Firearms and Ammunition

Electronic flaws

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recently in the news you’ve probably been hearing a lot about "smart" firearms. The concept is simple: a firearm with an electronic "lock" that must be disengaged in an appropriate manner before the firearm can discharge. The flaws with the concept are immense and myths abound about it. So let’s get into this.

First, proper care of any firearm requires disassembly so you can clean it. Sometimes the takedown is simple to clean out the barrel and firing chamber, perhaps scrub out the slide. Every once in a while the takedown needs to be a bit more involved to clean out gunk that gets into all kinds of nooks and crannies and piles up over time. If you own a Beretta 92, you probably know that periodically you need to remove the extractor and clean under it – and you’ve probably seen what can build up under there over time.

It’s one of the reasons Glocks are so popular, as they are quite easy to properly maintain.

This means that because disassembly is a mandatory part of maintenance, there would need to be disassembly instructions available, meaning instructions to potentially get to the electronic lock on the firearm and either bypass it or completely remove it.

Now it’s a common assertion for anti-gun proponents that the NRA is "blocking" smart guns from coming to market – which is not true, they are only seeking to block mandates surrounding them, such as the one in New Jersey. They say these guns are needed because they can "only" be fired by the person who owns it. This is not true.

For one, any firearm that would rely on a radio signal to function can be jammed. This means that if these firearms started becoming standard issue for military and police, signal jammers, despite their illegality, would start becoming widely popular among gangs, organized crime syndicates, terrorists, and the like. Guaranteed.

Second, the eletronic discharge authorization mechanism – the electronic "lock", so to speak – can be bypassed or removed altogether, meaning the safety mechanism that gun control proponents are most demanding (short of an outright ban on civilian firearm ownership) is easily bypassed or disabled. All it’d take is a multimeter to various contact points on the circuit board to find out which chip to bypass, in which case it’s a simple solder job to render the "lock" inoperable. Meaning the stolen firearm that wouldn’t work because of a biometric or RF lock is no longer inoperable and can be used like any other firearm.

But you know what cannot be easily bypassed? The safety mechanisms already built into every firearm on the market today, because they are tightly integrated into the function of the firearm.

Plus, depending on how the firearm is built, something as simple as a static discharge to the body of the firearm could render it dead. So hopefully whoever’s making these "smart" firearms are doing some ESD tests across the entire body of the firearm.

"Oh but we can pass a law that makes it illegal to bypass such mechanisms." For one, most States already have such laws, as the laws against defacing a firearm would apply to attempting to modify or disable such electronic mechanisms. But do you really think that’d stop people from doing it?

And how much effect do you think that’d have on the illegal arms trade, both in the US and abroad? Likely none, since a lot of firearms are defaced or illegally modified before being sold on the illicit markets – an example is modifying the mechanisms that prevent automatic fire in a semi-auto firearm.

Plus if a person disables the electronic lock, how can a police officer determine if the lock is functioning? They have to discharge it. So are they going to discharge it during a roadside detention for something minor? Absolutely not, because it would be an unjustifiable discharge of a firearm and expose the officer to potential criminal liability. So they’d have to seize the firearm to either examine it on sight or take it to a lab, which would require probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, meaning if challenged the officer would have to demonstrate through evidence a very sound reason to believe the firearm they seized was illegally modified.

Too many gun control proponents appear to look at "smart" firearms as their Holy Grail without looking at the fake gems and flaking gold leafing coming off the chalice to reveal the smart firearm to be anything but.

Technology

AMD vs Intel

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Ah AMD or Intel? If you’re building a computer, you’ve probably debated this idea. You’ve probably even run some numbers, done some reaserch to see what benchmarks look like, and probably only come out of it even more confused than you did going in. Which should you buy?

Well on price point, AMD will save you money. This isn’t without its tradeoffs though, as Intel beats AMD in most every benchmark that matters except one: heat. Intels knowingly run hotter than AMD chips, and this is because of a known change that Intel made to their processors with the Ivy Bridge line, but I’m not going to get into that. Just know that if you buy Intel, you’re not only paying more for your processor, you’re going to need much better cooling capacity for it.

But overall, which should you go for?

Well I’ll just give you an idea of what I do, along with my desktop’s specifications. First, I do games. I run mostly FPS games like Bioshock Infinite, but I do other games as well like Diablo III, Max Payne 3, and Unreal Tournament. Basically I have a range of games that have a range of requirements. I’m also a professional software engineer, and I write code on my desktop machine.

That said, I run AMD:

  • CPU: AMD FX-8350 (at stock speeds right now)
  • Mainboard: Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3
  • Cooling: Corsair H60
  • Graphics card: PNY GTX-770
  • Graphics card cooling: Kraken G10 and ThermalTake Water 2.0 Performer for cooling, using Corsair SP120 fan instead of stock fans
  • Memory: 8 GB
  • Hard drive: Western Digital Black 1 TB

I’ve actually been running AMD chips for over 15 years predominantly. I’ve had Intel only once that I can recall. Here’s what chips I’ve run in the past:

  • Intel 486DX-2 66MHz
  • AMD K6-2 333 MHz initially, then upgraded to 500 MHz
  • AMD Athlon 800 MHz (Slot A)
  • AMD Athlon XP (can’t recall specifically which)
  • AMD X2 4200+

So I’ve typically gone with AMD, and I’ve never had issues.

Initially I went with AMD because the Intel 486DX-2 was an AT mainboard in an AT case, so upgrading from that and keeping my case meant going with an AT mainboard, specifically a baby-AT mainboard. This was 1999, mind you, and the baby AT mainboard I purchased (it was an EFA P5MVP3-AT) had both AT and ATX compatibility, and you could buy ATX cases that supported baby-AT mainboard with ATX connectors. For all the IT guys who’ve been around the block, hands up if you’ve ever fried an AT power supply because you connected it wrong! Initially when I ran that mainboard, I think I actually had a Cyrix processor and then traded up to the K6-2 after a short while.

It wouldn’t be until after I’d received my Associate’s degree and was pursuing my Bachelor’s degree that I’d upgrade to an ATX case while sticking with the baby-AT board. But having the ATX case allowed me better upgrade options, and I took on an AMD Athlon (Slot A) processor/mainboard combination my college roommate was selling off after he upgraded to something better. I ran that for a year before upgrading to the Athlon XP. And I ran that for almost 3 years before upgrading to the X2 in mid-2007. And I upgraded from the AMD X2 only this past December, when I went with an AMD FX-8350, meaning I had the X2 for about 6 1/2 years.

And I’ve never regretted sticking with AMD because I could not justify the higher price tag of the Intel chips and mainboards. Even with the laptops I’ve owned, I’ve gone with AMD. And I would argue that for most PC users, AMD is the way to go. You’ll get pretty good performance, and an Intel chip won’t provide noticeable differences in most anything a typical user could throw at it.

Now for things that are more CPU intensive, then you may want to lean toward Intel. But the only way you could justify it is if your livelihood rested on you having the Intel processor. For example, if you do professional photography, videography, cinematography or film development, or you’re a marketing consultant or contractor making advertising campaigns. Basically if you’re doing things that are very high end, where every little bit of performance makes the difference between meeting a deadline or not.

For gaming, go with AMD. The only place where Intel beats AMD with regard to gaming is benchmarks. But the performance difference is not something you’ll actually see. Any FPS that is above the refresh rate of your monitor it won’t display. And as long as the FPS is in the 40s or better, sustainably, you won’t really notice anything better than that. Your eyes can’t tell the difference between 50 FPS and 80 FPS unless you’ve got a crappy monitor. Remember that television is 29.97 frames per second for NTSC, 25 frames per second for PAL, and most film is at 23.97 or 24 frames per second. Virtually all videos you watch on YouTube will be 30 frames per second at best.

So if you are a gamer, go with AMD and take the money you’d save and either go with more memory, a better mainboard, a better graphics card, or better cooling. You could even take it and go with a better case if you’ve otherwise budgeted on everything else. The money you save going with AMD can be poured into your system elsewhere where it will count, and for many games, your GPU matters more.

If you’re a developer, unless you absolutely must have Intel, go with AMD and take the money you otherwise would’ve spent and go with better storage options, whether internal or external. If you’re going to be running virtual machines or doing any kind of virtualization – such as for Android or Windows Phone development – then memory is where you should concentrate, as you’ll want the fastest and largest amount of memory you can afford, so pour your money there.

Only if you find yourself in need of triple or quad-channel memory should you go with Intel or one of the server AMD options, but that’s going to cost you one hell of a premium. You’ll need an Intel i7 3820, 39xx or 49xx processor and a mainboard with 6 or 8 DIMM slots. The i7 3820 retails for around $300, while the 3930K is about $600 depending on retailer. And the mainboards are going to run several hundred dollars as well. Unless you’re running multiple VMs simultaneously on your desktop, you’re not going to need that and an AMD FX processor with dual-channel RAM will suit you just fine – just make sure you have plenty of RAM for when you’re running VMs depending on what operating systems you’ll be running.

Now after all of this, some might call me an AMD fanboy. Except I’ve gone with AMD all this time merely because of value. AMD is the better value overall in my opinion, and it will be for most people as well. And the money saved by going with AMD can be poured into other areas that’ll get better bang for the buck: more or better memory, a better mainboard, better storage options or more storage, better cooling, and so on.

In short, unless your livelihood rests on your computer’s raw performance, save your money and go with AMD.

Religion

Atheism is a religion

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Just as many atheists say that “atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods” is one phrase that irks me to no end, another common statement that I’ve always found troubling is “atheism is a religion like off is a TV channel”. Along a similar vein, “atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color”. Aside from being childish, they’re not correct. And they also assist to undermine the legal protection of the First Amendment to which all atheists are entitled.

This is the proper comparison: atheism is a religion like not speaking is speech. Let me explain.

I’ve already explained how the freedom of speech includes the right to withhold speech. The Supreme Court of the United States has numerous times defended the freedom of speech against laws that compel people to actually say something:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

— West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943) at 642

They have also defended the freedom of religious expression against laws that compel a person to proclaim belief in a deity:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person “to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.”

— Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 US 488 (1961) at 495

The right of a person to not speak is a right considered so sacred that law enforcement is required to inform you of that right before you are interrogated, though whether you actually exercise that right by shutting up is up to you. Clearly the idea that you cannot be compelled to speak, except under certain conditions (such as an oath of office, being sworn into the military, etc…), is so sacred that to say “atheism is a religion like off is a TV channel” or something like that is just completely stupid.

Again atheism is a religion just as not speaking is a form of speech. You cannot be compelled to speak and you cannot be censored except in very, very rare circumstances. Both are protected by the First Amendment. No person can be prescribed to or proscribed from proclaiming a belief in a deity as well. And as atheism is not believing in a deity (it’s not a “lack of belief” as so many atheists assert, continually), the proper assertion is that atheism is a religion just as silence is speech.

So yes, atheism is a religion. Not in the same way as Christianity, as so many Christians like to assert. Instead, again, atheism is to religion what silence is to speech. Plain and simple.

And let’s shoot down a couple common retorts before they have a chance to rear their ugly heads. First, not teaching Christianity is not the same as teaching atheism – i.e. not telling a student that the Christian god exists is not the same as telling them no deity exists. That’s like saying not teaching a child that oranges exist is the same as telling them they don’t exist. Sorry but it doesn’t work that way.

And teaching evolution is not teaching atheism. Evolution is not the “atheist creed” either, as many Christians – especially creationists – like to assert. Atheism doesn’t have any creed – though if the Atheism+ people have their way, that’ll likely change.

National Rifle Association/Second Amendment

Replying to Cynthia Tucker, "America is Exceptionally Dumb When to Comes to Guns"

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Cynthia Tucker is a columnist with a column called "As I See It" published through uExpress. Her recent article is titled "America is Exceptionally Dumb When to [sic] Comes to Guns". This should be a rather easy response, given some of the language and rhetoric she employs quite early on. So let’s get into this.

While Americans typically laud our national "exceptionalism" — a sense that the trajectory of history has bestowed greatness upon the United States — there are a few of our distinctive characteristics that don’t deserve celebration. On the subject of firearms, for example, the United States is exceptionally irrational. No other nation has set guns aside as an object of worship.

It is true that every nation has characteristics that don’t deserve celebration, some more so than others. But in the United States, guns are not seen as "objects of worship". It is what they represent that is worshipped. Given that you are black, I’m going to make a presumption that you are Christian. Do you worship the cross, or do you worship what a cross represents? If you say the former, you are an idolater according to the Bible.

So what then do guns represent? Quite simply: individual power. And with individual power, freedom.

We have let a blood-soaked gun lobby dictate our laws and regulations on firearms;

"Blood-soaked gun lobby"? These words alone tell me that the rest of your article is going to be nothing but fallacies and lies. You are basically pitting the blame for every firearms death in history on every gun owner in the United States simply by shear fact that we own firearms. Wouldn’t surprise me if you feel that every other gun owner is to blame for Sandy Hook, including the woman whose firearms were actually used in that massacre, the same woman who was killed before the massacre actually occurred.

The one thing many seem to forget, you included, is that the gun lobby is actually every gun owner in the United States. I am part of the gun lobby through my membership to the United States Concealed Carry Association. About 5 million individuals are members of the gun lobby through their memberships to the National Rifle Association.

It isn’t the "gun lobby" dictating America’s policy on guns. It is the citizens belonging to those organizations.

we have passed "stand your ground" laws that allow violent and angry men to murder unarmed people;

And no talk on the "blood soaked gun lobby" would be complete without bringing up Trayvon Martin, now would it? For one, George Zimmerman never tried to use "stand your ground" as a defense in Court. There was no justification for it, as the evidence shows Zimmerman was not even on his feet when he fired his weapon. There was no discernable distance between him and Martin when Martin was shot.

But the laws don’t allow for the murder of unarmed people. "Stand your ground" still requires a justifiable claim of self defense, along with a demonstration through evidence that the law applies to your specific case. Stop taking your education on the law through the press and actually do some real research.

we have given the mentally unstable the ability to buy military-style assault weapons with which they wreak havoc on crowds.

No, the mentally unstable are specifically barred by law from being able to do such.

But here’s the thing, and it hits on a foundational principle in the United States: the person must be declared mentally unstable in a Court of Law to lose the right to possess firearms. You see, we have this thing called "due process". And we have a requirement in the United States that before a person can lose any rights, they must first be adjudicated by a Court.

Now if a person who has been adjudicated mentally unstable is still able to purchase a firearm, that is a concern that needs to be addressed with the NICS system, which is something that the President sought to address through executive order.

In addition, we have allowed the gun lobby to suppress research into the public health consequences of our firearms-worshipping culture. Indeed, U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga. — running in a crowded GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat — has recently reversed himself, going back on an earlier pledge to support such studies. It hardly gets any loonier than that.

The gun lobby has not suppressed such research. The research has actually been going on.

What was suppressed was government funding of that research, specifically research that is to be performed by the United States Public Health Service, which has a stated anti-gun agenda. The goal of public research regarding guns is to manufacture or misinterpret data to the point where a ban can be seen as necessary for the preservation of public health. It is one of the reasons the NRA blew up with regard to Obama’s latest nominee for Surgeon General.

Science is not supposed to have any kind of agenda, yet with guns that seems unavoidable for some reason. But regardless, science should not dictate policy that will be used to limit rights. After all, data exists that suggests that atheists have better sex lives than the religious, and sex is seen as a necessary part of a healthy relationship. So should we outlaw religion so people can have better sex, and therefore better relationships and lives overall?

In the 1990s, the National Rifle Association successfully stymied public health researchers who wanted to study the causes and consequences of gun violence.

Your description of the research is incomplete. They wanted to study the consequences of gun violence with the express intent of justifying a ban on all firearms, that dastardly Constitution and its Second Amendment notwithstanding.

The gun lobby clearly fears that science will discover that guns are dangerous and that, well, more guns are more dangerous.

It’s not the science that is feared, but the politicians who will use that science to further their agenda. Plus, as I’ve already said, the research has been going on absent the public funding, so the gun lobby hasn’t suppressed anything except a source of funding. In fact, I believe the NRA has actually funded research regarding guns and violence.

However, after the Sandy Hook atrocity in December 2012, it appeared that the dead bodies of 20 small children — and six adults — might be enough to finally restore some sanity to the national conversation.

So because the "national conversation" hasn’t been going the way you feel it should, it has not been sane? Interesting take on that. It’s also interesting that you you mention the six adult victims of that atrocity as merely a side statement instead of part of your main thought. Were their lives no less valuable than the children who were killed, or are their deaths somehow less politically convenient?

Indeed in mentioning the Tuscon shooting that put a bullet through Gabrielle Giffords’ head, I see it hardly ever mentioned that there was a 9 year-old girl who was killed that day: Christina Taylor Green, who was born September 11, 2001. Instead all of the focus is on Giffords, and not really on any of the dead from that day. Why is that? Likely because Christina was the only child killed that day – i.e. there weren’t enough dead children to give it much attention.

Sandy Hook, on the other hand, was a blood-filled gold mine for the anti-gun crowd.

But Sandy Hook didn’t restore sanity to the national conversation. It filled it with even more insanity. All you have to do is look at the legislation introduced in its wake, not just in Congress, but in the State legislatures throughout the United States and look at what States like New York, Colorado and Connecticut have passed in the name of Sandy Hook.

So Kingston has dutifully signed up to block Obama’s request for CDC funding for gun violence research, telling ProPublica recently that "the president’s request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives through the CDC will not be included" in the next appropriations bill.

Again, that is because the CDC and the United States Public Health Service have a stated anti-gun agenda and a stated anti-gun bias.

That means that some of the questions we desperately need answered won’t get the inquiry they deserve: Do background checks deter gun violence? How many mass shooters had a detectable mental illness? What is the link between suicide and gun ownership? Even Kingston’s question about a possible link between violent video games and mass shootings won’t be studied.

Actually all of these questions and more have been studied.

Do background checks deter gun violence? The correlation exists, but I don’t believe causation has been established, and likely won’t as the NICS went into operation in late 1998, five years into the declining trend in overall violence in the US.

How many mass shooters had a detectable mental illness? I believe the answer so far has been close to all of them. You don’t even need a study to answer that question. Doing some research just with Wikipedia will give you that answer. But I know the continuation of that question is "and what can we have done to prevent those people from having access to guns?" Answer: not much without a Court intervening.

What is the link between suicide and gun ownership? Quoting Harvard University:

The preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United States.  The evidence that gun availability increases the suicide rates of adults is credible, but is currently less compelling.

And it has been shown that there is no link between violent video games and mass shootings, so there is no need to address that question. Close to all of the mass shooters were not known gamers, and virtually all gamers are not people who will commit mass shootings. Ever since the rumors circulated that the Columbine killers played Doom, video games have been a scapegoat because it’s something easy to blame rather than looking at the real problem.

Interestingly, guns are quite easy to blame as well, and have been readily blamed.

Even before Columbine, the Federal government was looking into violent video games, in particular due to the infamous Mortal Kombat, along with lesser-known titles. And there has actually been nothing to suggest that violent video games increase violence, and plenty of data to the contrary.

Recall that since 1993, violent crime in the United States has been on a steady decline, despite the consumption of violent video games being on a constant increase. Even the United States Army decided to get in on that action. Mass shootings have been nothing but a drop in the bucket as far as overall violence is concerned as well. Horrible as such tragedies are, they are dwarfed by the number of other firearms victims – homicide, suicide and accidental combined – which is still further dwarfed by the number of people killed in car accidents.

Concealed carry/Crime/Law/Second Amendment

Restricting firearms

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

One thing that continually irks me is the implication or assertion by anti-gun propagandists that we don’t have much regulation or restriction on firearms in the United States. With regard to concealed carry, I made this statement in a YouTube comment:

Here in KC, there’ve been random shootings nearby where I work. In fact along streets I must drive to get to work. I’ve been a CCW for over a year and keep my firearm in my vehicle while in the building (don’t want to get fired carrying it), but over the last couple days I’ve been making sure it’s in ready reach while in my car.

And that’s just the most recent example of why I carry.

Another commenter responded with this:

Maybe if we had SOME reasonable gun restrictions, those random shootings might be reduced. Just sayin’.

Just saying… I replied with this:

There are already so, so, so many laws on the books governing the use, misuse and even potential misuse of firearms that people like you are completely oblivious. Even my pro-gun parents were surprised to learn that I purchased two pistols online — i.e. in the same way James Holmes is alleged to have — and then I detailed all the steps I needed to go through after paying for the gun just to be able to take possession of it.

Trust me, we have plenty of restrictions on guns, their acquisition, use, misuse, potential misuse, and ownership. I think we’ve long, long ago passed the point of diminished returns.

So what kind of laws and regulations are we talking about? Well using the Revised Statutes for the State of Missouri (RSMO), I thought I’d detail every law that I could potentially break just by taking my firearm out of my apartment. Now as I said earlier, I do have a Missouri CCW endorsement, issued by the Office of the Sheriff for Clay County, MO. First two statutes are universally applicable to me due to my CCW endorsement:

RSMO 571.030(1)(1): Missouri law does not allow for the concealed carry of a firearm.

RSMO 571.030(4): Applicability of RSMO 571.030(1)(1) is exempted for persons who have a "valid concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121". This section also allows for "universal" concealed carry, in that anyone with a valid concealed carry permit or endorsement issued by any State in the US or political subdivision therein is allowed to carry concealed in Missouri.

RSMO 571.121(1): Whenever I have my firearm on my person, I must also have my endorsement with me as well. Failure to produce it upon demand by a law enforcement officer is an infraction carrying up to a $35 fine.

If my firearm becomes visible in any way while I am outside my home, I become subject to RSMO 571.037, which allows that I can "briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person", so long as I take care to ensure it is only "briefly" visible. This could be due to my shirt riding up for any reason other than me intentionally revealing my firearm, as intentionally revealing my firearm could be considered intentionally displaying my firearm "in an angry or threatening manner".

I mean, think about it, if I’m out in public, chances are if I intentionally reveal my firearm, it’s going to be in an angry or threatening manner. I’m likely not going to stand out on a street corner talking to a friend or neighbor, only to pull out my gun to say "Check this out!" Typically if a gun is in someone’s hands outside of a gun range or gun shop, the intent is to display the firearm as a show of force. And I am only allowed to do this in response to a threat – i.e. for self defense.

One evening my wife and I were in line at a local Italian restaurant. Standing in the foyer were two police officers, and a third I knew had just pulled up and was behind us walking in. I had my firearm on me, but my wife did not. The officers allowed us to go ahead of them as they were waiting on the other officer who had come in behind us. After ordering our food, I needed to bend over the counter slightly to sign the check… in front three police officers. Had my shirt ridden up to reveal my firearm, I probably would’ve been momentarily detained by them and asked to show them my endorsement.

If someone else had seen the firearm, things probably would’ve been far from smooth. I cannot predict in advance how someone will respond should they see my firearm due to it becoming unintentionally exposed. And if someone becomes alarmed that I’m carrying a firearm and they create a scene, the person who creates the scene upon noticing my otherwise lawful activity could actually be arrested for disturbing the peace, RSMO 574.010. If I’m in a private establishment and that person catches the attention of the establishment’s management, then that management can ask me to leave. My refusal to leave would be a first-degree trespass, class B misdemeanor under RSMO 569.140.

I become subject to RSMO 571.037 whenever I take my firearm out of my holster while I’m outside my apartment, even if I’m on my back patio. In my case, this would likely occur when I am transferring my firearm from my holster to a lock box I keep in my vehicle, or from the lock box back to my holster. RSMO 571.030(3) allows me to store my firearm in my vehicle. If I take the firearm out of the holster and display it in what could be considered a threatening manner without justification (i.e. self defense), I could be charged with "assault in the third degree" – RSMO 565.070 – which is a class C misdemeanor at minimum, which carries a prison term of not more than 15 days [RSMO 558.011(1)(7)]. If I’m shown to have acted "recklessly", then it becomes a Class A misdemeanor, which carries a prison term of not more than one year [RSMO 558.011(1)(5)].

Even with a concealed carry permit, however, I cannot walk just anywhere with my concealed firearm. RSMO 571.107 provides for numerous places in which I cannot carry my firearm, and ties into Federal law with subsection 9, "Any place where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by federal law".

However, those statutes only apply to the building in question and not to my vehicle. So if I’m parked at a public school, I can stow my firearm in the lock box of my vehicle and be perfectly fine. If I exit my vehicle with my firearm, things become questionable, and I’m certainly breaking the law if I actually enter the school building with it, or any facility considered attached to the school, such as a stadium. The typical language of the vehicle exemption states:

Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the [prohibited location] shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises

The prohibited locations include:

  • Any state or local law enforcement office or station
  • Within 25 feet of a polling place on an election day
  • Any adult or juvenile corrections facility
  • Any building that has court rooms within it (not limited to just court houses)
  • Any building for any local, county or State government agency or legislature
  • Any place that is primarily devoted to the sale or dispensation of alcoholic beverages, without consent of the owner
  • Areas of an airport in which access requires being searched or inspected
  • Public or private elementary or secondary schools, colleges or universities without consent of that school’s governing body or a school board official
  • Child care facilities without consent of the manager
  • Gambling operations without consent of the owner or manager, pursuant to gaming commission rules
  • Gated areas of an amusement park
  • Places of religious worship without the consent of the minister or other persons exercising control over the place of worship
  • Private property where the owner has posted that weapons are not allowed, so long as the posting meets certain minimum requirements
  • Sports arenas or stadium with seating for 5000 or more persons
  • Hospitals

Carrying my firearm into one of these prohibited locations is not a criminal act, but is an offense similar to a traffic infraction, except where a stricter definition is provided in RSMO 571.030. Now if I walk into one of these locations and draw my firearm without justification, it becomes a Class C misdemeanor at minimum, as noted above. Multiple offenses risk suspension or revocation of my concealed carry endorsement, in which case I become subject to RSMO 571.030(1)(1), a class D felony, punishable by a prison term of up to 4 years [RSMO 558.011(1)(4)].

Speaking of RSMO 571.030, let’s get into this, shall we. I’ve already said that carrying a concealed firearm without a permit is a Class D felony in Missouri, but what else is prohibited, and under what classification of offense do they fall? Section 1 of that statute provides the breakdown:

  • Discharging or shooting a firearm into a dwelling, train, boat, aircraft, motor vehicle, or any building or structure in which people assemble such as a business establishment [class D felony]
  • Exhibits in an angry or threatening manner, in the presence of others, a weapon readily capable of lethal use [class D felony]
  • Possess a readily usable firearm or projectile weapon while intoxicated, or handles or uses such weapon in a negligent or unlawful manner, or discharges the weapon unless acting in self defense [class A misdemeanor if unloaded, class D felony if loaded]
  • Discharging a firearm within 100 yards of any occupied schoolhouse, courthouse, or place of worship [class B felony]
  • Discharging a firearm at a mark, at any object, or at random [class B felony]
  • Discharging a firearm on, along, or across a public highway or discharges the firearm into any outbuilding [class B felony]
  • Carrying a firearm or weapon into a place where people have assembled to worship [class B felony]
  • Carrying a firearm into an election precinct on an election day [class B felony]
  • Carrying a firearm into any building owned or occupied by any Federal, State or local government agency [class B felony]
  • Discharging a firearm at or from a motor vehicle, at another person, at any other motor vehicle, or at a building or habitable structure, unless acting in self defense [class A felony if a person is killed, class B felony if not]
  • Carrying a firearm, loaded or not, or any other weapon into a school, onto a school bus, or onto the premises of any school sanctioned event or function [class A misdemeanor if unloaded, class D felony if loaded]

I think this about covers pretty much everything…

Now there are exceptions to all of these, but those exceptions generally do not apply to civilians. Again, class D felonies carry up to 4 years in prison. The the items noted as class B felonies carry prison terms of no less than 5 years and no more than 15 years in prison. Any violation that results in injury or death is processed as a class A felony, which carries a prison term of no less than 10 years in prison to no more than 30 years in prison, or imprisonment for life. So all of these offenses carry prison terms with them.

This basically means that any use of a firearm that cannot be justified as self defense, or that does not occur at a firing range, means you go to jail, even in the gun-friendly State of Missouri. If my firearm is ever in my hand outside of my apartment, I could be in violation of criminal laws that carry jail time and potentially huge fines. To anyone who believes there already is not any reasonable regulation or restriction on firearms, let the above show you how wrong you are.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg, as Federal law provides for further offenses, though you generally need to be crossing State lines or acting in some manner that brings the Federal government’s interstate commerce regulations into play.

But I can hear the anti-gun nuts already. "Well that covers after you already have a gun." True. But acquisition of a firearm is already covered under the law. Again I’ll be going just on Missouri’s statutes here. Now before getting into this, the vast majority of firearms acquisitions occur through licensed dealers. Obtaining a firearm in Missouri is relatively easy, but still requires submitting to the minimum Federally-mandated procedures. This is why the anti-gun politicians in Washington want to cull the herd of what a person can obtain.

So what about "universal background checks"? Let’s show how they’d apply to Missouri.

First, scratching the serial number off a firearm is a class A misdemeanor in Missouri, and possessing that firearm is a class B misdemeanor, so that’s already covered. And as most firearms sold on the black market will likely have their serial numbers removed, again, the law already has that covered.

RSMO 571.063 defines a crime called "fraudulent purchase of a firearm". This has several definitions:

  1. A person (transferee) who attempts to persuade or entice someone (transferor), whether it is a private party or licensed firearms dealer, into transferring a firearm under circumstances which transferee knows to be unlawful
  2. A person who provides information known to be materially false with the intent to deceive transferor about the legality of a firearm transfer
  3. A person who willfully procures another person to do either of point 1 or 2

Fraud in general is a serious crime, and fraud involving the acquisition of a firearm is even more so.

RSMO 571.060 defines the crime of "unlawful transfer of weapons", which occurs when a person "knowingly sells, leases, loans, gifts or delivers a firearm or ammunition to any person not lawfully entitled to possess it". Under Missouri law, that is a class D felony. And possession of a firearm by a person not lawfully able to possess one is a class C felony as defined by RSMO 571.070.

Is there anything that hasn’t been covered yet? Again, there is already plenty of regulation around firearms, their acquisition, use, misuse and even potential misuse. But then that is why the focus is on draconian ideas like licensure of all firearms owners and registration of all firearms in a national database, because when calls for bans on specific firearms or firearms features fail, the attention is turned to the gun owners themselves, and how it can be made more difficult to exercise a right.

Children/Concealed carry/Crime/Second Amendment

Your child’s welfare

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Let’s present a scenario:

A mother is putting her baby on her back in a baby carrier when another woman, thinking the practice dangerous, grabs the child from the carrier and begins to lecture the mother on safety, refusing to give the child back.

“Will your passion for your loved ones kill them?” (since re-named to “Realities and Legalities of Child Snatching: Part One”) is the question presented in the article where I came across the above scenario. In the article in question the author, Melody Lauer (“Lima”) explores what is legally justifiable in this scenario. And in the three bullet points she gives, the last one is arguably the most important: the “reasonable man” doctrine. Basically how this doctrine is employed is the jurors will construct in their minds their image of who they consider to be a reasonable person, and evaluate your actions against that imaginary individual.

The comments in response to the article are rather telling. One person said:

This is my initial gut reaction. If the person refuses to give the child back but does not run away with your child you have options. You politely request the child back and inform the person that the child was in no danger. Then if they continue to refuse to give you back your child then you call the police and ask them to show up because a person is holding your child and is refusing to return them.

If the person runs away…that crosses a line into kidnapping, and I would treat it as such.

The question needs to be asked: what kind of treatment do you feel a kidnapping warrants? Another person responded (errors theirs):

in my state you have the right to use deadly force for someone else if they have the righ to use it for themself but dont have the ability. if someome was kidnapping you would you use deadly force? then why would you not for your child that cant protect it self?

Now I’m not a parent. In a way that gives me a little greater ability to look at these situations from an unbiased perspective because I’m not inclined to react with the kind of emotional bravado that seems to be telling of a lot of parents, “armchair tacticians” as Melody called them in another article.

But to me it sounds like Melody is ignoring one key aspect of the scenario she presents in describing what is an allowable response: the child. Even in parts 2 and 3 to the series she wrote, she doesn’t touch on it enough.

While the second quoted commenter above is correct, such a right still carries with it two responsibilities: you can only act to an extent that is justifiable by the circumstances, and you must not act recklessly. If you go too far, or you act in a reckless manner, you’ve eliminated any justification to defending self or others, and any injuries or deaths that can be directly attributed to your actions become your criminal responsibility.

And using physical force on someone who is holding your child but otherwise not posing any harm to them could be seen as recklessly endangering your child.

In the scenario Melody presents in her article, the other woman already has the child in her arms. Anything physical you attempt or actually use against this woman could result in injury to the child. And you could be liable for those injuries as your actions could be interpreted as acting recklessly.

Further the other woman believes she is acting with the child’s welfare and safety in mind, meaning she could likely justify her actions as defending the child from harm or injury. Even if she were to flee with the child, deadly force is still not justifiable and likely will be seen as acting recklessly. Since you’d be shooting at someone running away from you, which is almost never justifiable. And you’d be shooting at someone carrying your child.

Yes you will be freaking out because someone else has your baby. But so long as they are not actually harming your child and show no intent to harm your child, you have no recourse other than to try to de-escalate the situation and call the police if you are unable to make progress. Other civilians may be able to assist in detaining the woman to ensure she doesn’t go anywhere, but even they may not be able to employ force to do so — because of the child in her arms.

And if she does flee with the child, you still may have no recourse other than to just call the police or call other civilians in to assist in recovering the child and detaining the kidnapper. The law puts a lot of emphasis on the welfare of children, and frowns upon anything that compromises that child’s welfare.

As hard as such a reality may be to grasp, your first and foremost consideration should always be on your child, and on recovering your child with as little harm coming to them as possible. I know parents really want to intervene because we are talking about their child. But that likely is almost never the best course of action. And rationality virtually always cedes to emotion, meaning not only would intervening not be the right course of action, but you wouldn’t see it as not being the right course of action.

Let me give you a scenario from my book.

One afternoon about 15 years ago, I was working as a shift supervisor at a K-Mart. I had just gone to my lunch break when a floor associate walked into the break room to inform me there was a parent who could not find her child.

I dropped everything and went to find the parent who, thankfully, had not gone anywhere. I got a basic description from the parent and told the floor associate to stay with the parent and that they were to not. go. anywhere. I put out the alert over the PA. A few minutes later, the alert was canceled and my associate number was called to the front of the store, where the on-duty manager was waiting with the child. Only once the call cancel came in did I permit her to leave the area, and only by following me.

The parent easily could’ve started searching the store for her child, but that would not have been the right move. She did not know the store as well as the floor associates. And there are places the child could’ve gone that we would not permit her to go, such as the stock room. It was best for her and her child that she followed my direction and stayed put. I and the other associates on shift that day had the training on how to respond to such a scenario. The mother probably did not. And, compounding the situation, she was frantic.

Would she have been acting in the best interest of her child by searching the store? No.

And that, I think, is what mostly escapes the parents that Melody called “armchair tacticians”. They think that, because they are a parent, they always know what is best for their child and will always act without fail in the best interest of their child. Melody was able to point the fallacy of this out to a class she taught. After showing a video to her class of a blatant kidnapping in a Walmart, one mother responded saying she would’ve shot the guy who kidnapped the child, to which there was plenty of agreement from the audience.

Melody then challenged them:

He has your child in his arms. He has a knife to her. Are you even carrying your gun or did you decide you were just going to the grocery store so you don’t need it? If you you don’t have your gun what are you going to do? If you do have your gun and you decide to take that shot where would you shoot him? How do you make sure he doesn’t cut your child in the process? Would you stand back or would you try to make a contact shot? Do you know how to make sure your firearm doesn’t jam when attempt a contact shot? How to shoot so the bullet doesn’t exit him and hit your child?

When your child is in danger, there will be times where all you can realistically and reasonably do is just sit back and watch, where doing anything more will only put your child in more danger, as Melody notes above, and may also put you in danger in the process.

Speaking of which, hands up if you are a parent who has ever said, “I’d die for my child!”

Just think about that for a moment. Sacrificing yourself. Depriving your family of your presence. Leaving any other children you have without one of their parents. Leaving your spouse without their spouse. All for one of your children. And if you’re a single mother, you’d leave your child an orphan.

The loss doesn’t justify the gain. Especially since the gain is far from guaranteed.

If you believe you must put your own life in danger to save your child, you either 1. don’t know how to respond to the scenario, or 2. your child is beyond the point of being saved. The latter I know is something most parents likely never want to consider.

But it’s amazing the shit people say when emotions are the fuel behind their words.

It seems the concept of there being worse things than death constantly escapes people, especially those hyped up and frantic or with too much emotional investment to the point they are incapable of considering a situation with any kind of rationality.

One of the most annoying things that parents say to non-parents is along the lines of “you don’t have kids, so whatever you have to say is invalid”. Sure there are things I cannot know without having kids of my own, but there’s a hell of a lot I can figure out without needing kids in the picture. And one thing I can figure out is how best (note: not necessarily the quickest way) to end a situation in which a child is in danger. I can look at such situations with a much higher degree of rationality since I don’t have much of an emotional stake in the outcome.

At the same time, it is easier for a parent to determine the best way to end a situation that doesn’t involve their own kids over situations that do.

Having an emotional stake in the outcome is a sign you’re likely not going to think rationally about the situation. Your emotions will cloud your judgment and make it impossible for you to see that you don’t know how to respond in such a situation. As hard as it can be, again, oftentimes the only thing you can realistically and reasonably do is just sit back and watch, where doing anything more will only make the situation worse.

Melody concluded her three-part series with one hell of a piece of advice, and it’s a fitting closing here:

Don’t let your passion for your loved one get them killed by your own lack of knowledge, training or skill–or worse, by your own delusion that such a situation is easy (legally, tactically, emotionally or physically).

First water cooled build

Water cooling build in my wife’s computer – Part IV

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Build Log:

I used the time between the order and the time I picked up the overnight shipment at my local FedEx Office to make sure I had everything I needed. One thing I made sure to pick up was a pair of 8″ needle-nose pliers. What for? To double check all the little rotary fittings around what was left of the loop and ensure everything was going to be nice and tight. Now you can’t go too tight on those, but you can definitely give it a couple more turns, helping to make sure everything is snug and won’t leak.

The overnight order had the EK SLI bridge and three 40mm Bitspower extension fittings. As soon as I got it home, I went right to work on the loop, starting with the SLI bridge. Once the SLI bridge was put together and the graphics cards installed back into the system, I put a single compression fitting on the intake of the SLI bridge and set to tube it up to the pump.

That’s where one of the 40mm extension fittings comes in.

I changed the section of the loop coming from the pump with regard to the T-fitting. Coming straight out of the pump went to the Bitspower valve, while the 90-degree turn went up through the 40mm fitting and into a 90-degree single rotary. The 90-degree rotary tubed into the single compression fitting on the SLI bridge. I measured that to within a couple millimeters and it came out pretty spot on.

The other two 40mm extension fittings linked up to another 90-degree single rotary that was fed from the outlet on the radiator. It dropped down into the reservoir so the reservoir is part of the loop as I had always intended.

Once everything was tubed up and all the fittings double, triple and quadruple checked, it was time for another leak test.

10012610_10152072135471267_989640542_n.jpg

And I think I should mention that my cat was certainly interested in what was going on, once he started hearing the water flowing through the loop and remaining so.

1932228_10152072135571267_1583482234_n.jpg

Yes, this leak test went smoothly, thankfully. And to ensure it remained such, I left the loop running for several hours before draining it and filling it back up and continuing the leak test – recall from Part 3 that I said that not only should have a drain in your loop – something continually asserted by Singularity Computers – but it should be tested as well. That’s why I did the leak testing with plain distilled water. For the duration of the leak test, the distilled water was not going to be in contact with the components anywhere near long enough to cause harm, and at under $1 per gallon for the water versus $12 for a 150mL concentrate for the coolant, doing a leak and drain test with the water just made sense.

But as the leak tests were occurring late into the night, I would have to save the coolant for the next day.

And getting home from work that Wednesday night, knowing what I would be finishing up when I got home – it made for an interesting day. I was eager to get underway and get this finished up.

As the loop had been sitting all night very nearly completely empty, my first task was to flush it again with new distilled water and drain it. While the loop was running with the fresh distilled water, I took the chance to finish out any wiring that needed it such that when the loop was filled, all I needed to do was plug the pump into the power supply for the computer and let it go.

For the coolant, I poured about half the bottle into a pint mason jar and splash mixed it with distilled water. Using a syringe, I filled the reservoir with the coolant, and did the same routine as before with the distilled water. Only this time it was definitely for real. For the next round, I used the last of the coolant and more distilled water. I didn’t really mix everything all that well because I knew the concentration would equalize within the loop as the coolant flowed through.

And after everything was filled and as much of the air out as I could manage and maneuver on my own, I disconnected the pump from the external power supply and connected it to the power supply inside the case. The moment of truth. I closed up the back of the case and plugged up everything external the way it needed.

Several days of work culminating in one press of the button on her Corsair 750D case. It gave me a sense of awe and an enormous sense of relief at the same time watching everything come to life.

After letting it just sit running idle for about an hour, I put it through a couple stress tests for initial benchmarking.

Running Prime95 small FFT, the CPU struggled to make 52C, which is an improvement over the ThermalTake. Running the Valley Benchmark on the GTX 660 SLI pair, the temperature never went above 50C and stayed around 45C on both cards for much of the test, maybe topping out at 46C or 47C. So those were significant improvements in temperatures over the stock cooler – and that is what I was after.

One thing to note, with the SLI serial bridge I used, there was a stubborn bubble under the plug that just did not want to go away and took several days to finally disappear. The same with a bubble in the fitting coming out of the CPU.

But because the loop has only been running for a couple weeks, and I have two graphics cards plus the CPU all on a single 360mm radiator, currently we’re not doing any overclocking. All of that will come later when I get a 240mm radiator to put in the floor of her case, which will require some extra fittings and a slight redesign of the loop, but that will come several months down the road, probably about the time I look at replicating my success in my own computer, hopefully minus the monumental failure I talked about in the previous part.

The computer has been running steadily since that initial press of the power button. All the air is out of the loop – no bubbles at all in any of the tubing – and the system appears stable. My wife has been able to run her games on it without issue and everything is staying nice and cool.

So that concludes this retrospective on my attempt at a custom water loop, so I’ll leave you with some pictures of the build. Enjoy!

* * * * *

Since many often ask those who’ve built water cooling loops what parts and fittings were used, here’s a complete parts list:

Components: Loop components:

  • Phobya DC12-400 pump
  • Bitspower Z-Multi 150 reservoir
  • EK-FC660 full-cover water block (x 2)
  • EK-FC Bridge DUAL Serial 3-Slot CSQ – Plexi
  • AlphaCool NexXxoS XP3 Light-Plexi
  • AlphaCool NexXxoS XT45 360mm radiator

Fans:

  • Corsair SP120 High Performance (x 4)
  • Corsair AF120 Quiet

Note: Corsair Obsidian 750D comes with 3x140mm fans

Tubing: Watts 1/2″ x 3/4″ PVC tubing

Accessory: Bitspower X-Station I (green)
Fittings: Note: All fittings to connect tubing are for 1/2″x3/4″From pump:

  • Alphacool G1/4″ male-to-male rotary extender
  • XS-PC G1/4″ 3-way fitting

Drain from 3-way:

  • Alphacool G1/4″ male-to-male rotary extender
  • Bitspower Valve (silver sparkle)
  • Monsoon stop fitting (Black chrome)

Graphics cards from 3-way:

  • Bitspower 40mm extender (silver sparkle)
  • Alphacool 90-degree single-rotary
  • Swiftech compression fitting

Graphics cards to CPU:

  • Swiftech 15mm extension fitting
  • Alphacool 45-degree single-rotary
  • Swiftech compression fitting

CPU to radiator:

  • Alphacool 45-degree single-rotary
  • Alphacool 90-degree single-rotary
  • Swiftech 15mm extension (x 2)

Radiator to reservoir:

  • Swiftech 15mm extension (x2)
  • Alphacool 90-degree single-rotary (x2)
  • Bitspower 40mm extender (silver sparkle) (x 2)
Technology

Kraken G10

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 6 Comments

black-swatch370x370.pngLet’s have a look at the NZXT Kraken G10.

You’ll likely recognize the cooling solution if you’ve read my article introducing the water cooling loop that I built out in my wife’s computer, as it’s the one that came straight from her system.

Now the interesting thing about the PNY video card is it’s a GTX 770 processor on a GTX 680 reference board – this’ll make it easy to find a full-cover water block if I build out a full custom loop. But this also made it easy to find out what I needed with regard to the heatsinks. To get an idea of what I’d need, I found a picture of the video card with the stock cooler removed courtesy of EK’s cooling configurator. It was pretty easy to discern what would need heatsinks courtesy of the installation guide – unfortunately the R22 inductors can’t receive heatsinks because of their height under the G10.

Now for the Kraken G10, the heatsinks need to be short, but it’s better having something than nothing, especially on the VRMs as those can really get warm. So I found several heatsinks on Performance-PCs.com that were 6mm, but wide enough to cover what was needed:

  • 34mm square x 4mm tall (x 2) for the VRMs next to the R22 inductors
  • 20mm square x 6mm tall for the VRMs toward the top of the card

With the 92mm fan blowing directly onto these, the VRMs should stay nice and cool – unfortunately I don’t have any real way of confirming for certain. NZXT has said with regard to the Kraken G10 that the VRMs and memory don’t need heatsinks because the water cooling against the GPU should ensure that everything else stays cooler as well under the 92mm fan. Except various tests have shown that to not hold true, especially when Radeon cards are discussed.

For my card, the additional heatsinks were not necessary.

Under the PNY’s cooler are several heatsinks over the memory and VRMs. I did not see those in any picture of the card that I found, but it was great to find because it meant that I didn’t need the heatsinks I bought. Unfortunately I’m also out about $20 because the company from where I purchased them won’t accept returns for unneeded hardware.

DSC_0038.jpg

Installing the Kraken G10 to the card was relatively straightforward, though finding a mount point for the radiator in my case was interesting – ultimately I mounted it to the bottom with it pulling in air from beneath the case. I recently acquired an NZXT Grid for plugging in all the fans in my system (I have a Corsair H60 plus the case fans plugged into it). The only downside is the fans on the ThermalTake cooler are loud… I’ll have to rectify that at some time with some Corsair SP120s, methinks.

kraken1.png

kraken2.png

So how about the temperatures?

At idle it’s about 27C as I’m writing this. That’s between 5C and 10C less than where it was idling with the PNY stock cooler. Under load running Valley Benchmark, the card could easily get near 80C, and when playing Bioshock Infinite, it could climb above 80C with the stock cooler. With the Kraken G10 and the ThermalTake cooler running the Valley Benchmark on its highest settings, it reached 42C and I think touched 43C. Running MSI Kombustor’s GPU burn-in test on benchmark with everything turned up, it got up to 49C within the time before it was cut off. And with Bioshock Infinite, it made it to about 47C.

So that’s certainly significantly better than before with the stock cooler.

But like water cooling, this is not something to just do. You need to plan it out what you’re going to do, just not nearly to the same degree, as all you really need to figure out in advance is where you’re going to mount the radiator for the all-in-one. You might also need a fan hub like the NZXT Grid or Bitspower X-Station to ensure you can plug up everything you need. Some fan extension cables should be in order as well to help get clean cable runs.

You also need to know whether the Kraken G10 will even work with your card, so check the compatibility chart to see. If you want an idea of whether your card is “reference”, go to EK’s Cooling Configurator and that should be able to tell you. If a full-cover water block is available, that’s a good sign. As for whether the G10 will work with your video card, about all I can really tell you is to check the reviews. You should also be able to determine then if you need additional heatsinks for VRMs and memory chips.

First water cooled build

Water cooling build in my wife’s computer – Part III

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Build Log:

Ah Saturday. It’s typically my day for getting stuff done as my wife sleeps off her overnight shift at work. And that day’s errands started with a trip to Home Depot and Microcenter. At Home Depot, I bought the M3 screws I needed to mount the radiator to the case and some additional tubing that I didn’t actually need in the end – but I’m hanging on to it anyway because I know I’ll need it eventually. Following that was a trip to Microcenter where I bought some additional fittings along with a couple PCI-e power extension cables – the power cables coming off my wife’s power supply would fit, but they did look a little ugly and I wanted to dress things up a little.

After getting home, I continued work on the loop, starting with the graphics cards. I knew that before I could really get a full idea of what would be involved, I needed to see how the graphics cards would look with the water blocks and sitting in the computer.

The water block installation actually went fairly quick and uneventful.

gtx660_waterblock.png

One thing that helped is the groove in the underside of the block for the T-line of capacitors and inductors (picture below). To line that up, I worked to align the graphics card to the water block, not the water block to the graphics card. By that I mean I had the water block laying on the table with the contact plate facing up, then positioned the card over that. It was just a matter of getting the capacitors and inductors into the groove, and that had me pretty spot on with the screw hole alignment.

ek-fc660-gtx-nickel_front_800.jpg

Plus as the graphics card was lighter than the water block, it was much easier lining up the graphics card to the block than the other way around, and I recommend doing that for installing the water block where possible as it’s just much easier.

And just as under the CPU block, I used Innovation Cooling‘s IC Diamond compound on the water blocks.

Now the way I had actually planned the loop was to use 90-degree fittings between the two cards, not any kind of SLI bridge or Bitspower Crystal Link.

gtx660_fittings.png

gtx660_installed.png

Yeah it looks ugly, but I was still kind of going for function over form here, and this was relatively easy to put together. And when I had everything in place, it made putting together the rest of the loop relatively easy – even though it still took several more hours. One thing I had planned from the outset was a drainage system for the loop, comprised of a Bitspower valve on a T-fitting between the pump and the graphics cards.

And from the pump to the graphics cards, the line went through the T-fitting to a 45-degree fitting tubed up to the 90-degree fitting on the graphics card water block. And the outlet from the reservoir went down into the top of the reservoir.

After that was the leak test and padding down everything with paper towels just in case there is a problem.

Unfortunately I don’t have any pictures of the initial leak test, so I’ll just have to describe it. First, I didn’t mix up any coolant. I used only distilled water for the leak test: the water was only 90 cents per gallon at my local Wal-Mart, while the coolant was $12 for 150mL concentrate. Plus I could always go get more water if I needed it, while I’d have to wait for an order of the concentrate to arrive, even if I overnighted it.

So for building a loop, if you’re new to this like I was, use distilled water to do your initial leak test. Not only will you be testing for leaks, but it’ll give you a chance to test your drainage system as well – provided you actually installed one into your loop. And part of testing your loop should be doing a test drain on it as well.

So how did the leak test go? Umm… not good.

For one, I forgot to double-check all of the fittings before I started, and the fittings on the graphics cards had come loose, leading to a major leak. Rather than tighten the fittings, though, I decided to just pull it apart. The extent of the leak meant the cards need to come out anyway so they could be dried off and left to sit for a complete dry.

And instead of planning to reassemble the graphics cards fittings the way I initially ran them, I decided to do what I should’ve done in the first place and order the EK SLI bridge. I probably could’ve made the fittings work, making sure to use a pair of needle-nose pliers to ensure they were tight, but in the end it also wouldn’t really have looked all that great. So I ordered the 3-slot dual SLI bridge, serial instead of parallel.

As this would change the way the pump is tubed into the graphics cards, I also ordered a couple spacer fittings to redesign how that was tubed up. There were problems with how the tubing was run from the pump to the graphics card as well that resulted in a small leak. So all of this was certainly for the better.

The new order was overnighted from Performance-PCs. It shipped out the following Monday, which gave everything plenty of time to dry out before I picked up the package Tuesday night from my local FedEx Office.

First water cooled build

Water cooling build in my wife’s computer – Part II

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Build Log:

Let’s continue where I left off, with mounting the water block to the CPU.

mainboard.png

mainboard_installed.png

After this point, I mounted the mainboard back into the case and turned my attention to the radiator and mounting the Corsair SP120 fans to it. The fans come with three rings: red, blue and white. As the light kit in her computer is green, I decided to change the rings on the fins to the white rings. As the fans will be mounted in a push configuration, the rings will be visible on the radiator, and the red or blue rings I don’t think would’ve really looked right.

radiator.png

As you can tell by the picture, I initially intended to mount the radiator with the inlet and outlet to the rear of the case, as that is what most builds do from what I’ve seen. Actually, come to think of it, I don’t recall a build that doesn’t do that. The fans were mounted such that the fan cables would’ve been going behind the mainboard tray, for those who aren’t familiar with water cooling builds.

And as you might be able to discern from the picture, the case is upside down on the table. That was intentional as it gave me the best way to see how the radiator would look without having to try to hold it in place. Plus, the radiator didn’t come with any short screws for mounting the radiator to the case, the radiator has M3 threads, and I didn’t have any short M3 screws sitting around either, so it was kind of out of necessity. Needless to say, Home Depot was on my list of places to go the next morning.

So the time came to start actually planning the tubing routing. Initially I wanted to go from the graphics cards to the CPU block, then to the radiator, and I mounted fittings with that configuration being the intention.

fittings.png

Now I chose this configuration to have the water coming out of the pump and going through all of the water blocks before traveling through the radiator.

And as the picture shows, the 90-degree fitting on a 15mm spacer coming out of the CPU block going into a 45-degree fitting also on a 15mm spacer into the radiator seems to offer near perfect alignment. Except, recall what I said in the introduction about the tubing I’m using being stiff. This close of a gap would’ve been difficult to tube up after mounting the radiator to the case, even with the case upside down.

fittings_zommed.png

So I decided on an alternate configuration – one that, as I said, I almost never see.

reverse.png

I had the inlet and outlet for the radiator pushed into the 5 1/4″ drive bay. This allowed me to use longer lengths of tubing with a 45-degree single-rotary fitting off the outlet on the CPU water block. Both the inlet and outlet on the radiator are 90-degree single-rotary fittings on 30mm spacers – actually 2x15mm spacers – to ensure clearance over the fans. And the fitting on the CPU block’s inlet is a flush compression fitting – note the CPU block I selected cannot fit two 1/2″x3/4″ flush compression fittings as both the inlet and outlet.

Now I’m aware this does mean that two hoses are interfering with the air flow around the radiator, but I went for the setup that I knew was going to be the easiest to make given the materials I had. Perhaps if I was using less stiff tubing (provided I was willing to spend several dollars a foot for it) then I could’ve gone with a different configuration that would’ve allowed more airflow around the radiator. But one of the fans was going to be blocked by the 5 1/4″ drive bay regardless and this configuration was easier to install.

Is there a better way to do this? Absolutely. After all I could’ve used rigid tubing for this whole thing.

And that is where I left things for the night. The next morning I picked up with my trip to Home Depot to acquire some M3 screws along with more tubing – I wasn’t sure if what I had left of the initial 10′ coil would suffice, but I was able to re-use many of the longer pieces I’d cut off from it. That was followed by a trip to Microcenter to get some more fittings I thought I would need – in the end, I only needed a couple of them and was able to return the rest.

So that is where I’ll leave this segment. The next part will pick up with installing the water blocks onto the graphics cards, which would give me a better idea of how to plan the loop.