While I do not always write about them, at any given point in time I generally have one or two “mini-perseverations” going on (for lack of a better phrase). Usually they involve something along the lines of, say, ingredients labels (pertaining to some specific product or another; in the past it was vitamins, currently it’s cat food!), or different types of electrical outlets.
Lately, though, I have developed a bit of a fixation on “before and after” pictures — in particular, before and after pictures of room interiors. There is just something tremendously fascinating to me about taking the same space and making it look completely different, just by changing the “trimmings” or parts of the structure. And I have also always had sort of a “thing” about wanting space to be used well. When a room is “wrong” I find it very hard to do much of anything in it, whether because there’s something sense-scrambling about the configuration or because things are just laid out in a way that makes organizing things logically really hard, if not impossible.
(That said, I have to also note that I despise rearranging furniture for the mere sake of rearranging. I used to go into something of a panic as a child, when my mother did this. Once I have stuff where it ought to be, I tend to leave it there!)
Anyway, I was going through some photos today and realized I had a few interesting before-and-after shots of parts of my house. And because this blog has definitely become, shall we say, a bit eclectic lately (ever since I stopped worrying about making each post Profoundly Important And In Service Of Some Lofty Larger Goal, not that there’s anything wrong with blogging that way, but attempting to do so was giving me massive writer’s block in my case), I figured I might as well post them here. So if you are also into this sort of thing, enjoy!
BEFORE:
This was how the part of the kitchen nearest to the living room looked when we first saw the house (prior to actually moving in). There had clearly been a lot of staging done (everything had been very recently covered with bright white paint, and select pieces of the original owner’s antique furniture had been artfully arranged throughout the rooms). And there were definitely aspects of the “before” configuration that appealed to me and helped highlight some of the house’s assets.
However, after some thought about how we would actually want to use the space, Matt and I determined that the open shelving would more than likely just end up attracting “dust collectors”, and that the little shuttered cabinets wouldn’t be very efficient from a storage standpoint. Moreover, the “breakfast bar”/extra cabinetry between the kitchen and living room was sort of a weird, kludgey thing (clearly NOT original to the house) that butted up against part of one of the large picture-window sliders on the right side wall of the house, and we wanted a more open floor plan.
Then there was the matter of the cabinets themselves. Originally we planned on keeping them — but that was before we did a closer inspection, and found that they were actually not in the best of shape under the white paint. The doors were made of some sort of particle board covered with very thin plastic 1970s dark-woodgrain veneer, and the cabinet “boxes” themselves had a lot of warping, staining, and other miscellaneous damage. The drawers also had no slider tracks; they were just wood-on-wood, prone to sticking, etc. Hence, once we tallied things up, neither of us figured we were very attached to the existing cabinets, and as they were definitely not original to the house (which was built in 1954) Matt and I deemed they had to go.
AFTER:
The above image shows approximately the same area as in the “before” picture, from a similar angle. Notice that the dust-collector shelves and tiny shuttered cabinets are gone now and have been replaced with a floor-to-ceiling built-in pantry. The “breakfast bar”/weird kludgey wall-thing (which, incidentally, also contained some 70s-era speakers!) is gone as well. And there is also a little “nook” to the left of the pantry which was originally sort of a “dimensional artifact” but which turned out to be a perfect spot for the microwave cart.
As for the cabinets themselves, Matt and I considered all kinds of options and styles (custom, stock, Ikea, Home Depot, etc.) before finally settling on custom shaker style doors and boxes, which were to be built primarily of maple by a brother of one of Matt’s co-workers who also happened to be a carpenter.
Luckily, Matt and I have fairly compatible tastes in decor, but as I am sure he (Matt) would tell you, I am a lot more opinionated about such things and can be, well, a bit of a zealot at times. For instance, I cannot even count the number of times I reiterated the “NO RAISED PANELS!” mantra, and the number of cabinet styles (in various catalogs and such we looked at) I denounced as “utterly hideous and incongruous with the house”, etc. (Maybe this side of me doesn’t come out much on the blog, but trust me, I can be quite the critic when it comes to certain topics!)
What it really came down to for me was that I wanted something that “worked” in a midcentury ranch home (as in, did not produce the “tutu on a bulldog” effect that a lot of thoughtlessly generic remodels tend to have on such houses — see here for an example of what I definitely did NOT want), that would be durable and long-lasting, and that would overall be easy to look at (in addition, of course, to the functional consideration of providing efficient and ample storage space).
Matt basically wanted the same things I did but was less concerned about the kitchen “matching the house”, and he was a lot more averse to going the streamlined modern route than I was.
So I am thankful we were able to finally settle on the shaker style — Matt is very much a “craftsman” sort of guy, and the cabinets we ended up with certainly respect that, and I am happy both because of the historical connection between shaker-style and later modernist styles and because it just plain looks nice.
One thing we also did, that (apparently) is somewhat unusual is keep the natural woodgrain exposed on the doors but paint the cabinet “boxes” and face frames a sage green color (Valspar “Cactus Shadow”, to be precise). I wanted SOME color in the kitchen and Matt and I are both fond of green, so while I would have preferred something a bit darker (for more contrast) I daresay the end result turned out quite pleasant to look at. And honestly I would love to see more examples of kitchens with natural-wood cabinet doors but with painted face-frames; so far I haven’t even been able to find one (though it could just be my search-fu is failing me in this instance), other than ours.
And here are some pictures from a different angle: BEFORE:
This view shows the middle of the kitchen, the sink area and part of the area along the rear wall (including the back door, out to the yard). Note all the WHITE, the washing machine along the rear wall, and the chandelier (which caused some literal headaches to several folks, including me, before it was removed — it was hanging down so low that I kept getting “wrought iron to the forehead”, ouch!).
AFTER:
This view again shows the middle of the kitchen, the sink area and part of the area along the rear wall, but now many changes are evident. The most major thing was the addition of the large island in the center, which contains both storage underneath (more cabinets) and a large food prep surface that overhangs on one side, where we could presumably put stools or tall chairs, in effect making the island double as an eating area. We wanted to keep things simple and versatile so the island is actually a free-standing unit (as in, it isn’t rooted to the floor, and contains no plumbing or electrical lines). Partly this was for budgetary reasons and partly it was just because we liked the idea of having the island be like a piece of furniture rather than a built-in.
Note as well that the washing machine is gone (we still don’t have it hooked up elsewhere yet, but hopefully that will happen soon; for now we are partaking of the laundromat conveniently located a few blocks away). The stove is now a gas stove (Matt has always wanted a gas stove, and he is definitely the cook around here), and the refrigerator we just got in tones that would match the stove. Neither is a particularly “special” piece, but we had a budget to work within and I figured we were better off “splurging” on the cabinets than on appliances, as appliances are a lot more easily replaced if necessary.
But so far they’ve certainly been serviceable, and I definitely think the black-and-stainless-steel tones help prevent the overall aesthetic from veering too far into “country cottage” territory. The fume hood is also new and rather a nice model, and it adds (what to me is) a dash of “restaurant kitchen”-ness to the space, which is not a bad thing. (I also designed the ducting on top myself, which was necessary because of the way the studs in the wall were placed).
And then of course there is the floor. I am SO happy with the floor — it is marmoleum! MUCH nicer than the blah grayish-white 1980s vinyl that we started out with there. I had a lot of fun coming up with a pattern for the Marmoleum and determining on that basis how much of each color we would need (we used “Eucalyptus” squares and “Barbados” planks, both in the “click panel” type). It was really easy to install, too…Matt and I did it in one day with just the two of us.
The new cabinets over the sink are pretty much positioned the same as the old ones were — that aspect of the old layout at least made sense. We also kept the original sink (which I think might very well be original to the house — it’s a very nice, if slightly endearingly chipped, cast-iron model with one shallower side and one deep side) and the white tile counter by the sink, which is not original but which is perfectly serviceable and doesn’t clash horribly with the rest of the decor.
The white dishwasher is also still there but now I rather wish we’d gotten rid of it, as we have never actually used it and probably won’t. I actually prefer hand-washing dishes — if I put stuff in the dishwasher most likely I would forget about it. I would like to take the dishwasher out at some point and perhaps make a little cubby thing for the trash cans, but that’s not on the immediate agenda.
Living room BEFORE:
Initially the living room looked a lot more “formal” (though that was partly due to staging), and the gray carpeting made everything look smaller. Plus the all-white walls were just boring. It looked “nice”, but wasn’t very “us” (that is, me and Matt).
Living room AFTER:
I’ve already posted this picture once before so apologies for that, but it was the best one I could find in what I’d uploaded showing the whole living room. Ripping up the carpet had a huge effect on the space — made it look so much bigger! Plus the floors, while very dirty initially (from decades of fine dust filtering through the carpeting) turned out to be beautiful solid oak in excellent condition overall. We did not even need to strip and refinish; we just mopped and mopped and then applied some wax.
And then there is my brown wall. I love the brown wall so very much. I have always been a big fan of dark/bold wall colors, and was SO tired of imposed apartment-rental White Everywhere. I love the contrast between the brown wall and white fireplace especially, and I think overall that color being there adds some very pleasing “weight” to the kitchen/living room space, as the kitchen is very light-and-bright even though it’s not all white anymore.
So…yeah, I will probably post a few more things like this at some point. And of course I should note that the house is still (and likely to remain) a “work in progress”. I think both the kitchen and bedroom (not shown in this post) need more dark elements, though I am not sure exactly what those elements will consist of.
I am also finding that my own sense of what I want the place to look like has been shifting around in light of all kinds of factors, and at this point I am leaning strongly towards an “eclectic” look rather than one constrained into any particular design “school” or era. For one thing, I certainly cannot afford to have everything “matching”, and even if I could, it seems like it would be very wasteful to get rid of and replace so much of what I already have that is wholly functional. Moreover, if you think about it, it’s not like everyone living in ranch homes in the 1950s and 1960s ONLY had mid-mod furniture…presumably plenty of folks had hand-me-down pieces from the 1940s or 30s or even before, and hence the reality of those houses back then probably was more eclectic than matchy-matchy.
However, at the same time, I definitely want to maintain a sense of respect for the house’s “lines” and overall design (meaning, at some point that awful 1980s “seashell” sink in the bathroom HAS to go!).
(a) Most of the popular articles regarding that study made what looked to me like unwarranted interpretive leaps (sadly not much of a surprise there these days), and
(b) While the study itself read as more “neutrally investigative” and data-focused than the popular articles, it did not seem as if the experimental setup necessarily accounted for feline sensory modalities, and hence may not have permitted a true test of the cats’ cognitive capacities in the area of physical causality.
So, in light of item (b) above, and in light of the fact that I had all the necessary components on hand to create a setup similar to that used in the aforementioned study, I decided to see if my own feline housemates might be interested in trying their hand (or rather, paw) at some string-pulling.
Of course I am not aiming to present my own “results” as Real Scientific Data; they were, after all, quite informally obtained from a tiny sample set. At the absolute most, observations presented herein might represent a sort of “proof of concept”, i.e., how setups could be improved in future experiments to increase the likelihood of meaningful results. Overall, though, I mainly did this for fun — for me, and for the cats!
BACKGROUND
Four cats were offered the opportunity to participate in this activity:
The three younger cats (Coraline, Brodie, and Shadow) were littermates, born into a feral colony. I adopted them when they were between 7 and 10 weeks of age. The elder cat (Nikki) is unrelated to the others, was born into a cattery, and lived with my parents until early 2010.
All four cats had lived with me for at least six months prior to the experiment, and since the experiment took place in my’ home, they did not have to acclimate to an unfamiliar environment beforehand.
PREDICTIONS
Predictions going into the experiment were as follows:
(1) At least one cat (of the four) would demonstrate both motivation and ability to complete at least one task case successfully.
(2) Performance (in motivated cats) would improve when the treats were made more visually obvious, i.e., via use of color and size contrast.
(3) Performance might improve if a less flexible medium (i.e., plastic zip ties rather than string) was used, as this would provide faster feedback to the cats regarding their efforts and would be less likely to induce distraction (cats often find strings, and their movements, extremely interesting in their own right).
SETUP
The setup used in this exercise was based on the description provided by the study1:
The apparatus consisted of a box of base size 49 × 40 cm with clear Perspex walls on three sides and a wire mesh lid. The top of the box hinged off the base to allow access to the inside. The base was made of chipboard with a white plastic surface, and protruded from the box at the front by 9 cm, providing a smooth surface and good contrast for the strings. A 1-cm gap at the base of the front wall allowed the strings to pass from the front accessible end into the inaccessible part of the box. A clear Perspex bridge (base size 11 cm × 6 cm) was used in trials where there are two crossed strings to prevent the strings getting tangled. Every part of the set-up was visible to the cats at any time. The strings were blue rope (∅ 5 mm), with a length of 25 cm (long) and 10 cm (short). Cat treats were attached to the strings to act as rewards for succeeding in the task. The reward for each trial was approximately 10 g of mashed tuna or pilchards, or a small cat biscuit.
Some articles referencing the study also included a photograph of the apparatus used, which I attempted to replicate as closely as possible given available materials.
Main Structure
To make the main structure of the apparatus, I used several pieces of scrap, held together with blue painter’s tape in a rectangular “frame” shape. To the bottom side of the frame I attached a sheet of thick white watercolor paper.
To the top side of the frame I attached a piece of Plexiglas with a grid pattern drawn on it — however, upon closer reading of the study apparatus description (after I’d already completed my experiment), I noted that the original study had used a plain wire mesh on the top of the frame.
(Image showing main structure of test apparatus I built)
This meant that, contrary to my original (incorrect) impression, the cats more than likely would have indeed been able to smell the treats, as wire mesh blocked their physical access to the treats via the top of the box, but not the transmission of odors. If I were to try the experiment again at home I would use a piece of window screen or similar material for the lid of the box, rather than Plexiglas.
Another difference (albeit a deliberate one in this instance) between my setup and the referenced study’s setup was the fact that in some trials I employed a central wooden divider that extended the interior length of the box (parallel to its left and right sides).
The purpose of this divider was to prevent the strings or zip tie mechanisms (more on that in a moment) from interfering with each other physically at all during “parallel string” trials, as I saw the potential for distraction if one string ended up touching the other while the cat was pulling on it, etc. However, in practice this divider turned out to be unnecessary, as when I removed it the cats’ performance did not change and the strings/zip ties did not get tangled at all.
Treat Delivery Media
I experimented with two primary variables in terms of the treat-delivery media:
(1) Flexibility: In some trials I used actual strings (lengths of very flexible sisal twine), with or without a “treat container” at one end (see below):
In others I used plastic zip ties modified to include a small “cup” on one end to hold treats.
(Image shows one of the zip tie/treat cup mechanisms employed)
(2) Contrast: In the first few trials I used unmodified sisal twine lengths and simply tied a piece of dry cat food or chicken jerky to the end of the treat-carrying piece (see image below, note the lack of visual contrast):
In the second few trials I used yellow “cups” filled with a small amount of dry cat food attached to the ends of plastic zip ties.
In the third round of trials I went back to using the sisal twine, but attached the end of a white plastic spoon as a treat container.
The goal here was to see what, if any, impact visual contrast had on the cats’ ability to correctly identify the treat-carrying piece (thus distinguishing it from the “dummy” piece). One major criticism I had of the original study was that (inasmuch as I could tell from the description and photos available) it did not seem as if the treats were sufficiently visible to the cats.
Since, as I noted in my prior post, cats have fairly poor close-range visual acuity for fine details, I surmised that the treat holder needed to be significantly larger/wider than the end of the string (or zip tie) in order for them to be able to distinguish it properly. I also figured that it would be helpful for the treats themselves to stand out color-wise against the background of their container or cup.
TRAINING
I did not employ a formal “training phase” as the study described doing. However, I did present the treat-delivering string and zip tie pieces to the cats for inspection (prior to inserting them into the puzzle box). During this activity some of the string/zip tie pieces contained treats and some did not.
I also left the apparatus on the floor for several hours prior to starting any task trials, so that the cats would be able to investigate it at their leisure and not be distracted by the sheer novelty of the equipment when the task trials began.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Participation Variation
Of the four individual cats presented with the test equipment, two (Coraline and Brodie) completed various task cases successfully. Shadow was very interested in watching his siblings but declined to participate himself, and Nikki seemed totally uninterested in the activity.
Having lived with these particular cats for some time now I am not surprised by this outcome, given their respective personalities and predilections; Coraline and Brodie (Coraline especially) have always been the most mechanically inclined of the group, whereas Shadow is more inclined to solicit favors from humans (i.e., he’d rather meow at me to GIVE him a treat than try and get one himself).
Nikki, meanwhile, just tends to operate on an agenda all her own, and while at some point I can see her getting interested in a string puzzle of some sort, she wasn’t interested on the day(s) on which I ran trials.
I should note that I do not draw any conclusions (negative or positive) about the non-participant cats’ understanding of physical cause and effect based on their non-participation in this particular exercise. Since neither of the non-participants even attempted to complete the task, all I figure is warranted in terms of conclusion is that the materials and situation failed to inspire their interest, which of course says absolutely nothing about their capacity to cogitate about string and its uses.
Social Factors
By “social factors” here I refer to the presence/absence of multiple cats near the apparatus setup during task trials. Initially I tried testing one cat at a time, however, for the younger cats this proved impossible. No single cat would participate or do anything with the apparatus at all when separated (via a closed door in the house) from his or her siblings. Instead, the lone cat would wander around looking for his/her siblings, while the sibling cats would scratch at the door.
Once I let all the cats wander about freely, though, the three younger ones were plenty interested in the apparatus and two of them participated consistently over the course of three days. To me this suggests social factors might be more important to cats (especially related cats who get along well) than many would necessarily suspect. Having all the cats accessing the setup simultaneously did make certain aspects of the experiment more difficult to organize but it was certainly a better situation than zero participation, as I had when I attempted to test a single lone cat at a time.
As for Nikki’s non-interest in the setup, social factors may have played a role her as well — she tolerates the others but does not seem to like being very near them. I may try taking the apparatus out to the patio at some point and seeing if she might show more interest there — she seems to be a lot more inhibited indoors, will only play with toys in the yard, etc.
Basic Observations
Again, as this was an informal/fun exercise and not an Official Scientific Experiment, I did not keep a precise count of how many times a given cat solved a task — since I was the sole person setting up and running everything, it was not possible to carefully track every variable. However, I did note whenever a cat was able to solve a particular task case 2 or more times, and I considered that to be my basis for “success”.
As expected, none of the cats completed a task in which a treat was tied to the end of a string. They all seemed vaguely interested in the strings as strings, but did not appear to even realize that one of them had a treat attached. I expect that this effect was compounded to a degree not necessarily present in the referenced study due to my use of plexiglas rather than wire mesh (which they’d have been able to smell the treats through) as a box lid. Unfortunately I did not get any video footage of this phase.
During the zip tie trials, Brodie and Coraline both consistently solved the parallel case. Their success was independent of “position habit”, meaning that I was able to switch what side the treats were on and/or move the apparatus to a different room in the house and they still knew what zip tie to pull on to get the treats.
Brodie solving parallel zip tie task (room #1, treats on left side):
Brodie solving parallel zip tie task (room #2, treats on right side):
Cora demonstrates her zip tie prowess here:
(This one is actually an “amusing out-take” candidate — I had not yet properly secured the apparatus to the floor before this trial, and Cora got her claw stuck in the treat container after she pulled it out, so we had a bit of a treat explosion! Her brothers, of course, were pleased by this turn of events.)
I did not end up doing a “crossed” case with the zip ties, because I discovered that the ties were too thick to fit under the 1 cm gap at the front of the box when stacked on top of one another. Refinement of this task would definitely account for this issue.
In the “string and spoon” phase (in which the treats were placed into the end of a white plastic spoon attached to one of the pieces of sisal twine), again, both Coraline and Brodie were successful at the parallel strings task. Unfortunately (due to disorganization and logistical wrangling difficulties on my part) I did not get a video of Brodie doing this but I got two of Coraline:
In the “crossed strings” case, Coraline had no trouble with this at all. I don’t think she went for the “wrong” string even once. Brodie did not do as well here, however, he has always been very interested in string as a toy, and it seemed like when the strings were crossed it was a lot more fun to play with them than try to figure out which one had a treat attached to it.
The video below shows Cora easily solving the crossed-strings case:
(To me it certainly LOOKS like she knows darn well what the function of the string is, but I am not sure how to quantify this observation!)
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I note that my predictions (1) and (2) turned out to be accurate inasmuch as I could tell. Two out of four cats-in-residence completed at least two types of task each, which to me suggests that their performance was unlikely to have been the result of “random luck”. However, of course in a formal study many more data points would be taken and results might differ.
As for the contrast issue, while again more data would be a good thing to have here, it really did seem based on what I observed that if the cats could clearly see the treats, those motivated to obtain them had no trouble doing so.
As for whether the zip tie mechanism improved performance (due to it being easier to physically manipulate than the string), it did look like this was probably the case, at least for the parallel task. Again, physical constraints of the apparatus prevented me from trying a true “crossed zip tie” case.
Finally, I find myself really wishing there were some way to quantify or better express what looks to me like “purposefulness” in Cora’s performance on the crossed strings task. Perhaps, though, the difficulty of quantifying such impressions is why well-designed experiments employ numerous trials through which many data points are obtained, so that one is not relying upon subjective impressions, but rather, probability.
And all that said, I do have to say that trying this experiment (fumbling as my attempt was…) definitely turned out to be highly enjoyable, both for me and for the participating (and spectator) cats. I’ve since been strongly inspired to come up with ways of feeding them more creative than just dumping food in a bowl, as they seem to greatly enjoy “outsmarting” their food, which I suppose is quite appropriate for a small carnivorous predator species!
1-Whitt, E., Douglas, M., Osthaus, B., & Hocking, I. (2009). Domestic cats (Felis catus) do not show causal understanding in a string-pulling task Animal Cognition, 12 (5), 739-743 DOI: 10.1007/s10071-009-0228-x
I’ve mentioned before (and stated on my resume, which is linked in the sidebar) that my primary area of professional experience is that of Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) engineering. At present I am (following a major plant-closure layoff where I used to work) part-timing as a lab hardware technician, but of course wanting to maintain my electrical engineering and EMC brain-connections during this rather unusual period of my life. Moreover, the whole reason I ended up specializing in EMC was because of how interesting it is — and I expect more people would find it interesting if they actually knew about it. Thus, this post!
Anyway, the main objectives of EMC engineering are:
1) To prevent electrical/electronic devices (and their subsystems) from interfering with proper functioning of other devices (or subsystems within the same device), and
2) To design, build, and/or modify devices such that they are not unduly vulnerable to incoming interference (or self-interference at the subsystem level)
What amazes me is that I did not even know about EMC as a discipline* until I was already out of school and working as an (unspecialized, at the time) junior electrical engineer. After all, pretty much every device that enters the market has to pass an EMC test. Making sure a device will meet EMC requirements is a whole other layer of engineering beyond just having the device do what it is supposed to do from a functional standpoint.
That said, most of us living in cultures of electronic ubiquity likely have first-hand experience with EMC issues. My father was an avid amateur-radio hobbyist when I was little, and sometimes the signals associated with that equipment would end up coming through the television and random sets of speakers throughout the house. Sometimes it would just be audio interference, but (in the case of the television) visual interference was also observed on multiple occasions.
At the time I was mainly irritated at having my Zelda dungeon-crawls interrupted by bursts of scramble and garble, but part of me was also fascinated. Somehow, even though these connections were not overtly visible, all the electronic devices in my environment were interacting with one another on their own terms. Which is a notion I’ve had to revisit many times in the process of troubleshooting (and working to prevent in the first place) EMC issues at work.
The very nature of electromagnetism means that the only way to have a truly 100% interference-free environment is for no devices to be functioning at all — which of course defeats the purpose of having them to begin with. Thus, EMC engineering must be performed along the lines of both optimization and compromise. I.e., in designing or modifying a device (or system of devices) you want to be able to get maximum performance while minimizing the chance of problematic emissions or vulnerability.
Some examples of situations entailing application of EMC principles are as follows:
- Many digital circuits/devices perform better when the “edge” of the square wave comprising, say, the clock signal is more defined. However, since square waves are generated via Fourier series implementation, you can end up hurting EMC performance if you simply attempt to make the edge of your signal as “sharp” as possible.
Waveforms with more gradual “edges” (such as sine waves) are much more EMC-friendly in this regard than square waves; the lack of steep/discontinuous slopes means fewer harmonic components at problematic amplitudes. There are some devices on the market that actually can operate with a sinusoidal clock, however, this is certainly not always going to be the case. Therefore, a design optimized for EMC and data integrity will often need to establish some compromise between a “nice-looking edge” and a signal whose harmonic components are within reasonable limits for EMC performance. This might entail anything from changing a resistor value (to alter a time constant) to changing the manner in which the data is transmitted (e.g., implementing differential conductor pairs).
- Say you have an electronic device housed in a metal enclosure or chassis. If the housing is intended to provide shielding as well as protection from dust and mechanical injury, etc., then you are going to have to consider such factors as “how large can I make the ventilation holes without compromising shield integrity?” You are also going to have to make sure and specify what parts of the enclosure and any associated fasteners should be left free of paint, because in some cases the circuit ground needs to be able to make good contact with the enclosure.
- A new circuit board is being created. Not only does the right number of layers to accommodate all the relevant signals need to be determined, but also the arrangement of those layers. E.g., where should the ground planes be located in relation to the signal planes?
- You install DSL internet in your apartment and afterward hear an obnoxious buzzing whenever you go to use the phone. Usually internet providers will include filters with your modem package, but if not, you can probably find them at a local electronics store or order them online.
Of course there are many other examples I could list here, but this is meant to be an “introduction to the subject” post so I will stop with those. The point of all this, though, is essentially to illustrate that while some aspects of EMC engineering definitely require a lot of deep technical analysis, there is also a very practical, everyday level on which EMC is relevant to pretty much everyone who is likely to be reading this (meaning, anyone who uses and/or lives in an area where multiple electronic devices are expected to peacefully coexist).
* Some may consider EMC to be a sub-discipline/offshoot of RF engineering, and it definitely overlaps somewhat with signal integrity as well.
Mounting evidence points to fibromyalgia as a heritable disorder. This evidence includes familial aggregation of fibromyalgia as well as a reduced pain threshold in the first-degree female relatives of fibromyalgia patients, even in those without overt clinical symptoms. Gene polymorphisms in the serotonergic dopaminergic neurons systems and a higher prevalence of polymorphisms in the promoter region of the serotonin transporter gene (5HTT) in fibromyalgia patients as compared to healthy controls also have been identified. (more…)
Social cognitions involve thoughts about others and thoughts about the self in relationship to others. When we consider cognitive aging theory from this point of view, it leads us away from traditional research methods and theoretical perspectives that have focused on basic information processing and how it is tied to physiological decline. This body of research has been largely experimental and often has taken place in situations designed to remove the effects of the social context. In contrast, research on social cognition and aging typically is designed to consider how social context affects the thinking of adults. (more…)
My job is to plan for catastrophe, yet Jane’s story was an echo of my own. My mother, a fiercely seniors independent and proud woman, worked until she was 86 years old; but after she was forced into a senior nursing home care at age 93, she died within weeks. Ethel enjoyed a long life. Its end was certainly not a direct result of the loss of independence and personal dignity she experienced in the nursing home. But if I had helped her plan for her very old age, she might have spent her last months surrounded by neighbors and friends, instead of professional caretakers. (more…)
Vertebral compression fractures may occur with major trauma, such as a motorcycle accident, or with something as insignificant as a sneeze, or stepping off of a curb. With a compression fracture, the bone compressed and collapses into itself, similar to squeezing a Styrofoam peanut between your fingers.
How much force it takes to cause a compression fracture, depends on the quality of the bone. (more…)
Many people in this country suffer from lower back pain, including pain in lower left side of back. Because the pain is only on one side of the back, many doctors have trouble finding the actual cause. Many people go through years of endless visits to the doctor and the hospital, expensive rounds of testing, dangerous drugs, and treatments that do nothing to cure lower side pain. (more…)
