BAS" that would contain all the calculations.

MUSCLE CARS FROM MOVIES

2006-04-19T18:33:00.000-05:00

Juan Franela writes:

Okay, I've got a better question: What are the cars in the original version of the film Mad Max, both the car that Max is given by the police chief and the cars labeled "Interceptor" (seen in the film's opening sequence)?

Also, I've always heard that the car in the film Phantasm is a rare bird. What is it and how many of them are out there?

To explain what Juan means by a better question... this past weekend, I finally had a chance to meet Juan in person. He used the opportunity for an instant "Ask Jim". He asked me what a "Hemi" is. I told him that was an easy one (and for anyone who would like a complete explanation be sure to see one of my early posts at "FLATHEADS TO HEMIS" He also asked me the key to a good marriage.

He later explains... ""Better" as in "better than the one I asked at Collinsfest", not better than any question about Mr. Dimaggio. Hope there was no confusion."

Well Juan, if the readers are confused (as many of them are) it has nothing to do with your question and everything to do with what kind of person reads "Ask Jim" in the first place.

As far as the Mad Max cars, I personally have never seen the movie but apparently they had quite a line up of cars. From what I can find, they made extensive use of Ford XB Falcon Coupes. These were production cars sold in Australia from December 1973 until August 1976. Now I was not familiar with this car. For we Americans who are familiar with the Ford Falcon, it would seem an unlikely car to use in a movie known for its muscle cars; however the Mustang was originally built on a Falcon platform. I am guessing that in Australia, they kept the Falcon name for the new muscle car while in America the Falcon moniker remained on the economy car. The car in the film had a standard 351 cubic inch V8 motor. You can see the lines are reminiscent of the Mustang.

The stolen interceptor driven by the Nightrider in the opening scenes is another production vehicle; it is a "HQ Holden Monaro", which was sold in Australia in the early 70's with a variety of motors including large capacity V8's. Again, I was unfamiliar with that car. Holden is an Australian division of General Motors and the HQ Monaro was a model built from 1972 to 1974.

The Phantasm movies featured a Plymouth Barracuda. The first film used a 440-six pack 'Cuda while the second used a Hemi 'Cuda. Okay, so I really don't know anything about muscle cars but I do know the 440 had Edelbrock hi-rise aluminum intakes cast for triple-deuce carburetion, Holley's best centerhung-float 2300 deuces, totaling 1,200 cfm. and the carbs were each equidistant from their respective ports, so no cylinders were in danger of going lean. This permitted center-carb jetting, which, if driven sanely (but who could?), might even have delivered passable gas mileage.

Okay... so I didn't know that either, nor do I have more than a rudimentary understanding what that means other than it was a big engine with a big (and complicated) carburetor. And the Hemi 'Cuda? Well... that was a Barracuda with the venerable Hemi engine. The original, real Hemi, not today's pent roof Hemi like motor.

I couldn't begin to tell you if those cars were somehow special or how many were made. I can tell you that all muscle cars, especially the 'Cuda, is very collectable. People go ga-ga for these things. If you ever scan the ads for classic cars, those muscle cars of the 70's carry a premium price.

So, Juan... You go from an easy question to answer to a tough question to answer. If, unlike myself, you happen to be a big muscle car fan and can enlighten us all on these vehicles, please feel free to share. It was a pleasure to meet you and your lovely wife and never forget the key to a happy marriage; Do what your told (preferably before she has to tell you to)!

JOLTIN' JOE DIMAGGIO (and Jim's first baseball rant of the year)

2006-04-08T08:54:00.000-05:00

ADAM WRITES...
Hey Jim! I can't believe it - BASEBALL has started! You must be excited, especially after watching the Cards romp the Phillies. Pujols is still God, Eckstein still has more hustle than Bishop Don Magic Juan, and Rolen hits a grand slam in his first game since last July! But the most impressive thing probably happened on the Phillies side - Rollins belting one down the first base line to extend his hitting streak to 37 games.

So tell me this - Do you think anyone will ever break DiMaggio's hitting streak? What kind of pressure did DiMaggio go through when he was in the thick of things? Where have all the cowboys gone?

AND BRIAN WRITES...
So tell me Jim, what are you predictions for the Cardinals this season?

Let's start with Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak. 1941 must have been a good year for hitters. Two things happened that year. Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak and Ted Williams' .406 batting average (the last time anyone in the majors hit above .400). Many consider Joe's hitting streak a record that is unbeatable. That hitting streak started on May 15. The Yankees and Joe were both struggling. They had lost four games in a row and seven of their last nine; they were in fourth place, five and a half games behind the league-leading Cleveland Indians. On that day at Yankee Stadium, playing the Chicago White Sox, DiMaggio hit a first inning single off stocky left-hander Edgar Smith, but the Yankees lost again, 13-1.

Joe kept on hitting and the Yankees kept on winning. By the time 30 games had passed, people were paying close attention to Joe's streak. The modern era National league record was held by Rogers Horsnby who set the record of 33 consecutive games with a hit in 1922 with the Cardinals. That same year (another good year for hitting) George Sissler hit in 41 consecutive games for the St. Louis Browns to set a modern era major league record. The all time record had been set by "Wee" Willie Keeler. He "Hit'm where they aint" 44 consecutive games in 1897 for the old National League Baltimore Orioles. Keeler's record though, was aided by the fact that foul balls were not yet called strikes.

As Joe extended his streak, the pressure was growing. Though DiMaggio would say that the pressure was getting to him, his team mate, Lefty Gomez would later recall "To look at Joe you'd never think he had any pressure on him. I never saw a guy so calm. I wound up with the upset stomachs." Joe has always been considered one of the most graceful ballplayers ever. Think about the pressure that was on McGwire and Sosa in 1998. Roger Maris's hair started falling out in 1961 when he was on track to beat the home run record. For the home run record, you could miss a day or two or more without being out of contention. Hitting streaks are relentless. One game and it is over. You have to produce every day and every day brings more pressure. Joltin' Joe got few favors from the official score keepers. The thought at the time was he shouldn't break a record with a cheap hit so if there was any question as to whether it was a hit or not, the decision often was: it wasn't.

On July 17th, the Cleveland Indians put an end to Joe's streak. but what most people forget is after that one game without a hit, he went on to hit in 16 more straight games. A total of 71 games out of 72!

So, can that streak be broken? Absolutely. Is it likely in this era? No way. In this era, we worship the home run. Players concentrate on hitting for the fences. Some teams, especially in the American League, build their entire strategy on big hits. Get a man on base and drive him in, preferably with a homer. However, this is not a record that can't be broken. Cy Young's record of 511 wins will never be broken because there have been fundamental changes in the game that make it not unlikely but impossible. Who could imagine that anyone could ever beat Lou Gehrig's record of 2,130 consecutive games played? In 1990, Cal Ripkin Jr. did that and extended that record to 2,632. At 162 games per year, that is 16 1/4 years of never missing a game. It can't be done! But it was.

As far as my prediction for this year's Cardinals, I have to agree with everyone else's prediction, and that is the Cards are good enough to take the Central division but not good enough to make it to the World Series. They're not as good as they were last year. Compared to 2004, their pitching is better but there batting and fielding is worse. Like every team this time of the year, there are a lot of question marks. Can Rolen stay healthy? Can Encarnacion produce? Can they find a second baseman? Can Rolen stay healthy? Can Izzy keep giving up hits and runs at his usual prodigious pace and still keep winning? Can Rolen stay healthy? Can the bullpen produce? Can Rolen stay healthy? I think one team in the National League to watch for this year is the Mets.

A bigger question in my mind is not the team but the ownership. Their quest seems to be to wring every last penny out of the St. Louis Stepford fans, before we just start losing interest. Already, it is tough to watch a game on TV unless you have cable. They left the best broadcast signal in the Midwest so they can make more money on the radio end. Not only is there a problem with the new station's signal (half the radios in my house pick up more static than station), but then they fired all the good sports people and replaced them with Howard Stern sports wannabees.* They have built us a new stadium with more high priced seats and fewer affordable seats. They promised us great vistas of the city skyline from the new ballpark (no more stadiums) and then got commitments from surrounding hotels, offices and parking garages to not let anyone watch the ball game from outside the park. They have dropped their payroll from sixth to eleventh in the majors while their ticket prices have rose to third behind the Redsox and Cubs (yes, it is cheaper to go to a Yankees game than a Cardinals game). I guess the question is: is Cardinal mania here to stay or is this just a bubble that could burst when enough fans get priced out of the market? Will people wake up one day and realize that it is just no fun anymore? Are the owners truly committed to a winner or only committed to making money. We should have a pretty good idea this year. If we find ourselves in contention this year (as we should) but are missing a piece or two to make a run for a world champ (which we probably are), will they be willing to buck up and pick up that piece later in the year to make things happen, or will they be content to know that they have already sold out all the tickets, and sit on their hands?

* My radio rant... The new sports personalities seem to be all about strong opinions rather than good opinions. After each game, the pair of jocks (Monty and Hadley?) will pick a topic and beat it to death. Should Pujols have run for home with one out, the game on the line, and a hit straight to the short stop? Well, of course, the answer is no, but they spent at least a half hour on the subject and used it to bait listeners to call in and argue about it. Not debate it but argue about it. The jocks are yelling at each other, they are yelling at the fans, the fans are yelling at them and all was based on a "yes he should - no he shouldn't" format. They clearly have the agenda of getting fans riled up so they will call the radio station and argue.

Back when the Olympics were on, I was listening to "Monty on Sports". Monty went on a spiel about how boring the Olympics were (of course they were directly competing with his air time). He said he didn't even know if the US still had men in the figure skating competitions but of course he watched the girls figure skating because they were hot. He then went on to tell us that the winning dog from the Westminster dog show had gotten loose at the airport and ran away. While searching for this dog, they found some feces that were consistent with the size dog that was lost so they thought he was still near the airport. He then went on for ten minutes (or longer, as I had turned off the radio at that point) talking about dog poop. This guy knows nothing about the Olympics, but knows much about dog poop. Is this what people are really looking for on sport talk radio?

Charles Lindbergh

2006-03-19T21:36:00.000-06:00

On May 20-21, 1927 Charles Lindbergh made the first solo, nonstop flight from New York to Paris flight in the aircraft known as the Spirit of St. Louis. After the 3,610 mile, 33 1/2 hour, flight across the Atlantic, Lindbergh became an international hero, and the most famous man in the world. Today, his airplane, the Spirit of St. Louis, hangs in the atrium of the National Air and Space Museum.

So who is this man and how did he accomplish this feat?

First of all, Lindbergh was not from St. Louis. He grew up in Little Falls, Minnesota, son of a US Congressman. From an early age, he was obsessed with airplanes and flying. After graduating from high school, he attended the University of Wisconsin at Madison, however (unlike other people we know) showed little interest and dropped out (or failed) after a year and one half. He drifted around trying to find a way into aviation. He got a job with the Nebraska Aircraft Corporation building airplanes and eventually linked up with several barnstormers.

After W.W.I, there were a glut of airplanes that had been built for the war but never used. The government had thousands of JN-4 "Jennys" for sale at low prices. Men would buy these planes and then fly them throughout the country. They would land in a field then wait for the locals to come by and charge $5 to take them up for a ride. As more and more men got into the business, they had to come up with more spectacular entrances to grab the attention of these locals. They put on displays of aerobatics, wing walking and parachuting. The young Lindbergh hooked up with several of these barnstormers hoping to trade parachute jumping for flight lessons. He served as a mechanic, wing-walker and parachute jumper but received only a couple of flight lessons in return. He finally got his hands on his own war surplus Jenny and started his own barnstorming career.

In 1923, he flew into St. Louis to watch the International Air Races. While there, he sold his plane and freelanced as a flight instructor In 1924, Lindbergh entered a US Army flying school at San Antonio, Texas. He graduated first in his class the following year, then returned to St. Louis. He was hired by the Robertson Aircraft Corporation, as a pilot for the first airmail route between St. Louis and Chicago.

At the time, planes were notoriously unreliable. As one flew one of these machines, he would spend most of his time looking for places to land as these early engines could (and would) quit at any time. Pilots had no navigational equipment so there was no flying in cloudy or rainy weather. Three times it became impossible for him to land the plane because he became hopelessly socked in by fog. He was forced to jump out of the plane and parachute to safety. During these flights from St. Louis to Chicago, he hatched a plan to capture the Orteig Prize.

In 1919, wealthy businessman Raymond Orteig, offered a $25,000 cash prize to anyone who could fly a plane nonstop between New York and Paris. Others had tried and others had died. Lindbergh reasoned that instead of taking a longer route above shipping lanes, where he might have the chance for a rescue if forced to land, he would take a direct route. That would bring him over the North Atlantic where he would have no chance of survival if he didn't make it to Ireland. It would also cut many miles and hours off the trip which meant he could use a smaller, lighter plane. He figured it could be done in less than 48 hours which meant he could forgo sleep and pilot the plane with no assistance. He knew of a fine new airplane, the Wright Bellanca, whose "Whirlwind" engine promised to give it a range of 4,000 miles.

He managed to talk a group of St. Louis businessmen into financing his idea and after trying unsuccessfully to buy a Bellanca, found a company that would custom build a plane for him in San Diego.

The Ryan Aircraft company, in a fit of fury, put together a custom built airplane in two months. Time was of the essence as other, better known and financed pilots were well on their way to making an attempt at the prize. Lindbergh supervised the design and build of the aircraft from beginning to end.

He was obsessed with eliminating any unnecessary weight. He had the gas tank put in front of the pilot to prevent the possibility of being crushed by it on impact. That tank filled what would have been the pilot's compartment and blocked off all forward visibility. He figured that most of the time he didn't need to see forward but had a periscope installed for takeoff and landing. He eliminated the radio, gas gauge, parachute, navigational lights, and installed a light wicker chair instead of the standard seat. He cut his maps down in size and carried only four sandwiches and two canteens of water.

Basically he was committed to making the flight, or to die trying. He was either extremely daring or foolhardy. He did everything possible to make the flight a success and nothing to save his life in case it wasn't. Others had died trying to play it safe only to doom themselves by carrying too much weight and crashing on takeoff or going down during the flight, and still not being rescued.

At 7:53 AM on May 20, 1927, Lindbergh took off in his Sprit of St. Louis from Roosevelt field outside of New York City. Thirty three and 1/2 hours later, he landed at LeBouget field in Paris. He was the Woodstock of his generation; the event that electrified and defined a generation. No one could have ever anticipated the worldwide reaction to the feat that took on a life of its own. For all the great things Charles Lindbergh did for the rest of his life, good and not so good, he was and will always be remembered for what he did in thirty three and 1/2 hours.

NEWS FLASH!: BLUEBELLE BREAKS SOUND BARRIER!

2006-03-14T20:35:00.000-06:00

Those of you who know me, know of my "mistress" Bluebelle. Bluebelle is a 1935 Plymouth, four door, touring sedan. When I bought Bluebelle three years ago, She was in solid drivable condition, though mechanically well worn. The drive home was a wild one as the steering was loose, the clutch needed adjusting and the engine needed serious tuning up.

As I worked on her, she ran better and better. The first things to be taken care of were safety items. Tie rod ends were very loose, the clutch and brakes needed adjustments, and a spring shackle needed replacement. Once it was safe to take on the road I focused on getting the engine to run smoothly. A major tune-up was needed plus the carburetor needed rebuilding. Somewhere along the line, the oil filter had been eliminated so I installed a new one.

I would make an adjustment then take her out for a spin to see if she performed better and usually she did. After working on her for six months, I had her out on the highway and pushed her harder than I ever had before. I got her up to 60 mph! She sounded like an earthquake in a junk yard and it was a frightening experience. But I did get her up to 60 and I've told people ever since that she did 0-60 in six months.

Early on, I would never stray far from home as I had no confidence that she would make it back. Three times during the first year and a half she stopped running while we were out. Once I managed to coax her back on her own power but twice she came home on the back of a tow truck. Well I kept at her. One winter I removed every working part in the engine compartment, tearing each unit down to the last bolt, replacing anything that was not up to spec and refurbishing everything else. I had pulled the engine's head and oil pan and checked everything I could reach to assess its condition.

Well she ran better with each ounce of work I put into her and became more and more dependable. By the end of last summer, we were taking her on trips close to 100 miles round trip. During all these trips I tried to stay off the highway. First of all, once you started going past 50 mph, it sounded like the engine was wound too tight but more importantly, with the steering still loose and the shocks not working properly, she became very squirrelly to control at higher speeds.

This past winter I started to work on the front end, steering and shocks. I replaced the king pins, made adjustments to the steering box and got the shocks and sway bar up to snuff. It was after I had finished the shocks and sway bar that I took her out for another test ride. I started out on some windy, bumpy roads to see if there were any improvements and she ran just fine. Then I took her out on the highway to see if it would make any difference there. I expected there would be improvement on the highway also, but never did I expect that degree of improvement. All but gone was the squirrelly handling above 50 mph. I was going down the highway at 60 mph and she felt better that ever. I decided to take her further down the highway to make sure this was not just my imagination. While I was rolling down a long hill, I looked at the speedometer and it was at 65 mph and she still felt fine. I came down to the where the road flattens out expecting the speed to drop but it stayed at a steady 65. It was then that I decided to push the envelope and gave her some more gas.

The pedal wasn't floored, but it wasn't far from it either. As I watched, the speedometer started to climb. I'm on a flat road and the speedometer was touching 67 and still climbing! Keeping a steady pressure on the pedal I watched her climb past 68... 69... and then up to 70! It was right then, and it may have only been in my mind, but I heard that loud sonic boom! I finally knew what it was like to be Chuck Yeager when he first broke the sound barrier in the Bell X-1 rocket plane! Like Chuck, I held her there at that mind numbing speed for an eternity, maybe seven seconds, before I backed her off back down to 60 so I could take another breath.

Now we all know that sound travels approximately 750 mph, but you have to remember, Bluebelle was born in 1935, I was born in 1949, Bluebelle is 71 years old, and I'm 56. So if you do all the math, the sound barrier for Bluebelle while traveling west on highway 40 through Gumbo flat, comes out to real close to the 70 mph that I was traveling, so I'm sure that "BOOM" that echoed through the Missouri bottom land that night was, indeed, the sound of Bluebelle breaking the sound barrier!

THE FRIENDLY SKIES...

2006-02-09T19:24:00.000-06:00

Lt. Sgt. Jackus writes...

Okay, here's something I overheard two guys talking about on the El here at school, and had to get off the train before I could hear a full explanation. The general question is something like this: "An airplane is on a giant runway that is actually a conveyor belt. The Belt moves in the opposite direction the plane is facing. It is rigged up to always move the same speed backwards that the wheels of the plane move forward. If the plane tries to take off, will it?" One of the guys on the train said his teacher said it would take off, so I'm inclined to believe it. But this guy didn't seem to buy what the teach was saying. The teacher was trying to convince him the professor was right. But how?

Well Mr. Jackus, I think I understand the question and if so, can explain the answer.

If I understand the premise correctly, the plane is using a conveyor belt for a runway. That belt is moving backward at the same speed the wheels are moving forward. The thought is that the plane would be standing still and of course, if it was standing still, there would be no airflow over the wings to create lift. If we were talking about a car with wings, this would be true. The wheels are pushing against the road (conveyor belt) and the road is moving backward at the same speed the wheels are pushing forward, ergo no forward movement.

On the other hand, the airplane does not drive on it’s wheels, it pushes against the air. So the airplane would move forward no matter how fast the wheels were moving. Whether or not it will fly is a matter of how fast it is moving compared to the air. As soon as the airplane surpasses its stall speed, it would take off.

What would keep the airplane from traveling forward would be the air speed. If it were to fly into a wind that was as fast as its air speed, it would have no forward motion, though it would still take off. Physics doesn’t care whether the wings move into the air or the air moves into the wings. It only matters that the air does move over the wings fast enough to create enough lift to overcome its weight. We run into this every time we fly. If we have a tailwind, we get there faster. If we have a headwind, it’s going to take longer.

jordansmall's photos

2006-02-02T16:52:00.000-06:00

Okay, I know I have been neglecting Ask Jim lately, but it has been for a good cause. I've been busy tying flies and working on Bluebelle.

Anyway, if anyone were to Google Adam Saraceno, they would find these photos...

And we don't even want to talk about the chicken fried steak incident!

THE GOOD AND THE BAD OF MOLD

2006-01-26T18:51:00.000-06:00

I know I'm a little behind on my Ask Jim duties. I have a few questions that have been asked but I have not answered. Don't worry, I have not forgotten them and I will get around to them. My goal is to have at least one post a week. Sheena's question is a pretty easy one so we'll bump her up ahead of some of the others.

Sheena writes....

I had some delicious bleu cheese today and was wondering: why is it that some kinds of mold will make you sick (that stuff that grows on bread), while others are edible?

The simple answer is that molds, just like any other classification of plant or animal, have as many differences as similarities. Molds are a fungus, just like mildew, mushrooms, and yeast. As we know from the mushroom family, some are very edible and some are very poisonous.

Each form of life has its own niche. They eat different things. They live in different environments. Bacteria live in our digestive track and help us digest our food, but if those same bacteria get into our bloodstream, they can kill us. What may be poisonous to one animal may be sustenance to another. Sometimes it is not the mold it self that can make us sick, but the toxins it produces.

SHOW AND TELL

2006-01-22T16:54:00.000-06:00

Again, we are leaving the usual Ask Jim format. This time we are going to do a Jim's Show and Tell post (even though I have been scooped by Anna's BLOG of Doom). I've been an electrician for almost 30 years and there are always things that I have never done before. This past Friday, I managed to take one more thing off my list of things I have never done. That was to climb a tower crane to do electric work. I knew the job was coming up and I had volunteered to do it, so I brought my camera to work to record the event.

Here is the crane. I was told it is a 120 foot crane, but that would be to the top of the boom extention. I have to climb the white section. The horn that I have to replace is just below the cabin. That part is 100' high. Not very high as tower cranes go but as I have not done high work for many years, it is plenty high for me.

As you look at the red section, you can see 3 sections plus the tower extension. The bottom third is the bottom half of the turret, the middle third is the top half of the turret and the top third is the cabin. The horn that I have to replace is under the floor of the cabin (roof of the turret).

At the base looking up.

The 90' ladder I had to climb. Every 15-20 feet there is a platform to stop and rest. I only passed one, by the time I reached the second I realized should stop at all the others.

This is the new horn. Notice on top, the window is for the operator to look straight down.

Here is the horn bell. The boom is straight out and the cable holding the hook is right down the middle of the picture. The crane operator is in the process of lowering my tools down to my ground man. To the left you can see the Arch which is about 4 1/2 miles away.

The back boom and counterweight are looking almost due west. The tall buildings on the right are in downtown Clayton which is about 7 miles away.

And that's it. I made it back to tell the story. Climbing the tower crane reminded me of the time I went snowmobiling. It comes under the category of "Been there, done that, it was interesting but I'd be very happy to never do it again".

BASEBALL STADIUMS

2006-01-13T23:03:00.000-06:00

Adam writes...

So anyhow Jim, I'll put it this way: I was in San Francisco last weekend and I drove by SBC Park, one of the more recognizable stadiums in MLB today. It made me think of all the great parks in baseball, new and old: Fenway, the Polo Grounds, the Madison Mallards Duck Pond, Joe Robbie Stadium, you know -- all the great ones.

So shoot me straight here: What do you think are the greatest stadiums of all time, and what makes a great stadium great? Big? Old? Unique? Maybe it's something intangible that you can't even describe. Still, I feel like you've got enough steam up there to blow me some sort of answer.

Bseaball stadiums are like other material goods, they are very trendy. If you look on the internet to get a rating of best stadiums, you get a list that includes all the newest and all the oldest. Fenway park is always on the list of best stadiums. I've been there, I love it. Its small, intimate setting was so different than the experience that I'm used to at expansive Busch stadium that you would best have to describe it as quaint. On the other hand, getting there is a pain, parking there is expensive, and have you ever heard of "obstructed view" seats? Believe me, if you ever get one of those seats, it is a challenge to watch the game. Then there are stadiums such as Philadelphia's cookie cutter Veteran's Stadium. No one has anything but bad things to say about that place, but I've never been there so I don't know why. I'll tell you what, let's look at the history of stadiums, what created the trends and how those stadiums affected the game. After all, forget what other people tell you, the best stadiums are the ones you enjoy the most.

When baseball first got started, they had no stadiums. They played in parks with no fences to create home runs. The ball itself was also softer so it didn't travel as far. The way to win baseball games in the late 1800s was, in the words of Wee Willie Keeler, to "hit'em where they ain't". Keeler played for the National League Baltimore Orioles, a team noted for rough and tumble, down and dirty ball. They would eke out runs one at a time, by any method possible. They were famous for hit and run plays, suicide squeeze plays, bunts, sacrifices, and their famous "Baltimore chop", a play where the batter would swing down on the ball to make it bounce so high that the runner would be on first before the ball could be fielded. Their all-star third baseman, John McGraw was adept at hitting foul balls and this was when fouls were not counted as strikes. So adept at it was he that many give him credit (or blame) for the institution of the rule counting fouls as the first two strikes. This was a game of a lot of action and a lot of strategy.

By the early 1900s, Baseball became a stable viable source of entertainment. Teams started building stadiums (actually "ballparks") that would last for a long time and more importantly not burn down. Two of those stadiums were Chicago's Wrigley field and Boston's Fenway park. Those stadiums were small by today's standard, holding 30-35,000 fans. Many times, dimensions were dictated by available space. Fenway's famous Green Monster was a product of two space limitations. First the left field fence was very short because of lack of space of the property the park was built on. Because of the short fence, home runs would sail out of the park through the windows of the shops across the street. To appease the shop owners, they built the tall wall that has become an icon to the quirky dimensions of the stadiums of that era.

Several things happened in the late teens. Parks with small dimensions were built, the ball was wound tighter, and Babe Ruth came along. The Babe, hit home runs at a pace that eclipsed anything anyone had ever seen. What many fail to realize is the first time Babe Ruth broke the home run record, he bested the record by two for a total of 29. Only later did he go on to break it again with 54 and finally with 59. He more than doubled the record over the course of 3 years! Everyone started swinging for the fences and hitting home runs. All that strategy of the 19th century went by the wayside. The way to win games was to get a slugger to hit home runs. Why take the chance of getting caught stealing a base, when your chances were better that someone would drive you in with a homer, scoring two runs?

Then there was the Polo Grounds that the Giants played in for years. The team had played in 4 previous versions of the Polo grounds, the original actually being Polo Grounds. As each incarnation of the stadium was built, the odd dimensions were kept. With dimensions as short as 256 1/4' down the first base line and as long as 505' at straight dead away center field, there must have been some very strange baseball played there. As a matter of fact, after seeing these dimensions, it brings into perspective just how amazing Willy May's catch was during the 1954 World Series was. But I digress. The point is, I have found no reason to keep these awkward dimensions, but they did. Was the Polo Grounds a great ballpark, or a freak? I know Bobby Thompson fell in love with it when he hit "the shot heard 'round the world" to win the pennant for the Giants in 1951.

Along came the 60's and someone came up with the idea of multipurpose stadiums. Busch Stadium was the first and even though it wasn't the last to be built, it was the last to stand. The idea was to have a building that could house not only baseball but football, soccer, circuses, rock concerts and many other outdoor venues. From an economic standpoint it made a world of sense. When Houston built their new domed stadium, they realized that grass would not grow inside. Monsanto came to the rescue with artificial plastic grass. It took its common name from the stadium that created the need for it in the first place... Astroturf.

For some reason, the National League hopped on the multipurpose bandwagon. The much maligned "cookie cutter" stadiums popped up in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Montreal, and the list goes on. The huge expanses of outfield and the smooth fast surface of Astroturf made hitting home runs difficult. The bad hops that plagued grass stadiums were fewer by far, but the ball traveled so fast that it was hard to catch up to. This spawned a return to the strategies of the previous century. The National League found that using pitchers that would make the batters hit ground ball more valuable than ones that threw strike outs. The scrappy, eke out one run at a time philosophy came back to the forefront. The National League game became intrinsically different than the American League game. In the National League the stolen base was common. In the American League, the home run still dominated the game.

One thing that was lost in the newer, bigger stadiums was the intimate atmosphere of the smaller ballparks. A fan in the front row of Busch stadium was no closer to home plate than a fan in the 20th row of Fenway Park.

When Baltimore rebuilt Camden yards, they realized that one of the appeals to baseball was its past and its heritage. When they had the architectural firm HOK design their new Camden Yards, they took all those retro looks and lines, put them together with modern construction techniques and had the best of both worlds. Intimacy of the old, luxury of the new. The baseball world was so smitten with the new Camden Yards that everyone had to have one.

The cookie cutters were torn down, astro turf was torn out, fences were moved in, stadiums were transformed into parks again, and as far as I know, they were all designed by the same firm, HOK.

How did this affect baseball? Home runs, here we come again.

Surely, there were a few dogs in stadium history. Probably the worst was Olympic Stadium in Montreal. It was going to be the first stadium with a retractable roof, but when they were done, there was no roof. It sat that way for ten years until the roof was finally completed, but it took another two years before it would retract. That only lasted a few years. Then a 55 ton concrete beam fell, closing the stadium for a while. The retractable roof that didn't retract wore out and had to be replaced with a roof that didn't retract on purpose.

Many of the stadiums that people complained about were just never maintained properly.

So which are the truly great stadiums and which are the dogs? I don't know. I do know, for as much as I enjoyed watching Mark McGwyre hit 70 home runs, I miss Whitey ball. I think quirks were wonderful when they were dictated by surroundings, but look at Houston's "Whatever Brand Name" dome. Those Crawford boxes are the stuff cheap home runs are made of. The "Crosley Field" hill and "Yankee Stadium" flagpole in center field are injuries waiting to happen. I have a real problem with quirks that are totally contrived.

If the cookie cutters were so bad, why did people cry at the last game they attended at Busch. How does it make any sense to tear down the last remaining stadium that represented a whole era in baseball to build a new stadium that has the feel of stadiums that were built a hundred years ago? Isn't one of the joys of baseball the fact that each stadium is a little different? One of the biggest complaints about the cookie cutters was they all looked the same. Then why is baseball so intent on building a whole new set of stadiums that look the same? I think Busch would have been the Fenway Park or Wrigley Field of the 60's. A stadium that represented a time when baseball was different, and in many ways better. So why?!... Oh, yeah... Duh!... MONEY!

THE MCFLURRY SPOON MYSTERY

2006-01-13T09:20:00.000-06:00

For those of you who haven't followed the comments, here is an Ask Jim that was asked and then later answered by the man who asked it...

Eric wrote...
"McDonalds has the weirdest spoons I've ever noticed. I order a 'McFlurry' a lot and end up with the same type of strange spoon. Why is it shaped like that? I can't seem to find a logical reason by myself, so I'm relying on you to help me out. Thanx"

Then Anna wrote...
"I second Eric's question. Those spoons baffle me.
For an interesting fact on old McDonalds spoons, go here."

Having never had a McFlurry and following Anna's lead, I came to the erroneous conclusion that the spoon in question had to do with being used for drug paraphernalia. Wrong spoon.

Then when Anna was home, she helped my research by bringing home a McFlurry and spoon for me to inspect. Eric also helped me by bringing me a McFlurry spoon. It was as puzzling to me as to anyone. Finally, I received the following comments...

Eric wrote...
"The reason for the McDonalds spoons has been revealed!!! The spoons are hollow and have a hook on the end of it so it can be attached to the mixer. That way the spoon can act as the spinner thing and then it can be given to the person that ordered it. It saves a lot more time and energy because they don't have to clean the mixer after every use."

And Alan wrote...
"The spoon is a specially designed removable agitator for the McFlurry machine.The machine is actually a Vita-Mix machine known as Mix'n Machine."

Then Anna wrote....
"WOWZAHS! Eric just enlightened my life. I had lost hope for the meaning of the McDonald's spoon design. How did you figure that out, Eric?"

To which Eric replied...
"I asked"

This just shows that Ask Jim can be a group research project. I bet many of those who are in college wish there were more group research projects because they are so enjoyable and fulfilling. Don't you agree?

ALBINISM

2006-01-13T08:39:00.000-06:00

Eric writes...

All right Jim, here's another for you: Why is an animal born an albino? And could an animal be part albino? I mean some of it's skin is white and other parts are the normal color?

There are many sources of information about ALBINO ANIMALS on the web. This is an excerpt from one page that answers your question.

"Albinism is due to one of several gene mutations that affect the production of normal pigmentation. True albino animals lack melanin and are white with no markings and with unpigmented pink eyes. In some species there is also a form known as blue-eyed (or "partial") albinism. There are also various degrees of patchy albinism where only part of the body is affected."

There used to be a great example of patchy albinism right by your house. For several years there was a crow that was all white with black eyes and a small black patch on one of it's wings, that lived near the intersection of Sappinton and Manchester roads.

THE THREE HEARTED, BLUE BLOODED SQUID

2006-01-06T17:41:00.000-06:00

Eric writes...

I've been thinking about the Humboldt squids, often nicknamed "red devils" that lives on the west coast of the Americas. What really puzzles me is that they have THREE HEARTS!!! They only grow up to 6 ft. and Sperm whales are much bigger and only have one heart, so it can't be its size. Plus both Sperm whales AND "red devils" live in the deep ocean. I just don't get it!! Do all squids have three hearts, or is the Humboldt unique?

Not only do all squids have three hearts but most, if not all cephalopods have three hearts. Cephalopods include squid, octopuses, and nautili (and yes, those are the proper plurals). They are among the "blue blood" of the animal kingdom. I mean literally, they are among the blue blood. They have blue blood and three hearts. Unlike mammals who have hemoglobin in their blood to carry oxygen, they have hemocyanin, hence the color of their blood. To move their blue blood, they have three hearts, one heart to pump blood though each of their two sets of gills and one heart to pump blood through the rest of their bodies. When you think of it, that is not all that different than us. We have but one heart but it has four chambers. Two chambers pump blood through our lungs and two pump the blood through the rest of the body.

I believe the problem arises that blood traveling through the lungs (or gills), travels through very small tubes (capillaries) while blood through the rest of the body travels through large tubes (arteries and veins). The resistance is much greater in the smaller tubes so much of the pressure is used up just getting oxygen into the blood, therefore, different bodies have overcome this problem different ways. Some earthworms have four pairs of hearts, others have five. A cockroach has a chain of hearts, in all totaling to 13, though some consider it one 13 chambered heart. Jelly fish. like some people I know, have no hearts at all!

This brings us all to one of the most amazing octopuses in history. The animal's owner, Captain Queeg goes into a harbor bar with his pet octopus and says 'I'll bet $50.00 that no one here has a musical instrument that this here octopus can't play.'

The people in the bar look around and someone fetches out an old mandolin. The octopus has a look, picks it up, tunes it, and starts playing a few choruses of 'Rawhide.' Captain Queeg quickly pockets the fifty bucks.

The next bar patron comes up with a trumpet. The octopus takes the horn, loosens up the keys, licks its chops and starts playing 'Stella By Starlight.' Yet another $50.00 is handed over to the smiling captain.

The bar owner has been watching all of this and disappears into the back room, returning a few minutes later with a set of bagpipes under his arm. He puts them on the bar and says to the captain and his octopus,

'Now, I'll bet you $100.00 your damn octopus can't play that!'

The octopus takes a look at the bagpipes, lifts it up, turns it over, has another look from a different angle and then starts the process over again.

Puzzled, the captain comes over to the octopus and says, 'What are you waiting around for? Hurry up and play the damn thing!'

'Play it, hell!' frowned the octopus. 'As soon as I figure out how to get her pajamas off, we're outta here!'

THE 1900 CARDINALS ... part 2

2005-12-19T20:31:00.000-06:00

McGraw and Robinson are warmly greeted by the St. Louis "cranks" (fans), but after the good start, the team quickly starts to have a sub par season. The pitchers, including Young seem to be pitching alright but the team keeps losing games. Just like today, the writers are making excuses such as "Cy Young is pitching better than his record would show". There is a lot speculation that there is strife on the team. Apparently, in the years past, McGraw has gotten into it with Tabeau and Burkett many times. McGraw and Patsey claim to be getting along just fine. McGraw is quoted as saying "Tabeau came to me when I got there and said 'Mac, you are captain and I want you to go right ahead and do what you think best' but I don't want to assume authority"

By the time the warm winds of June are blowing, the Perfectos are heading east for a road trip in 5th place. McGraw misses some time due to an injury and writers are saying the "pitchers are not in good shape". McGraw, being the cantankerous man that he is, gets thrown out of games from time to time with his wild temper. This is nothing new or unusual. Young supposedly is suffering rheumatism in his shoulder and Tabeau is looking to bolster the pitching lineup. Even though it is starting to look bad for the Perfectos, some writers still pick them and Brooklyn to lead the league. The Baltimore writer, who is in eternal love with John McGraw writes a column about how players like McGraw are the type that bring pennants to their teams.

By the end of June, rumors are rampant about discourse in the clubhouse between McGraw and Burkett, though the official word is everything is fine. A June 23rd headline reads "Last in Race - Perfectos are National League's Tail Enders". They take 8 losses in a row. McGraw is still out with injuries and doesn't even bother to show up at the games. He spends his time at the racetrack instead. The Baltimore writer reveals McGraw's great contract, both the amount of money he is making and the fact that the reserve clause is scratched out. Finger pointing is now in full swing. The Baltimore writer blames everything on Tabeau and Robison for not letting McGraw run the show. The New York writer blames the Robisons for blindly throwing money at McGraw and others in order to "buy" the Pennant. The St. Louis writer is blaming the players for not playing. The official word though, is there is no strife in the clubhouse.

As July and August wind up, things have gone from bad to worse. The finger pointing gets worse, the team is in the dumps, and Tabeau is taking a lot of heat. They are now in 6th place and attendance is dropping off. On August 25th, Patsey Tabeau resigns. It is not clear whether he quit or was fired, but it doesn't matter, neither he nor anyone else has any control over the team. McGraw is offered the manager's job but turns it down. "Management was offered to McGraw but he refused to accept responsibility for the thoroughly demoralized team under any condition" is written in the Sporting News. A September headline reads "Playing Awful Ball - fortunate to not end up last - dissipation is responsible for St. Louis team's poor performance". Dissipation was a term used to describe drunkenness and intemperance. One nameless player is quoted as saying "There is no use to try to duck it. Booze is the cause of our being where we are... I feel ashamed of myself when I draw my salary". It is reported that another player was seen standing on Grand Ave. at 7 am Sunday morning selling newspapers. Apparently, he had been out "dissipating" all night and ended the evening by "liberating" newspapers from the paperboy and temporarily going into business for himself.

In the middle of September, McGraw announces that he will be with a new team in a new league in Baltimore for the 1901 season. He declines to tell which league it will be, but when a reporter asks if will be with the Quinn-Anson group (the American Association), he just laughs leading everyone to conclude he's in bed with Ban Johnson and the American League. McGraw also states that he had told the Robisons that was his intentions right from the start, which is why he had the reserve clause scratched out of his contract.

In the October 20th issue of Sporting News, a headline reads "Salary Withheld - only four St. Louis Perfecto players paid in full". Those paid are John McGraw, Wilbert Robinson, Cy Young, and Patsy Donovan.

In the November 17 issue, it is announced that Muggsy and Robby are owners of the New American League Baltimore Orioles.

Of course, the sports writers of the time are no different than they are today. They are on the outside looking in and we really never seem to get the whole story as it happens. Some said McGraw was offered the manager's job right away but declined it because he knew that by the next year he would be out of town, hopefully in a new league back in Baltimore. We know for sure that he was offered the job in August and declined to take it. The Baltimore writer is steadfast in his belief that were McGraw running the team, they would have still been in contention. He further states that the Robisons and Tabeau had no desire to play McGraw's brand of "scientific" ball (a term he used often throughout the year when referring to McGraw). He goes so far as to claim that Tabeau would rather see the team lose than to see the team win and have McGraw get the credit. Some say that the clubhouse feud is between McGraw and Burkett. We know that the Robisons withheld salaries from everyone except McGraw, Robinson, Young, and Donovan, so you would have to believe that the Robisons thought everyone else was dogging it. However, I came across one headline saying that the Robisons thought Muggsy and Robby were "counterfeits".

If you look at the stats, both McGraw and Burkett had very good offensive totals. Burkett was 3rd overall in batting average, while McGraw was 5th. OPS (on base percentage/slugging percentage) saw McGraw 3rd and Burkett 4th. McGraw was number one in the league with a .505 on base percentage. Throughout the offensive stats, the Perfectos had many players in the top 5. The team batting average was second only to Brooklyn with a .291. The pitching wasn't great, but it was middle of the road. With a team ERA at 3.75, they were fourth in the league. We can gather from the writings that the team was totally dysfunctional. Players were drinking and carousing, Tabeau quit, Muggsy didn't want to manage. Whether Patsey and Muggsy struggled for authority or they both deferred to each other, the result was the same, leadership and discipline were all but nonexistent. It seems that the 1900 Cardinals were a case of having all the right pieces, but none of them fit together. A classic "clash of egos". Maybe in the end, they needed Joe Torre for manager.

THE 1900 CARDINALS ... part 1

2005-12-18T16:54:00.000-06:00

The 1900 Cardinals had Hall of Famers Cy Young, John McGraw, Jesse Burkett, Wilbert Robinson, and Bobby Wallace playing for them. With all that talent, they ended the season tied for 5th place and management withheld the last months salary for most of the players, largely because of "dissipation". Well, I got the chance to spend a day at the Sporting News research library. I spent that day thumbing through the all the issues of the Sporting News for the year 1900 and the following is a general idea of what transpired that year.

The year 1900 found baseball in turmoil. There was only one major league and that was the National League. Before the 1899 season, the Robison brothers, who owned the Cleveland Spiders, were very unhappy with lack of support by the Cleveland fans, even though the Robisons were fielding very good teams. They proceeded to buy the St. Louis Browns (Cardinals). By moving all his best players, including Cy Young and Jesse Burkett, to St. Louis, and sending all the rest to Cleveland, he created a team of "haves" and a team of "have nots". The have not Spiders went on to set an all time major league record for futility by winning only 20 games while loosing 134 for a .130 winning percentage, a record that stands to this day. Back east, the same thing was going on when the Brooklyn Bridegrooms (Dodgers) merged with the Baltimore Orioles. Manager Ned Hanlon brought such stars as "Wee" Willie Keeler, Hughie Jennings and Joe Kelley to Brooklyn from Baltimore. It's not clear why two of the team's super stars, 3rd baseman John McGraw and catcher Wilbert Robinson were left behind in Baltimore. The most likely reason is they had joint business interests in town including the Diamond Cafe and a bowling alley. The Bridegrooms changed their names to the Superbas and went on to win the pennant. Ironically, some of the Superbas biggest threat was not from the revitalized Perfectos, but from the "have not" Baltimore team. With McGraw at the helm, Baltimore managed to stay in the race right up to the end of the season, though finally ended up in 4th place. As a matter of fact, Baltimore may have taken the flag had it not been for the death of John McGraw's wife. For some weeks, John was so depressed that he couldn't even make it to the ballpark. During that time Baltimore played only .500 ball. Near the end of 1899, the Orioles and the Superbas squared off for a hotly contested pennant. Hanlon's Superbas triumphed, but the hot headed McGraw put up such a protest in one of those games that the umpire forfeited the game to Brooklyn. So vile were McGraw's actions that it severely strained whatever relationship McGraw and Hanlon may have ever had.

This brings us up to January of 1900. The rest is gleaned from those issues of the Sporting News.

The NL was in disarray with Baltimore and Cleveland having been virtually abandoned and Washington and Louisville fielding teams that were constant basement dwellers with very poor attendance. The NL was threatening to remove those four teams and go from a 12 team league to an 8 team league. Elsewhere, the former star of the Chicago Orphans (Cubs) Cap Anson, had garnered support from 7 cities to create the return of the old American Association League that had folded in 1892. Teams were lined up in Chicago, Milwaukee, Louisville, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Baltimore. It was speculated that the Baltimore team was to have McGraw and Robinson as owners. To make matters even worse for the NL, Ban Johnson, the president of the Western League, a minor league, had changed its name to the American League, and was poised to build itself into a Major League.

With rumors of the NL Orioles' demise, there was a lot of speculation as to what would happen to John McGraw. One Baltimore writer states "'Mac' says, and I think the baseball public, not only here, but all over the country will agree with him that he deserves a better birth that playing for $2400 under some manager who knows one twentieth as much as he does about the game".

In February, McGraw makes a preemptive move by leasing the Orioles Union park in preparation of the AA Baltimore team. Hanlon is livid with the action. At one point, Hanlon sends men to Baltimore to occupy left field while McGraw has men occupying right field, both groups hoping to lay claim on the park. A judge finally rules in Hanlon's favor and the siege is ended. In Cleveland, Cy Young says he thinks the American League will eventually have a team there and he would be happy to pitch there. Back in St. Louis, the fans are wondering what the Robison brothers next move is, though most think they are going to sell Cleveland and put all there eggs in the St. Louis basket. Cincinnati's owner tries to talk to McGraw about coming to take the helm for his team, but "Muggsy" is adamant about staying in Baltimore.

By the time March rolls around, the NL finally puts an end to the 4 teams in question. McGraw and Robinson's contract are moved to Brooklyn, but Hanlon wants nothing to do with either one of them and sell their contracts to St. Louis. With this purchase, the Perfectos are picked as being a shoe in for 1st or 2nd place. The only problem is Mac and Robby still have no intention of leaving Baltimore. They're holding out for the fruition of Cap Anson's American Association League.

The St. Louis Perfectos start their spring training down in Hot Springs Arkansas. Back then, players were not expected to keep in shape during the off season nor were they expected to hone their skills by playing other teams during spring. Rain had pretty much closed the local fields, but Perfectos manager, Patsey Tabeau was happy to know that the players would be "boiling out impurities" at the local hot springs spa. Local streetcar drivers were instructed to not let Perfectos in uniform on the streetcars as they were supposed to be running into town and back as part of their fitness training. The Robison brothers are telling the public they are confident that McGraw and Robby are going to eventually come to St. Louis because of the "princely sums" they are offering them. The term "princely sums" is used time and time again referring to John McGraws salary plus McGraw's name appears in at least one headline almost every week throughout the year in the Sporting News. These exemplify the fact that McGraw's salary is unprecedented and his star status is quite established. Cy Young is mentioned often, but only because he pitches several times each week. He is already known to be a very good pitcher, but he is by no means the superstar that McGraw is.

As the season opens in April, the Perfectos are very promising. Burkett and Young are looking good and the Perfectos are being picked for near the top whether McGraw and Robinson sign with the team or not. They come out of the box up to speed and quickly pull into first place. Anson's American Association is starting to fall apart and Muggsy makes a play to get a job with the Philadelphia or New York teams so he can stay close enough to Baltimore to still take care of his business interests there.

By May 12th, the American Association is dead on arrival. Muggsy and Robby are still under the reserve clause of St. Louis, so if they aren't going to play in St. Louis, they are not going to play in the Majors that summer. With their backs against the wall, they finally agree to play in St. Louis, but not before McGraw receives an unprecedented $10,000 salary plus an unheard of stipulation that the reserve clause would be scratched out of their contracts freeing them up to play anywhere at the end of the year. With the acquisition of McGraw and Robby, it is assumed that the Robisons have just bought the Pennant. However, with McGraw comes the first chink in the team's armor. McGraw had already become known for managing baseball. Player-managers were the norm at the time, but Muggsy is not given the job as manager of the perfectos. Patsey Tabeau remains the manager while McGraw became the team captain. This brought about two problems. The first is the dual chain of command plants divisions in the team; the second, by making Muggsy the captain, it splits the team in two. Apparently, the players, led by Jesse Burkett, already had a captain who was a friend of theirs. When McGraw arrives, the Robisons sell the captain to another team, and Burkett and his buddies are totally ticked off at McGraw and Tabeau.

OLDEST MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAM

2005-12-13T20:23:00.000-06:00

For those of you who have been with us right from the beginning, you will remember that this subject was one of my first posts. Since then, I have learned more about the subject so I have re-written it and posted it on "Viva el Birdos" BLOG site. I am also reposting it here.

If by oldest you mean the first, the honors would have to go to the Cincinnati Red Stockings. Not the Reds of today, but a team that was formed in 1869.

Back in the 1840s baseball or "base ball" as it was called at the time, had many different sets of rules. It was often called "town ball" as many towns had their own variation. Alexander Cartwright and his New York Knickerbockers had written a set of rules in 1845. The "New York" game went on to become the most popular game as "base ball" spread across the country during the civil war. In 1859, a group of baseball clubs got together to form the "National Association of Baseball Players. The NABP became the governing body of baseball and worked out a unified set of rules that all member clubs would use. It was basically a national organization that anyone could join. Each team would schedule its own games and many teams would recruit players from other towns to bolster there chances of winning. Some would entice players with good paying local jobs, and some clubs would even pay some really good players enough money so they wouldn't have to work during baseball season. In 1896, Cincinnati put together a baseball team that was 100% "professional". This group, lead by Harry Wright, was named the Red Stockings. Each man was paid a salary, the highest going to Harry's brother George, the star shortstop, who made $1400. As was the practice, Harry would schedule games with other towns then the team traveled throughout the eastern US playing games. At the end of 1869 they were 65-0.

The next year they started a winning streak that took them into Brooklyn 27-0. The Brooklyn Atlantics had been one of the premier teams of the amateur era and at the end of 9 innings the two teams were tied 5-5. At the time the game was considered over with a tied score, but Harry appealed to Brooklyn to continue on into unprecedented extra innings. At the end of the 11th inning, Brooklyn had won 8-7. The luster had gone from the Reds and they folded as a team by the end of the year. The next year Harry, George and a few others moved to Boston and regrouped as the Boston Red Stockings (Ever wonder why both Boston and Cincinnati have similar names?).

If by oldest, you mean longest running, then the answer is either the Chicago Cubs or Atlanta Braves. Both of those teams can be traced back to 1871. At the time, the Cubs were known as the White Stockings and the Braves are direct descendants of Harry Wrights Boston Red Stockings. Harry got together with some other teams and built a new league comprised of all professional teams. That new league was the National Association of Professional Baseball Players. The NAPBP lasted only 4 years, and at the end of 1875, Boston and Chicago were the only two original members left. Unfortunately, near the end of the first year, on October 9, 1871, Chicago was enveloped in the great Chicago fire. With the town in disarray, Chicago could not field a team in the years of 1872 or 1873, but they were back in business for the '74 season. In 1876, the National League was started. Both Boston and Chicago transferred to the new league and have been playing ever since

So some people consider the Braves to be the oldest team in baseball because of Chicago's two lost seasons. You could also make a case that the braves are direct descendants of the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings. The Braves are in fact, the longest continually running major league baseball team. But can it be considered the oldest team if it has moved from Cincinnati to Boston to Milwaukee, to Atlanta? If not, the Cubs have run continuously, in the same town since 1874, making it the oldest team in baseball.

HERBIVORES TO OMNIVORES

2005-12-13T19:25:00.000-06:00

Eric writes...

So Jim, I'm not even sure that humanity knows the answer to this question but here it goes: How did primates; namely chimpanzees, us and our ancestral line, go from "herbivores" to "omnivores"? Yes, the herbivorous primates today DO in fact rely on animals as food, such as insects, and that they can't survive to procreate with out them. But considering that they have evolved to rely mainly on plants, how could a species derive an omnivorous anatomy from an herbivores one?

Well Eric, I do think you are correct in the assumption that humanity may not know the answer to this. One thing we do know is you have stumped Jim. I did some research and got nowhere. So, rather than just say "I don't know" or give you some answer based in fact or good science, let me just give you some opinions. You know, stuff that I just pull out of my hat (or some orifice).

The first thing to remember is evolution is a theory and not a fact. That statement should not be interpreted as an endorsement for creationism. Creationism is also a theory. One built on bad science, where as, evolution is a theory built on good science, however it is just that, a theory. As any theory in the scientific community, there are various opinions in different scientific camps. To say "X" is the way an animal could go from one state to another is impossible to answer. I can't even find any information that humans were ever herbivorous. I see a lot of discussion as to whether humans are, today, herbivores or omnivores. We know by practice, we are omnivores, but some come to the conclusion, strictly by anatomy, that we have a lot more in common with herbivores than omnivores. (The problem with most of those sources though, is that they were advocating vegetarianism. Their "science" may be suspect.) If we can't answer that question now, I see no way to conclude what our ancestors did.

The second thing to remember is the basis of evolution is survival of the fittest. That doesn't have to mean the strongest, but those plants and animals that can adapt best to their surroundings. No species sets out to become anything. It's characteristics are reactive to their environment. If human ancestors were in fact herbivores and we evolved into omnivores, according to the theory of evolution, there was a point in our past that favored omnivores, therefore, those are the ones who survived to pass down their genes.

The third, and most important thing to remember is I may have totally misunderstood the question so I could have gone down the wrong, dead end road when I tried to find information. So, if that sounds like the most plausible point of this three point answer, feel free to give me a nudge down the correct road, and I'll see what I can dig up.

SCOTCH

2005-12-08T17:15:00.000-06:00

ay there, Jim. It sure has been awhile, bub.
I recently dined with a Jim at a Scottish restaurant. In fact, the Jim and I shared 4 scotch eggs and 6 drams of scotch. I had the haggis, which I later excreted in burp form for roughly 7 hours. But I digress. How is scotch made and what makes some scotches better than others? I bet my boss 10 dollars that scotch is made from ground up Scottish midgets.

I'm afraid you owe your boss $10. It is the coating of the scotch eggs that is made from ground up Scottish midgets.

Scotch, however, is that wonderful whiskey that comes from Scotland. (And if it is not from Scotland, it is not scotch.) There are many different scotches and they range from rough to exquisite. Whiskey can be made from many different grains. Rye whiskey is made from rye (of course), Kentucky Bourbon and Tennessee sour mash whiskey is made from corn, and scotch is made from malted barley.

If you have been with us right from the beginning, you will remember the post about lager and ale. They are both malt beverages. Scotch is essentially a distilled beer (without the hops). This is the process of making scotch, in a nutshell.

Start with barley (a grain similar to wheat) and put it in a warm moist environment. This will make the seed think it is time to germinate. As the seed prepares to sprout, it starts to turn its starch into sugar. The sugar content will be highest at the moment just before the seed actually sprouts. At this point, the barley will be dried and roasted to stop the growth process. This process of preparing the barley is called "malting" and barley that has undergone this process is called malted barley or simply malt. This is the same basic process used for either scotch or beer. The malt is steeped in hot water to draw those sugars out of the grain. This barley soup is called wort. This liquid is then fermented and the resulting "beer" is then distilled. The end product is aged in barrels for at least 3 years, it is then scotch.

Every part of the process makes a difference in flavor. The time the malt is roasted, whether it is roasted over an open fire or smoked. Whether that fire is made from coke or peat. Where the water comes from. How long it is aged. What kind of barrel it is aged in. These and more determine whether a scotch is drinkable or divine.

The word peat is thrown around all the time when describing scotch. There are many peat bogs in Scotland and the water used in the process can pick up flavors by traveling through these bogs. Peat can also be dried and burned as a fuel and if it is used in the fire to dry or roast the malt, it is another way for the peat to impart its flavor. "Peaty" and "smoky" are what I love in my scotch, but that may not be what you are looking for. Extent of such flavors are all in the beholder. What I find to be just right, you may find to be over powering or weak.

I like to drink my scotches straight, though many people claim that by adding a little water and ice, it can bring out flavors that otherwise wouldn't be detected. One friend of mine told me he thought that was a way of justifying watering the scotch down to make it go farther. I think he has a good point. Scotch is actually already watered down. A few distillers will sell a limited amount of "cask strength", which is much stronger. Of course, like anything, you should decide for yourself what you like best.

Scotch can be divided into two major subdivisions, single malt and blend. The single malt whiskey is a whiskey made from 100% malt from a single distillery. A blend is a mixture of whiskeys from several distilleries and often contain whiskies made from other grains. A broad, general rule of thumb, your better scotches are single malt, though there are excellent blends available as well. I'm not sure this is a always true, but if your scotch's name starts with "Glen", it is probably a single malt.

Like French wines, scotches can also be divided into regions. Though each region can have its own characteristics, they still have more differences than similarities. A novice need not pay too much attention to regions.

One aspect of a scotch that makes a big difference is age. A scotch less that 10 years old is never going to be the highest quality (Of course, we have to remember quality is a relative term. A scotch of average quality may be better that many other whiskey's of high quality.) What makes scotch so good is a complicated question. If it were just the grain, the process and the peat bogs, anyone could do it. I've heard of Japanese buying entire Scottish peat bogs, shipping them back to Japan, and trying to make Japanese "scotch", to no avail. Like many things, scotch is very trendy. I don't mean to diminish its reputation, however, because it is such a popular drink (especially single malt), you will find no bargains. I've tasted scotches that have no rivals in my book. It is hard to find a truly outstanding scotch for less than $45 a bottle. Excellent scotches can quickly reach $80-$100 a bottle. They can go much higher than that, however I know nothing about them. They are too far out of may price range to even taste them. When the waiter at the Scottish Arms restaurant recommended the 21 year old Glenmorangie special reserve, I immediately thought it sounded out of my price range. Never, though, did I think it could be $105 a dram! Very palatable scotches can be obtained for $25-$35 a bottle. I just bought a bottle of 10 year old Glen Garioch, a highland single malt whiskey, for $22. I find it to be a rather smooth whiskey, but uninteresting. The Irish also make fine malt whiskeys. Not long ago, I would say Irish whiskey was "under appreciated", which in "Jimeze" means a bargain, but their prices are rising quickly. Tyrconnel, which is a very palatable single malt, pot stilled, Irish whiskey has gone from the low $20s to $29 in the past several years.

Of the four scotches we tasted, 3 were from the Islay region. The Lagavulin and the Laphroaig had the peaty, smoky flavor that I love. The Caol Ila, however, I found to be lacking in character and complexity. The Glenmorangie is a northern Highland whiskey that also has those characteristics I look for in a scotch. So good were three out of four of those scotches, that just the thought of them would send my tongue into instant flavor rushes. The taste is so distinctive and wonderful, my mind will recreate the experience time and time again for several days. I have never come across another type of drink that will do this to me. I guess this is why it is so popular and so expensive.

Some blends that friends have recommended are Famous Grouse, Pinch, and Chivas Regal.

High quality whiskeys and other spirits, that are made to stand alone are being manufactured in many areas. Vodkas, tequilas, and gins all have their high quality products that are meant to be enjoyed straight. Single barrel sour mash and 10 year old bourbon are being produced by a dozen distillers. These are my new choice for under appreciated whiskies today. Probably the greatest bargain in Jim's book of whiskies is the Tennessee sour mash George Dickle which is smoother and less expensive than Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels is a prime example of the over appreciated (over priced) product that does a better job of selling its image than producing a quality product.

APPLE JUICE Vs. CIDER

2005-12-06T18:33:00.000-06:00

Okay, Jim. Help me and my roommate settle a dispute. Is there a difference between juice and cider, as in apple juice or cider. I realize this is one of the less interesting questions you'll field, but we have no idea.

That's easy. I grew up in a town whose major agricultural product was apples.

Technically, there is no difference between apple cider and apple juice. The FDA or whoever is in charge of those things, have no rules or definitions for either cider or juice and neither does Noah Webster. The terms are interchangeable.

There is, however, usually an implied difference. When you grind up apples and press them to release the juices, you end up with a brownish liquid that contains a sludge that will settle to the bottom. That is what most Americans consider cider. If you take that juice, filter it and pasteurize it, you will have a clear golden liquid that is usually considered apple juice. If you were to take that same cider and let it ferment, it will turn into "hard cider". Your cider that comes in bottles that look like beer is just that. Woodchuck Cider is a hard cider.

So usually, "sweet" cider is brown and cloudy, apple juice is clear and golden, and "hard" cider is fermented and has an alcohol content, but you (and the product vendor) can use those terms interchangeably.

BASEBALL WEEKEND IN 1996

2005-12-06T17:09:00.000-06:00

This is off track. In 1996, Adam and I went to three baseball games in three days. I had such a great time I wrote about it. There was never a venue to present it, so even though this is no Ask Jim, and it is dated, here it is.

Sunday Sept. 8, 1996

It was coming up on the weekend, my wife and daughter were going out of town on a Girl Scout field trip, and my 13 year old son and I were going to be weekend bachelors. How should the mice play while the cats were away?

I heard about the ceremonies planned for Enos Slaughter and the '46 Cards on Friday. We had stopped at Cooperstown several weeks before, while we were on vacation. My son had bought a baseball signed by Mr. Slaughter at one of the many memorabilia places there so I thought he'd like to see him in person. While we were talking about the game, we decided we hadn't been to enough of them, and with only nine home games left, there weren't many chances left. We decided to make it a baseball weekend and go to all three games against San Diego.

Friday night we got there early for the ceremonies. As always, I am well prepared. I have a day pack containing binoculars, radio, score sheets (my son just made a new score sheet design on the computer and we are going to give it a try tonight), pencils, "Sharpie" (pen for autographs), peanuts, sodas (in plastic bottles and a soft cooler), and sunflower seeds. We're planning on buying general admission tickets but as we are walking up to the stadium, people are selling tickets outside. The first guy has tickets in Loge Reserve, but we're not interested in those. They're along the baseline and I'd rather sit behind home plate. The next guy is selling two tickets to Saturday's game. They are field box seats right behind home plate. I'm usually too cheap to spring $16 per ticket but this is an offer I can't refuse. I'm so excited, I'm happy to pay face value. [Note: $16 for field box in 1996, in 2005, the same tickets were $43!] We cross the south bridge, pass the souvenir vender and my son picks up a baseball with a Cardinals logo. I've already warned him not to get too concerned about autographs because they are so hard to come by.

We go down behind the Cardinals dugout to watch the ceremonies. Jack Buck is there interviewing Enos Slaughter and Red Scheindienst. We're so close we could practically kiss them (but not close enough for autographs). Great ceremonies! They're over so we take our seats (well we take someone's seats. Fourth row behind the Cardinal's dugout, but no one comes to claim them). We saw a great game, the Cards win, and we're happy as clams.

After the game, we stop at the gate where the Cards exit. We are hoping to get some autographs for my son's new baseball. Because of the hour and 20 minute rain delay, there are only a half dozen people there. Players could get through the gauntlet and sign everyone's autograph in about two minutes. Great! I bet plenty of players will sign tonight. Wrong! Andy Benes is the only player kind enough to sign. My son is disappointed and I have thoughts about what a bunch of overpaid prima donnas they are. I read articles in the paper wondering why the crowds at the stadium are so small when the Cards are doing so well. All that I can think is "If these guys made more of an effort to endear themselves to the kids, maybe they would have more of them at the games".

Saturday we get there late. I lost track of time, plus there is a big traffic jam on highway 40 on the way in. We miss the national anthem, but we're in our seats before first pitch. It's another great game. The highlight is Donovan Osborne's grand slam home run. The seats were some of the best I've ever had (and I didn't even have to wonder if someone else was going to claim them). We were definitely in uncharted territory here. It's a different crowd down here. People come late, leave early, and don't cheer a lot. Some didn't even seem to know there was a game going on. It looked more like a social gathering. People were talking, visiting, gabbing, enjoying themselves. I'm sure most were as big or bigger fans that we are, but they enjoy the game in a different way than we do. Luckily, the lady sitting right in front of me was cheering every pitch and dancing to the tunes between innings, so my son and I didn't feel too out of place.

After the game, we hit that exit gate again so my son could get those autographs. There was a mob there and after only a half hour my son gave up. I can't blame the players for being afraid to tackle crowds like that. It would take them an hour to sign for everyone.

That night, we have pizza and watch the video "St. Louis Cardinals - The Movie". Life is great!

Sunday we are going to go down several hours before the game. My plan is to go out to the bleacher seats during batting practice and try to catch a ball that is hit out there (yeah right, and I'm the one telling my son not to get his hopes up for autographs). We get up early, my son does his homework and we clean up the house so my wife doesn't yell at me when she gets home. I know we'll be at the stadium for lunch so I go to Schnucks and pick up a couple of "King of the Hill" sandwiches for lunch.

We're at the stadium so early, the same day ticket offices are not open yet so we head down to the main ticket office. On the way down the steps, we see Mike Shannon who happily signs my son's baseball. We get our tickets and on the way back up, we see Walt Jockity, who happily signs my son's baseball. Hey! This is a great day!

We get to the west gate a few minutes before it opens. When we go in, we have to go down into the box seats ( I'm not sure why ). Some Cardinals are out throwing the ball around and doing their warm-ups. We go over to the wall along the first base line to watch. Tony Fossas comes over and signs autographs. Later, Tony LaRussa is signing autographs. After a while, a dozen players are working the crowd, signing autographs. All totaled, my son gets 14, and we are thrilled. All that I can think is what a nice bunch of guys they are to be out there, taking time to get close to the fans and sign autographs (see Friday night's thought). I talk to a lady who has season tickets for seats down there, she tells me the players often they do that. I tell her that I wish they could make some kind of a rule that small people automatically cut in front of big people. It's the little guys who get a big thrill out of getting a professional player's autograph on their baseball, then want to take it out and play baseball with it as soon as they get it home. The guys my age who get autographs, turn around and sell these things for a tidy profit. When my son shows me his baseball and says "This is great, I'm going to keep it forever!" (which I take to mean he realizes it may have monetary value, but has even more sentimental value), I'm proud of him.

Well, we take our seats (see Friday' note about taking seats), have our sandwiches, drink our sodas, eat our peanuts, and keep score on our scorecards. The Cardinals lose the game, I complain about a couple of player's lack of performance and second guess LaRussa, all is right with the world, and we don't even need to stay around to try to get autographs. After all, if we go right home we can catch the second half of the Rams game! (Turns out not to be the highlight of the weekend.)

As we drive home, I give my son a question to ponder. Gary Gaetti makes an error, which (if I scored properly) eventually leads to a unearned fifth run (the goat!). Then he gets up and hits a two run homer (the hero), which would have tied the game if that unearned run hadn't scored. Is Gaetti a hero or a goat? It takes greater minds than ours to decide that. We do, however, know that baseball is a great game, and Gaetti, along with his teammates and new ownership, sure make it interesting.

Addendum 1: My boss once made a comment about how he doesn't go to professional sports games because they are too expensive. When I told him baseball wasn't, bleacher seats are $5 each, he said they used to be $2. I said, bread used to be a nickel too. It started me thinking though so I thought I would figure out what three games cost me.
Before Friday's game, I bought two bags of peanuts and a 12 pack of sodas (in plastic bottles of course). That came to about $7.50. I paid $3 for parking (though I could have parked a few blocks away and parked for free), and spent $7.50 for tickets (one adult and one child general admission). At the game, we shared a large nachos, with extra cheese and extra jalapenos, that was around $4. My son bought the baseball for $6 so that totals around $28.
Saturday I splurged on the box seats at $16 each. Parking was still $3 and nachos were still $4, (I still had peanuts and soda left), totaling around $39.
Sunday I bought sandwiches and more soda at Schnucks for less than $10. We got there so early, we beat the parking lot attendant so that was a freebie, and it was back in the cheap seats for $7.50. (The sandwiches were so big, we had no room left for nachos.) That totals around $17.50. For the entire weekend, we get a grand total of $84.50. For a working class slob like me that is not a super cheap weekend but I did splurge one day plus I could have easily cut a couple more corners. Let's see now, $84.50 could have bought two cheap seats to the Blues, can it buy two cheap seats to the Rams?

Addendum 2. My philosophy on buying cheap seats, and then moving down to the better sections. First of all, you have to go to a couple of games to see where the open seats are. When you sit in someone else's seat, consider yourself a guest of theirs. Assume they will be there so don't make a mess (peanut shells and all). Keep belongings packed so you can move at a moments notice. Watch for the rightful owner. If you see someone looking at their ticket and looking at you, ask them if that seat belongs to them, promptly vacate and apologize for any inconvenience. After the end of the third inning, you can usually assume the seat is yours and you can start spreading out your stuff and throw the peanut shells on the ground.

Addendum 3: Why am I writing this? I don't know, I've never done this before. I guess I just had a real good time and wanted to record it.

WORLD BASEBALL CLASSIC

2005-12-01T19:59:00.000-06:00

Brian writes...

Tell me Jim, what do you think of the World Baseball Classic that is set to be played for the first time next year? Should it be taken seriously? What will it mean for baseball?

Good question, I have no idea.

For those who are not familiar with the subject, Major League Baseball and the Players Union
got together their counterparts throughout the world, and came up a with an international baseball tournament. I'm not sure what will govern who can play for each team, but it is essentially a country based event similar to the Olympics.

So right away, you have to wonder why this event couldn't be done as an Olympic event? Several issues come to mind. First, no money gets funneled to Major League Baseball, nor the Players Association if it were held under the umbrella of the International Olympic Committee. The second is that the Olympics occur during regular baseball season. Of course, if MLB really wanted to have this event for the true purpose of international competition, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they could accommodate a two week event every four years. Professional hockey players play in the Olympics as the NHL takes a two week break during that time. The third issue is can Major League baseball players pass the rigid anti steroid screening. What ever the reason, you would have to think the Olympics would be the best venue for this event.

The World Baseball Classic, we have to believe, is no more than an international exhibition game that will try to drum up more enthusiasm for baseball in countries where interest is either marginal or non existent. The alternative purpose would have to be that the tournament will be a money maker. The drawback of exhibition games is the lack of purpose and motivation. Those who have something to prove (those who are not stars already) will play their hearts out for pride and recognition. What will the motivation be for a $10 million per year player? What will Bonds, Clemens, Ramirez and Palmeiro do. Will they even play?

This internationalization of baseball is not a new thing. If you remember from an earlier post, back in 1869, Harry Wright put together the Cincinnati Red Stockings, the first all professional baseball team. Several years later, he brought that team to Boston and helped put together the National Association of Professional Baseball Players, the first professional baseball league. He and one of his better players, Albert Goodwill Spalding (later to become the magnate of the Spalding sporting goods company) tried to promote baseball throughout the world. In 1874, they took the Philadelphia Athletics and the Boston Red Stockings to England to show off the game to the British. They went to the renowned Marleybone Cricket Club to line up games, however, the cricketeers told them they could come, but if the Americans wanted the British to participate, they would have to play cricket. Well the Americans played cricket, which they were not very good at, then they would play baseball, which no one was interested in. That tour was a financial flop.

That never stopped Spalding from believing that the whole world, given the chance, wouldn't fall in love with baseball so in 1888 he put together an all star team and took them and his Chicago White Stocking team (eventually known as the Cubs) for a world tour. They went to Hawaii, Australia, Ceylon, and Egypt. They even played a game at the base of the great Pyramid of Cheops at Ghizeh. After that, they continued on to Italy, France, and England. Well, no one was interested in baseball during that tour either.

Since then, however, baseball has caught on big in many countries. Latin America has been a hot bed for great players for years. Japan and Korea have also had professional baseball leagues for some time.

Who knows, it may be very interesting. the two things vital to making sports interesting are good competition and top level performance. If the World Baseball Classic is perceived as meaningless games with mediocre play, it will be dead on arrival.

THE MERKLE BONER

2005-11-25T11:35:00.000-06:00

History and sports have moments that will immortalize people for just being there at the right time or the wrong time. When Steve Bartman, a lifelong avid Cubs fan touched the fly ball that could have been caught, by virtue of being in the wrong place at the right time, changed a potential return to the World Series into a pivotal, momentum shifting Divisional Series loss. That poor man has been vilified, received death threats, and has gone into seclusion for fear of his life. Back in 1908, the last time the Cubs won the World Series, they got there by virtue of an event that was even more controversial. Try to think of combining Steve Bartman's touch, with Don Denkenger's call, Billy Martin and George Brett's pine tar incident and Bill Buckner's ball between the legs and you will start to get the flavor for the "Merkle Boner"

This is a very long post, so you may want to copy it, print it, and read it at your leisure. This is the best description of the account I have ever come across, and it is taken directly from Frank Deford's book THE OLD BALL GAME. I'm not sure this is strictly legal because of copyright laws, but I have to believe this is good free advertising as it gives you a taste of Mr. Deford's book about John McGraw and Christy Mathewson, the original odd couple of baseball. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is a fan of baseball history.

First, let me define some nicknames. "The Big Six" and "Matty" refer to Christy Mathewson. Muggsy is the nickname for John McGraw. and "Ironman" is the nickname of Joe McGinity. "Cranks" are what we would call "fans" today. So, enjoy!

------------------------------------

The Cubs won handily in 1907, too, piling up 107 victories. They were a marvelous fielding team, featuring the double play combination of Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, and Frank Chance (the "Peerless Leader," who also managed Chicago). At a time when poems were a staple of the sports pages and sportswriters were not afraid to use words like "gonfalon," the most famous sports rhyme ever was written by Franklin P. Adams in the Evening Mail, immortalizing the six-four-three double play:

These are the saddest of possible words—
Tinker to Evers to Chance.
Trio of Bear Cubs and fleeter than birds—
Tinker to Evers to Chance.
Thoughtlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,
Making a Giant hit into a double,
Words that are weighty with nothing but trouble:
Tinker to Evers to Chance.

The Cubs also possessed one truly great pitcher, Mordecai Peter Centennial Brown, who was born, as you might imagine, in 1876 and was called "Three-Fingered" Brown because, when he was seven years old, he had stuck his hand in a corn shucker. He lost most of his index finger, and one other digit and his thumb were mangled, but professionally this turned out to be a blessing because his mutilated hand somehow helped him break off a curveball that Ty Cobb called "the most devastating pitch I ever faced." It was certainly a match for Mathewson's fadeaway, and indeed, Three-Fingered was Matty's greatest rival.

In 1908, though, Matty was at the height of his powers, and Three-Fingered had a fabulous season, too: a 29-9 record with a 1.47 ERA. Mathewson, though, was even more magnificent. He was 37-11, 1.43; he completed thirty-four of forty-four starts, throwing a dozen shutouts. In 391 innings pitched, he struck out 285 men and walked only 42, barely one per nine innings. The Giants were improved at the bat this year, too. largely because Turkey Mike Donlin had returned after a hiatus in which he had devoted himself to traveling with his bride, Mabel Hite a beautiful chanteuse. In 1908, though. Turkey Mike was on the wagon and so well behaved that McGraw even made him captain. He hit .334, drove in 106 runs, and kept the Giants in the pennant race. Not only did the Cubs fall back. but the Pirates also moved up in what turned out to be a three-team dogfight as good a pennant race as ever there has been- The Giants drew 910,000 fans, a quarter of the league total, and a major league attendance record that lasted until 1920, when The Babe and the Yankees passed a million.

On September 23 the Giants and Cubs were only six percentage points apart, just ahead of the Pirates, when thirty thousand fans showed up at the Polo Grounds to watch Matty face off against the lefty Jack Pfiester, who, for his uncommon success against New York, was known as Jack "the Giant Killer " The Giants needed Matty's best. They had lost a doubleheader to the Cubs the day before and the team was hurting. "How are the cripples?" McGraw asked as he came into the clubhouse "Any more to add to the list of identified dead today?"

Well, yes, as a matter of fact. Fred Tenney, the yeoman first baseman, had woken up with an attack of lumbago, so McGraw had to put Fred Merkle into the starting lineup for the first time all season. Merkle was a big Wisconsin farm boy who had come up to New York the year before, but he was still only nineteen years old.

But "Big Six," in his greatest season, was up to the challenge holding the Cubs to just one run. Jack Pfiester had good stuff too, though, and the wounded Giants themselves had managed only a single run as they came to bat in the home half of the ninth And here came the most spectacularly controversial inning ever

With one out, Art Devlin, the third baseman, singled. Moose McCormick—like Mathewson, a Bucknell man—forced him at second, but then young Merkle took Pfiester the other way, lining a single to right, sending McCormick to third. Al Bridwell, the shortstop, then swung at Pfiester's first pitch and laced a clean single dead up the middle. In fact, the field umpire, Bob Emslie, had to fall down to escape being hit by the line drive. He got up and dutifully watched Bridwell run safely to first. The plate umpire, Hank O'Day, saw McCormick touch home for the winning run: 2-1, Giants. New York was back in first place, and the fans poured out of their seats. As one reporter wrote: "The merry villagers flocked onto the field to worship the hollow where the Mathewson feet have pressed."

Matty himself ran out to embrace the happy Merkle and escort the young fellow off the field.

Meanwhile, almost unnoticed, Johnny Evers, the Cubs second baseman, was standing on second, calling for the center fielder, "Circus" Solly Hofman, to chuck him the ball. Evers was a fidgety little guy who stood at no more than five-feet-nine and weighed only 125 pounds. Nobody, including his teammates, much liked him, but he was a heady ballplayer. Also, he had noticed this same situation only weeks before, in Pittsburgh, but had been unsuccessful in prosecuting his charge then. But here it was again: Merkle, the man on first, was required to move up a base once Bridwell hit safely. No matter how quickly McCormick, the runner on third, crossed the plate, if Merkle didn't touch second, then he was forced out, the inning was over, the run didn't count, and it was still a 1-1 tie.

Three different pitchers - McGinnity, Wiltse, and Mathewson - all seemed to have later remembered that they were coaching first. Since it was the first base coach's responsibility to tell the runner to be sure to go down and touch second, it's odd that anyone would claim that dubious honor. Anyway, almost surely it wasn't Mathewson; he was pitching, after all. McGinnity is the likely choice, because only he of all the Giants seems to have caught on to what Evers was up to.

Apparently the Iron Man ran out and wrestled the ball away from little Evers (or from a Chicago pitcher, Rube Kroh - details of the chaos differ in almost every account) and hurled it as far away as he could, into the stands. Maybe there was even a fight. "Fists flew on all sides, eyes swelled up and blood flowed," wrote the World reporter. Did a Cub reserve pummel the fan who caught the ball in order to retrieve it? Whatever, undaunted, Evers somehow regained possession of that ball or, more likely, simply produced another, hailed Emslie, stepped on second, and claimed that Merkle was out. Emslie said he couldn't rule; he hadn't been watching Merkle. But prompted by the indomitable Evers, Emslie asked his colleague, O'Day, if he had seen the play at second. Indeed he had, said O'Day, and, yes, Merkle had turned round on the base path before reaching the base. Therefore he was now forced out and McCormick's run for the Giants didn't count.

By now the field was overrun with the merry villagers and the early autumn gloaming was coming down. Most everybody left the park believing Matty and the Giants had won. Mathewson remembered that even when the Giants, in their clubhouse, heard about O'Day's call, they at first "laughed, for it didn't seem like a situation to be taken seriously." When they realized that O'Day really had called Merkle out and the game a tie on account of darkness, the mood grew darker. Mathewson was bitter. "If we lose the pennant thereby, I'll never play pro ball again," he declared. Muggsy, of course, was angrier and more profane, snarling: "That dirty son of a bitch. O'Day is trying to rob us."

Poor Merkle was utterly distraught. In the days that followed, Mathewson would write, "He moped. He lost flesh" - twenty pounds - "his eyes were hollow and his cheeks sunken." The kid was lacerated in the press. W. A. Aulick, the Times baseball reporter, wrote simply that it was "censurable stupidity on the part of player Merkle." The home fans would hiss upon his appearance on the field. It was, wrote the Sun, "a situation that has baseball cranks all over the country by the ears." The "boner," it was called - the Merkle Boner, the dumbest mistake ever made by a player. Never mind that Merkle was only following the fashion of the time. He had done exactly what that Pittsburgh player had weeks earlier, as Evers watched. The Giants' first base coach, whoever he was, must surely have been at least as culpable. The kid was still a teenager, for goodness sakes. Mathewson admitted that, joyously, he had run to him. Mathewson didn't tell him to touch second. McGraw didn't shout it out. In fact, ironically, this was exactly the sort of rule-book intelligence that McGraw was famous for exploiting. And for all the bleatings and threats of the Giants and their fans, even the owner, John Brush, had to admit that "technically" - always technically, not "actually" - Evers and O'Day were right.

Harry Pulliam, the "boy president," was once again forced to rule in a Giant maelstrom, and, after a week, he upheld the umpires. Tie game. Terrible hate mail poured into his office.

Merkle, meanwhile, was so depressed that rumors of this suicide began to float about, In fact, he did beseech McGraw to farm him out. "Lose me," the kid pleaded. "I'm the jinx."

McGraw was steadfast. "It wasn't your fault, Fred," Muggsy said, consoling him. Indeed, so supportive was McGraw that he gave Merkle a raise for the next season.

Since New York and Chicago had finished with identical 98-55 records, the tie game of September 23 must be played off to determine the league champion. (Pittsburgh would finish tied for second at 98-56 with whichever team lost).

Great tales are now told about the Giant-Dodger playoff of 1951, which ended with Bobby Thomson's home run, the fabled "shot heard round the world." In fact, that best-of-three series didn't attract a single sellout. Only 34,320 fans - a mere two-thirds of the Polo Grounds' capacity - showed up for the finale. Famous as it is, that '51 playoff pales before the Giants-Cubs showdown on Thursday, October 8, 1908.

Estimates of the crowd that stormed the Polo Grounds ranged as high as a quarter million. Probably it was closer to a hundred thousand, but however many were left outside, at least forty thousand managed to squeeze into the park, filling up the bleachers and grandstand hours before Matty threw the first pitch. Police reinforcements had to be called, and a hundred more "bluecoats" rushed up to Coogan's Bluff. But nothing stopped the crush, not even fire hoses and drawn pistols. Barbed-wire fences were scaled, pushed down.

Scores of people were injured, and it was probably fortunate that only one man lost his life. That was an off-duty fireman, one Harry T. McBride, who tumbled twenty-five feet from a vantage he had taken at the 155th Street elevated train station. "His vacant place was quickly filled," it was duly reported. Indeed, every telegraph pole that offered any view of the field was climbed by intrepid onlookers. One spectator fell out of the grandstand itself but, luckily, only broke a leg. When attendants rushed to carry him off to an ambulance, he beseeched them not to remove him from the premises until after the game.
The Cubs, of course, needed considerable protection. They were mad enough as it was, as loud and unruly home team fans had encircled their hotel the night before for all hours, seeking to keep up such a racket as to prevent the Chicagos from enjoying any sleep. McGraw then added to their nerves by keeping the Giants on the field beyond their allotted practice time. Frank Chance and Iron Man McGinnity nearly came to fisticuffs as the dispute raged. Later, Chance would be hit in the neck by a soda pop bottle hurled from the stands. Three-Fingered Brown, who was posted to the bull pen, felt that the Polo Grounds on this day was "as close to a lunatic asylum as any place I've ever seen."
Mathewson, meanwhile, tried to keep his composure. After all, he had a secret that he had shared with Jane before he left their apartment. What he told her, simply enough, was: "I'm not fit to pitch today." The long season had worn him down, and when Matty warmed up, it only confirmed his fears. "I never had less on the ball in my life," he would say. He thought the Cubs would clobber him. "I'll go as far as I can," he told McGraw as he took off his linen duster and headed, disconsolately, to the mound.

As it was, Mathewson put down the Cubs in the first inning, and then the Giants lit into Jack Pfiester, the erstwhile Giant killer. When the Giants scored a run, Mathewson sneaked a peek down the bench at Merkle and saw that "for the first time in a month, Fred smiled". Pfiester was clearly on the ropes. He was nervous and bitching at the umpire's calls. But Buck Herzog got caught off first, and Frank Chance didn't even wait for the inning to end. He brought in Three-Finger, and he put out the fire before the Giants could score any more.

And, really, that was it. Mathewson's suspicions were realized in the third inning. Joe Tinker, who earlier in his career had enjoyed no success against Big Six, had then taken to hitting against him with a bigger bat. With that, he had become, as Hooks Wiltse said, "the only hitter I know of had a jinx on Matty." And it was Tinker who made the hit that broke the game open. It was a triple over the center fielder's head. Fans of Matty made excuses that he had told the center fielder, Cy Seymour, to play back, but Mathewson said no, it was just a curve that didn't break. Even then, under normal circumstances, Seymour might have caught up with Tinker's hit, but he lost the ball in the mass of fans who had climbed on up the tower behind home plate. The Cubs scored all four of their runs in that inning. Mathewson was only surprised by "why it took them so long to hit me."
Somehow he held on till the seventh, when McGraw took him out for a pinch hitter after the Giants loaded the bases against Three-Finger. Laughing Larry Doyle, who hit Brown well, was the pinch hitter, but he fouled out to the catcher, Johnny Kling, who cornered the pop-up even as a bottle tossed from the stands whizzed past his head. That was the Giants' last chance.

In the clubhouse, the smile was gone from Merkle's face. "It was my fault, boys," he moaned. He went to McGraw and once again told him to get rid of him. McGraw was never more standup. "Fire you?" Muggsy asked. "Why you're the kind of guy I've been lookin' for for many years. I could use a carload of you. Forget this season and come back next spring. The newspapers will have forgotten it all by then."

And then he slipped away. Matty heard Merkle say: "He's a regular guy." The Cubs went on to beat the Tigers in the World Series. It would be the last time they were champions, ninety-six years on. And, of course, for Merkle, the newspapers - and everybody else - never did forget his lapse. Yet for all the abuse Merkle suffered for his boner, for all his life, McGraw was right: he was a tough kid. No matter how often he heard someone scream, "Hey, Merkle, touch second base," he never packed it in. Merkle would play another sixteen hundred major league games, making a last at bat in 1926 when he was thirty-seven years old.

On the other hand, no one can be sure how much the ramifications of the end of the 1908 season affected Harry Pulliam. Surely, though, it was a great deal. He was a nervous man, fragile, something of an idealist, and the brutal criticism he endured for sticking up for his umpire obviously told on him. A few months later, in February, at the winter meeting of the National League, there were more disputes where Pulliam found himself in the crossfire. He suffered a breakdown. He returned to the job soon enough, but he seemed more detached and unsettled than ever.

In the middle of that season, on July 28, 1909, Pulliam took a room at the New York Athletic Club. He put on a fancy dressing gown, lay down, and blew his brains out. The "boy president" was thirty-nine years old.

JOHN MCGRAW'S LOST YEAR

2005-11-23T16:54:00.000-06:00

Anyone who is a fan of baseball history knows the name John McGraw. He was the third baseman on one of the greatest teams of the "dead ball" era, the National League Baltimore Orioles team of the 1890's. He then went on to become a hall of fame manager spanning a 34 year managerial career. His 2,840 wins as a manager is second only to his rival Connie Mack of the Philadelphia Athletics. For one year, 1900, John McGraw played for the St. Louis Cardinals.

The 1890s were not stellar years for baseball. Gambling was rampant, play was very dirty, and fully 1/3 of the 12 franchises were never in contention (just like today). For the last decade of the 19th century, only three teams had a chance to win the pennant, Baltimore, Boston, and later Brooklyn. There were no rules about how many teams one person could own, so, in the age before the minor league farm systems, the owner of one team could buy another then use one team as the "A" team and the other as the "B" team. Trying to break the Boston-Baltimore stranglehold on the pennant, the Robison brothers, who owned the Cleveland Spiders, bought the ailing St. Louis Browns. Chris Von der Ahe, the original owner of the St. Louis Cardinals, (named the Browns at the time) sold the team to the Robison brothers after six dismal years since joining the N.L. The Robisons sent all the worst players to Cleveland while sending all the best players to St. Louis. Among the players that went to St. Louis were future hall of famers Cy Young and Jesse Burkett. Those hapless Spiders went on to have the worst record in baseball history. In order to distance themselves from the poor previous seasons, the Robisons renamed the Browns to the "Perfectos" and changed the color of the trim on their uniforms to red. By the end of the first year, they took on the nickname of the Cardinals and by 1900, the name was officially changed for good.

They probably would have made a good run at the pennant but Ned Hanlon, the manager of the Orioles, did the same thing. He bought controlling interest in the Brooklyn Bridegrooms and renamed them the "Superbas". He and most of his best players (including "Wee" Willie Keeler") moved to Brooklyn and left John McGraw in Baltimore to run that team. Even with the leftovers, McGraw's team made a run for the pennant and was in contention up until the end of the season.

At the end of 1899, besieged with poor attendance throughout the league, the National League decided to buy out Louisville, Washington, and the two "B" teams, Cleveland and Baltimore, then ruled that no one could own interest in two teams. The National League was now an eight team league.

When the Baltimore team was disbanded, John McGraw and the catcher Wilbert Robinson were supposed to report to Brooklyn, which they refused. Their contracts were then sold to St. Louis but they refused to report there either. There had been talk of resurrecting the old American Association League and McGraw and Robinson were poised to put a new team back into Baltimore, but commitments never came to fruition from the potential backers. On May 8, 1900, McGraw and Robinson ended their holdout and signed with the Cardinals. McGraw was paid a record $10,000 and both contracts had the unheard of deal of the reserve clause being crossed out, freeing them to leave at the end of the year.

So what about John McGraw and the 1900 Cards? Well the problem is, I have yet to find hardly anything about McGraw with the Cardinals. Even though no one disputes the fact that he played with the Cardinals in 1900, many sources, including his baseball hall of fame plaque, omit that McGraw ever played for the Cards.

We know he started late (after May 8th) in the season. He had a pretty good season, finishing with the league's 5th best batting average and first for on base percentage. Apparently, in August, the manager Pat Tebeau resigned. Louis Heilbroner replaces Patsy but the team refused to take orders from him, preferring to listen to John McGraw instead. In October, the Cardinals withheld the final month's pay on all but five players, including John McGraw and Wilbert Robinson, citing late hours, dissipation, and gambling as reasons for the poor showing of the team. The Cards finished 19 games out, tied for 5th place, with a 65 and 75 record.

According to Frank Deford, in his book "THE OLD BALL GAME", at the end of the season, McGraw and Robinson caught the first train out of town. As they were crossing the Mississippi they opened up a window and threw their St. Louis uniforms in the river. In 1901, Ban Johnson started the American League and talked McGraw into managing a new Baltimore Orioles team.

So that's it. In 1900, the newly named St. Louis Cardinals had Cy Young, John McGraw, Jesse Burkett, and Wilbert Robinson, four future hall of famers, playing in a year full of turmoil. Three of them jumped to American League teams the next year. Burkette jumped the following year. Well then, that's not very exciting is it? Somehow, I have to believe it would be an interesting story to know all the drama that went on in the clubhouse that year. To have John McGraw, Jesse Burkett, and Cy Young all together on one team for one year has to have a great story behind it. If I ever find it, I'll be sure to let you know.

FLYING FISH

2005-11-20T15:35:00.000-06:00

Brian writes...

So tell me Jim, what exactly is a flying fish? How do they fly, and where do they come from?

Flying fish are tropical fish belonging the Family Exocoetidae. They have long, large pectoral fins. Some also have large pelvic fins. Another feature they have are deeply forked tails having a lower lobe much longer and larger than the upper lobe. In preparation for flight, flying fish swim quickly towards the water's surface and leap out of the water. Once they are out of the water, the fish use their large wing-like fins and the large lower lobe of their tail to glide through the air. The enlarged lower lobe of the tail acts like an outboard motor, the speedy sideways motion of the tail allows the fish to gain height from the surface of the water, and extend the flight time. Fish can glide as far as 300 feet and as high as three feet above the surface of the water, but most flights are shorter.

There are over 50 species of flying fishes. The largest flying fish can reach lengths of 18", but most species measure less than 12". High-speed photographic studies have shown that flying fish hold their enlarged pectoral fins relatively steady, and glide through the air in a manner similar to other gliding animals like flying squirrels, lizards, and snakes. They use their unusual flying talent to escape predators such as swordfish, tunas, and other larger fishes.

Of course, I may have misunderstood your question. Flying fish is also the name of a brewing company in Cherry Hill, NJ. They don't really fly, but they probably drink like a fish.

EXPLODING MAPLE TREES

2005-11-20T11:23:00.000-06:00

Alan writes...

Jim- Is it true that there is an 86% chance that you get killed if you stand at least 50 ft away from a maple tree when it explodes?

For those who don't fully understand the question, tree legend has it that if a sugar maple tree is not tapped for maple syrup, the sap will built up to create internal pressures high enough that the tree could explode. I really think the question should be "If a sugar maple tree explodes in the middle of the woods, but there is no one there to see it, can the sap still be boiled down into syrup?"

The answer to the question at hand is...

Oh, yeah, an African maple maybe, but not a European maple.

DOLLARS... TAXES...

2005-11-20T09:00:00.000-06:00

Ownen writes...

So Jim, after much contemplation about the questions facing humanity and me being a mere college student in this large world, I was wondering.... how did the dollar get its name. I mean I have to use so many of them for college; I should know why we call them dollars as opposed to, oh I don't know... greens, or name them by the presidents who are on them.

Well, Owen, welcome aboard. Coinage, itself has a "rich" history. Many terms in the English language comes from money. A "touchstone" was used to tell how pure gold was which was the first step toward making coins reliable for barter. Before there were American dollars, colonial Americans used coins from England and Spain. The Spanish produced a silver coin in Mexico often referred to as a "reale" or a milled dollar. It became a very common part of the colonial monetary system. It was made to easily make it's own change by cutting into pieces. It could be cut into eight equal pieces, so it was often called "pieces of eight". Each piece was called a "bit" so a quarter would be "two bits". Half a reale was a "picayune". The reale is often given credit for having the first milled edges, those lines on the edge of dimes and quarters, which were first there to prevent the common practice of shaving metal off the edge with the intent of keeping some of the silver.

However, I totally digress...

The term "dollar" has it's roots in the medieval county of Bohemia. During the Renaissance, a vast amount of high-quality silver ore was extracted from a mine in Joachimsthal, or the valley of St. Joachim, in what is now known as the Czech Republic. A large coin produced with the silver taken from this mine was called a "Joachimsthaler;" and, as time went by, the first part of this name, "Joachims," was dropped, leaving simply "thaler." Because of the various dialects spoken, pronunciation varied from one region to another. In Holland, for example, this word was pronounced "daalder," from which the English "dollar" is derived.

The United States fashioned there first silver dollar after the Spanish reale, though it was made to have 100 cents rather that eight bits. Of course, the U.S. was not the first to use the term "dollar". "Dollar" pops up in several of Sheakspear's plays. You will probably remember:

Macbeth Act I, Scene 2

Rosse: "That now Sweno, the Norway's King, craves composition. Nor would we deign him burial of his men, till he disbursed at Saint Colme's Inch, ten thousand dollars to our general use."

OR - The Tempest, Act II, Scene 1

Gonzalo: "When every grief is entertain'd that's offer'd, Comes to th' entertainer -

Sebastian: "A dollar."

Gonzalo: "Dolour comes to him, indeed: you have spoken truer than you purpos'd."

The last remark by Gonzalo was, of course, a pun since "dolour" is an old-fashioned word for pain or grief, like the modern Spanish word dolor, which also means pain. Oh that wild and whacky Sheakspear!

Of course, the greatest literary allusion to the dollar is from the funniest movie ever made: the 1933 Marx brothers production of Duck Soup:

Minister of Defense: "Your Excellency, General Cooper says Sylvanian troops are about to land on Fredonian soil. This means war!"

Minister of Finance: "Something must be done! War would mean a prohibitive increase in our taxes."

Chicolini: "Hey, I got an uncle lives in Taxes."

Minister of Finance: "No, I'm talking about money... Dollars!... Taxes!."

Chicolini: "Dollas! There's-a where my uncle lives. Dollas, Taxes! Atsa some joke eh, boss?"

RAW MEAT

2005-11-13T10:06:00.000-06:00

Adam writes...
How come we can't eat raw meat? I mean, I know there are germs and stuff on it, but humans used to be able to eat uncooked animals way back in the day. All other carnivores can eat raw meat. Why do we have to burn ours? If you don't give me a convincing answer, I'm going to eat an entire raw pig.

We can eat raw meat. People do it every day. Sushi? Steak tartar? Oysters on the half shell? They are all raw and they are eaten every day. I assume the question is why can we get sick from eating raw meat when other animals don't.
The simple answer to that is tolerance and immunity to the bacteria and parasites in the meat. Salmonella, trichinosis, and tape worms are all diseases we can get from organisms living in animals that are killed when the meat is cooked. Meat is not the only thing that will make you sick. Travel the world and there are many places that you will get sick from drinking the water. Animals can drink the same water and they are not susceptible to those diseases. Local people drink that same water and don't get sick. They have built up immunities to those organisms.

Many people believe that Kashrut, or Jewish dietary laws, are simply primitive health regulations that have become obsolete with modern methods of food preparation. Pork and shellfish present health problems if not handled and prepared properly. E. coli, which is one of the most common problems with eating raw beef, does not live in the meat. It lives in the intestines and can be transferred to the surface of the meat during processing. Once you have cleaned the outside of the meat and separated it from the area of processing, you can fairly safely eat it raw. Mistakes can happen, especially in large meat processing centers. Even with strict guidelines being followed, e. coli can pop up, so why take a chance?

2005-11-13T08:10:00.000-06:00

ANIMAL SIZES

Eric writes...

Enough with the atomic questions and here's a new category. Is there an anatomical reason why LAND mammals aren't able to reach such enormous proportions like the dinosaurs did?

There is an anatomical reason that land mammals don't grow to the size of dinosaurs. We have growth plates on the ends of our bones that limit the length that they will grow. The growth plate, also known as the epiphyseal plate or physis, is the area of growing tissue near the end of the long bones in children and adolescents. Each long bone has at least two growth plates: one at each end. The growth plate determines the future length and shape of the mature bone. When growth is complete, sometime during adolescence, the growth plates close and are replaced by solid bone. This, of course is preprogrammed by our genes.

Some animals seem to keep growing for as long as they live. Fish for example will keep growing, however, the growth in length decreases every year. According to the Alabama Department of Natural Recourses, a largemouth bass in an Alabama reservoir will, on average, grow to 6.9" in one year, 10.6" the second year, 13.3" the third, 15.4" the fourth and 17.2 the 5th. This growth, again, is determined by it's genes. Fish will also grow to their environment. Put a goldfish in a small fishbowl and it will remain small. Put it in a large tank and it will grow larger, but you can put it in a swimming pool and it's size is still going to be limited.

We might want to ask the question "Is there and evolutionary reason that animals were so much larger during the age of the dinosaurs than they are today?" I researched that and I came up with many theories, many of them conflicting each other, and none of them without gaping holes in them. Of all the theories, the ones that seemed the most credible to me deal with the change in environment. Oxygen and radiation levels have changed. Weather and temperatures have fluctuated. Species have changed, therefore, both food sources change and the competition for those food sources change. Dinosaurs may have had more oxygen, better weather, more food sources, and less competition than animals have today.

2005-11-09T18:40:00.000-06:00

ANADROMOUS FISH

Annalita writes...

So Jimmy-Joe, what's the difference between saltwater and freshwater fish? Since all fish breathe through their gills, why can some only survive in saltwater, and others only survive in fresh water? Are there any fish that can survive in both? Please answer my question. I don't think I can continue without the answer.

This is what I love about Ask Jim. I get great questions, some of them I already know the answers, some not. Those that I don't know, I research and then I get to learn cool things I never knew before. I already knew the answer to the second part of the question but had no idea about the first part.

The reason fish are usually one way or the other has to do with the way kidneys function in order to keep the proper equilibrium of body fluid. Apparently, with saltwater fish, the liquid in its body is less salty than the water it swims in. So, the water inside the fish moves out through the fish's skin to the saltwater. Saltwater fish drink enormous amounts of water to keep from drying out.

The opposite happens to freshwater fish. Liquids inside freshwater fish are saltier than the water around them, so the fish absorb a lot of water. To prevent becoming waterlogged, freshwater fish excrete the extra water.

So.... saltwater fish are always thirsty (who'd have thunk that?), they drink a lot but pee very little. and freshwater fish never drink and always have to pee! How could I have gone this long without knowing that!

Sea creatures who live in tidal pools and estuaries, are constantly dealing with changes in the percentage of salt in the water, but they are basically salt water fish that can tolerate some variability. As far as fish living in both fresh and salt water, about two percent of fish do that. They are "diadromous". The term diadromy refers to fish that migrate between fresh and salt water. There are three types of diadromy: Anadromous (pronounced "ANNA" dro mus) fish, such as salmon, smelt and lamprey, spend most of their adult lives in salt water and then migrate to fresh water in order to reproduce. A few species, such as the American eel, are catadromous - that is, they spend most of their adult lives in fresh water and then migrate to salt water to reproduce. There are also amphidromous fish, such as the goby, that migrate between fresh and salt water, not for spawning but to feed.

Not all salmon have to get to the ocean to live. As a matter of fact, rainbow trout are land locked salmon. That is, they are steelhead salmon who live their entire life in fresh water.

All of these fish must make gradual changes from fresh to salt waters. If you were to take a salmon from a river, and throw it into the ocean, it would quickly die.

2005-11-08T19:23:00.000-06:00

ATOMIC POWER AD INFINATUM

Eric writes...

Jim: Now how big would the explosion be if only 1 unstable atom was split?

Let's keep things simple and look at the reaction from the fission in Uranium-235.

When we take an atom of Uranium-235 and shoot a neutron into it's nucleus, it will become U-236, which is a very unstable atom. That atom will proceed to decay into an atom of barium-141 (Ba-141), an atom of krypton-92 (Kr-92) and three neutrons.

The resulting particles and atoms all have kinetic energy. This energy comes from converting a little of the mass of the original atom into energy and can be measured using E = mc2. When this is done, the amount of energy typically released in the case of U-235 is around 200MeV (0.00,000,000,003,204 joules). That, it seems, is a very tiny amount of energy. However, it is about a million times more energy than is released by the burning of one molecule of gasoline in a car's engine. Put another way, if you currently use a tank of gas each week but could use the energy provided by one tank of uranium-235 fission instead, you wouldn't need to refill your car for over 19,000 years!

To put this into even better perspective, it would be about the same amount of energy that would be created by spontaneous human combustion due to burping, farting and hiccuping all at the same time.

2005-11-07T20:55:00.000-06:00

LITTLE BOY AND FAT MAN...

Eric writes...

Here's one I've always wanted to know: I know how a nuclear bomb works, but in the case of "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" how much matter was needed to be split in order to create the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I realize that fission bombs are VERY inefficient, and because of that much more matter was needed, but how much matter had to be separated?

The Hiroshima bomb used about 132 pounds of highly-enriched uranium-235. It exploded with a force equal to 13,000 tons of TNT over Japan's seventh largest city, on 6 August 1945. Some 90% of the city was destroyed.

The explosive charge for the bomb detonated over Nagasaki three days later was provided by about of 18 pounds of plutonium-239. While Little Boy was a uranium gun-type device, Fat Man was a more complicated and powerful plutonium implosion weapon that exploded with a force equal to 20 kilotons of TNT.

2005-11-07T20:08:00.000-06:00

SMOKE DETECTORS...

John writes....

So, I was taking a ridiculously hot shower the other day and found that I actually set off the fire alarm- not with my hotness- but with all of the steam the hot water was producing. I knew smoke detectors were sensitive, but why would it confuse steam with smoke? How exactly does a smoke detector work? I fear I may have blinded the electric eye in mine.

There are two types of smoke detectors. One type is the photoelectric detector that uses a beam of light to see minute particles in the air, and the other is the ionization detector.

The photoelectric detector uses a beam of light and a photo sensor. When smoke (or other particulate as you observed) passes into the light beam, some of the light reflects onto the sensor sending the unit into alarm.

Ionization detectors use an ionization chamber. Inside is a small amount (perhaps 1/5000th of a gram) of americium-241. The radioactive element americium has a half-life of 432 years, and is a good source of alpha particles. The alpha particles generated by the americium ionize the oxygen and nitrogen atoms of the air in the chamber. To "ionize" means to "knock an electron off of." When you knock an electron off of an atom, you end up with a free electron (with a negative charge) and an atom missing one electron (with a positive charge). The negative electron is attracted to the plate with a positive voltage, and the positive atom is attracted to the plate with a negative voltage (opposites attract, just like with magnets). The electronics in the smoke detector sense the small amount of electrical current that these electrons and ions moving toward the plates represent.

When smoke enters the ionization chamber, it disrupts this current -- the smoke particles attach to the ions and neutralize them. The smoke detector senses the drop in current between the plates and sets off the horn.

Most household detectors are of the ionization type. They are generally less expensive and are better at detecting flames. The photoelectric detector has the advantage of detecting smoke better so if something is smoldering, the photo detector is more effective. If it is flaming, the ionization detector is better. For the best protection, you should have both.

Yes, the detectors will detect smoke, steam, and even dust(Bonny will often set the detector off with her hotness). On construction sites, when we are remodeling an existing structure, the first thing we do is disable the system or cover the detectors in the area that we are working so as not to set off the alarm. And, yes, it is possible, though not probable that you could have "blinded the eye" of your detector. The best way to tell is to push the test button on your detector. If you really want to make sure, light up one of those cigars your always puffing on and hold it under the detector. Some fire marshals will not pass a system by using the test buttons though many do. There is a product that is a spray can of simulated smoke to test alarms. The one time I installed a system in a federal building, it was specified that each detector had to be tested with real smoke. The alarm company had a fancy device that used a stick of incense to deliver smoke for testing.

2005-11-05T08:52:00.000-06:00

HARVESTING SILK

Eric writes...

So Jim, How exactly do we harvest silk from worms?

The process of harvesting silk is a simple one using the same general techniques that have been used for thousands of years. The actual techniques vary from one country to another, but those are mostly a matter of using different species of silk worms which lend themselves to using more natural methods or more mechanical methods.

The first step is to grow silk worms. Of course, silk worms are not worms at all, but caterpillars. Just like most caterpillars, at a certain stage of their lives, they build a cocoon. A silkworm spins approximately one mile of silk filament. When the cocoon is finished, it is dropped into hot, almost boiling water which kills the larvae plus melts away the "glue" that holds the cocoon together. Workers will often eat the cooked worm. The good news is it is a very good source of protein for the workers, the bad news is that is two reasons that put silk on the Vegans "do not patronize" list. (I'm not a vegan so I'm not sure why it is all right to exploit people but you shouldn't exploit other living things. But I digress...)

In any case, if you are making silk, you just find the end of the filament and spin it onto a spindle. Those threads are then respun into larger threads and woven into cloth. The other thing you can do is to take that cocoon and stretch is out forming silk batting.

2005-10-29T09:15:00.000-05:00

COMETS AND ORBITS

Eric writes...

Jim- Now here's a question I have no knowledge about: If Halley's comet comes so close to Earth why doesn't it get affected by Earth's gravity and put it into a different path? And how close would a comet have to be to Earth for it to get pulled, or even slightly tugged, by our mass?

Well, Eric, we're in synch here, because I actually know this one. The fact is, Halley's path does get affected by the Earth. As a matter of fact, the Earth's path is affected by Halley's comet. It is just that the amounts are small. Of course, the Earth affects Halley's path more that Halley affect's Earth's path. One thing you have to consider is, even at it's closest pass, Halley is not very close to the Earth.

Let's take a look at Halley's closest approach to Earth. The comet's closest approach to Earth occurred in 837, at a distance of 0.033 astronomical units (4.94 million km; 3.07 million miles). So 3 million miles is not far considering the earth is 93 million miles from the Sun. But still, 3 million miles is pretty far. To try to put this in better perspective, let's shrink the Earth down to the size of a basketball. That would make Halley's comet about 1 mm in diameter or about the size of a pin head. At the closest approach in 837, that pin head would be about 300 feet away from that basketball. If you watched any of the baseball playoffs, and went to Houston and put that basketball on home plate, that pin head would be at the warning track down the left field line, in front of those God awful Crawford boxes. Yet even at those distances, there is gravitational pull by both bodies on each other.

Many of the space probes to the outer planets have used gravitational assist from the inner planets. That is, the probe would be sent past another planet, be drawn into it's gravitational field, gain speed but have a trajectory that would not be sucked into the atmosphere, then is "sling shot" forward with an overall gain of speed. We know that there is no free ride, energy is neither created or destroyed. In the case of the gravitational assist, by the laws of physics, the planet will lose energy. Essentially it will slow down, though it may only be by a billionth of a second.

What it would take to pull a comet into our atmosphere to crash into the Earth, would depend on the speed, mass, and trajectory of the comet. Three things can happen, it can be captured by the gravitational field and crash into the Earth, it can pass by and just be deflected, or if everything comes together just right, it could be captured by Earth's gravitational field and fall into orbit around the Earth.

2005-10-27T16:58:00.000-05:00

ELECTRICITY VOLUME THREE: MODERN HISTORY

How and when did we realize electricity exists, and how and when did we learn how to use it?

While Luigi Galvani and his nephew were busy zapping animals and cadavers, their fellow countryman, Alssandro Volta was making some more practical discoveries. He determined that when you put certain metals together, they would produce electricity. After much experimentation, he came up with the combination of zinc and silver as generating the most power. This is the same process that is still used today for many household batteries.

In the early 1800s, Michael Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction, or the process of producing electricity with magnets. This is the way that all household electricity is produced.

These two discoveries gave the world the ability to produce electricity in the amounts needed to make practical applications that ran on electricity. Men such as Ampere and Ohm explained the phenomenon of voltage, current and resistance, plus the basic circuits types of series and parallel.

Now that we could produce electricity in large amounts and understood circuitry, it was up to the inventors to come up with applications. One of the first big inventions that helped make the world a smaller place was the invention of the telegraph by Samuel Morse. Next came Alexander Graham Bell's telephone. Then enters one of the heavy hitters of electrical invention, Thomas Alva Edison. Among his 1,093 patents was the phonograph, movie projector, relay telegraph, and, of course, the light bulb which changed the world forever.

Another heavy hitter in the world of electricity was Nikola Tesla. Tesla was an incredibly intricate and interesting man that is full of controversy. He was somewhere between a genius and a mad man. He got his start working in Edison's lab at Menlo Park, but became frustrated with Edison's technique. He once derisively said of Edison "I he were try to find a needle in a haystack, he would start at the top of the stack and check each piece of straw, one by one until he found it". It was true, once Edison set himself on a path to discovery, he would methodically try one thing after another, making a slight change each time until he had what he was looking for. Tesla, on the other hand, would set his mind to something and would figure everything out in his head before he actually built it. Two of his greatest inventions are the transformer and the alternating current motor.

Electrical production was on the verge of great things and this was one of those defining moments. Edison, was a firm believer in direct current, while Tesla was a proponent of alternating current. The main advantage of alternating current is it lends itself to transforming voltages up and down with the use of transformers. This gives us the ability to transform electricity to very high voltages so it can be sent over great distances, then transformed back down to safer voltages at the point of use. In today's hind sight, that is such a remarkable advantage over DC that, I, for one, can't imagine why Edison fought so hard for direct current. In a ploy to convince the public that DC was better than AC, Edison started a smear campaign against DC. He said that AC was very dangerous. To prove this point he invented the electric chair. Somehow people dying from AC was supposed to be more dangerous that people dying from DC (i.e. lightning).

Anyway, Tesla's system of alternating current won out. George Westinghouse, who had already made a fortune from inventions for trains, saw an opportunity with Tesla's AC inventions. He bought Tesla's motor and transformer and hired Tesla to work for him. Today, two of the biggest names in the electrical industry Westinghouse and Thomas Edison's General Electric, remain at the top of their industry.

As a sideline. Tesla went on to invent the Tesla coil, which is the main component of every radio broadcast station today. Only by patent rights has Marconi been acknowledged as the inventor of the radio. The same can be said for Edison who had a working model of the telephone before Bell, but lost on the legal front and patent office. Tesla also claims to have invented the Xray and the vacuum tube amplifier, but never received credit for those. Finally, Tesla claimed to have invented a death ray that could down 10,000 airplanes from 250 miles or split the Earth. Another claim was the idea that he could generate electricity with a generator that used cosmic rays to produce unlimited power. Unfortunately, investors could never quite dump enough money into those, and other incredible inventions so they never came to fruition. When he died, the FBI who was interested in his death ray, raided his apartment and confiscated all his papers, however, his nephew got there first and supposedly took some documents and destroyed others helping to fuel endless debate as to whether Tesla was really a genius or madman.

2005-10-24T20:00:00.000-05:00

ELECTRICITY VOLUME TWO: EARLY HISTORY
How and when did we realize electricity exists, and how and when did we learn how to use it?

Electricity was discovered around 600 B.C., by a Greek named Thales, when he noticed that a piece of amber, when rubbed with wool, would pick up pieces of leaves and straw. For the next 2000 years we never got any further with it. The first modern scientist to experiment with electricity was William Gilbertt, in the late 1500s. He systematically rubbed all kinds of materials with all kinds of other materials to see if they would exhibit any powers of attraction. He classified things into "electrics" for those things that have an attractive force when rubbed, and "anelectrics" for those things that don't. He also noticed the differences between magnetic attractions and electrical attraction.

By the mid 1600's, Otto von Guerike had invented the first electrical generator. Otto was best known for his experiments with vacuum and pressure, including his most famous demonstration of holding two halves of an iron sphere together with vacuum, while horses were trying to pull them apart. His generator was a solid sulfur ball with an iron pipe through the middle. You would spin the sulfur ball with the pipe, and then rub you hand on the spinning ball. This would generate enough electricity to create small sparks. This is the first time that scientists put the attractive force together with the electricity that we think of today.

Over the next several hundred years, electrical generators became more and more refined. Most of them were various ways of spinning a glass object and rubbing it with wool. These were electrostatic generators. Static electricity is electricity in a still state. Charges are built up so that they can be let loose in an instant. Another important invention at this time was the Leyden jar, A device (essentially a capacitor) that could store electrical charges. With these two apparatuses, electrical experimentation took off. People hooked electricity up to anything and everything to see what happened. Electricity became entertainment. People would assemble a whole host of electrical toys and head for the lecture tour. They would make things spark, make bells ring, make things glow in the dark, attract things and repel things.

It was one of these traveling shows that got Benjamin Franklin interested in electricity. He started experimenting with it and made huge discoveries. He showed that despite the fact that some things were attracted to each other and other things repelled, there was only one electricity. He came up with the concept of positive and negative charges. And of course his most famous demonstration was to show that lightning was a form a electricity with his kite and key stunt. He not only invented the lightning rod, to help protect buildings from being struck but he also invented a warning system that would ring a bell when lightning was approaching. He one time had (in his words) "a party of pleasure on the banks of the Skuykil river, a turkey is to be killed... for dinner by the electrical shock, and roasted by the electrical jack (I'm not sure what that means) before a fire kindled by the electrified bottle (Leyden jar): when the healths of all the famous electricians in England, Holland, France and Germany are to be drank in electrified bumpers (pewter mugs given an electrical charge) under the discharge of guns from the electrical battery".

In the late 1700's, when the Italian scientist Luigi Galvani discovered that a jolt of electricity induced a twitch in a frog's leg, the whole world went ga-ga for medical electricity. There were no end of devices made to put electrical charges to or through animals and humans. Galvani's nephew Giovani Aldini got into the act by collecting cadavers of people who had died of disease and subjected them to electricity. He ran current through hands and arms and watched their movements. He eventually got a deal with the local government to use cadavers of freshly executed criminals for his experiment. One day he procured a freshly dead head and ran wires to each ear and watched the facial contortions. As luck would have it, they had a "two-for" day and that afternoon acquired a second head, put them ear to ear and ran current through both heads to see them twitch. No wonder Mary Shelley came up with the concept of Frankenstein. The crux of many of these experiments were to bring the dead back to life.

Physicians became "electrotherapists" and created one machine after another to cure one thing after another. Some machines would "electrify" an object that the patient would touch or sit on, and would build up a high electrical charge, similar to the generators you see in the science museums that you touch and your hair stands on end. There were also many machines that would actually run a current through the body for various cures. Maybe Eric "the dismissed" would care to elaborate on the subject as the owner of several medical "magnetos".

In any case, right up to the 1800's, most of the research of electricity yielded interesting but useless toys and bogus medical therapies. Stay tuned for the next installment containing modern electrical history.

2005-10-22T07:42:00.000-05:00

HUMAN BIOLUMINESCENCE
Eric writes...

So Jim, I was just watching "The Deep" (an episode from the documentary "Blue Planet") and it talked allot about bioluminescence. Now what exactly causes bioluminescence? I realize that it's made by bacteria called photophores, but how do THEY do it? How do the photophores live on deep sea animals? Is it possible for photophores to grow on humans? Could WE bioluminate? (is that the right verb for bioluminescence?)

First of all, it is true that some organism have a symbiotic relationship with a bioluminescent bacteria called photophores, but that is only one way to do it. There are more than a dozen different mechanisms that cause bioluminescence. Let's take a look a just what Bioluminescence is.

Bioluminescence is produced by a chemical reaction. A cell will contain a chemical, called a "luciferin", then adds another called a "luciferace". The luciferace acts as an enzyme, allowing the luciferin to release energy in the form of light, as it is oxidized. It will also give off an inactive byproduct called "oxyluciferin".

So, could humans bioluminess (or nate)? The potential is always there but it would take some heavy duty evolving or gene splicing to make it happen. As far as photophores starting to grow on humans, it is unlikely. Just like any bacteria, it has preferred environments. What grows on you, doesn't necessarily grow on your dog and what grows on a jelly fish may have no inclination to grow on you. So you better keep a good stock of batteries and a flashlight, if you want to glow in the dark

2005-10-20T20:37:00.000-05:00

ELECTRICITY VOLUME ONE

Adam writes...

So Jim, for superstition's sake I'm going to lay off the baseball questions for now.

So tell me the deal with this, Jim. If you look at the different milestones going back down the communication technology curve, you'll see computers, then TV, then radio, then telephones, telegrams, and finally singing telegrams. All of these advances (plus light bulbs, home appliances, and heavy metal music) are made possible by electricity.

What IS electricity? The flow of charged particles? Is that right? Are there different types of electricity? How and when did we realize electricity exists, and how and when did we learn how to use it?

Now Jim, I know that's a lot to ask of a busy man like yourself. Perhaps you could answer in several different posts rather than one uber-post.

That is a lot of question and it does seem appropriate to answer on the installment plan. For the first part, let's answer "What IS electricity? The flow of charged particles? Is that right? Are there different types of electricity?"

Electricity is free electrons, and there is only one type of electricity. To understand electricity, we have to go back to our chemistry lessons and look at elements and atoms. As I'm sure you know, atoms contain a nucleus made up of positively charged protons and neutrally charged neutrons. Orbiting around the nucleus are negatively charged electrons. These orbits are more accurately called shells. Each shell can hold a limited amount of electrons and the outer or valence shell can hold no more than 8. When all the shells hold the maximum number of electrons, all the electrons are very stable. If you add one more, so the new outer shell contains only one electron, that one valence electron is no longer stable. It will jump off one atom and on to another very easily. The three elements that do this best are copper, silver, and gold.

There are six ways to produce electricity. 1. Friction (this produces the static electricity we are all familiar with when we get a shock after touching metal on a cold day while wearing a wool sweater). 2. Chemical (batteries) 3. Heat (the principal is used in thermocouples, a device that generates a small amount of electricity when heat is applied.) 4. Light (photocells) 5. Pressure (used in gas grills to light the flame, you know, that thing you push, you hear a snap, and the flame comes on). and 6. Magnetism (all household electricity is generated by magnetism).

All the electricity that we use is done by coaxing electrons to travel together down a wire. If you pass a copper wire through a magnetic field, that field will induce the electrons to travel in one direction. Pass that wire through that magnetic field in the opposite direction and those electrons will travel in the opposite direction. Every power plant, be it coal, hydroelectric, or nuclear, does the same thing. It uses a source of energy to move wires through magnetic fields (or move magnetic fields passed wires). As one electron is coaxed to move in one direction, it coaxes another electron to move. As this chain reaction moves down the line, it travels at the speed of light (though individual electrons are moving at a fraction of that speed).

2005-10-14T19:17:00.000-05:00

ONE HARD QUESTION - ONE EASY QUESTION

Tommy writes...

Jim, much like yourself and Adam, I am quite the fan of baseball. I spent the majority of my life in Atlanta, Ga, and while there became a fan of the Atlanta Braves. For years, 14 to be exact, the Braves have continued to drive up the hopes of thousands of fans, and continuously let them come crashing down in early or mid October. Now here is my question for you; Despite having a top notch coaching staff, consistently ranking in the top 12 in payroll, as well as having above average pitching year in and year out why, aside from 1995, can't the Braves win a World Series?

Sorry Tommy, you have stumped Ask Jim. If I could answer that question, I'd have Bobby Cox's job. That is one of those great mysteries of the universe. Everyone wants to know the answer to that question. Cox did another incredible job this year with his new, young team. He should be in line with LaRussa again for manager of the year. I'm not sure what would be more maddening, winning the division and loosing in the post season, or not winning the division 14 years in a row.

Seeing you stumped Jim, Jim gets to ask you a question... Why doesn't Atlanta ever sell out for the first round of playoffs?

Bri & Leah writes...
Fishinating stuff, Jim. Since I am a vegetarian, I think if ever went fishing again I would be inclined to throw the fish back. However, Leah loves seafood and would enjoy keeping hers.

So tell me, Jim. What do you do with your fish once you catch them? How do you decide what to keep, and what to return?

That is an easy one. Most of the time I let them go. One way to insure that fishing remains good is to practice "catch and release" fishing. I'm simply there to harass god's little creatures and maybe teach them a little lesson. (such as... "Don't eat that in the future because the next guy may not be so kind".) Not only does that help keep the fish population in better condition, it eliminates the need carry them and keep them cold and fresh. Less cumbersome and more enjoyment.

I only keep fish twice a year. On father's day, we go fishing at a place where they stock trout every day for the sole purpose of harvesting. We catch enough for a dinner that evening. The other time I keep fish is at our annual boundary waters fishing trip in the summer. The fish are quite abundant and the fishing pressure is quite light. We try to catch enough fish for one meal a day. There is little concern of hurting the overall fish population with our harvest.

2005-10-14T17:15:00.000-05:00

THE WORST UMPIRE'S CALL IN CARDINALS HISTORY

Adam writes...

Wow, Jim. That was incredible. No, that was Jim-credible.

So Jim, tell me something else. In game 2 of the ALCS, home plate umpire Doug Eddings made a bad call, allowing Chicago batter AJ Pierzynski to take first base. The bad call clearly changed the outcome of the game: it was the bottom of the ninth, tie score, and pinch runner Pablo Ozuna was able to make his way to third and then score the winning run off a hit by Joe Crede three pitches later.

Can you think of any other time in baseball where an umpire's bad call has changed the outcome of a game, league championship series, or worst of all, the WORLD SERIES?

Ah-ha-ha! A thinly veiled request for the 1985 World Series rant. Well okay, if you insist.

The 1980's was one of those banner decades for the Cardinals with 3 trips to the World Series. and one win. 1985 was right in the middle of the Whitey Herzog era. Whitey had spent five years with Kansas City and brought 3 AL Western Division titles. When he got to St. Louis, he took over not only as manager but as general manager for the first year. At the time Busch was a big cookie cutter stadium with Astroturf. The fences were more that 10 feet further out than they are today. Whitey built a team around this park. He assembled a team of fast runners (Vince Colman, Tommy Herr ), great fielders (Ozzie Smith, Willy McGee) and an ace pitching staff (Andujar, Tudor, Cox and Forsch). They played classic National League small ball (called Whitey ball at the time). They had won the 1982 World Series and they were heavy favorites to win the '85 as well.

The Cardinals took the first two games from Kansas City in Royals Stadium. "No team has ever lost the first two games at home and won the World Series" could be heard time and time again. The teams moved to St. Louis where KC took their first win, then St. Louis took their third win in game 4. The Cards had to win only one of the next three. After dropping game 5, the teams went back to KC for the final confrontations.

Game 6 was a pitchers duel. Leibrant for the Royals shut out the Cards for 7 innings but in the 8th, with two outs, a single, a walk, and another single brought in a run for the Cards. In the mean time Cox pitched seven shut out innings for the Cards and Daley came in and pitched another one in the 8th. "The Cardinals have not lost a game in the 9th inning all season" says one announcer. "If the Cardinals go on to win, they will have the lowest number of runs scored (14) for a World Series winner" says another.

Now the chess game begins. Howser sent in Darryl Motley (a right handed pinch-batter) to face the left handed Daley. Herzog called for right-hander Todd Worrell. Howser countered with Jorge Orta in place of Motley. The lefty responded with a hot grounder towards first baseman Jack Clark who fielded it and tossed it to the covering pitcher. Umpire Don Denkinger called Orta safe although everyone else in the park knew he was out by a step. Television replays showed Denkinger was wrong, but the contested runner remained on first. An argument ensued but fell on deaf ears. That moment, that one call, set in motion a ridiculous turn of events. The Cards simply fell apart. Steve Balboni followed Orta with a textbook pop-out, but Clarke (out of position because he was covering the runner at first that should have been called out) was unable to field the ball. Balboni then singled. Jim Sundberg bunted into a force out at third. Hal McRae stepped to the plate (for Buddy Biancalana) and after Darrell Porter committed a passed ball that advanced both runners, he was intentionally walked. Dane Iorg brought Concepcion home with a single to right followed closly by Sundberg who avoided Porter's tag at home and the Royals tied the Series with the 2-1 victory.

That was it. Game seven started with Tudor for StL., Saberhagen for K.C. and Denkinger behind the plate. Saberhagen was untouchable, Tudor was flat. After having victories for games 1 and 4, Herzog had gone to the Tudor well once too often. The Royals teed off on Tudor as they did with Andujar who came in for relief. When the "one tough Dominican" thought he was being squeezed in the strike zone, he lost it, Denkinger lost it, Herzog lost it, words were said and when Whitey told Denkinger "If you had done your job last night we wouldn't have to be here tonight", Herzog was ejected. A few pitches later, Andujar joined him. Meanwhile, Tudor was so ticked off that when he got back to the clubhouse, he punched an electric fan, slicing his hand open and needed to be taken to the hospital for stitches. It was an eleven run shut out. It was ugly and it was excruitiating to watch. No Cardinal fans have ever been that miserable until the Cards met the Red Sox in 2004.

To give Denkinger credit, he has always been considered a very good umpire. He has taken endless heat for the call and he has faced it like a man. He admits the mistake and probably feels worse about it than anyone. He has even been on sports talk shows several time in St. Louis to answer questions.

It's a game, that's the rules and as the A's manager, Mike Sciosia aptly put it, "Anyone who blames the outcome of the game on one bad call is just giving his players an excuse to lose". For as great as I think Whitey is, to this day, I think he should have done a better job of inspiring his men to forget about game 6 and take care of the business of winning game seven. That's my rant and I'm sticking to it!

2005-10-12T17:24:00.000-05:00

BASEBALL vs. OTHER SPORTS

Adam writes...

So Jim, tell me something.

I've been watching a lot of baseball lately. In fact, I've been tuning in on it all year -- on TV, on MLB.com, even on the antiquated amplitude-modulation radio stations. I've been to pro games and to minor league games, enjoying them all the same.

Just about all of my friends (2 of my 3 friends) tell me that baseball is boring and contains less action than other professional sports. They say that baseball players are less athletic, and they say because there are 162 regular season games there is simply less on the line in any given game. Overall they rate baseball as slow and less competitive.

Now what would you say in response to these different arguments? To what extent do these points of view hold weight? I prefer your answer to be 60% fact-guided reasoning, 40% emotional rant.

Well, let's just take these arguments one at a time.

"baseball is boring" - The question at hand is really what do you enjoy and why do you enjoy it. Baseball or football? Sailing or power boating? Fly fishing for trout or spin fishing for bass? Classic car or hot rod? Boxers or briefs? Patty or Kathy? Ginger or Mary Ann? Anything is boring if you don't enjoy it. Soccer is the sport of the world. wars and revolutions stop for soccer matches. How can people go so crazy for a game that most Americans find boring? Because they love it. It's a part of the chicken-egg syndrome. You enjoy a sport, you follow it. You follow it, you learn all its subtleties and strategies. The more knowledgeable you are about a sport, the more interesting it is. The more interesting it is, the more you enjoy it....

"contains less action than other professional sports" - Football is supposed to be full of action, but if you were to time the actual "action", that is, from the time the ball is hiked until the play stops, you'd find about 3-5 seconds of action amongst many minutes of substitutions, huddles, replays, time-outs, and penalties. Action would probably have to go to the hockey, basketball, soccer trilogy. (They are essentially the same game.) They run up the court, they run down the field, then they skate back up the rink again. Constant movement, that is the definition of action, but that doesn't translate into interest. During a close baseball game, especially a post season game, you hang on every pitch, each one being more excruciating than the next (especially when Isringhausen is pitching).

"baseball players are less athletic" - This is a truly absurd statement that no one could justify. The need for strength, agility and speed is needed by every player on the team. Can an offensive lineman be called more athletic because he is very big, heavy, and strong (and slow)? Can a man who does nothing but kick field goals or punts be considered more athletic?

"because there are 162 regular season games there is simply less on the line in any given game" - I think you could make a case for that, however, at the end of the season, it is often a matter of one or two games that make the difference between division winners and division losers. So just which game was the one that didn't matter. That is not a liability. With a 162 game schedule, you can't get by with one hot streak. The best teams don't always make it to the World Series, but they make it to the playoffs. At the end of the regular season, there are no lucky teams in baseball, and there are no cries about easy or hard schedules. On the other hand, you can look at a 16 game football schedule and make a case that, if the old adage is true that any given Sunday any one team can beat another, then it is better to be lucky than good in football.

"Overall they rate baseball as slow and less competitive" - This belongs with the "athletic" comment. It holds no credence. Does the base runner run slower than the running back? Can anyone see Jim Edmonds catch in game 7 of last year's NLCS and say anyone is more competitive than that. That statement alone deserves more than 40% rant.

So now I will indulge myself and tell you some of the reasons that Baseball is my passion.

First of all, it is a game that is unlike anything else in professional sports. Most games are a variation of soccer. Get your object down the field (court, rink) and put it in your opponents goal (basket, net). Basketball, hockey and soccer are the exact same game with football being the biggest variation on that theme. Baseball is the only game that is a team sport played one man at a time. It is the pitcher against the batter or the runner against fielder. If you keep a scorecard, like myself, you can look back and tell every important event that every player made. You can see all of the important statistics. Do you know anyone who has ever kept a scorecard of a football game? Could you tell anyone how many passes the quarterback made and what percentage were caught? Only if the announcer or stat man gave you those figures.

One of the things I find the most frustrating in football (and I realize a lot of this has to do with my lack of knowledge about the game) is on any given play such as an incomplete pass, it is very hard to tell exactly where the problem lies. Did the quarterback make a poor pass? Did the receiver blow the catch? Did an offensive lineman not do his job? Did a defensive back do his better? There is just too much going on all at the same time to analyze the whole play. Half of the enjoyment of watching sports is to analyze the game, and second guess the manager or coach. When we were at the Cubs-Cards game with the score tied 1-1 at the bottom of the tenth, Maybry on third and no outs, our minds were racing with the possibilities. Tagguchi gets up, you know he's no power hitter nor is he a great contact hitter, so he's just going to be trying to get a base hit. Sure enough, swings and grounds out to the shortstop leaving Maybry stranded. Next Eckstein is up, you know he strikes out less than almost anyone in baseball. It's a perfect situation for a suicide squeeze. Sure enough, he squeezes, the run scores, game over. The ability to understand the players abilities, strategies of the game and tendencies of the manager is what it is all about. There is nothing slow or boring about it. To say the game is boring only shows you know very little about the game.

Another disadvantage of football is it is not TV friendly. With men running in 22 different directions, it is hard to see a play unfold. You take that pass play again. You can see the quarterback set up and throw the ball but you don't know who is down field, or how many are down field or what their coverage is, until the ball is there. Was anyone open? Was there someone else it would have been better to throw to? You'll be lucky to find out during the 1/2 dozen replays they need to show you to see what just happened. In baseball, even though you can't see the outfield when the batter hits the ball, you know where everyone should be. There are many times you know whether it should be a hit or an out as soon as the ball comes off the bat. And if it should be an out, but it is not, you know exactly where the problem was.

Also there is very little specialization in baseball. True, each player plays a different position but after the ball is hit, everyone's job is to catch the ball and get the batter or runner out. There is no offensive line and defensive line. Every man who plays in the field has to take his turn at bat (of course with the exception of the AL designated hitter which is a bad idea, has been a bad idea, and will always be a bad idea. I can't understand any true baseball fan wanting anything to do with it).

Let's take another look at the athleticism of baseball players. I enjoy that fact that it takes a balance of speed, agility and strength. Relatively normally proportioned people play it. Anyone familiar with David Eckstein or Ozzie Smith can see that you don't have to be freak of nature like a 300 pound linesman or an 8 foot basketball player. Again, I'm not trying to take away from football or basketball, it is just one of the things that I enjoy about baseball.

I could go on all night, but I'm sure I lost most of you a long time ago, so I'll just make one more point. Baseball has more history than all other sports put together. It evolved from games that were played during the revolutionary war and solidified during the Civil war. The first professional baseball league started in 1871. That is 5 years before Custer had his bad day at Little Bighorn. Statistics have been kept since Henry Chadwick came up with the box score in the 1860s. That gives us a lot of reference to who are good players and what makes them so. And now I will shut up (I'm over on my rant allotment!)

2005-10-10T21:01:00.000-05:00

CARDS vs. STROS

Adam writes...

Say there, Jim!

Here's the deal. It looks like the St. Louis Cardinals are playing the Houston Astros in the NLCS. How many times have these teams met in the post-season, and what have been the results in the past? In terms of competitive advantages, what do they got that we ain't got, and what do we got that they ain't got?

Actually, we have only faced the Astros once in the post season, however, in the past ten years, it has usually been a battle between Houston and St. Louis for the lead of the Central Division. St. Louis has taken five of those titles, Houston has three, one year we tied, and one year the Cubs snuck in there. Last year, while the rest of the country was fixated on the Sox - Yanks series, St. Louis and Houston were locked in an totally enthralling battle. The outcome was each team won all its home games. First two in St. Louis, next three in Houston and last two back in the 'Lou. In the end, both teams had garnered so much respect for each other that when the Cards won the last game, they all went over to the Houston dugout for a round of handshakes and admiration. The rivalry reminds me of the one that the Cards had with the Mets in the '80s. Both teams were always in contention for the division and always seemed to meet each other near the end of the season with the division on the line. The major difference was there was no respect for each other, either by the teams or the fans. "Mets are pond scum." was the cry of the 80's, and there was always trash talk between the two teams.

Last year, when we went into the NLCS, both teams had pitching problems. St. Louis's best pitcher, Chris Carpenter (from Manchester, N.H.), came up with a nerve problem that kept him out of the playoffs. Matt Morris was also injured and required surgery at the end of the season. Houston was missing Andy Pettitte. The series included many memorable plays. Carlos Beltran feasted on Cardinals pitching. He would have easily been MVP if things had gone the other way. Jim Edmonds hit a two run blast in the 12th inning of game number six to win 6-4, only to be followed by a spectacular catch to save two runs in the second inning, while down 2-0 of game seven, giving them the chance to come back and win 5-2. How competitive were those teams? After six games, each team had scored 29 runs. Each team had an ERA of 4.80. And each team was batting .264.

This year has had some changes. Andy Pettitte has returned to join Clemens and Ozwalt to give Houston one of the best 1-2-3 punches in baseball. Beltran and Kent are gone and Bagwell is in a limited role as he rehabs from shoulder surgery. St. Louis has acquired Mulder. Carpenter is coming off a year that gives him as good a chance to win the Cy Young as Clemens. Renteria, Womack and Matheney have been replaced with Eckstein, Grudzelanek, and Molina. Very little lost there and much gained. The biggest advantage that Houston has over St. Louis is Brad "Lights Out" Lidge. If their starters take us deep into the game, Lidge is the man to put it away. Our bullpen has been suspect all season and has been getting more so in September and October. Our starters can go toe to toe with theirs but our relief pitching will bring out the nail biters and Rolaid poppers. On the other hand if our relief pitchers have had a hard time keeping a lead, Houston's offense has struggled to score runs.

The Cardinals have something to prove to the world and themselves after the embarrassing showing on the national stage against the Red Sox, however, Houston has much to prove, barely losing to the Cards last year, plus the specter of never having made it to a World Series. This is one of those match-ups that has potential for some great baseball. The stuff that real baseball fans dream of. The only problem is will anyone else care to see the best team in baseball meet their best match? Or will the series get lost in the shuffle of the big TV market, coastal, apathy of the "fly over" states mentality that brought the Cardinals and Padres the horrendous playoff schedule during the Divisional Series games?

2005-10-09T09:51:00.000-05:00

MORE ABOUT ANCIENT SKIN

Eric writes...

This is about your answer to me, the one about the dinosaurs having hair. I was not only talking about dinosaurs, what about hominids? Have we found fossilized skin of Australopithecus africanus? Or even Homo erectus? How do we know their bodies were covered in hair? And why is Homo neanderthalensis always depicted without hairy bodies?

Well, Eric, I'm in a bit over my head here. Yours is a fairly technical question in a science that could include anthropology, paleontology, geology, anatomy, physiology, and archeology, but I'll give it a shot.

First of all, don't confuse theory with fact. "How do we know their bodies were covered in hair?" implies fact. Much of what is "known" in this science is theory. They take information from fossils compare it to anatomy and physiology, take into consideration the environment they lived in and extrapolate their theory.

The BBC ran a great series called "Walking with Cavemen". On their web site, they give a description of different hominids and then give the evidence to support that. An example would be the description and evidence about Homo ergaster:

DESCRIPTION

Homo ergaster was tall and muscular. Slim hips and long legs enabled this species to walk long distances. Their skin was smooth to cool themselves through sweating, meaning they no longer had to pant to keep cool.

Homo ergaster probably obtained food by scavenging or by chasing animals across the Savannah until they died from exhaustion.

This species was amongst the first to leave Africa and colonize other continents. After ergaster leaves Africa, it becomes known as Homo erectus.

In Asia, Homo erectus lived in the bamboo forests and may have made tools such as staffs and spears from this strong, versatile material.

EVIDENCE

The structure of Homo ergaster's facial bones suggests they had a human-like nose with downward pointing nostrils. This allowed them to add moisture to exhaled air, useful for an active species roaming through dry, open terrain.

Animal bones from ergaster sites have been found etched with the characteristic marks of stone tools used for butchery.

Several Homo ergaster fossils have been discovered in the Lake Turkana region of Northern Kenya, including a near complete skeleton known as 'Nariokotome Boy'.

Homo erectus fossils have been found all over Asia, from Zhoukoudien in China to Sangiran on the island of Java, Indonesia.

Now remember, this is a television show that tries to explain complicated science to the same people who (like me) watch the Family Guy, so you know it is at best a simplistic explanation. Now compare that to the description given by www.archaeologyinfo.com, which is more complex but is still geared to teaching the amateur. I won't quote it here as it is fairy long, complicated, and technical, but it uses many disciplines of science to come to a somewhat similar but somewhat different conclusion.

In any case, they have also looked at their physiology and environment and extrapolated their appearance and lifestyle.

Remember, paleoanthropology is a rapidly evolving science. When I was young, we learned that dinosaurs were slow, lumbering beasts related to lizards that died out over millions of years due to long term climatic changes. Just one view of Jurassic Park, and you will see that dinosaurs are now depicted as dynamic, fast and cunning. They are now related to birds and were wiped out by one big blast from a celestial object. This is a field of constantly conflicting theories and great debate. By the time you are my age, when the BBC produces an updated series of walking with cavemen, you will certainly find a lot of what we "know" now has changed.

So, as I re-read this, it looks like I really didn't answer your question and I should have stopped with "This is way over my head", but how much fun would that have been?

2005-10-06T20:14:00.000-05:00

AMC AND THE GREMLIN

Anonymous writes...

Hey I was wondering if you could answer another question for all our inquisitive minds. How long was the automobile manufacturer AMC in operation, and more specifically what years was the Gremlin made?

First of all, anonymous, you should introduce yourself. There is no reason to stay anonymous with this group, we are a very accepting bunch.

There is the long story and there is the short story. The long story includes the host of mergers and acquisitions that are related to the American Motors Company (AMC). These would include Hudson, Nash, Kelvinator, Willys, Kaiser, Bantam, Renault, Maxwell, Chrysler, Packard, Studebaker, Daimler, and Benz. For those interested in the long story, I will post a timeline in the comments section. Also, anyone interested in the history of mergers and acquisitions in the American auto business should go to the web site "The auto industry's family trees". It is an excellent article that tells of many of the connections between the different auto manufacturers. However, I will try to keep it brief.

AMC (American Motors Corporation) was first formed with the merger of Nash and Hudson in May of 1954. The original plan was to also bring Packard and Studebaker under the umbrella, but the engineer of the deal, George Mason, died before the second phase of the merger could be completed. Hudson was the weaker of the two companies. Nash had most of its' success with their Rambler, the first successful US built the compact car. Both Nash and Hudson dealers kept their own names but most of the cars sold at both dealerships were straight from Nash (the ones sold at the Hudson dealerships were nicknamed "Hashes"). Their specialty was compact cars, which was a niche that the big three didn't tap for many years. Their smallest car was the Metropolitan which was a joint venture between Nash and Austin of Great Britain. Another joint venture with a British company was the very unique sports car, Nash-Healey.

By the 1958 model year the Nash and Hudson names were dropped and were placed under the blanket of American, or AMC. In the late 60's and early 70's AMC had a brief but memorable flirtation with high performance and racing vehicles that produced classics such as the Javelin and AMX.

By the late 60's, AMC started going back to their roots with the compact Hornet. In 1970 they pioneered the first US built subcompact, the Gremlin. The Gremlin has been maligned as one of the ugliest cars ever made only to be rivaled by the later Pacer, however, both cars are truly unique in appearance and both have their ardent fans. They are both becoming more and more valuable as collector cars.

1970 also saw AMC acquiring the Jeep, originally designed by Bantam, built by Willys and acquired by Kaiser. In 1979 the company entered into a joint venture agreement with Renault, the French auto maker, under which AMC would sell Renault cars in the US and later produce a Renault-designed car at its' Kenosha plant. 1980 saw Renault acquire a 46% stake in AMC and assumed virtual control over the company's management. Renault models began rolling out of Kenosha in 1982.

AMC ultimately couldn't cope with the double whammy of foreign competition and Big Three built compacts. Renault sold out to Chrysler in 1987, and the last independent was history.

The real short answer is AMC was in business for 33 years from 1954 to 1987 and the Gremlin was produce from 1970 to 1978. Total Gremlin production exceeded 700,000 units, making it AMC's most popular single model.

2005-10-04T21:41:00.000-05:00

DINOSAUR SKIN

Eric the dismissed said...

Jim- I just got finished watching Jurassic Park and I came up with a question that you might be able to answer: If we don't find frozen specimens, how can we tell from fossilized bones whether an extinct animal had hair or not? Could a dinosaur have had hair?

Well, Eric, amazingly enough, fossils of dinosaur skin have been found. Apparently, not many, but enough that we can be pretty sure they didn't have hair. Although we may never know the color of dinosaurs, the texture of dinosaur skin is another matter. Natural cast fossils of dinosaur skin have been discovered that show clearly what the skin of various dinosaurs looked and felt like. The debate amongst paleontologists was whether dinosaurs had scales or not. Fossils show there were both. Most skin fossils show bumpy skin, not scaly skin; only the huge plant-eaters seem to have had scaly skin. Some of the birdlike dinosaurs had protofeathers (a type of modified scale).

2005-10-04T18:36:00.000-05:00

MANUAL VS. AUTOMATIC TRANSMISIONS...

Amy Writes...

So Jim, when was the first automatic transmission car produced? Who made it? Do you prefer manual or automatic transmission on a car? Why do assholes always ride up on my ass on steep hills?

Like most things in the automotive industry, the automatic transmission is an evolutionary thing. It would be hard to pin point the exact first. For years, the auto manufacturers worked on versions of the automatic transmission. The first attempts could be more accurately called automatic clutches. They involved methods of shifting without having to clutch or would automatically shift into the some gears but not others. By most accounts though, the very first fully automatic transmission would the Hydra-matic transmission built by Oldsmobile in 1939 and offered in production cars in 1940. Oldsmobile’s website has this to say about their product:

1939
Oldsmobile's 1940 models featured Hydra-Matic drive, making this lineup the first vehicles with fully automatic transmission.
Hydra-Matic appeared as an Olds exclusive. It provided true clutchless driving with four forward speeds. Its fluid coupling between engine and transmission eliminated the clutch and its associated foot work. Olds made the breakthrough Hydra-Matic available on all models for only an extra $57. In the early 50s, Olds produced its millionth Oldsmobile with automatic transmission, demonstrating Hydra-Matic's rapid rise in popularity.

As far as my own personal preference, it depends on the car. For small cars, such as the Ford Escort that I drive, I prefer a manual transmission. The reason for that is you have more control over the ride of the vehicle. Those small cars usually have small, under-powered engines. With the extra control of the manual transmission, you can down shift at will to get the extra torque you may need getting in and out of traffic. Those same cars, with an automatic transmission seem a bit sluggish to me at times. Also, sports cars should always have manual transmissions. Not because they are underpowered, but for the extra control you can exercise over the car. I was quite surprised to find out the new retro designed Ford Thunderbird does not offer a manual transmission. I thought it was an attempt at a sports car, but without a manual, I guess it would be better described as a touring car (or rich geezer car).

On larger cars, I prefer to have an automatic. The obvious advantage is the ease of operation. Of course, I then also prefer a larger engine. If your car hesitates while accelerating, it can be a problem.

There are two reasons why people sit so close to you while you're parked uphill. First is that a majority of people have never driven a stick and don’t even know that it can be a problem. The second is, even if they know it is a problem, they just don’t care. Today’s drivers apparently believe the road is their own personal property. They want to get to where they are going and everyone else is in their way. The concept that the road belongs to all of us and we all have to get somewhere and, let’s work together so everyone can get to where they are going safely, has gone by the wayside years ago. I’m afraid there is nothing you an do about that. (The preceding salty old rant is brought to you by Grumpyoldman.com. The leading purveyor of rants starting with “In my day....”, “When I was your age...”, and the classic “Kids today...” Sold at T. Hargrove’s and other fine fly fishing shops throughout America.)

I assume you already know the trick of using the hand brake to keep the car from rolling back while you are engaging the clutch. Some cars have that feature built in. My fishing buddy has a car that will do that automatically. If you stop on a hill, the brake will engage itself so you don’t roll backwards. It will then disengage when you move forward. Interestingly, this was a feature that was introduced to cars back in the 30’s. I’m not sure why it didn’t last, but it does show us that there is very little new under the sun in the automotive industry.

2005-09-28T19:04:00.000-05:00

CALCULATING SUNRISE...

Eric the dismissed said...

So Jim, I was wondering… can humanity determine the exact time the sun rises and sets in any day of the year and from any location on our feeble planet? And if so HOW? Would a “volvelle” be used?

Ahhh. Mr. Dismissed, I knew I could count on you for a good question and though I suspect that you could answer this question better than I, for the sake of our readers, I’ll give it a try.

The answer, of course is yes, no, and “a what?”

Yes, humanity can determine the exact time the sun rises and sets in any day of the year and from any location on our feeble planet? There is a long set of calculations that will give you the sunrise and sunset for any place on earth. Back in the early ‘90s, when you bought a computer, but not software, it was common to have to type in your own program, save it to tape, and then load it into the memory of your Commodore 64. Sky & Telescope magazine had a monthly column where people would send in generic BASIC programs that could be adapted to most computers of the time. One of those programs was SUNUP.BAS which calculated sunrise and sunset. I reduced that program to the bare bones to illustrate the complexity of the calculations:

10 ' Sunrise-Sunset
300 ' Constants
310 DIM A(2),D(2)
320 P1=3.14159265: P2=2*P1
330 DR=P1/180: K1=15*DR*1.0027379
340 S$="Sunset at "
350 R$="Sunrise at "
360 M1$="No sunrise this date"
370 M2$="No sunset this date"
380 M3$="Sun down all day"
390 M4$="Sun up all day"
30 INPUT "Lat, Long (deg)";B5,L5
40 INPUT "Time zone (hrs)";H
50 L5=L5/360: Z0=H/24
60 GOSUB 1170
1170 ' Calendar --> JD
1180 INPUT "Year, Month, Day";Y,M,D
1190 G=1: IF Y<1583 THEN G=0
1200 D1=INT(D): F=D-D1-.5
1210 J=-INT(7*(INT((M+9)/12)+Y)/4)
1220 IF G=0 THEN 1260
1230 S=SGN(M-9): A=ABS(M-9)
1240 J3=INT(Y+S*INT(A/7))
1250 J3=-INT((INT(J3/100)+1)*3/4)
1260 J=J+INT(275*M/9)+D1+G*J3
1270 J=J+1721027+2*G+367*Y
1280 IF F>=0 THEN 1300
1290 F=F+1: J=J-1
61: T=(J-2451545)+F
70 TT=T/36525+1: ' TT = centuries
80 ' from 1900.0
410 ' LST at 0h zone time
420 T0=T/36525
430 S=24110.5+8640184.813*T0
440 S=S+86636.6*Z0+86400*L5
450 S=S/86400: S=S-INT(S)
460 T0=S*360*DR
470 RETURN
91 T=T+Z0
110 ' Get Sun's Position
910 ' Fundamental arguments
920 ' (Van Flandern &
930 ' Pulkkinen, 1979)
940 L=.779072+.00273790931*T
950 G=.993126+.0027377785*T
960 L=L-INT(L): G=G-INT(G)
970 L=L*P2: G=G*P2
980 V=.39785*SIN(L)
990 V=V-.01000*SIN(L-G)
1000 V=V+.00333*SIN(L+G)
1010 V=V-.00021*TT*SIN(L)
1020 U=1-.03349*COS(G)
1030 U=U-.00014*COS(2*L)
1040 U=U+.00008*COS(L)
1050 W=-.00010-.04129*SIN(2*L)
1060 W=W+.03211*SIN(G)
1070 W=W+.00104*SIN(2*L-G)
1080 W=W-.00035*SIN(2*L+G)
1090 W=W-.00008*TT*SIN(G)
1110 ' Compute Sun's RA and Dec
1120 S=W/SQR(U-V*V)
1130 A5=L+ATN(S/SQR(1-S*S))
1140 S=V/SQR(U):D5=ATN(S/SQR(1-S*S))
1150 R5=1.00021*SQR(U)
1160 RETURN
121 A(1)=A5: D(1)=D5
130 T=T+1
140 GOSUB 910: A(2)=A5: D(2)=D5
150 IF A(2) < A(1) THEN A(2)=A(2)+P2
160 Z1=DR*90.833: ' Zenith dist.
170 S=SIN(B5*DR): C=COS(B5*DR)
180 Z=COS(Z1): M8=0: W8=0: PRINT
190 A0=A(1): D0=D(1)
200 DA=A(2)-A(1): DD=D(2)-D(1)
210 FOR C0=0 TO 23
220 P=(C0+1)/24
230 A2=A(1)+P*DA: D2=D(1)+P*DD
240 GOSUB 490
490 ' Test an hour for an event
500 L0=T0+C0*K1: L2=L0+K1
510 H0=L0-A0: H2=L2-A2
520 H1=(H2+H0)/2: ' Hour angle,
530 D1=(D2+D0)/2: ' declination,
540 ' at half hour
550 IF C0>0 THEN 570
560 V0=S*SIN(D0)+C*COS(D0)*COS(H0)-Z
570 V2=S*SIN(D2)+C*COS(D2)*COS(H2)-Z
580 IF SGN(V0)=SGN(V2) THEN 800
590 V1=S*SIN(D1)+C*COS(D1)*COS(H1)-Z
600 A=2*V2-4*V1+2*V0: B=4*V1-3*V0-V2
610 D=B*B-4*A*V0: IF D<0 THEN 800
620 D=SQR(D)
630 IF V0<0 AND V2>0 THEN PRINT R$;
640 IF V0<0 AND V2>0 THEN M8=1
650 IF V0>0 AND V2<0 THEN PRINT S$;
660 IF V0>0 AND V2<0 THEN W8=1
670 E=(-B+D)/(2*A)
680 IF E>1 OR E<0 THEN E=(-B-D)/(2*A)
690 T3=C0+E+1/120: ' Round off
700 H3=INT(T3): M3=INT((T3-H3)*60)
710 PRINT USING "##:##";H3;M3;
720 H7=H0+E*(H2-H0)
730 N7=-COS(D1)*SIN(H7)
740 D7=C*SIN(D1)-S*COS(D1)*COS(H7)
750 AZ=ATN(N7/D7)/DR
760 IF D7<0 THEN AZ=AZ+180
770 IF AZ<0 THEN AZ=AZ+360
780 IF AZ>360 THEN AZ=AZ-360
790 PRINT USING ", azimuth ###.#";AZ
800 RETURN
820 ' Special-message routine
830 IF M8=0 AND W8=0 THEN 870
840 IF M8=0 THEN PRINT M1$
850 IF W8=0 THEN PRINT M2$
860 GOTO 890
870 IF V2<0 THEN PRINT M3$
880 IF V2>0 THEN PRINT M4$
890 RETURN
250 A0=A2: D0=D2: V0=V2
260 NEXT
270 GOSUB 820: ' Special msg?
280 END

Now I don’t expect many people to understand that program, again, I only use it to illustrate how long the computation is. This is just the simplest of programs. You input your latitude, longitude, year, month, and day, and it will calculate sunrise and sunset (at, I believe, local standard time).

So the answer is yes, and that is how it is done.

But, the answer is actually no. And this is why. According to the U.S. Naval Observatory...

“The times of rise and set phenomena cannot be precisely computed, because, in practice, the actual times depend on unpredictable atmospheric conditions that affect the amount of refraction at the horizon. Thus, even under ideal conditions (e.g., a clear sky at sea) the times computed for rise or set may be in error by a minute or more. Local topography (e.g., mountains on the horizon) and the height of the observer can affect the times of rise or set even more. It is not practical to attempt to include such effects in routine rise/set computations.”

And finally “a what?” A “volvelle”? You found a blind spot in Ask Jim’s realm of knowledge. So I did some research and the answer is yes, you could use a volvelle. For those, like myself before today, who don’t know what a volvelle is, it is a “calculation device consisting of concentric moveable circles”.

According to the website World Wide Words:

“The earliest types of volvelles were typically made of parchment or paper, with one or more moveable circles attached to a backboard, often the inside cover of a book. The range of information on them was large. Some were like early slide rules, used to calculate the results of mathematical equations. Others worked out the phases of the moon or times of high and low tide. The volvelles that solved astronomical problems could have as many as six rotatable dials.
Strictly, the term is applied only to such historical calculation devices. In more recent times, related ones (usually now called wheel charts or wheel calculators since volvelle is obsolete) have been used to display or calculate the details of everything from the date when a baby was due, through aircraft recognition and dieting data, to geography facts for school children. These were often given away as advertisements at trade shows or supplied with products. Americans of a certain age might recall the BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) calculators that were distributed in school so you could work out the safe limits for drinking. Even in the age of the computer, they’re by no means obsolete, being handy pocket-sized compendia of useful data for some specialist purposes.
The word is from the medieval Latin verb volvere, to turn.”

And according to the website World of Pop-Ups (You know, paper pop-up books, I don’t know what you were thinking!):

“The first known volvelle was created by Benedictine monk Matthew Paris in 1250. The traditional circular charts that appeared in the abbey's books, used to determine when to observe holidays, were cumbersome since the books were heavy and had to be rotated on the monk's laps. Matthew decided it would be easy if the circular chart spun around instead of the whole book and so the first volvelle was born!”

So there you have it. A good question, and it took us away from baseball and cars for a while!

2005-09-26T22:17:00.000-05:00

THE CURSE OF RUTH...

It was recently brought to my attention that the post of a picture of Babe Ruth beside the Red Sox winning the World Series was neither a question nor an answer. As I assumed that the "Curse of Ruth" is well known and rehashed over and over and over again, plus the Yankees had just taken a ½ game lead over the Red Sox, no further explanation should be added. I apologize for that so the only way to rectify the problem is to rehash it one more time.

So tell me Jim, I keep hearing about the "Curse of Ruth" and how it has been reversed. Just what was the "Curse of Ruth"?

The story starts as the nascent American League came to terms with the already established National League, to pit their regular season winners against each other in a playoff called the World Series. One of the premier teams of the new American league, was the Boston Pilgrims who, in 1903, represented the American League in the first World Series beating the Pittsburgh Pirates 5 games to 3. During the teens, the Pilgrims, who had changed their name to the Red Sox, went on to win the Pennant and the World Series in 1912, 1915, 1916, and 1918. The last three series were won with the help of the new pitching phenom that Boston acquired from the Baltimore farm system, George Herman "Babe" Ruth. Baseball Historian.com writes...
Ruth was the best left-hander in baseball. He chalked up 18 wins in 1915, 23 in 1916 and 24 in 1917. In all 3 of those years opponents batted under .220 against him. In 1916 he led the league with a 1.75 ERA and spun a league leading nine shutouts. In 1917, Ruth was 24-13, completing 35 of the 38 games he started. He allowed only 244 hitters in 326 innings.
In the 1918 World Series vs. the Chicago Cubs, Babe Ruth hurled a 6-hit shutout in Game 1. In Game 4, the Cubs scored their first run in the 8th inning to break Ruth's record string of 29 1/3 scoreless innings. Ruth's mark stood until 1961 when Whitey Ford broke it.
The Boston Red Sox won four World Series in the eight years Babe Ruth played on the team. They sold Ruth to the New York Yankees for $125,000 and a $300,000 loan because Boston's owner Harry Frazee needed the cash to invest in a new play on Broadway (No, No Nanette). As noted since the cash transaction, Boston's inability to win a single World Series Title has been attributed to "The Curse of the Bambino."
Since, that time, not only have the Yankees gone on to win 26 World Series while Boston none (until 2004 of course) but the team was beset by tragic loses that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory time and time again. Up until this year, Boston fans knew it was just a matter of time before something would go sour and the BoSox would tank. Some of the most memorable chokes are as follows:

1946 - In its first World Series appearance since 1918, Boston loses in seven games to the St. Louis Cardinals. The play that turned the tables took place in the bottom of the eighth inning, during game seven, with the score 3-3. Hall of Famer, Enos Slaughter had singled with no outs but looked to be stranded there when the next two batters left him still standing there. When Harry Walker got a hit to center field, Slaughter took off running and easily made it to third. The center fielder, Culberson, chased down the ball and threw it into short stop, Johnny Pesky. Pesky, probably assuming that Slaughter was about to stop at third and watching out for Walker rounding first and heading for second, held the ball for just a moment before he saw that Slaughter had run through the third base coach's stop sign and was headed for home. By the time Pesky threw the ball to the catcher, Slaughter had scored the go ahead run and the Cards beat the Sox 4-3.

1967 - One year removed from a ninth-place finish in 1966, "The Impossible Dream" Red Sox -- after winning the pennant on the last day of a magical season -- lose a seven-game World Series to Bob Gibson (three complete-game wins) and, again, the St. Louis Cardinals.

1975 - Boston coughs up a 3-0 lead in Game 7 to lose the World Series to the Big Red Machine after Carlton Fisk's walk off home run in the bottom of the 12th to beat the Reds in Game 6.

1978 - The Red Sox, who held a 14-game lead on the Yankees in late-July and trailed by 3 1/2 with eight to play, catch up to force this one-game playoff for the AL pennant. Down 2-0 in the seventh, Bucky Dent -- who was batting .140 in his previous 20 games and had only four home runs on the year -- takes a 1-1 Mike Torrez pitch barely over the Green Monster for a 3-2 lead. The Yankees go on to win the game 5-4 and, one series later, their 22nd championship title.

1986 - One strikeout away from winning the Series, the infamous "Slow roller down the baseline" that went through Bill Buckner's legs leads to a 5-3 loss in game 6 and loss of game seven to the N.Y. Mets.

These are only the most gut wrenching turn arounds. The Sox history is full of lesser stories of woe.
So it is with the "Curse of the Babe".(Or could it be that a team with a small ballpark in a large metropolitan area just never bothered to spend the big bucks for a winner when it could fill the park and make a sound profit on T.V. revenue while fielding a sometimes contender and then finally decided to "buck up" and show the world that even the second highest team in baseball can win a World Series in baseball today? ...... Naaaaah!) Many Red Sox fans feel that having come to a World Series trophy by overcoming the Yankees and the Cardinals, two of their biggest obstacles, they have surely reversed this overstated curse. However, as I write this, the Sox and the Yanks are tied for first place in their division with three game series against each other this weekend. As the looser will probably be out of the wild card race, the winner takes all. We will soon see if the Bambino has been chased away for good, or was he really out drinking with Pete Alexander and passed out for 4 days last year.

Now Jim has a question. So much has been made about the length of time it has taken the Bosox to win a World Series (1918 - 2004) and the Cubs to win a World Series (1908), why, then have I never heard a word about the Chicago southsiders' (White Sox) dearth of World Series wins? The last time they won the series was 1917. They should have won the series in 1919 (Say is ain't so, Joe!), but threw the game to the Reds in the infamous "Black Sox" scandal! Haven't won since, tell me that is not worthy of a curse!

2005-09-25T21:31:00.000-05:00

ONE BIG GOOSE

Noreen writes...

I was wondering where one might find the largest Canadian Goose? I saw one in WAWA, ONTARIO that was pretty big. Can you find one larger than that one?

Well, Nor, that is an easy one. According to Roadside America, the largest Canadian goose is right here in the Show-me state. It is in the town of Sumner Mo. Here is the story from the field research team of Roadside America.

"World's Largest Goose

Field review by the editors.
Sumner, Missouri

The small town of Sumner is "Wild Goose Capital Of The World," but during our short visit we didn't notice any living examples. That's where a permanent exhibit like "Maxie," World's Largest Canada Goose, comes in handy.

Maxie sits in a field in the local community park, a bit back from the road. The fiberglass goose is 40 ft. tall, has a wingspan of 61 ft., and weighs 4,000 pounds, at least according to our notes (elsewhere she is reported as 5,500 lbs. with a 65 ft. wingspan). In any event, Maxie is much lighter than the World's Largest Pecan, another attraction in the vicinity.

In 1976, this gargantuan goose was sculpted by a Kansas City artist, flown in by helicopter, and dedicated during the annual Goose Festival by the reigning Miss Goose Pageant queen.

When the audio system is working, you can push a button on Maxie's pedestal and hear her story. She's named after Branta Canadensis Maxima, the scientific name for Giant Canada Geese.

Maxie supposedly even turns a few degrees when the wind is strong enough. Our luck, it was windless, hot, and humid enough to cause our video camera to shut down in a fit of programmed self-preservation.

It might seem strange an American town displays the largest Canada goose. The town of Wawa, Ontario, held the "World's Largest" claim with their 22 ft. tall, 20 ft. wingspan goose from 1963 until 1976, when Maxie apparently flew in and crapped over everything...."

So there you go, the big goose.

2005-09-22T17:02:00.000-05:00

He's Back!

2005-09-21T20:50:00.000-05:00

GIN...

Christina said...

hey jim,

I was curious as to why gin has such a piney taste. Is it just the cheap gin that I am used to, or is all gin like that? How is gin processed?

Well Christina, welcome aboard. Gin is a little on the fringe of my expertise but I can get you going in the right direction.

The reason Gin has that "piney" taste is that its' main flavoring ingredient is Juniper (the name Gin is derived from Juniper). And no, it is not just the cheap stuff, it is all Gin. From what I understand, one of the things that separates a good Gin from a great Gin is the added "botanicals" used for a more complex flavor. These would include other herbs such as coriander and licorice.

As far as how it is processed, you start with a clear, flavorless grain alcohol (not unlike Everclear, but probably higher quality). You then add the juniper and the botanicals and re-distill it. Two things I'm not clear on is if the juniper only contains the berries or if other parts of the plant are used. The other thing is I'm not sure how long the flavors are steeped in the grain alcohol. In any case, after the second distillation, water is added to dilute it to a 75 proof mixture. Again, I'm not sure if it is aged or not. I'm sure it lends itself from quick inferior brands to expensive quality brands.

Here is a website that will give you more details.... THE GIN & VODKA ASSOCIATION

2005-09-21T19:50:00.000-05:00

BEST CARDINALS TEAMS Vol. 2
Here are some of the things I found. Not too many surprises.

For indicators of the best Cardinals teams, I looked at:

1. Numbers of hall of fame players on a given team.

2. Offensive records set for a single season.

3. M.V.P selections.

4. Places in standings.

5. World Series winners.

Most Cardinal fans will already know where to look for the best Cardinal teams. Hornsby's teams of the 20's, the Gas House Gang teams of the 30's, Musial/Slaughter teams of the 40's, Gibson/Brock teams of the 60's, Herzog teams of the 80's, and Larussa teams of the 2000's.

When it comes to the teams with the most number of hall of fame players, the 30's take the lead. The 1933, '34 & '36 Cards had a high of seven HOF players per year. Just look at the lineup for 1934...
Leo "the lip" Durocher
Franky Frisch "the Fordham Flash"
Joe "Ducky Wucky" Medwick
Jerome "Dizzy" Dean
Burleigh Grimes
Jesse Haines
Arthur "Dazzy" Vance... Plus non hall of famers "Daffy" Dean and Pepper Martin
By any standard, how can that not be one of the Cardinals Greatest teams.

When it comes to offensive record being held by a single team, the 1930 Cardinals hold many single season records. They include highest batting average, most RBIs, most long hits (didn't even know that was a stat), highest slugging percentage, most total bases, most hits, and most # of .300 hitters. With that lineup, they took the N.L. Pennant but lost the Series 4-2 to Connie Mack's Philadelphia Athletics.

M.V.P. Awards just confirm what we already knew... 20's, 30's, 40's, and 60's.

The indicator that sets one series of teams apart are the standings and World Series. From 1942 - 1946, the Cards took four pennants and 3 World Series. The '42 cards won a club record 106 games with a .688 winning percentage (also a club record). '43 and '44 followed with 105 wins and .682 winning percentage each year! When Bill James, with his bevy of stats, rates the best three year run in baseball, the '42 - '44 Cards tie with the '29 - '31 A's and the '36 - '38 (or '37 - '39) Yanks. We are talking about one of the great elite teams of the modern era of baseball! The biggest surprise to me was the fact that the number of hall of fame players is smaller in the '40s than I thought. I should have probably taken into consideration the low number of players from the 40's who made the hall of fame due to years lost in the war.

Now let's look at the past two years. 2004 brought us 105 wins and a .648 average. That is tied for second for the club's number of wins and 5th for the winning percentage. This year we already have 95 wins with a .625 average. We've had 3-5 gold glove winners the past several years, and the same for all-star selections. We have a reasonable chance to have the M.V.P. And Cy Young winners this years. What this team will go down in history as will be determined by winning the World Series or not. We have a team that is extraordinary in regular season but will they run out of gas again or was last year a fluke?

So, I really haven't said anything new since the last post, I just have better stats to back up my opinions.

Soooo.....

GO CARDS!!!!!