A few years ago I got frustrated enough with dish soap prices that I did some experimentation, I have stuck with the blue Dawn dishsoap and not experimented with other varieties.
I found that I could use the suds pump (direct foam) with the ultra concentrate soap if I dilute it. The soap comes in 24 oz and 56 oz bottles. After going through a 56 oz bottle, I pour the 24 oz of ultra concentrate soap into the empty 56 oz bottle, fill the rest of it with water (32 oz of water) and shake it up to mix it. (Without a lot of air, you can't make a lot of suds. I use that diluted ultra concentrate to refill the suds pump. And there you go, cheaper dish soap!
The process of going through the initial 56 oz bottle is a bit of a pain, especially if somebody throws out the empty bottle on you. If you use a graduated 1 cup measure, fill it to the 1/3 cup mark with ultra concentrate soap and then to the 3/4 cup mark with water. This is NOT 1/3 cup soap and 3/4 cup water. It is 1/3 cup soap and (3/4 - 1/3) cups water. Then stir it gently with a fork to get it mixed but not foamed. This makes 6 oz of soap for the pump, which takes 10 oz at a time. So as you slooooowly go through the gigantic 54 oz bottle, you have to refill the pump about halfway at a time. At least that is how I did it. You could always just use an alternate container and mix a bunch up at once.
So, how cheap is it?
at walmart.com the 30.9 oz refill bottle is $5.64 or $0.1825 per oz.
The 24 oz ultra concentrate is $2.63, but we dilute it to 56 oz, for $0.0469 per oz.
That is a savings of 74% on the refills which Dawn claims already saves a bunch of money!
Update: I have tried the purple Dawn ultra concentrate and maybe I messed up the ratios some how but it is not pumping right. Even if it was a mistake on my part, I will not be doing more purple just in case. I got it because it is my daughter's favorite color, but she was unhappy when I diluted it and put it in a blue container making it not purple any more.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Children's Story: Jesus and the storm
A long time ago, Jesus was traveling by boat with the apostles from one city to another. And Jesus was very tired so he went downstairs, what they call below deck on a boat, and he went to sleep.
While Jesus was asleep a big storm came. There was a lot of wind, and a lot of rain. There was a lot of lightening and a lot of thunder. And there were big waves. The waves were bigger than the boat. And everybody on the boat thought that they were going to die. Except for Jesus because he was asleep.
Then one of the apostles, I think it was Peter, went and woke Jesus up saying, "Jesus, How can you sleep we are going to die!" And Jesus got up, went upstairs, and told the storm to stop. And the wind stopped. And the rain stopped. And the lightening stopped. And the thunder stopped. And waves stopped crashing over the side of the boat. And everybody on the boat knew it was going to be okay. They knew that they were going to live. And Jesus went back downstairs and went back to sleep because he was still very tired.
*************
I want to make a few comments about this. I know there are a few discrepancies from the Biblical account. Namely,
1) In the Bible Christ in the "hinder part of the ship" (Mark 4), which I take to mean aft of the boat not below deck.
2) There is no mention of rain, thunder, or lightening in the Bible, only wind and waves.
3) The biblical account says disciples, which I think is generally understood to mean Apostles in this context, but it definitely names no names about who woke Jesus up.
There are a few features about this that I really like.
1) It focuses a lot on sleep and how people need it. Good bedtime story. It is usually my finale.
2) It has two features in particular that indicate it is a real and not make believe story.
a) It starts out with the chronological reference, "A long time ago"
b) The phrase, "I think it was Peter" indicates there are real facts you could get wrong.
3) The list of elements of the storm get repeated twice. Most of the time we hear songs and stories that use quantities (Three bears, three pigs, five monkeys, ...) but seldom the list and less seldom does it repeat (think Old McDonald). My girls love hearing the list. They count on it. If I change the order either time it comes up, Caroline will complain about it. The list is something that helps their memory skills and enthralls them.
4) It gives the idea that they can ask Jesus for help, and hopefully their parents too.
While Jesus was asleep a big storm came. There was a lot of wind, and a lot of rain. There was a lot of lightening and a lot of thunder. And there were big waves. The waves were bigger than the boat. And everybody on the boat thought that they were going to die. Except for Jesus because he was asleep.
Then one of the apostles, I think it was Peter, went and woke Jesus up saying, "Jesus, How can you sleep we are going to die!" And Jesus got up, went upstairs, and told the storm to stop. And the wind stopped. And the rain stopped. And the lightening stopped. And the thunder stopped. And waves stopped crashing over the side of the boat. And everybody on the boat knew it was going to be okay. They knew that they were going to live. And Jesus went back downstairs and went back to sleep because he was still very tired.
*************
I want to make a few comments about this. I know there are a few discrepancies from the Biblical account. Namely,
1) In the Bible Christ in the "hinder part of the ship" (Mark 4), which I take to mean aft of the boat not below deck.
2) There is no mention of rain, thunder, or lightening in the Bible, only wind and waves.
3) The biblical account says disciples, which I think is generally understood to mean Apostles in this context, but it definitely names no names about who woke Jesus up.
There are a few features about this that I really like.
1) It focuses a lot on sleep and how people need it. Good bedtime story. It is usually my finale.
2) It has two features in particular that indicate it is a real and not make believe story.
a) It starts out with the chronological reference, "A long time ago"
b) The phrase, "I think it was Peter" indicates there are real facts you could get wrong.
3) The list of elements of the storm get repeated twice. Most of the time we hear songs and stories that use quantities (Three bears, three pigs, five monkeys, ...) but seldom the list and less seldom does it repeat (think Old McDonald). My girls love hearing the list. They count on it. If I change the order either time it comes up, Caroline will complain about it. The list is something that helps their memory skills and enthralls them.
4) It gives the idea that they can ask Jesus for help, and hopefully their parents too.
Children's Song: Daddy's ABCs
Most of this one does not have an original tune as such. This more of a keep the rythm kind of song.
I use the ABC's as a chorus:
7 ABCDEFG
6 HIJKLM
7 NOPQRST
6 UVWXYZ
(Verses I heard as a kid)
+
7 Mary had a little lamb
7 She kept it in the closet
7 And ev'ry time she let it out
8 It left a little deposit
7 Minnie was a skinny girl
6 The slimmest girl in town
8 She took a bath, went down the drain
6 And now the poor girl's drowned
(original verses for the girls)
6 Kittens are the cutest
5 Little balls of fur
8 And if you're really nice to them
5 Maybe they will pur
(I think this next one is my wife's favorite)
5 Paul was a preacher
7 And a very handsome man
8 Had the local girls confessing
5 Any way they can
7 Sally married a rockstar
6 For his fame and his wealth
7 But now she's divorced him
6 For his brains and his health
7 Fruit is my favorite food
7 It makes me feel all airy
7 That's because I'm all backed up
7 From eating eaten too much dairy
I went back and deleted a few of them that were less appropriate. While I personally have a sometimes irreverent and inappropriate sense of humor, I have decided that there is enough garbage out there without me adding to it.
I use the ABC's as a chorus:
7 ABCDEFG
6 HIJKLM
7 NOPQRST
6 UVWXYZ
(Verses I heard as a kid)
+
7 Mary had a little lamb
7 She kept it in the closet
7 And ev'ry time she let it out
8 It left a little deposit
7 Minnie was a skinny girl
6 The slimmest girl in town
8 She took a bath, went down the drain
6 And now the poor girl's drowned
(original verses for the girls)
6 Kittens are the cutest
5 Little balls of fur
8 And if you're really nice to them
5 Maybe they will pur
(I think this next one is my wife's favorite)
5 Paul was a preacher
7 And a very handsome man
8 Had the local girls confessing
5 Any way they can
7 Sally married a rockstar
6 For his fame and his wealth
7 But now she's divorced him
6 For his brains and his health
7 Fruit is my favorite food
7 It makes me feel all airy
7 That's because I'm all backed up
7 From eating eaten too much dairy
I went back and deleted a few of them that were less appropriate. While I personally have a sometimes irreverent and inappropriate sense of humor, I have decided that there is enough garbage out there without me adding to it.
Children's song: Does your Diaper Hang Low?
Having two little girls, I get the opportunity to tell a lot of stories and make up a lot of songs. A few of them I am particularly happy with and have decided to start sharing.
As a note, I view sing-along songs as somewhat malleable in their timing. Sometimes I don't strictly adhere to the number of syllables. To help with that problem, I will put the lyrics from the base song first and the number of syllables at the beginning of each line.
ORIGINAL SONG: Do your ears hang low?
5 Do your ears hang low?
7 Do they wabble to and fro?
7 Can you tie them in a knot?
7 Can you tie them in a bow?
8 Can you throw them o'r (over) your shoulder
8 like a continental soldier?
5 Do your ears hang low?
MY VERSION: Does your diaper hang low?
6 Does your diaper hang low?
8 Does it wiggle when you waddle?
7 Have you smelt it for a while?
7 Can you smell it for a mile?
7 Is it hanging by your knees
7 begging someone change me please?
6 Does your diaper hang low?
As a note, I view sing-along songs as somewhat malleable in their timing. Sometimes I don't strictly adhere to the number of syllables. To help with that problem, I will put the lyrics from the base song first and the number of syllables at the beginning of each line.
ORIGINAL SONG: Do your ears hang low?
5 Do your ears hang low?
7 Do they wabble to and fro?
7 Can you tie them in a knot?
7 Can you tie them in a bow?
8 Can you throw them o'r (over) your shoulder
8 like a continental soldier?
5 Do your ears hang low?
MY VERSION: Does your diaper hang low?
6 Does your diaper hang low?
8 Does it wiggle when you waddle?
7 Have you smelt it for a while?
7 Can you smell it for a mile?
7 Is it hanging by your knees
7 begging someone change me please?
6 Does your diaper hang low?
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Gun control
This topic is making another round, so here is my two sense (not cents on purpose, OP) in about 900 words.
One inalienable right not listed in the Declaration of Independence, is the right to defend your life, liberty, and ... property. (Pursuit of happiness is a little etheric for this post.) By inalienable, I mean to say that it is not something that can be sold nor ownership thereof transferred and should not be forcibly taken. Government is inherently at odds with all inalienable rights. It is a fundamental conflict implied by the words govern and liberty.
For example, governments need funding. Hence taxes and a conflict with property as they claim your resources. A conflict with liberty as they don't give you a choice. And a conflict with the right to defend them in that they cannot tolerate you not paying. But this isn't an analysis of rights and governments, this is about gun control.
You have the right to defend yourself, your property and your loved ones. Nobody can take that right away from you. Further, nobody can do it for you, and the government really can't do it for you. Imagine that somebody breaks into your house. What do you do? Do you call 911? Even back when they took 911 calls seriously it still took several minutes for the police to arrive. When I was a little kid, maybe 10 years old, a guy broke into our house through the back door while Dad was at work, Mom was doing dishes with my older brother, and my little sister and I were watching TV together. In about 3 seconds Mom got his attention and I grabbed the cordless phone and disappeared into the house calling 911. Fortunately, the intruder's real goal was to intimidate us ... which didn't work too well. But it took 30 minutes for the Police to arrive and fill out a report. If he had decided to hurt us, (which he might have if he had better control of the situation and my brother wasn't bigger than him and standing next to the knives), the whole scene would have still played out before the police arrived. If the same thing happened today, it would likely take a half hour to get through to 911 like it did about a year ago when we had a medical emergency in my home.
I don't blame the government or the police for their slow response time in either case. They cannot protect and provide for us. They cannot be everywhere all the time, and even if they could then they still wouldn't be able to do the job. Besides, we wouldn't want them every where all the time.
To try to abdicate our right to defend ourselves or responsibility to defend our loved ones is to surrender a key part of who we are. It is fundamental in our psyche to strive. If we do not strive we do not thrive. The only question is what tools we should have at our disposal for self defense?
Every society, has to draw the line somewhere. We have to decide what tools are rightful for individuals to have at their disposal for their defense. This is our decision to make collectively as citizens, not a decision for a 'government'. There are some things that are simply not in the realm of defense ... they fall in the category I would like to call immoral weapons. Think weaponized small pox and nuclear bombs. I don't know anybody who is arguing for unrestricted access to these items. The big issue with these is that there is no real way to limit bystander casualties.
The capacity to control damage is the key to determining whether or not a weapon should be controlled by the government or not. A semi-automatic any-gun is relatively easy to use and control damage. It is fully at the discretion of the shooter to pick a target and pull the trigger. The person with the gun has to make a bullet by bullet decision about what they want to do. This makes it a moral weapon.
Further, the gun is ubiquitous. No amount of regulation or government effort would be able to remove all the guns from society. And further, they are relatively easy to make. I have access to all the resources necessary to manufacture a gun completely off the books. I even have the knowledge necessary to figure it out, and I think there are a few hundred people living in the same valley that could do it better. The same tools that are used to fix a car or make a table leg can be used to manufacture a gun. You cannot have the capacity to make or repair machines without the capacity make or repair guns. It is up to the individual what they want.
Since a gun is a moral weapon useful for our inalienable right to defend us and ours, and since we cannot by action or will of government remove guns from our lives: guns should have virtually NO legal restrictions. The only restrictions that a government can rightfully or realistically put on guns is for individuals that have demonstrated they have issues with sanity, morality, or law. We have given our government the tools of imprisonment and restraining orders. We have established the precedent of registries for offenders of the law. Government can use these tools to regulate access to guns by those few whom we deem fundamentally irresponsible or immoral.
One inalienable right not listed in the Declaration of Independence, is the right to defend your life, liberty, and ... property. (Pursuit of happiness is a little etheric for this post.) By inalienable, I mean to say that it is not something that can be sold nor ownership thereof transferred and should not be forcibly taken. Government is inherently at odds with all inalienable rights. It is a fundamental conflict implied by the words govern and liberty.
For example, governments need funding. Hence taxes and a conflict with property as they claim your resources. A conflict with liberty as they don't give you a choice. And a conflict with the right to defend them in that they cannot tolerate you not paying. But this isn't an analysis of rights and governments, this is about gun control.
You have the right to defend yourself, your property and your loved ones. Nobody can take that right away from you. Further, nobody can do it for you, and the government really can't do it for you. Imagine that somebody breaks into your house. What do you do? Do you call 911? Even back when they took 911 calls seriously it still took several minutes for the police to arrive. When I was a little kid, maybe 10 years old, a guy broke into our house through the back door while Dad was at work, Mom was doing dishes with my older brother, and my little sister and I were watching TV together. In about 3 seconds Mom got his attention and I grabbed the cordless phone and disappeared into the house calling 911. Fortunately, the intruder's real goal was to intimidate us ... which didn't work too well. But it took 30 minutes for the Police to arrive and fill out a report. If he had decided to hurt us, (which he might have if he had better control of the situation and my brother wasn't bigger than him and standing next to the knives), the whole scene would have still played out before the police arrived. If the same thing happened today, it would likely take a half hour to get through to 911 like it did about a year ago when we had a medical emergency in my home.
I don't blame the government or the police for their slow response time in either case. They cannot protect and provide for us. They cannot be everywhere all the time, and even if they could then they still wouldn't be able to do the job. Besides, we wouldn't want them every where all the time.
To try to abdicate our right to defend ourselves or responsibility to defend our loved ones is to surrender a key part of who we are. It is fundamental in our psyche to strive. If we do not strive we do not thrive. The only question is what tools we should have at our disposal for self defense?
Every society, has to draw the line somewhere. We have to decide what tools are rightful for individuals to have at their disposal for their defense. This is our decision to make collectively as citizens, not a decision for a 'government'. There are some things that are simply not in the realm of defense ... they fall in the category I would like to call immoral weapons. Think weaponized small pox and nuclear bombs. I don't know anybody who is arguing for unrestricted access to these items. The big issue with these is that there is no real way to limit bystander casualties.
The capacity to control damage is the key to determining whether or not a weapon should be controlled by the government or not. A semi-automatic any-gun is relatively easy to use and control damage. It is fully at the discretion of the shooter to pick a target and pull the trigger. The person with the gun has to make a bullet by bullet decision about what they want to do. This makes it a moral weapon.
Further, the gun is ubiquitous. No amount of regulation or government effort would be able to remove all the guns from society. And further, they are relatively easy to make. I have access to all the resources necessary to manufacture a gun completely off the books. I even have the knowledge necessary to figure it out, and I think there are a few hundred people living in the same valley that could do it better. The same tools that are used to fix a car or make a table leg can be used to manufacture a gun. You cannot have the capacity to make or repair machines without the capacity make or repair guns. It is up to the individual what they want.
Since a gun is a moral weapon useful for our inalienable right to defend us and ours, and since we cannot by action or will of government remove guns from our lives: guns should have virtually NO legal restrictions. The only restrictions that a government can rightfully or realistically put on guns is for individuals that have demonstrated they have issues with sanity, morality, or law. We have given our government the tools of imprisonment and restraining orders. We have established the precedent of registries for offenders of the law. Government can use these tools to regulate access to guns by those few whom we deem fundamentally irresponsible or immoral.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Life is complicated
I haven't written in a while because I can't seem to find the pithy answers. Or even a topic worth writing on that I can summarize sufficiently in a simple blog.
I have figured out some of the healthcare problem. Clearly, we are in the process of getting thoroughly ripped off, lied to, and painted into a corner by our governement. I haven't said anything about it sooner because I didn't understand it well enough as yet.
On the topic of what is wrong with healthcare.
The costs are growing much faster than the income of individuals. There are three key causes to this. First of all, the body is complicated and sophisticated beyond belief. This means that it takes a lot to train doctors and learn more about the body, which equates to high cost. Second, it is a high liability profession. If a doctor or pharmaceutical company does cause some harm, then the fiscal consequences for them can be atrocious. This works with the other two causes in a synergistic fashion to increase health care costs. The third cause is that we have an infinite immediate value on life. By this I mean that when faced with a life threatening situation we are willing to do anything and pay anything. So, the price can go up to meet our full fiscal capacity. Not just the capacity of an individual or family, but of a whole society. (The truth is that we aren't. People drive recklessly, eat all kinds of garbage, and engage in dangerous sports, sex ... etc. It helps define our lives and ... well that is another topic about which I am not entirely ready to discourse.)
The last part of the health care problem is that we have a contradiction between the basic doctrines of our society. We cannot value all life essentially equally and still maintain a strictly competitive free-market. Really some people have to be worth more in a competitve free market. It is the whole profit motive thing. I am not a fan of the competitive free market theory that we have created, but I think that is another topic for another blog.
Well, that is enough for me for what is wrong. Now for potential solutions, without going through the obviously disasterous and deliberately deceptive plans of our government.
First, open up insurance to interstate sales. Auto insurance already is, so why not health insurance.
Second, change the liability laws for doctors and lawyers. There are two big changes that come to mind. Lawyers should not be awarded on the win-amount of the lawsuit, but only on the paid amount. Lawyers should also be liable to a certain percentage of the sue amount and a fixed cost for legal fees in a frivolous or even failed suit. I understand the the fiscal liability of lawyers will only serve to reduce the number of lawsuits and make the individuals more vulnerable. So, there needs to be some discretionary aspects to the application of the liabilities of the lawyers. Clearly, not a simple solution. And, one that would face a lot of opposition.
Third, also not a simple solution, require health insurance at some minimal level for everybody. We are already requiring insurance to drive a car, so why not breath? It is not the same since we cannot revoke a breathing liscence, but it is also not the same since we are currently required to treat everybody regardless of how expensive and their ability to pay for it. Obviously, there are massive complications with this, how to enforce it, how to regulate it, and what exclusions to allow.
Fourth, create an information net. Doctors would be required to disclose anonimous patient histories. (the patient is anonimous, not the doctor) These histories would be published by cases and not by patient. This information would be AVAILABLE for all with a nominal access fee to support the network costs. There would be a minimum delay of 3 months and maximum delay of 1 year before information is added. The information can then be google-mined by everybody. Very expensive. Very difficult. But also very valuable. It would allow people to make real decisions, as well as pushing doctors in their development. Too often diagnostic tests cloud the problems more than resolve them. With correlated statistical information of symptoms, tests, diagnosis, treatment, and results it would be amazing what we could save.
I have figured out some of the healthcare problem. Clearly, we are in the process of getting thoroughly ripped off, lied to, and painted into a corner by our governement. I haven't said anything about it sooner because I didn't understand it well enough as yet.
On the topic of what is wrong with healthcare.
The costs are growing much faster than the income of individuals. There are three key causes to this. First of all, the body is complicated and sophisticated beyond belief. This means that it takes a lot to train doctors and learn more about the body, which equates to high cost. Second, it is a high liability profession. If a doctor or pharmaceutical company does cause some harm, then the fiscal consequences for them can be atrocious. This works with the other two causes in a synergistic fashion to increase health care costs. The third cause is that we have an infinite immediate value on life. By this I mean that when faced with a life threatening situation we are willing to do anything and pay anything. So, the price can go up to meet our full fiscal capacity. Not just the capacity of an individual or family, but of a whole society. (The truth is that we aren't. People drive recklessly, eat all kinds of garbage, and engage in dangerous sports, sex ... etc. It helps define our lives and ... well that is another topic about which I am not entirely ready to discourse.)
The last part of the health care problem is that we have a contradiction between the basic doctrines of our society. We cannot value all life essentially equally and still maintain a strictly competitive free-market. Really some people have to be worth more in a competitve free market. It is the whole profit motive thing. I am not a fan of the competitive free market theory that we have created, but I think that is another topic for another blog.
Well, that is enough for me for what is wrong. Now for potential solutions, without going through the obviously disasterous and deliberately deceptive plans of our government.
First, open up insurance to interstate sales. Auto insurance already is, so why not health insurance.
Second, change the liability laws for doctors and lawyers. There are two big changes that come to mind. Lawyers should not be awarded on the win-amount of the lawsuit, but only on the paid amount. Lawyers should also be liable to a certain percentage of the sue amount and a fixed cost for legal fees in a frivolous or even failed suit. I understand the the fiscal liability of lawyers will only serve to reduce the number of lawsuits and make the individuals more vulnerable. So, there needs to be some discretionary aspects to the application of the liabilities of the lawyers. Clearly, not a simple solution. And, one that would face a lot of opposition.
Third, also not a simple solution, require health insurance at some minimal level for everybody. We are already requiring insurance to drive a car, so why not breath? It is not the same since we cannot revoke a breathing liscence, but it is also not the same since we are currently required to treat everybody regardless of how expensive and their ability to pay for it. Obviously, there are massive complications with this, how to enforce it, how to regulate it, and what exclusions to allow.
Fourth, create an information net. Doctors would be required to disclose anonimous patient histories. (the patient is anonimous, not the doctor) These histories would be published by cases and not by patient. This information would be AVAILABLE for all with a nominal access fee to support the network costs. There would be a minimum delay of 3 months and maximum delay of 1 year before information is added. The information can then be google-mined by everybody. Very expensive. Very difficult. But also very valuable. It would allow people to make real decisions, as well as pushing doctors in their development. Too often diagnostic tests cloud the problems more than resolve them. With correlated statistical information of symptoms, tests, diagnosis, treatment, and results it would be amazing what we could save.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
how to make a paper wallet
Project: I hate how big wallets are and my nylon-trifold is dying. So, I did a lot of shopping around and decided to make my own wallet, out of PAPER. I am still trying to find a more appropriate paper, but this one is just normal 8.5 x 11 inch printer paper. I started with the wallet found on www.instructables.com, and made some of my own changes.
Disclaimer: there is some discrepancy between the images and the instructions, but I will try to point them out as we go.
Step 1: crease the page in all the right places.
the picture shows these creases with measurements in one direction or another. A 1/2" strip has already been cut from the top even though this is listed as part of step 2. It also has some other cuts already made in the page.
Horizontal creases
from top down: from bottom up:
2 9
5 1/16 5 15/16
8 1/16 2 15/16
Vertical creases
from left to right: from right to left:
1/2 8
4 1/4 4 1/4
8 1/2
note: the picture shows vertical creases at 5/8 and 7 7/8 inches. But when I went to load the wallet, I found this was a bit tights with 6 cards and 8 bills. So I changed the dimensions here to 1/2 and 8. This allows more space in the wallet for all your junk.
Step 2: Cut Cut Cut
a: take the 1/2 inch off the top, which is never shown in any pictures
b: snip out the tabs on the sides and top. The boundaries of the tabs line up with the creases made previously. The exact shape is unimportant. While I make the creases very precisely, I just went to town with a pair of scissors for the tabs.
c: fold the page vertically and cut a hole in the middle, between two creases. This is the card access. I used my wife's 1 3/4" circle punch from her Stampin' Up supplies.
Step 3: Fold up the bottom, glue the bottom two side tabs in place
Step 4: fold up the bottom again
In this picture, I have traced where the glued tabs sit so that you can see them easily.
step 5: glue in the remaining side tabs, not the top.
The top flap just hides the money so that it is not as obvious that you have something or nothing inside.
Step 6: load the wallet.
You should do this before the glue dries so that the tabs can move that little bit and allow the wallet to shape better.
step 7: admire
Here is a side by side comparison of my old wallet to my paper wallet. The old wallet is completely empty. The paper wallet is filled with everything that was in my old wallet. Even so, the paper wallet is noticeably thinner.
Disclaimer: there is some discrepancy between the images and the instructions, but I will try to point them out as we go.
Step 1: crease the page in all the right places.
the picture shows these creases with measurements in one direction or another. A 1/2" strip has already been cut from the top even though this is listed as part of step 2. It also has some other cuts already made in the page.
Horizontal creasesfrom top down: from bottom up:
2 9
5 1/16 5 15/16
8 1/16 2 15/16
Vertical creases
from left to right: from right to left:
1/2 8
4 1/4 4 1/4
8 1/2
note: the picture shows vertical creases at 5/8 and 7 7/8 inches. But when I went to load the wallet, I found this was a bit tights with 6 cards and 8 bills. So I changed the dimensions here to 1/2 and 8. This allows more space in the wallet for all your junk.
Step 2: Cut Cut Cut
a: take the 1/2 inch off the top, which is never shown in any pictures
b: snip out the tabs on the sides and top. The boundaries of the tabs line up with the creases made previously. The exact shape is unimportant. While I make the creases very precisely, I just went to town with a pair of scissors for the tabs.
c: fold the page vertically and cut a hole in the middle, between two creases. This is the card access. I used my wife's 1 3/4" circle punch from her Stampin' Up supplies.
Step 3: Fold up the bottom, glue the bottom two side tabs in place
Step 4: fold up the bottom again
In this picture, I have traced where the glued tabs sit so that you can see them easily.
step 5: glue in the remaining side tabs, not the top.
The top flap just hides the money so that it is not as obvious that you have something or nothing inside.
Step 6: load the wallet.
You should do this before the glue dries so that the tabs can move that little bit and allow the wallet to shape better.
step 7: admire
Here is a side by side comparison of my old wallet to my paper wallet. The old wallet is completely empty. The paper wallet is filled with everything that was in my old wallet. Even so, the paper wallet is noticeably thinner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)