Possible links between Jesus, Chromosomes, hormones, and Hematidrosis.

It’s funny how the Catholics portray Jesus as a handsome man, beard, long hair.
Some go even further, and try to hire very nice looking actors, to play the role of Jesus in movies or plays.

But the Isa 53:2 says: “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.”

Luke 4:30 gives a hint, that Jesus looked just like your average everyday Jew, because people didn’t recognize him in the crowds.

1755293-main_image

 

Seems like Jesus also suffered from a disease called Hematidrosis.
As he was in the garden, it was said he sweated blood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematidrosis

I don’t know if this is related, but was reminded of the genetic and hormonal factors that determine if a person is male or female.
Genetically it’s clear if a person is male or female, but hormones can alter a person’s appearance.
Hematidrosis often occurs in the monthly cycle of females.
It is extremely rare to find in males. Most males that suffer from the disease suffer from extreme and prolonged exposure to stress.

The fact that Jesus was male, and suffered from this, definitely had to do with his predicted death on the cross, and He knew it.
But it could also point out that Jesus, born of a woman, though having male chromosomes, may have had odd chromosomes, or hormonal imbalances.

There’ve been studies done on chromosomes that there are more than the common XX and XY chromosomes.

In other words, it appears that the common XX and XY chromosomes aren’t the only ones responsible for a baby’s sex.

How this all relates to Jesus? A lot. Jesus wasn’t born of a man, so he should not have had a XY chromosome. If he was born of a mother, he would have had XX chromosome, which would make him female, since the mother can conceive without a male, but only females, not males.
It’s very interesting to read into these details the further science catches up with how our physical bodies work, and how much of a miracle Jesus was when he was born!

Some articles with more scientific data concerning chromosomes and hormones determening the sex of a child:
http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/ugenital/molec01.html
http://news.health.com/2015/04/01/do-these-5-things-really-influence-a-babys-gender/

 

Sprocket installations of small bikes

Aside from changing your sprockets on a whim, just to change them,
or changing them by feel, to make your bike feel more or less tame when accelerating,
You can also change sprockets with a specific purpose in mind.
Pursuing that purpose with math, rather than by experience, can trade you precious Dollars to just a bit of your time researching, and going over the numbers.
Math can tell you a lot about what you need to know about riding with different sprockets, without having to cash up the cost of all these sprockets and installation time.
[SIZE=”4″][U]In the first example, we’re going to change the sprockets, with the purpose to tune the bike for top speed:[/U][/SIZE]

The procedure is very simple; and mainly meant for a 125 to 350cc motorcycle; since bigger bikes usually have different speeds to ride them at.

All you need is the bike, access to buying the correct sprockets (eg:online), the right HP/Torque graph, and access to GearingCommander.com .

It works for bikes with chain drive.
Belt, or shaft driven motorcycles don’t work like this.

First you’ll have to download a HP/Torque graph from the internet of your bike.
This is an example of a Honda Rebel 250’s HP and torque and HP curve:

[IMG]http://image.motorcyclistonline.com/f/10493908+w750+st0/122_0810_33_z+2008_honda_rebel_250+graph.jpg[/IMG]

What you see in the curve is pretty common for most sub 500cc engines.
They have a HP band, an area in which the bike performs at it’s peak performance.
In this case, the Honda Rebel has it’s powerband from 6600 to 8750 RPM.
As you can see from the graph, running the engine in RPMs lower or higher than this band, we will lower the HP output at those RPMs.

Since we’re focusing on top speed, we would like to gain this top speed, within the powerband of the bike, rather than at the redline of the bike, where it makes less power.
So, next we do, is ride the stock bike on the interstate, as fast as we can.
Sometimes it takes a good, full 2 minutes before top speed can be gotten, as the engine and engine oil needs to warm up.
A totally cold engine vs a totally hot engine could differ 20MPH in top speed easily!

Once you’re riding at top speed, you record the speed, and if possible also the RPM you’re getting.
In this case it would be 83MPH at ~9k RPM.

We can verify RPM if we don’t have a tach, with gearing commander:
[IMG]http://s10.postimg.org/g1hkjuvpl/rebel.gif[/IMG]

Next, we go back to our HP curve, and notice that when we would gear our bike to do 83MPH at 7500RPM instead of at 9k RPM, that we can gain 1HP from the engine, and 2 LB ft of torque; power gained due to less friction losses, and less pressure losses on the oil pump.

We use gearing commander to get the right sprockets to match the top speed with the RPM we desire.
We also check our bike, to see if the sprockets would mechanically fit the bike, and order them.
Our rebel seems to host counter sprockets from 12t to 15t, with 14t being stock.
It also has 33T rear stock, and we can fluctuate from 25t all the way to about 50t I believe (when the chain guard is removed).

We fill out Gearing commander, 15/29t, and find that at 7500RPM the bike would be doing 84MPH.
[IMG]http://s11.postimg.org/r8qjqjw03/rebel2.gif[/IMG]

We know that at 7500RPM the engine has more HP, and more Torque than at 9k rpm, which means it should go faster than 84MPH.
So we try a 28t instead, and test it out on the road, and find that the bike actually goes 87MPH top speed.
That would be 4MPH top speed gained, by the correct sprockets.

We now want to calculate our MPG gains.
If with our stock riding, we got 70MPG, mainly a mix of 3/4th city and suburbs, and 1/4th highway; our new MPG should come close to:
70MPG * 15/14 * 33/28 = 88MPG
The formula is derived from:
MPGstock * New front sprocket / stock front sprocket * stock rear sprocket / new rear sprocket)

We have gained an average of 18MPG compared to stock!!

You’ll notice the more you ride at low speeds, in final gear, the higher this actual number becomes; and the faster you ride, the lower the MPG difference becomes.

When this number becomes lower than a previous gearing, we speak of lugging. A lugging engine, is an engine that is taxed beyond it’s capabilities.
Mostly either at very LOW RPMs, or at top speeds; or, in the HP band but going up a hill and the bike is losing speed; can the engine start lugging, and might it be necessary to go into a lower gearing that can carry the load consistently.
We could go back to gearing commander, and try other sprocket combinations.
Suppose that a 27t or a 29t would have slower speed than a 28t; it would mean that the 15/28t is our optimal sprocket for top speed.

[SIZE=”4″][U]We now want to combine high top speed, with great MPG.[/U][/SIZE]
We can do this, by creating an extra overdrive; and by making our second to last gear, the same ratio as our last gear.
In the example above, our Honda Rebel’s 4th gear would need to have the same speed per RPM as our modified 5th gear.

To start working on this, we go to Gearingcommander again.
We try to get the same speed results in 4th gear at 7500RPM as we had before.
It turns out that we’d need a 15/24t or a 16/25t to do so.
This is mechanically impossible to fit on the Rebel.
But should it have been possible, then we’d be able to run top speed in 4th gear, while maintaining great MPGs in 5th gear from 35MPH (2500RPM) to 60MPH (4400RPM).
In our above example, we could not fit the sprocket on the Honda Rebel.
So we can not gear it for top speed in 4th and great MPG in 5th.
Aside from just equipping it with a 15/25t, which is the maximum gearing the Rebel allows,
[SIZE=”4″][U]we can use a 3rd method to calculate, or aim for a good low speed sprocket.[/U][/SIZE]

When we’re riding mostly in suburban roads, where the speed limit is 30-40MPH, our speed would be between 35-45MPH (since almost no one on a bike actually keeps the speed limit).
We will want to make sure that the engine will not be in a too low RPM range.
We ride with our current sprockets, in final gear, and slow down and accelerate, oscillating acceleration and deceleration at a constantly lower and lower RPM.
At a certain point in the RPM range, we find that the engine is no longer pulling the load very smoothly; say, 2500 RPM.
We now know we can’t go below 2.5k RPM in stock gearing; so the engine won’t start making odd noises.
We add 500RPM as a safety barrier, and change our gearing to suit our most optimal low RPM (3000RPM) at our most ridden speed (40MPH).

We use gearing commander again and notice that a 15/25t is getting pretty close to the gearing we desire!
It gives us 39 MPH at 3000 RPM.

[IMG]http://s21.postimg.org/ghesvjg9z/rebel3.gif[/IMG]

We order the 25t sprocket, install it, and test ride it;
In this case, starts from a dead stop are a bit harder, but not impossible.
At 1400RPM, in 1st gear with the 15/25t sprocket setup, the speed is 5.9MPH.
At 1400RPM, in 2nd gear stock (14/33t), the speed is 6.6 MPH.
This means that our first gear is shorter than a stock 2nd gear, and if we can start the bike in second gear stock, we can much easier start it in 1st gear modified.

There’s really a lot, lot, and lot more that comes to play in selecting the right sprocket. HP and Torque needs to be looked at, as well as wind resistance, to see if the bike has enough acceleration for regular traffic.
etc..

Finding fuel efficient beginner motorcycles

For future bike owners that are looking at fuel sippers,
On number 1 is Honda CBR250, with fuel injection gets between 80-100mpg.
If you’re not into sport bikes, know that less efficient body frames eat mpg.
I would say bike number 2 would be a Honda Rebel 250.
It gets between 66 and 80mpg (us, not imp) stock , and it can be raised to 100mpg with a sprocket swap.
Stock a Rebel has a 14/33t sprocket setup, hopelessly undergeared, and only good for either a mountain climber, or a hooligan wanting to look old school?
Pay $75 to buy a 15t sprocket front, and anywhere between a 30 to a 26t rear.
I tried all combinations, and found:
15/30t on a rebel is pretty neutral, boring gearing
15/28t for fastest acceleration (allows you to shift from the top of the powerband to the bottom of it in next gear, basically allowing you to constantly accelerate at the powerband), and highest top speed sitting upright of 80mph
15/27t highest top speed tucked of 87mph
15/26t highest top speed if you’re small, and light, and have feet on the passenger pegs and tucked forward, 90mph.

With a Honda Rebel, you have 65mph guaranteed (headwind of below 20-30mph), and 75mph wind still stock.

If you want a tad more power, a VStar 250 will do +3mph, but consumes more fuel. About 10mpg more on average.

If you want better fuel mileage, and less top speed, a Suzuki TU250X does 70mph windstill, and upto 80mph top speed with a sprocket mod.
It also sips 80mpg stock, and 100+mpg with the sprocket mod.
I personally would never take a Suzuki TU250X on the interstates, but it’s great for town, suburban, and highway.

If you’re mainly looking for a city commuter, a Sym Wolf 150, together with a Kawasaki Eliminator 125 are your best options. They get well above 80mpg stock, and can get 110 to 120mpg with sprocket modification.

A motorcycle’s mpg will drop to 90mpg tops at 60mph, 80mpg at 65mph, and can drop to 60mpg at 80-85mph. A 3/4 sized bike gets the best mpg.
Bikes in this class are:
Honda cbr250r/300r, CB300f, CBR300R, Kawasaki Ninja 250/300, Suzuki Boulevard S40, TU250X, Yamaha MT03, Vstar 250, KTM Duke 390, Rc390, and more….

Larger than 3/4 sized bikes, is linked to added wind resistance, thus lower mpg.
Sport bike fairing may reduce wind drag, and increase mpg by a few over cruiser/standard style bikes.

The most aerodynamic bikes are the 3/4 sports bikes.
Then the naked bikes
Then the standard bikes
The cruiser bikes, touring bikes, and dual sport bikes are the least aerodynamic.

On average,
Honda focuses on best mpg, and has smallest cc in category. They’re usually also the most reliable and most efficient engines around.
Yamaha usually beats the competition by upping the ante in the cc department.
Their bikes are good and reliable, almost honda quality, and in some ways even better.
Kawasaki is usually right in between Honda and Yamaha. It builds it’s engines around numbers. 300cc for kawasaki means 299cc. Not 286 like Honda, nor 324 like Yamaha.
Suzuki usually has the worst performing engines of them all.
They’re like the “Nissans” in cars of the motorcycles.

On the other hand, Honda makes the worst transmissions. They’re usually clunky and shift out of gear. Yamaha and Suzuki produce very smooth shifting transmissions.

Qua bike design, Honda bikes are lightest in weight with no frills.
Yamaha would be second in lightweight, and come with frills.
Kawasaki is a nice compromise.
Suzuki bottoms out usually with top heavy designs, as well as being no frill. Add that to a less good engine design, and which makes them hopelessly overpriced for what you get…

KTM doesn’t have a lot of beginner bikes, but the RC390/Duke 390 is right in the sweet spot power wise, and the weight is great too.
Body design is sublimal. KTM just has an older, ugly looking dash, a vibrating engine that together with the hard seat make the bike unsuited for the longer rides.
The stock brakes are also pretty bad, so not meant for track racing either…

A 250 is most at home at speeds of between 35 and 75mph, aka city and highway, or, the slower lanes on the interstates.

If you need to do frequent rides of 75mph plus, you’ll need to get larger ccs, starting from the “holy grail of motorcycles”, a 350cc.
A Honda CB300F with a 50cc bump would be it. Many people are asking for it.
Yamaha R3, and MT-03, and Kawasaki Ninja 300/Z300 may do 100mph, but only at peak engine rpm.
Personally, I’m not so much for hese type of engines (short stroke engines), and much more for a CB300F (which unfortunately has a tad too little power for interstates).

As far as the Suzuki Boulevard S40, and Yamaha SR400, both their top speed is low (85mph), and vibrate like crazy, they both are air cooled, which means lower compression, resulting in lower performance and worse mpg.
What’s worse, is the Boulevard S40 is a belt drive, so you can’t modify the gear ratios, and the conversion kits for sale on the S40 look mightily ugly!

The SR400 doesn’t have a starter engine, and costs way too much!

So if you’re still looking for a bike, to get high top speeds from, and good mpg,
A bike that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg,
Honda’s CB300F comes closest, with a CBR250R second, and a Honda Rebel 250 third.
I’m not a Honda guy, but Honda specializes in mpg, so it would be the no-brainer to get.
If you’ll never find yourself on the interstate, and wont surpass 60mph, Suzuki TU250X is the right one for you.

If speeds of over 100mph are necessary, then you’d have to step up to a 500cc class.

120mph, 650+cc sport bikes, or 900+cc cruisers

 

*Edit: As of 2016, Honda and Kawasaki have added a 125cc bike in their arsenal, which is a great alternative to the Wolf Sym for the city! Also definitely recommended to add +1 tooth to the front sprocket, and if possible -3t on the rear sprocket for better MPG, while still acceptable acceleration speeds in the city.

2 stroke oil in a 4 stroke motorcycle

I’ve been running 2 stroke oil for a few years in my 4 stroke bike now,

And here are my findings:

  • It reduces friction in the upper cylinder, which is the main source of engine wear and heat.
  • Reduces engine braking by a minimal amount,
    The engine runs cooler.

With the right dose, you can notice:

  • an engine hp increase, from bottom to top revs, and in most cases, higher top speed.
  • MPG goes up.
  • Engine revs smoother, with less vibrations.
  • It restores a bit of compression loss on the piston rings and valves, thus higher torque.
  • Gasoline doesn’t get bad as fast
  • An easy way to increase octane levels of fuel by 1 or 2 (eg: 87 to 89), resulting in a lower chance of pinging

Cons:

  • It makes gasoline a bit more expensive
  • Too much oil causes performance loss (as oil doesn’t combust as well as gasoline),
  • Minor plug fouling (usually below 50:1 ratios)
  • Minor carbon buildup (usually below 50:1 ratios)
  • And possibly harder cold starts when valves have buildup.

I’ve ran many different doses, and found the sweet spot for 4 strokes to be between 100:1 (smooth, easy riding), to 160:1 (performance increase still noticeable but less).

At 50:1, the fuel/oil mix is meant to lubricate both the top, as the back of a 2 stroke engine’s piston; since 2stroke engines don’t have an engine oil reservoir.

At 50:1, there is sufficient oil to form a buildup, and pass by the piston rings, lubricating the crankshaft and other mechanics inside the motor, as well as the valves, without really fouling the plugs.
For this reason, most 2stroke motors today, recommend to start with a mix of 32:1 for the first tank (white or blu-ish exhaust smoke visible), and switch to 50:1 for consequent tanks.

On a 4 stroke, only valves and the top of the piston need lubricating, not the engine’s internals.
Because of that, less oil is needed, and a lower dose can be chosen.
I’ve done tests ranging from 75:1 to 300:1, and found that:

  • 75:1 had a performance loss and low plug fouling
  • 100:1 gives nice lubrication, and recommendable for older engines with lots of miles.
  • 125:1 Sweet spot on performance and lubrication
  • 160:1 still good performance and low lubrication
  • 200:1 it is hard to distinguish between an engine without or with the mixture by ‘feel’.
  • 300:1 No noticeable improvement, engine acts like regular fuel.

Mobil is known for adding a small amount of oil into their fuels, while BP is known to add a proprietary chemical in their premium blends, that increases performance, many believed to be nitrogen based. Shell also uses a similar ‘performance enhancement’ blend, but in a less aggressive measure.

At 128:1, quite an easy number for us Americans, you’d have to pour 1oz in a 1 gal tank, or 3oz in a CBR300’s tank. This would be very close to the optimum dose, I’d say.
A small bottle of 6oz would last you 2 tanks and costs anywhere from $2.5 to $5.
A 5 quart 2stroke oil jar would cost you $25 to $30, resulting in $1 per 5-6oz, or, an additional of $0.5 per tank on oil.

  • At $2 per gallon, the overhead cost would be 1/12th, or 8%.
  • At $3 per gallon, the overhead cost would be 1/18th, or 5%.

The money really gets won back in MPG, as on average, the bike would have a 5% to 8% better fuel economy, OR, a ~5-8% better performance, depending on how you use it.
(Top speed can go up by 1 to 5%, depending from bike to bike, and fuel/oil mixture).

Most of all, piston rings and cylinder walls last longer, due to a cooler running engine, that’s more lubricated.

This video, is of an engine using a cleaning agent to, aside from cleaning, explains on upper cylinder lubrication..
Unfortunately the cleaning agent costs a good 4x more than 2 stroke oil, but 2 stroke oil doesn’t have the same engine cleaning capabilities.
[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kbo3nZm88Q4[/url]

 

EDIT: After tests, I have found that adding 2 stroke works on any engine, but is not recommended for Fuel injection bikes.
Bikes that rely on the O2 sensor to give data back to the ECU, will experience O2 sensor fouling; plus misreads due to a different chemical exhaust gas composition.

Another con is that whatever oil is inserted, robs the bike from the fuel it needs.
125:1 on oil in the gas, means 0.8% of fuel missing from the mixture, and a lean burn.
A carburetor is more flexible to this, but a fuel injection system is less. Especially when the bike already is running lean!

Re-gearing the Honda Rebel

My input on the Rebel 250 is always the same,

The bike is hopelessly undergeared!
With a stock 14/33t sprockets, it is jerky in first gear, you don’t even go half of an intersection before needing to shift into second gear, and fifth gear cruises nicely at 25-30mph. (so what about the other 50mph?)

The gears are so close together, because it’s made to shift incorrectly, here’s what I mean with that:
Because the rebel is a 360 degree ptwin, the whole engine/transmission system vibrates quite a lot; as one piston fires at exactly the opposite time as the other, having them fire evenly timed every other rotation of the crankshaft.
It vibrates, except in ‘resonant vibrations’, where the engine is canceling out its own vibrations, by rotating in a specific RPM range.
The Rebel has 3 such ranges.
1- somewhere between 2500 and 3666rpm (around 3k centered)
2- between 6k and 6666rpm,
3- between 7750 and 8500rpm range.

Also, it has odd vibrations, where the engine would vibrate and ‘add’ to the chassis vibrations.
These ranges would be:
1- around 4200 to 5200 rpm
2- 7-7.2k rpm
3-8.5+ k rpm.

Because of that, you will want to run the engine at around either 3, 6, or 8k rpm, where handlebar and chassis vibrations lessen.
These ranges on stock gears are not very nice riding ranges for Florida, where the minimum speed is generally 35mph, to 55mph.
Makingbthe stock gearing larger, from 14/33t where it cruises fine at 25-30mph, to 15/25t raises that ‘vibration free zone’ to 35-45mph, which is much closer to the speeds I usually ride at here in FL.

The rebel’s gears are tuned to run in that 8k range, where the gear spacing makes sense, not at 3-6k rpm, where double or triple shifting happens quite a lot, and city riding is bugged with more shifting than riding.
At this 8k range the bike is quite peppy, and has good engine brake-ability, but also wears out a lot faster. MPG is also a lot lower there, than in the lower rpm range.
The engine also surpassed it’s hp band (at 6.6k rpm to 7.5k rpm), and though a lower gear will give you higher torque to the rear wheel at those rpms, the lower engine hp and torque will make the rebel not accelerate faster than when trying to ride it at below 7k rpm in higher gear.

Same acceleration at 6k rpm, as in lower gear at 8k rpm, really makes no sense to even go beyond 7.5k rpm!

For those reasons, the rebel needs a sprocket change from the stock 14/33t.

I’ve ran quite a few sprocket combinations on it, and my advise is highly subjective, so you might feel different about it than I do.

Changing from 14/33 to 15/33 (or 14/30, about the same gearing), does little, but is a step in the right direction.
Running a 15/30t, I found the Rebel had quite a neutral gearing, quite perfect for normal riding on it.
The gears weren’t long, neither short. I found the bike’s response quite bland with this.
Further lowering the rear to 28t, I found the sprocket setup most suited for fast acceleration, and the gears to be quite tall. Big bike feel for under $75, without the torque nor danger!
At this setup 4th gear equals stock 5th gear, which means that in 3 gearshifts from first, you’ll be going just as fast as 4 gearshifts with the stock gearing, essentially saving you the time for one gear to shift.
I also found at this gearing you could rev it up to the end of the hp band (around 7k rpm), and when upshifting, the next gear would be in the befinning of the hp band, meaning I’d be shifting that bike in the rpm ranges where the engine makes most power, all the way from second to fifth gear!
I also found that the bike reaches highest top speed in this gear!
Instead of reaching 83mph at 9k rpm, now it does 87mph at about 8.5k rpm, much closer to its horsepower peak.
First gear also rides much smoother, and i can shift into second gear, well after I reached the other side of the intersection.
There are 3 more benefits from upgearing the bike:
1- For some reason, every upgear, made the bike vibrate less, to the point of at 15/25t it vibrates at 4k rpm, but not too bad.
2- Every upgear to 15/28t, and under conditions upto 15/25, would increase MPG on the bike. With a 15/25t it would lug below 2.5k rpm (30mph), and above 70 mph with a headwind. But on my 15/25t, I honestly never had a tank below 66mpg US. Most of the time I get between 72mpg (100% interstate riding, with about 25-50% of WOT) to 115mpg us at a continuous 30-40mph.
3- the engine runs cooler, wears less, and there’s a theory stating concerning opening the throttle a bit more under a heavier load, that the already lean running Honda bike, runs much closer at the ‘perfect’ 14.5:1 air/fuel ratio. Worse for pollution, but much better for performance.

The only gearing higher than a 15/28 I’ve tried, is a 15/25t gearing. This is about 50% higher geared than stock.
This type of gearing is harder on the clutch from a standstill, especially uphill with 2, but any novice knowing how to use a clutch properly, could start it.
It has another disadvantage, that the top speed lowers considerably in 5th gear, and 4th.
In 4th gear, the revs are still a bit too high, and it would rev at 8k rpm to do 75mph. Far above the hp band.
In 5th, it would reach 6k rpm at 80mph, but won’t have enough torque to maintain this speed unless someone is pulling the wind in front of you, or you have a backwind.
4th gear does get it up to about 85mph, wind still, no hills, but barely.
I’ve reached 90mph with some backwind on a few occasions.
Bit most benefit of the 15/25t lies in higher mpg at low speeds (80-110mpg US, which is what you usually get from a fuel injected 250, or 150cc scooter not going over 40mph).
And the lower vibrations.
15/28t feel like long gears, much like the Chevrolet Spark has, long gears, slow acceleration, a more big bike feel if you keep it around the 3k rpm range.
At 6k rpm it still outaccelerates most economy cars from a stoplight riding rather peppy!

After all said and done, I like my 15/25t much much better than stock gears, but if I ever where to do it over again, would have equipped an old rebel (before 2008) with a 15/28t, and a new one of the past year or two, with a 15/27 or 15/26t.

So how does the stock 300 do compared to the Rebel on the interstate?

Led projectors

For a LED projector, you can best look at the bulb wattage, to get an idea of lumen.

Most of the time, if the wattage is about 50Watt, ANSI Lumen are about 280-300 lumen, and peak lumen are about 1000-1500. Good enough for an 80″ display in a pitch black room, or 50-60″ indoors.

Unless you live out in the sticks where there’s no light pollution, it’s not a recommended projector for outside events, or perhaps with a smaller than 60″ screen diameter.

For projectors smaller than 50Watt, usually the 25 Watts are good for 50 lumen, and 1-8 watt projectors for upto 10 lumen (good for about the size of a pc monitor), I have very little experience with.

At 100Watt, it’ll usually have 500 ANSI Lumen, and 2000 PEAK Lumen. Bright enough for the 80-100″ bedroom screen, with some night lights on, but not a fully illuminated room. This projector might be just a tad too bright at 80″ for a pitch dark room, and is suited for 100-120″ in these conditions. It also works well with a 60-80″ screen in a normal lit room.

At 150Watt, it’ll usually have ~700 ANSI Lumen, with a peak of about 2800 to 3000 Lumen. Great for a 100″ screen outside, with minor light pollution. Too bright for a bedroom screen of under 100″, in a pitch black bedroom.

At 200Watt you’ll reach about the upper end of the (Chinese) LED projectors fabricated today. Some manufacturers like Casio make higher powered projectors by combining them with lasers; but at 200Watt, you’ll be looking at roughly 800ANSI lumen, and 4000 peak. Great for the outdoors after sunset, for screens of upto 120″, or in the bedroom upto 200″. Screens of this size are harder to get.

Some concert projectors have 3000 ANSI Lumen, so LED projectors are still a far cry from this. But for personal home entertainment, they provide quite a nice experience, and oftentimes of this writing (12/2015) $400+ projectors can easily replace HD tvs, in both energy efficiency, and overall experience, if you can live with the lower resolutions (of ~720p).

FULL HD (1080p resolution) projectors, at the time of this writing, are still too expensive to cover the cost.

Most 3D Ready projectors are not 3D capable out of the box, and only work with personal computers.
If you want to have a 3D experience on a projector, with 3D glasses, straight from blu-ray, there used to be $600 devices from Optoma and some other brand, but for some reason they stopped manufacturing them. I guess either the standard hasn’t been set yet as to which glasses and system to use to transfer the 3d content.

There is a $400 alternative, but works only with optoma DLP projecors. All others will have to go with a $2k Sony or JVC converter; which is way too expensive.

At the time of this writing, the first Chinese converter boxes are being manufactured, to work with active shutter glasses, either through RF, bluetooth, or IR, at an affordable price of $80.

At the time of this writing, it is not yet recommended to invest in a 3D home entertainment system, for at least another year or two, until finally a standard will be fully adopted by most manufacturers. The standard issue might make you buy technology today that will be outdated tomorrow (like how Blu-ray was chosen over HD DVD; and people with a HD DVD player (as well as a laserdisc) spent hundreds of dollars into a device that really got nowhere, and where there’s not a lot of content available for, and that which is, is oftentimes hard to get.

3D glasses come in several forms.
The easiest ones are the ones in the movies, passive glasses. These need a special screen, or projector with a special lens (polarized).
At the time of this writing, it is more common to see active glasses with projectors.

Of these active 3d glasses, there are those working on infra red signal emitted from the converter box, a bluetooth signal (these glasses need recharging), and an RF signal, which imho, is just radio (or microwave) waves going through your body that you want to avoid.

Let’s see what standards the future will determine will remain!

At this current moment, there are nice sub-$100 projectors available for kidsrooms, sub $400 projectors for the bedroom, or outside activity.
Casio $1k-$2k projectors are also great for outside movies, but are for those who have more $$$ to spend.

Most of these projectors can not convert the full 5.1 surround sound, but convert it to 2.0 stereo sound, which you can play back from a Tripath amp (search amazon or ebay for them), and a set of desktop speakers.
For outdoors, you can easily buy 2x 8″ 100W stage monitors, from Samson, Hartke, or Behringer. They all sound great for the money!
If you are aiming for a party of more than 10 people (eg: 50 people movie night outside), a lot of brands sell 12 to 15″, 300W stage monitors as well, or, you can use 4x 8″ 100W stage monitors,
2 speakers on the front for L and R channel, and 2 on the rear, for the coupling effect (louder sound in the seating area).

Better immersion in 4k vs 1080p vs 720p

Though now entering the world of 1080p and ‘4k’, I have to say that 1080p definitely made a difference in the living room!
4k as pictures makes a difference in the living room, and I think I have 18 or 19/20 vision!
Though I can’t see individual pixels from a distance of 3ft or beyond, on a 60+” screen, i do notice the increased (true) sharpness, not an emulated one.

A famous tv presenter from back in the 50’s once said that 80% of a tv program sticks with you from hearing, 20 from seeing.
That was in the day of sub 20″ crt tvs, often black and white, with ~ 240p screens.

That also was in the days, when tv shows where educational, not only for entertainment.

Today there’s more emphasis on the presentation of a program, than on the content. More on the special effects, than on the story line of a movie.
A time where one tries to immerse the person by mega pixels, rather than ingenuity and imagination, because it doesn’t require as much effort, and costs less.

When I look back at some of the movies of old, like the story of Ghandi, the older James Bond movies, or the Sound of Music, I can get immersed in the story even on a 20″ old crt screen.
If you are asking about more immersion, and complain that pixels aren’t going to do, I would say “neither does color improvement”.
Nothing immerses more than better content!
Movie makers should focus on that!

Correct calibration of an LCD monitor

Quite often we hear people say that they can’t read for long behind a computer monitor, because they get headaches, or annoyed eyes from reading on these devices.

I once got a read out of a $200 science book I was given, where they explained the science behind correct monitor calibration, and I’ve thanked the writer of that book ever since!

To make a long story short, there are 2 main different ways to calibrate your monitor’s brightness,

The first one is for watching movies or films;
During a movie or film, most part of the screen is colored or dark, unlike reading a text.
You will want to set your monitor so, that you can differentiate the darkest colors on a completely black background in a movie, so upping the brightness might be necessary.

However, whatever is comfortable for movie watching, isn’t comfortable for regular reading (black text on a white background, like websites, text or word documents, PDF’s, emails, and company programs).

The correct way to calibrate your monitor, is to completely tone down the brightness and contrast, so the screen will look very dark to your surrounding. Then focus your eyes on an object beside, or behind the monitor (look at the scenery, or wall behind the monitor), and from peripheral vision, try to dial in the monitor’s brightness until it becomes just as bright as the background.
Not darker, nor lighter.

Once you’ve set the monitor to be about even in brightness as the background (on many monitors that would mean brightness at 0%, contrast between 0 and 50%), then dial up the brightness by a notch (click) or two; just to bring it a bit more to the foreground.

(Quite often you’ll need to play with contrast, as on lower quality monitors, changing contrast from stock, could cause discoloration or lousy reflection of colors).

If the monitor is equal in brightness from the background, or lower, background images will draw attention to your brain, and you’ll be more distracted.
If the monitor is set too dark, you’ll probably feel annoyance in the eyes, or can’t read the text very clearly.

If the monitor is set too bright, your eyes and mind will tire faster.

If the monitor is calibrated just right, you should be able to read with much more comfort, suffer much less of headaches, and are saving your eyes from harm.

I have 18/20 to 19/20 vision, and been behind a monitor since an early age (now for almost 30 years).

Traveling to other planets?

Quite often I’m surprised at bold statements of people “with a vision” that claim in 50 years we will be living on other planets.

First, I would like my personal and religious convictions to shine through, in that the bible said that “Earth was made for men to rule over”.
Genesis 1:26-29 says the following:
26Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,a and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
It doesn’t say anywhere we will be ruling over any other planet. It does say that we (as men) are given authority to rule over the animals, plants and trees on this earth. We are also commanded to “fill and subdue” this earth, meaning to live all over on it, and control it, to make it function well; to create order, and good functionality on it.

So, Biblically, there is no reference on living on other planets.

From a science point of view, living long term on other planets will also not work out.
From the harsh environments, not allowing mankind to go outside, lacking sunshine (vitamin D deficiency),
Overwhelming radiation, that can cause long term DNA issues (cancers, miscarriages),
To the fact that every planet we could possibly live on, does not have all the nutrients we as humans need to survive!

A lot of science is spent in researching how spacecrafts can overcome gravity,
How more stuff can be shipped out of orbit, for a lower cost, and less and less fuel is used.
Research is done on making life on another planet bearable. Living in steel tubes on the surface of Mars, for 6 months, is one of them.

Mars still gets regular impacts of smaller comets, smaller astroids, and space debris (rocks, …). if one of them would fall on a science center, it could cause catastrophic results.
But research is done to lower chances of this happening.

From a technological point of view, everything ‘seems’ to be in order…
But I think they’re forgetting how many diseases we already have on earth, most of them resulting from malnutrition.

It could be as simple as having a diet lacking copper, zinc, iron, or chromium. A lot of trace minerals are needed for the body to survive, that are ONLY found on earth!

So even if we would find a planet, that would be in a reachable distance from our planet, that would preferably have some kind of atmosphere where we could survive for a while, and possibly even have water,
Where we are shielded from cosmic debris, and radiation, and are probably living underneath the surface, due to the extreme temperatures;
my estimation is, that we would never be able to live in other planets for a very long time.
Like the moon, it was nice to go there; but we never went back.
Not only because financially, but because… yes.. there’s nothing to do there!

A hostile place, without any resources we can use to multiply, and live a prosperous life like on earth.

As a child I had hoped we would find a second earth soon, in my lifetime!
It would be an adventure of a lifetime!
Elon Musk, a guy with a lot of money, may want to give this a shot, but my predicament is, no matter how much money he will throw into this project, it’s not going to work.
And though it might be possible to survive on some planet for a while; survival is far from living.

His analogy of “backing up your data on another harddrive”, referring to backing up humans on another planet, in case something would happen to earth; is more like backing up SSD or harddrive data on an old 3.5″ floppy drive, which has data corruption over the course of a few months to years!
The data on the harddrive is more safe than on the floppy.

And humans aren’t ‘copied’, or ‘backed up’ to another planet. They are moved. That means every string of DNA going to another planet, is removed from this planet, with possibility of it going corrupt, or lost.