Travis In Austin

What about suspension, a-frames, what ever those have, that would all have to be replaced or no? I am guessing it never drove the same again.

Great video, hard lesson learned. St. Jo Texas, why am I not surprised? I bet the news kept getting worse for him. He probably made insurance claim and was told it wasn't covered because off road use is excluded. Just the air bags alone was probably a hefty bill. What do you think the total cost of that lesson was? 5K?

You still near Denton? Maybe I can swing by and pick up some on the way to my cousin's house. It looks like it should keep a long time.

you are very funny , a 300kton yield B61 built with junked parts , cannibalized from defective units with vaccum tubes till 2020 - The 340KT is the 7 variant, the "strategic" model, it was updated as part of a six year refurbishment that was completed by NSAA at the end of 2008. They used tubes up until then. There are about 180 B-61s, including Variant 3 and 4s all over Europe. This is the "tactical" version and they are actively deployed and they all have tubes. Those will be replaced starting in 2020s when the Life Extended bombs are completed. This is what the General told the WSJ about tubes in nukes in '09: "We've done a pretty good job of maintaining our delivery platforms," the general says, by which he means submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles and intercontinental bombers. But nuclear warheads are a different story. They are Cold War legacies, he says, "designed for about a 15- to 20-year life." That worked fine back when "we had a very robust infrastructure . . . that replenished those families of weapons at regular intervals." Now, however, "they're all older than 20 years . . . . The analogy would be trying to extend the life of your '57 Chevrolet into the 21st century." Gen. Chilton pulls out a prop to illustrate his point: a glass bulb about two inches high. "This is a component of a V-61" nuclear warhead, he says. It was in "one of our gravity weapons" -- a weapon from the 1950s and '60s that is still in the U.S. arsenal. He pauses to look around the Journal's conference table. "I remember what these things were for. I bet you don't. It's a vacuum tube. My father used to take these out of the television set in the 1950s and '60s down to the local supermarket to test them and replace them." And here comes the punch line: "This is the technology that we have . . . today." The technology in the weapons the U.S. relies on for its nuclear deterrent dates back to before many of the people in the room were born. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122731227702749413 It costs a lot of money to upgrade, extend the life of nukes, and a lot of time. I think the only reason 3 and 4s were not upgraded is they thought they were going to be replaced, but the funding got cut for that in '09. Then the rest get upgraded, from chips that are currently used in microwave ovens to whatever we have advanced to that has proven reliability.

This is What I remember. Two trays, one for those to be tested, one for those you tested.

I was thinking the same thing, be cool to have. I have never seen on since. You dialed up the tube number, it told you the socket number, as I recall, it was a very simple meter. Red yellow and green. Lockable cabinet below to store the tubes in. A jobber came by once a month or so to restock the tubes.

The cameras are cool, but you probably cannot get film for them anymore. Have to find a surplus source for 35mm film. But they still seem to have photo services at the drug store, but no tube checkers. There was a tube checker in every drug store when I was growing up, wonder where they all went?

I thought my memory was failing me, here is the government report on refurbishment of the B-61 nuclear bomb. They are looking to have their first refurbished bomb unit completed in 2020. This is the current report on their website today. http://nnsa.energy.gov/ourmission/managingthestockpile/lifeextensionprograms Another article from the Washington Post talking about how they take vacuum tubes from a retired B 61 and use it in another one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-b61-bomb-a-case-study-in-needs-and-costs/2012/09/16/494aff00-f831-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html The quote from the 2012 article: "They cannibalize spare B61s for parts, such as the vacuum tubes needed to keep the radars working on active bombs. If they don’t have spares, they track down outdated machines to manufacture the components themselves, as they did when they bought a machine to produce integrated circuits." We will have vacuum tubes is the B-61 until at least 2020.

It is the B-61, NATO has 200 of them, accordingly to the USAF General who testified in Congress in'09, and he told Congress they had vacuum tubes in them. I distinctly remember that he brought tubes to the hearing to show the committee what some of our nukes had in them. Watching C-span I pick up all of this crazy stuff. Now I admit you cannot trust a general testifying before Congress when he says the nuke program he is in charge of is outdated, but I thought he would be somewhat accurrate when he testified that some of our gravity bombs had a vacuum tube in them. I am pretty sure he was asked if they were in current inventory and he responded that they were a small fraction of the total and they were in Europe as part of NATO. But it was six years ago so I am probably wrong on that.

Dupe

That has got to be the worst. Saw Lafayette go from boom down to bust in the 80s, and slowly back up again. It is very sad on many levels, but I would hate the one to have to bear the news.

+1 Grew up on the A's. Was there for Game 3 in '89. But I also went to a lot of games at the Stick. Saw 4 future Hall if Fame players play there (24, 27, 36 and 44) but they were real heart breakers, always a bridesmaid, never the bride.

how about the insurance coverage of your car - are you insured and will your insurance pick up any of the costs - I am insured but it wont cover my car and not all the medical bill and me missing work Ok I sent you a pm with my email so we can talk more if you want and answer any questions. TRAVIS

good man. they are in Missouri by the way. Thanks Scrappy, I was finally able to piece a little bit of it togethet.

If you pm me your number I would be happy to talk you through everything.

The radar fuse in the B-61 bomb uses a vacum tube. The airforce requested funding back in 2009 to update and replace those bombs. That funding was denied. B-61 bombs, and yes, that is an old design that has been around forever, but they are still in use, they still count in our total for START, and they still have a vacuum tube in them. Nothing gets updated or changed on a nuke without funding and approval. The military doesn't just update nukes when they feel like it. They are all subject to treaty, inspection, and if changed, verification by the other guys. Technically, they also all use a Krytron, a vacuum tube switch used to trigger the reaction, bit I wasn't counting that.

Other coverages, if any, are more important now, ones that pay regardless of fault, like med pay, PIP, etc.

The report has the girlfriend at fault (I believe she is in the white Rodeo) for failure to yield, but of course the report is not controlling. The report lists both vehicles as being insured, of course this can be incorrect and based on an outdated proof of insurance card at the scene. Edit: Yes I had the cars reversed. Was sort of frantic last night trying to piece everything together. I don't think any further discussion about the facts serves any further purpose, I have messaged you both so that if either of you has any questions I can answer them privately.

The other thing is that UM/UIM follows the person, so if the GF has a car her policy needs to be looked at besides the one covering the one they were in.

Just horrible. What state are they in, does anybody know? I am happy to help him out on any way I can. It would most likely be uninsured motorist coverage of other side doesn't have insurance. But UM is fault based, you have to prove other side is at fault, and the percentage varies by state in order to recover. Some it is 50, others 51, others it can be any amount. The main thing he needs is a good lawyer in that area and I can certainly help him with that.

I am reminded of the propaganda in California regarding diamond or HOV lanes. It was sold as a device to save fuel and reduce traffic jams. So many billions were spent on adding these lanes in the highest traffic areas. All that to watch one car per minute drive by in these lanes, while thousands of cars sit idling. American's don't carpool - period - end of discussion. Do you think after 35 years the planners would understand? Nope. Still wasting billions on this in California. If you used that lane for general throughput, traffic would be greatly reduced. Watching a few Mom's with 2 kids in the car whiz by on the way to school? Not so useful. I certainly agree with that, you cannot get people to car pool. Well, to work anyway. Soccer moms invented car pooling, and they sure seem to know how to get the maximum advantage out of that. I went through all of that HOV creation in California, when people were buying lifesize dolls to put in front seat, etc. I still wouldn't change a thing on HOV except to have done it sooner so they would have voted to take BART down to Santa Clara County and connected back up at Fremont.

In terms of federal funds we are spending a vast majority of funds on maintenance and repair of existing roads than building new roads, lanes or increasing capacity. Here are rough costs on what roads cost: The following are some examples: Construct a new 2-lane undivided road – about $2-$3 million per mile in rural areas, about $3-5 million in urban areas. Construct a new 4-lane highway — $4-$6 million per mile in rural and suburban areas, $8-$10 million per mile in urban areas. Construct a new 6-lane Interstate highway – about $7 million per mile in rural areas, $11 million or more per mile in urban areas. Mill and resurface a 4-lane road – about $1.25 million per mile. Expand an Interstate Highway from 4 lanes to 6 lanes – about $4 million per mile.

Who, I think the inefficiency I see on a daily basis is that people won't yield, so as they try to move over a lane, they have to slow down because no one will let them in, and it has the effect of slowing down that entire lane for some distance behind. The same is true when entering a freeway during rush hour. There will be a long line of cars entering a highway, they will not space themselves out to makenit easier to merge. So they put up lights to control flow of on ramp that forces drivers to space themselves and I know that helps a great deal. I do agree with your assessment that if the offramps are backed up that starts to back up the exit lane, and then the adjacent lane, because people won't anticipate and move over earlier or don't want to wait, and you have slow moving traffic. However, you put in an HOV and/or AV lane that bypasses DT, you will move that traffic. In the Bay Area there are freeways with six lanes each direction, plus exit only lanes. Two of those lanes are HOV. One for 2 or more, and one for 3 or more. Those lanes fly, the others sit. I think it is going to be a very long time before we have enough AVs to where traffic engineers can start to integrate it all into significant times savings. I think it will be AV lane to make an incentive to get them and at some point there will be enough vehicles that there could begin to be a savings on infrastructure. The true savings will be when they can save by not having to expand or widening a current highway. When it get to the point that an engineer tells a city, county, or state that you can increase flow, at a fraction of the cost of building a new lane, by doing so and so with AV vehicles, designate a lane, or mandating them on that highway, or whatever it is, that is the point where there a fundamental shift to AV usage by Govt and consumers. There is zero savings in infrastructure before then. It will be interesting to see if it moves quicker locally or federally. The test beds seem to be local, like Conta Costa County. However, some states are afraid of technology or are beholden and have done things like trying to outlaw Teslas (Michigan, New Jersey, etc.). My opinion is that there can be a traffic flow improvement with AVs but you have to have a significant number of people using them to get to that point, and to achieve that you need to get the price way down and/or provide incentitives.

Sorry to hear about your situation. I can't add to the advice to remain positive, other than there is no shame in seeing a counselor. Most universities have a student counseling center on campus,for free. There is a reason for that. Where are you attending in St. Louis? Where would you attend in Iowa?

Federal Legislation on autonomus vehicles: SEC. 6052. ESTABLISHMENT AND SCOPE OF PROGRAM. (a) Establishment.-Subject to the provisions of this part, the Secretary shall conduct a program to research, develop, and operationally test intelligent vehicle-highway systems and promote implementation of such systems as a component of the Nation's surface transportation systems. ( Goals.-The goals of the program to be carried out under this part shall include, but not be limited to- (1) the widespread implementation of intelligent vehicle-highway systems to enhance the capacity, efficiency, and safety of the Federal-aid highway system and to serve as an alternative to additional physical capacity of the Federal-aid highway system; (2) the enhancement, through more efficient use of the Federal-aid highway system, of the efforts of the several States to attain air quality goals established pursuant to the Clean Air Act; (3) the enhancement of safe and efficient operation of the Nation's highway systems with a particular emphasis on aspects of systems that will increase safety and identification of aspects of the system that may degrade safety; (4) the development and promotion of intelligent vehicle-highway systems and an intelligent vehicle-highway systems industry in the United States, using authority provided under section 307 of title 23, United States Code; (5) the reduction of societal, economic, and environmental costs associated with traffic congestion; (6) the enhancement of United States industrial and economic competitiveness and productivity by improving the free flow of people and commerce and by establishing a significant United States presence in an emerging field of technology; (7) the development of a technology base for intelligent vehicle-highway systems and the establishment of the capability to perform demonstration experiments, using existing national laboratory capabilities where appropriate; and (8) the facilitation of the transfer of transportation technology from national laboratories to the private sector.