AW: [biofuels-biz] raw or refined feedstock ?
Well. there are things called biodiesel quality standards, be it ASTM, CEN, DIN, our little national ONORM, whatever They are supposed to define the method/s of analysis AND the criteria to determine the quality of Bio-diesel. Many (like me) belive that some of this standards are clearly overkills and too meticolous (?spelling?) and too strict in some places or limiting to the use of only one specific feedstock (i.e. rapeseed in Europe) The completness of transesterification is determined by the analysis of remaining mono-, di- and triglycerid left in the product. Period. The only sensible two ways to determin are thin film chromatography or gas chromatography. 100% mutton fat: Yes, we do offer technology for that feedstock. But sorry, nothing for DIYS IMHO. Cloud point IS THE NUMBER ONE problem we all have with the cheap feedstocks though. Bye for now, Camillo -Ursprngliche Nachricht- Von: Steven Hobbs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juni 2002 23:48 An: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [biofuels-biz] raw or refined feedstock ? G'day Camillo, Thanks for the comments but can I ask the question.by what method/s of analysis do you determine the quality of Bio-diesel? I had a hinch that Glycerine would've been a specific nuber before its removal, and so a fatty acid analysis would've indicated the completeness of a reaction? It is good to know that in European systems you do in fact use raw feedstock. Just to throw another feedstock into the ball park...100%.mutton fat. I think someone on another thread mentioned something about the smell of kitten vomityes...fairly nasty smelling stuffbut produced the best looking fuel I've seen. Only problem...has a cloud point of about 16 degrees! Is it possible to alter the cloud point using surfactants? Have you done any work with regards to the use of tallows Camillo? I'd be interested to hear. Regards Steven Camillo Holecek wrote: If it helps to clarify, here are my two (EURO) cent: ALL commercial BD produced in Europe is made from raw oil, nobody bothers to refine (if they can). The fatty acid composition you mention has little to do with quality. It depends only on the feedstock AND GOES UNCHANGED THROUGH TRANSESTERIFICATION !!! Therefore it does not say anything on the quality of a biodiesel production. Camillo Holecek Biodiesel Raffinerie GmbH, Austria -Ursprngliche Nachricht- Von: Steven Hobbs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juni 2002 15:26 An: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: genetic engineering G'day Keith, It's Steve Hobbs here. I have only two pieces of reference for my work. 1 - My humble 18 year old Nissan ute that has now travelled 7000 kms on a 40% cold pressed BD dino diesel mix and appears in all respects to be travelling fine (perhaps even better that fine, engine rattle has substantially reduced, cold starts improved, reduced smoke, etc..the ute is due to have injectors removed and inspected by an impartial party) 2 - I've had a sample of coldpressed BD analysised for fatty acid composition, which I guess would give an idea of the quality of the fuel by what fatty acids are and aren't present in my fuel. If you could Keith, I'd be interested to compare the fatty acid composition of my farm made cold pressed BD to commercially produced BD to see how the quality stacks up. So, here is the analysis C16:0C18:0C18:1C18:2C18:3C20:0C20:1C22:0 3.90 4.83 80.54 9.29 0.00 0.37 0.00 1.07 If you could provide me with a commentary on the quality of my fuel, it would be appreciated. Regards Steven snip, snip, snip,etc Keith Addison wrote: When compared with the costs of refining vegetable oils by degumming, neutralisation, bleaching etc., the cost of transesterifying raw oils is not; or should not be; excessive. Steve Hobbs has shown that the transesterification (with washing)of raw oil effectivelty removes the contaminants. I've seen various conflicting statements about that. Do you have a reference for Steve Hobbs's work? Best wishes Keith Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: AW: [biofuels-biz] raw or refined feedstock ?
Hello Camillo, Steve Well. there are things called biodiesel quality standards, be it ASTM, CEN, DIN, our little national ONORM, whatever You can find them here: National standards for biodiesel http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html They are supposed to define the method/s of analysis AND the criteria to determine the quality of Bio-diesel. Many (like me) belive that some of this standards are clearly overkills and too meticolous (?spelling?) and too strict in some places or limiting to the use of only one specific feedstock (i.e. rapeseed in Europe) The completness of transesterification is determined by the analysis of remaining mono-, di- and triglycerid left in the product. Period. The only sensible two ways to determin are thin film chromatography or gas chromatography. Why can't we rig a cheap TFC test for completion? Or at least affordable, if not cheap. There's one detailed here: Analysis, Miscellaneous, Test kit for Biodiesel: http://koal.cop.fi/leonardo/leonardo.htm But they don't answer emails. :-( However, I think if you give the stuff a really fiercely agitated wash, like in a blender, you'll soon see if there are emulsions in it - ie, monoglycerides. And there are some basic quality tests here: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html#quality 100% mutton fat: Yes, we do offer technology for that feedstock. But sorry, nothing for DIYS IMHO. Try this, good for tallow and lard - if it doesn't handle 100% you might have to mix it with some SVO or WVO: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_aleks.html Cloud point IS THE NUMBER ONE problem we all have with the cheap feedstocks though. Sorry to push this, but I found adding 10% ethanol lowered cloud point quite a useful amount, maybe more so in this case. It was 95% ethanol, by the way. Best Keith Bye for now, Camillo -Ursprngliche Nachricht- Von: Steven Hobbs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juni 2002 23:48 An: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [biofuels-biz] raw or refined feedstock ? G'day Camillo, Thanks for the comments but can I ask the question.by what method/s of analysis do you determine the quality of Bio-diesel? I had a hinch that Glycerine would've been a specific nuber before its removal, and so a fatty acid analysis would've indicated the completeness of a reaction? It is good to know that in European systems you do in fact use raw feedstock. Just to throw another feedstock into the ball park...100%.mutton fat. I think someone on another thread mentioned something about the smell of kitten vomityes...fairly nasty smelling stuffbut produced the best looking fuel I've seen. Only problem...has a cloud point of about 16 degrees! Is it possible to alter the cloud point using surfactants? Have you done any work with regards to the use of tallows Camillo? I'd be interested to hear. Regards Steven Camillo Holecek wrote: If it helps to clarify, here are my two (EURO) cent: ALL commercial BD produced in Europe is made from raw oil, nobody bothers to refine (if they can). The fatty acid composition you mention has little to do with quality. It depends only on the feedstock AND GOES UNCHANGED THROUGH TRANSESTERIFICATION !!! Therefore it does not say anything on the quality of a biodiesel production. Camillo Holecek Biodiesel Raffinerie GmbH, Austria -Ursprngliche Nachricht- Von: Steven Hobbs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 17. Juni 2002 15:26 An: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: genetic engineering G'day Keith, It's Steve Hobbs here. I have only two pieces of reference for my work. 1 - My humble 18 year old Nissan ute that has now travelled 7000 kms on a 40% cold pressed BD dino diesel mix and appears in all respects to be travelling fine (perhaps even better that fine, engine rattle has substantially reduced, cold starts improved, reduced smoke, etc..the ute is due to have injectors removed and inspected by an impartial party) 2 - I've had a sample of coldpressed BD analysised for fatty acid composition, which I guess would give an idea of the quality of the fuel by what fatty acids are and aren't present in my fuel. If you could Keith, I'd be interested to compare the fatty acid composition of my farm made cold pressed BD to commercially produced BD to see how the quality stacks up. So, here is the analysis C16:0C18:0C18:1C18:2C18:3C20:0C20:1C22:0 3.90 4.83 80.54 9.29 0.00 0.37 0.00 1.07 If you could provide me with a commentary on the quality of my fuel, it would be appreciated. Regards Steven snip, snip, snip,etc Keith Addison wrote: When compared with the costs of refining vegetable oils by degumming, neutralisation, bleaching etc., the cost of transesterifying raw oils is not; or should not be;
[biofuels-biz] plant breeding/ genetic engineering
Having read a lot of these acedemic derived papers, i would like to mention that many such studies are published in many stages and this may just be the first stage in a number of progressive tests, which will carry on if the acedemic peers and fiunders think it appropriate. I think we might be better to talk to the authors of the papers rather than assume they're 'on the make'. They might well appreciate some input from the bio-fuels industry. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Christopher Witmer wrote: Appal Energy wrote: Your glib and simple dismissal is one of blindness. Todd, My glib and simple dismissal is because I actually have a MEMORY. A rather selective one it seems. I remember all the mountains of irrefutable scientific evidence trotted out by environmentalists in the early 1970s warning that we faced a new ice age unless the government took immediate and massive action. Did they say it was irrefutable? I don't think so. And even if they did, did the scientists who produced the mountains of scientific evidence say that? Today, using much of the same data, No way. Even where the same climate records are used, new ways of crunching them and of correlating them with each other, with other evidence and with huge amounts of new data have produced new and much improved information from the old records. An early 70s mainframe had 16kb of RAM. NASA's new climate-change supercomputer has 1024 CPUs. Other areas have seen similar advances, from ground-level studies to satellites. Hundreds of major institutes all over the world are involved in this work. they claim we are endangered by global warming. These are the same climatologists who can't tell us whether it will rain next Friday, Please go to your dictionary and look up climatologist and meteorologist. but who are certain that the earth's temperature will be x degrees celsius higher in 2011 than today. Nobody claims certainty over that. They make projections, with provisos, and every few months the projections rise sharply on new evidence, and the researchers express their surprise. There is now little serious argument against global warming, nor against man's role in it, there's a broad worldwide consensus on that, but with uncertainty over how much temperatures will rise, and over what the precise effects are likely to be, and where. The picture does, however, grow clearer and clearer all the time, and has been doing so since the late 80s. The proposed solution to this Greenhouse Effect is, surprise!, socialism -- Aaarrgghhh!!! You said the S-word! The sky will fall on our heads if you say that! LOL! more government spending and control, and lower human standards of living. It seems you don't remember this, or maybe your eye glanced over it, as it seems to do. Businesses identify nearly $400 million in Kyoto opportunities -- A best-case scenario for five business opportunities likely to be available because of climate change - and political responses to it - shows New Zealand could earn more than $350 million a year, a group of business executives says. For most companies, climate change is now a risk management issue with significant opportunities. http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,1223990a13,FF.html Without action to halt global warming, economists predict that the world as a whole will be 10 times as rich by 2100, and people on average will be five times as well off. Adding on the costs of tackling warming, says Schneider, would postpone this target by a mere two years. To be 10 times richer in 2100 versus 2102 would hardly be noticed. Similarly, meeting the terms of the Kyoto Protocol would mean industrialised countries get 20 per cent richer by June 2010 rather than in January 2010. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns2394 There are dozens of those, I just grabbed the first two. Yet the net rise in world surface temperature during the last century is about one degree Fahrenheit, nearly all of it before 1940, notes syndicated columnist Alton Chase. You sneer at the Technology Editor of The Independent, calling him the Political Propaganda Editor, and at New Scientist, and probably Reuters too now, and at the CSIRO, and now you offer us this guy? Whose non-mumbo-jumbo science credentials are that he's a syndicated columnist? Well, I can imagine you really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find someone who'd say that, if he did, but still. It's crap. And the northern oceans have actually been getting cooler. The much-vaunted 'global warming' figures are concocted by averaging equatorial warming with north temperate cooling. Note too that the recent news article bearing the same title as this message blames not warming but rather COOLING of the Northern Hemisphere as the cause of perennial drought in the Sahel. So which is it? Global cooling, or global warming? Desertification, or ice age? You don't understand the subject very well. You should do some homework, well, lots of homework, before you venture any further. You don't even know the difference between climate and weather. Desertification means a decrease in rainfall, not an increase in temperature. A National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration study of ground temperature in the U.S. from 1889-1989 found no warming. http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/heatbeat/weather011101.stm Taking the Earth's temperature for 2000 11 Jan 2001 -- The year 2000 is
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
- Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa Forests that do not end up in ashes end up decomposing, and the net emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are more or less equal in either case. Christopher, I would have thought that decomposition of forest components took place at a much lower density with there being a good chance that the surrounding vegetation would take up the CO2 produced in the decay process. Regards, Paul Gobert. I've never seen a decomposed forest. Trees die, new trees grow. It's hard to find death in a forest. A dead log is filled with fungi, all the microorganisms of decay, insects... The fungi are usually mycorrhizae, directly feeding the dead tree to living trees. Eventually what's left of the log becomes humus (which also isn't exactly dead), with some release of CO2, which is then taken up again by the plants and eventually the tree that replaces it. A whole forest dies? Acid rain maybe... but that brings us back to the same subject. Neglect land and it reverts to trees. They just stay there unless you cut them down. A forest is an integrated organism, like its ecological opposite, pasture. Both of them cycle and recycle CO2. There is no massive net emission of CO2 into the atmosphere unless you burn them. Then, if left undisturbed, a new forest will grow, taking up the CO2 again. Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Well, Keith and other friends, what we really have here is something akin to a religious confrontation, because the disagreement involves fundamental differences in worldview and presuppositions. For example, a perusal of reviews of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World ( http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521010683/ ) shows that there is virtually no middle ground: everyone either loves it or loathes it. And that has been the case since the modern environmentalist movement began with books like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which similarly produces extreme reactions from readers. I have profound disagreements with the entire set of Malthusian, Darwinian, Marxist and Freudian presuppositions that pervade most of modern thought, especially in the sciences. Science is hardly value-free and neutral. The set of presuppositions that any scientist brings to his work will surely affect the outcome of that work. As I see it, modern scientists include lots of brilliant men, and most of them are cutting with a bent saw. It doesn't matter how sharp a bent saw is, it still can't cut straight. The vast majority of scientists study neither the history of scientific thought nor the philosophy of science, and thus fail to recognize that according due to the presuppositions of their modern worldview, there is no way they can explain how science even ought to be possible. To me these scientists seem to be living an incongruity without ever becoming aware of the fact. Be that as it may, I recognize there is a huge body of research purporting to support the conclusion that a global warming disaster is in the making. Well, if our bent-saw researchers continue cutting long enough, they shall come full circle. They shall produce new theories to replace their previous discredited theories, and the new theories will be accepted as gospel, just like the earlier ones were. Not to worry, there will no doubt be a steady stream of new environmental crises to keep everyone fully employed. As for me, I plan to continue driving a biodiesel or SVO vehicle happy in the knowledge that I am thereby saving money and eliminating unnecessary local pollution and waste, but not overly concerned about how that affects the climate/weather on the opposite side of the globe. I will gratefully avail myself of the excellent biodiesel resources available on this list and at websites like Keith's JTF, and shall simply sidestep what I perceive to be the ideological cow patties littering the field. Sorry for having taken up bandwidth with a discussion that, albeit important, is peripheral to this list's main matter of business. -- Christopher Witmer Tokyo Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Waste Vegetable Oil
Hello, I am currently researching the use of WVO as a fuel for generation of electricity in a diesel generator. I have read that deacidified veg oil is the best bet for use in a diesel engine. Does anyone know how this process is done? Are there any examples of the results of sustained use of SVO/WVO in large diesel engines? Thanks, David Penfold Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: Waste Vegetable Oil
Mr.Penfold, Two of the programs at Alexandria Technical College (Diesel Mechanics and Power Generation) are working at setting up test units for something like you are talking about next fall. Several small diesel generators (20 Kw) and a large generator (275 Kw) are being donated by a group of local farmers who run pickups and tractors on WVO. One of them has designed a filtering and de-aciding unit they all use. I think it just runs the filtered WVO through a cartridge of crushed limestone but I have only seen it once. You can contact the guy that designed it at* [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff Stoekel --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], daponuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am currently researching the use of WVO as a fuel for generation of electricity in a diesel generator. I have read that deacidified veg oil is the best bet for use in a diesel engine. Does anyone know how this process is done? Are there any examples of the results of sustained use of SVO/WVO in large diesel engines? Thanks, David Penfold Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Fw: Two Stroke Stuff
The following is a message from G at HempCar.org. He's in the midst of life cycle studies on two strokes using biodiesel and ethanol. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:46 AM Subject: Re: Two Stroke Stuff Ummm, Use like two cycle oil, it's great!? Or...Tryyy it you'll lke itseriously..I can only give anecdotal reports now...it seems to work better, less carbon, certainly no smoke and an oh so fresh feeling from the tailpipe, then again i'm running my motors on grain and bio-d, and damn the motors love this stuff. Chuck's been racking up many miles on his 50cc moped running alcohol and bio-d. We see a lot less carbon and a generally improved performance, but we drilled the jets for the alcohol, most folks don't want to do that I think..for anyone who's interested, the stoichiometry changes from around 15:1 on gas to around 10:1 for alcohol. In the case of alcohol two strokes, less oil in the fuel is needed due to the larger jet size. For anyone who wants to rejet just use the ratios. I certainly recommend for anyone to use bio-d in two strokes without fear. As soon as I can afford the time, I'll do the data logging tests. More soon... g No promises on the land thing yet..there are a bunch of us looking around in Charlottesville as you know..sure you want to buy that place? Our biggest prob is that none of us are big Ohio fans, but I'd like to come visit and get a better picture..before you buy, you might consider looking around the Shenandoah with us too..right? We're going to get this whole art farm thing going...love to ya.. Appal Energy wrote: Hey G, The old two stroke biodiesel question keeps popping up. I know it's a bit early, but would you care to impart a little wisdom on the matter so I can post it at Yahoo Biofuels? Also, it looks like a given that I'm going to sign the deed in early October. Still looking for land partners if you're still interested. Todd Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: Waste Vegetable Oil
Arch-troll - don't believe him. Goodbye troll! Once again. Keith Addison List owner Mr.Penfold, Two of the programs at Alexandria Technical College (Diesel Mechanics and Power Generation) are working at setting up test units for something like you are talking about next fall. Several small diesel generators (20 Kw) and a large generator (275 Kw) are being donated by a group of local farmers who run pickups and tractors on WVO. One of them has designed a filtering and de-aciding unit they all use. I think it just runs the filtered WVO through a cartridge of crushed limestone but I have only seen it once. You can contact the guy that designed it at* [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff Stoekel --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], daponuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am currently researching the use of WVO as a fuel for generation of electricity in a diesel generator. I have read that deacidified veg oil is the best bet for use in a diesel engine. Does anyone know how this process is done? Are there any examples of the results of sustained use of SVO/WVO in large diesel engines? Thanks, David Penfold Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Waste Vegetable Oil
Hello David Hello, I am currently researching the use of WVO as a fuel for generation of electricity in a diesel generator. I have read that deacidified veg oil is the best bet for use in a diesel engine. Does anyone know how this process is done? Here's one way: Make your own biodiesel - page 2: Deacidifying WVO http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make2.html#deacid It depends on the diesel and on the oil. Diesel generators are good candidates for SVO use - see: Guide to using vegetable oil as diesel fuel -- Straight vegetable oil as diesel fuel: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html#guide If the oil is in good condition, you might not need to deacidify it. You'd test that by titration - if it titrates at less than 2-3 ml, you might be okay, especially with a generator. Basic titration, Better titration -- Make your own biodiesel - page 2 http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make2.html#titrate Are there any examples of the results of sustained use of SVO/WVO in large diesel engines? http://www.biodiesel.org/cgi-local/search.cgi?action=view_reportid=GEN-292 (See section concerning Fels, South Africa, indirect injection engines, 1800 hours, warranty issuance from manufacturer based on results) That should be Fuls. J., Hawkins, C.S. and Hugo, F.J.C., 1984, Tractor Engine Performance on Sunflower Oil Fuel, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 30:29-35. Hope that helps. Best Keith Thanks, David Penfold Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Christopher Witmer wrote: Yet the net rise in world surface temperature during the last century is about one degree Fahrenheit, nearly all of it before 1940, notes syndicated columnist Alton Chase. And the northern oceans have actually been getting cooler. The much-vaunted 'global warming' figures are concocted by averaging equatorial warming with north temperate cooling. Note too that the recent news article bearing the same title as this message blames not warming but rather COOLING of the Northern Hemisphere as the cause of perennial drought in the Sahel. So which is it? Global cooling, or global warming? Desertification, or ice age? Global Surface Temperature Anomalies National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html Has a bar chart, at page top, from 1880-2000 for Land Ocean temperatures. A National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration study of ground temperature in the U.S. from 1889-1989 found no warming. And a recently concluded 10-year satellite weather study by two NASA scientists at the Huntsville Space Center and the University of Alabama also found zero warming. MH wrote: Particulate Matter (PM) from volcanos, forest fires, coal, SO2 and wind swept soil fine particulate matter to name a few tend to cool the earths surface temperature so I understand. The developed world use to utilize wood and coal extensively emitting PM without realizing the results it would seem to me when looking at the above NOAA bar chart. I appears to me the change in energy fuel use transition has reduced PM but CO2 has increased with the expansion of the modern world and population thus adding to increased global warming climate change from my simplistic view. A quote from: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) As a consortium of universities dedicated to educate and research to enrich our understanding of the earth system, UCAR manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) UCAR Office of Programs (UOP). About UCAR http://www.ucar.edu/ucar/about.html On Global Climate Change... Excerpts from John Firor's Lecture: http://www.ucar.edu/40th/Roberts/lectures/firor/firor_exerpts.html In the 1890s, [Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish research scientist and an early recipient of the Nobel Prize] tried to explain what made ice ages by calculating how the temperature of Earthâs surface might change if somehow the amount of carbon dioxide in the air were to decrease. It had been known for some time that carbon dioxide in the air trapped heat near the surface and hence kept the Earth much warmer than it might otherwise be. So, Arrhenius speculated if something ate up a lot of carbon dioxide, the earth should cool and perhaps initiate an ice age. He calculated that removing half the carbon dioxide would cool the earth by several degrees Celsius, perhaps enough to bring on the ice. But he could see smokestacks from his office window, smokestacks, as he put it, evaporating our coal mines into the sky, thereby adding carbon dioxide to the air. So while he was at it, he also calculated what would happen if we increased the carbon dioxide in the air. In one such calculation he estimated that doubling carbon dioxide would raise the average temperature by about 5 degrees Celsius, a large change in the average temperature of the whole earth. He did not foresee the rapid expansion of industrial societies that the twentieth century would bring, so he thought that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air was centuries away, and besides, he thought it might be nice if winters were a bit warmer there in Stockholm. Today we know a lot more. Other gases also trap heat, adding to the estimated warming; fossil fuels produce most of the carbon dioxide, and while they are warming the earth they are also creating urban smog, acid rain, oil spills, land degradation, restrictions to visibility, and tensions in the Middle East. And we know Earth has warmed in the past 140 years. ` Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Well, Mr Witmer It's not often that a person has both Gary North and Bjorn Lomborg quoted at him in the same day. If you and them make three straight saws, I'll be fully confident in cutting a dead straight line with my allegedly bent one. No, it's not something akin to a religious confrontation, not by any means. That would simply be the last resort of someone who's been confronted with contrary evidence and been unable to produce any of his own, abandoning his points along the way as they became untenable, pretending they never existed in the first place, and finally being left without a leg to stand on, and hence this retreat into an essentially non-rational arena, hoping to find safety there. It's just cant. As is the stuff below about science. Well, Keith and other friends, what we really have here is something akin to a religious confrontation, because the disagreement involves fundamental differences in worldview and presuppositions. For example, a perusal of reviews of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World ( http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521010683/ ) shows that there is virtually no middle ground: everyone either loves it or loathes it. And that has been the case since the modern environmentalist movement began with books like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which similarly produces extreme reactions from readers. I have profound disagreements with the entire set of Malthusian, Darwinian, Marxist and Freudian presuppositions that pervade most of modern thought, especially in the sciences. Science is hardly value-free and neutral. The set of presuppositions that any scientist brings to his work will surely affect the outcome of that work. As I see it, modern scientists include lots of brilliant men, and most of them are cutting with a bent saw. It doesn't matter how sharp a bent saw is, it still can't cut straight. The vast majority of scientists study neither the history of scientific thought nor the philosophy of science, and thus fail to recognize that according due to the presuppositions of their modern worldview, there is no way they can explain how science even ought to be possible. To me these scientists seem to be living an incongruity without ever becoming aware of the fact. Be that as it may, I recognize there is a huge body of research purporting to support the conclusion that a global warming disaster is in the making. Well, if our bent-saw researchers continue cutting long enough, they shall come full circle. They shall produce new theories to replace their previous discredited theories, and the new theories will be accepted as gospel, just like the earlier ones were. Not to worry, there will no doubt be a steady stream of new environmental crises to keep everyone fully employed. As for me, I plan to continue driving a biodiesel or SVO vehicle happy in the knowledge that I am thereby saving money and eliminating unnecessary local pollution and waste, but not overly concerned about how that affects the climate/weather on the opposite side of the globe. I will gratefully avail myself of the excellent biodiesel resources available on this list and at websites like Keith's JTF, and shall simply sidestep what I perceive to be the ideological cow patties littering the field. Sorry for having taken up bandwidth with a discussion that, albeit important, is peripheral to this list's main matter of business. We've had quite a few discussions about what this list's main matter of business is, and here's the answer: whatever we like. Who says so? I do. And with good reason, which, if you care to, you'll find very rationally outlined in the archives, sans religion, sans politics, and several times. What it all comes down to, in this case, is that you flung about quite a few unwarranted opinionations that you were unable to support when challenged, any more than you'd be able to support those above. But at least now you don't even claim that they're anything but opinions. I'm afraid you don't demonstrate much knowledge of the history of thought or the philosophy of science, nor of the current status of either of them. You can pin your Malthus, Marx and Freud labels on someone else, if you please, though I'll admit one of my favourite books is Darwin. Not the one you're thinking of though: it's called The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits. It was his favourite too, and it might surprise you. As for the ideological cow patties littering the field, those are all yours. I've stuck to information and data, I can back up anything I've said with a lot more information and data, and I'm not selective about it. You've presented no credible information or data, just ideology. Cowpats, if you will, and I'd agree - everyone's entitled to their opinions, but as I said, this isn't your village pub, and if you insist on airing here what are really barely disguised
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
- Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa Forests that do not end up in ashes end up decomposing, and the net emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are more or less equal in either case. Christopher, I would have thought that decomposition of forest components took place at a much lower density with there being a good chance that the surrounding vegetation would take up the CO2 produced in the decay process. Regards, Paul Gobert. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release Date: 6/06/02 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Well said Keith, this guys numbers are totally out of whack. They are so far from correct, that I suspect that Christoper is a paid propaganda writer. His words sound very much like someone who is involved in the black ops profession. It seems like every list that is set up to do some public good is infected with these folks who just keep causing friction. I sure wish these know-it-all creeps who offer nothing but opinion yet demand proof, would get their own damn list. kris --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, Mr Witmer It's not often that a person has both Gary North and Bjorn Lomborg quoted at him in the same day. If you and them make three straight saws, I'll be fully confident in cutting a dead straight line with my allegedly bent one. No, it's not something akin to a religious confrontation, not by any means. That would simply be the last resort of someone who's been confronted with contrary evidence and been unable to produce any of his own, abandoning his points along the way as they became untenable, pretending they never existed in the first place, and finally being left without a leg to stand on, and hence this retreat into an essentially non-rational arena, hoping to find safety there. It's just cant. As is the stuff below about science. Well, Keith and other friends, what we really have here is something akin to a religious confrontation, because the disagreement involves fundamental differences in worldview and presuppositions. For example, a perusal of reviews of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World ( http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521010683/ ) shows that there is virtually no middle ground: everyone either loves it or loathes it. And that has been the case since the modern environmentalist movement began with books like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which similarly produces extreme reactions from readers. I have profound disagreements with the entire set of Malthusian, Darwinian, Marxist and Freudian presuppositions that pervade most of modern thought, especially in the sciences. Science is hardly value-free and neutral. The set of presuppositions that any scientist brings to his work will surely affect the outcome of that work. As I see it, modern scientists include lots of brilliant men, and most of them are cutting with a bent saw. It doesn't matter how sharp a bent saw is, it still can't cut straight. The vast majority of scientists study neither the history of scientific thought nor the philosophy of science, and thus fail to recognize that according due to the presuppositions of their modern worldview, there is no way they can explain how science even ought to be possible. To me these scientists seem to be living an incongruity without ever becoming aware of the fact. Be that as it may, I recognize there is a huge body of research purporting to support the conclusion that a global warming disaster is in the making. Well, if our bent-saw researchers continue cutting long enough, they shall come full circle. They shall produce new theories to replace their previous discredited theories, and the new theories will be accepted as gospel, just like the earlier ones were. Not to worry, there will no doubt be a steady stream of new environmental crises to keep everyone fully employed. As for me, I plan to continue driving a biodiesel or SVO vehicle happy in the knowledge that I am thereby saving money and eliminating unnecessary local pollution and waste, but not overly concerned about how that affects the climate/weather on the opposite side of the globe. I will gratefully avail myself of the excellent biodiesel resources available on this list and at websites like Keith's JTF, and shall simply sidestep what I perceive to be the ideological cow patties littering the field. Sorry for having taken up bandwidth with a discussion that, albeit important, is peripheral to this list's main matter of business. We've had quite a few discussions about what this list's main matter of business is, and here's the answer: whatever we like. Who says so? I do. And with good reason, which, if you care to, you'll find very rationally outlined in the archives, sans religion, sans politics, and several times. What it all comes down to, in this case, is that you flung about quite a few unwarranted opinionations that you were unable to support when challenged, any more than you'd be able to support those above. But at least now you don't even claim that they're anything but opinions. I'm afraid you don't demonstrate much knowledge of the history of thought or the philosophy of science, nor of the current status of either of them. You can pin your Malthus, Marx and Freud labels on someone else, if you please, though I'll admit one of my favourite books is Darwin. Not the one you're
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
There's quite a bit of detailed disussion of Lomborg's book at the Scientific American site below: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0B96-9517-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDFp ageNumber=1catID=4 Well said Keith, this guys numbers are totally out of whack. They are so far from correct, that I suspect that Christoper is a paid propaganda writer. His words sound very much like someone who is involved in the black ops profession. It seems like every list that is set up to do some public good is infected with these folks who just keep causing friction. I sure wish these know-it-all creeps who offer nothing but opinion yet demand proof, would get their own damn list. kris --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, Mr Witmer It's not often that a person has both Gary North and Bjorn Lomborg quoted at him in the same day. If you and them make three straight saws, I'll be fully confident in cutting a dead straight line with my allegedly bent one. No, it's not something akin to a religious confrontation, not by any means. That would simply be the last resort of someone who's been confronted with contrary evidence and been unable to produce any of his own, abandoning his points along the way as they became untenable, pretending they never existed in the first place, and finally being left without a leg to stand on, and hence this retreat into an essentially non-rational arena, hoping to find safety there. It's just cant. As is the stuff below about science. Well, Keith and other friends, what we really have here is something akin to a religious confrontation, because the disagreement involves fundamental differences in worldview and presuppositions. For example, a perusal of reviews of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World ( http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521010683/ ) shows that there is virtually no middle ground: everyone either loves it or loathes it. And that has been the case since the modern environmentalist movement began with books like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which similarly produces extreme reactions from readers. I have profound disagreements with the entire set of Malthusian, Darwinian, Marxist and Freudian presuppositions that pervade most of modern thought, especially in the sciences. Science is hardly value-free and neutral. The set of presuppositions that any scientist brings to his work will surely affect the outcome of that work. As I see it, modern scientists include lots of brilliant men, and most of them are cutting with a bent saw. It doesn't matter how sharp a bent saw is, it still can't cut straight. The vast majority of scientists study neither the history of scientific thought nor the philosophy of science, and thus fail to recognize that according due to the presuppositions of their modern worldview, there is no way they can explain how science even ought to be possible. To me these scientists seem to be living an incongruity without ever becoming aware of the fact. Be that as it may, I recognize there is a huge body of research purporting to support the conclusion that a global warming disaster is in the making. Well, if our bent-saw researchers continue cutting long enough, they shall come full circle. They shall produce new theories to replace their previous discredited theories, and the new theories will be accepted as gospel, just like the earlier ones were. Not to worry, there will no doubt be a steady stream of new environmental crises to keep everyone fully employed. As for me, I plan to continue driving a biodiesel or SVO vehicle happy in the knowledge that I am thereby saving money and eliminating unnecessary local pollution and waste, but not overly concerned about how that affects the climate/weather on the opposite side of the globe. I will gratefully avail myself of the excellent biodiesel resources available on this list and at websites like Keith's JTF, and shall simply sidestep what I perceive to be the ideological cow patties littering the field. Sorry for having taken up bandwidth with a discussion that, albeit important, is peripheral to this list's main matter of business. We've had quite a few discussions about what this list's main matter of business is, and here's the answer: whatever we like. Who says so? I do. And with good reason, which, if you care to, you'll find very rationally outlined in the archives, sans religion, sans politics, and several times. What it all comes down to, in this case, is that you flung about quite a few unwarranted opinionations that you were unable to support when challenged, any more than you'd be able to support those above. But at least now you don't even claim that they're anything but opinions. I'm afraid you don't demonstrate much knowledge of the history of thought or the philosophy of science, nor of the current status of either
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Mr. Witmer, Actually what we have here is someone who issues sweeping generalizations and stereotypic categorizations - day one to present - which, I suppose, is not all that far off from what mainstream religions tend to assail the public with. Seems that you are the only soul brandishing anything in the way of dogmatic theology...that being denial and denunciation of the world that surrounds you, inclusive of all its poxes. Permit me to point out that your own words paint you with the same stripe as you attempt to paint others - not exactly value-free and neutral. You haven't exactly hesitated to bring a basketful of your own pre-suppostions to the table, now have you? Seems that your values tend to be those that deride the values of others who would care to preserve as much natural and human value as possible by diminishing present human impact on the globe which we all depend. Pity that you're the only person who has all the correct answers. Perhaps you should corronate yourself and start your own cult? Or would that take away from your day job, what appears to be one of a professional contrary, corporately funded perhaps, with no other intent than to keep as much valuable time of others tied up as possible? Which pretty much brings all conversation to an abrupt halt. If you need it to be put a little less politely and in fewer words, please feel free to let your imagination roam. What a waste. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa Well, Keith and other friends, what we really have here is something akin to a religious confrontation, because the disagreement involves fundamental differences in worldview and presuppositions. For example, a perusal of reviews of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World ( http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521010683/ ) shows that there is virtually no middle ground: everyone either loves it or loathes it. And that has been the case since the modern environmentalist movement began with books like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which similarly produces extreme reactions from readers. I have profound disagreements with the entire set of Malthusian, Darwinian, Marxist and Freudian presuppositions that pervade most of modern thought, especially in the sciences. Science is hardly value-free and neutral. The set of presuppositions that any scientist brings to his work will surely affect the outcome of that work. As I see it, modern scientists include lots of brilliant men, and most of them are cutting with a bent saw. It doesn't matter how sharp a bent saw is, it still can't cut straight. The vast majority of scientists study neither the history of scientific thought nor the philosophy of science, and thus fail to recognize that according due to the presuppositions of their modern worldview, there is no way they can explain how science even ought to be possible. To me these scientists seem to be living an incongruity without ever becoming aware of the fact. Be that as it may, I recognize there is a huge body of research purporting to support the conclusion that a global warming disaster is in the making. Well, if our bent-saw researchers continue cutting long enough, they shall come full circle. They shall produce new theories to replace their previous discredited theories, and the new theories will be accepted as gospel, just like the earlier ones were. Not to worry, there will no doubt be a steady stream of new environmental crises to keep everyone fully employed. As for me, I plan to continue driving a biodiesel or SVO vehicle happy in the knowledge that I am thereby saving money and eliminating unnecessary local pollution and waste, but not overly concerned about how that affects the climate/weather on the opposite side of the globe. I will gratefully avail myself of the excellent biodiesel resources available on this list and at websites like Keith's JTF, and shall simply sidestep what I perceive to be the ideological cow patties littering the field. Sorry for having taken up bandwidth with a discussion that, albeit important, is peripheral to this list's main matter of business. -- Christopher Witmer Tokyo Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Kris, I wish someone would pay me for writing! I am in nobody's employ. I never pretended to know it all. If my failure to be convinced that the rich have stolen the rain and that the blame for starting the [Sahel drought] appears to lie with the developed world makes me a creep and I should get off this list, let me ask you: do you want to shun contact with people who differ from you, or who disagree with you? If this is the kind of reaction that I, a mere lay person with a casual interest in the subject, am accorded, then what shall be the fate of the professional scientist who dissents from the current consensus on global warming? Speaking of climate, how about maintaining a climate in which dissenters and skeptics aren't pilloried? At the very least, however distasteful you might find it, you need to maintain contact with people like me. Preaching to the choir converts nobody (assuming you are right), and you might actually learn something of value, either directly or indirectly, through interactions with dissenters and skeptics. Any activist convinced of global warming should print out and post above his desk the April 28, 1975 Newsweek article The Cooling World, from which I quote: The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling, not warming] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it . . . Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects . . . The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. Again, I point back to the recent articles in The Independent and the New Scientist: if the mechanism as described is correct, then what we have is not a mechanism for global warming, but rather for global cooling. Thus this new research appears to have the potential to cause yet another flip-flop in the consensus on whether the earth is getting cooler, or warmer. What has changed between the 1970s and now where science is concerned? No doubt computer modeling has advanced. But one thing stays the same: human beings are doing the research, and the computer modeling will always be limited by the presuppositions of the people who create them. If the potential for crappy science on a massive scale existed in the 1970s, it still exists today. If the potential for crappy policy advice in the political realm existed in the 1970s, it still exists today. Computers may have advanced; the people who use them haven't. -- Christopher Witmer Kris Book wrote: I suspect that Christoper is a paid propaganda writer. His words sound very much like someone who is involved in the black ops profession. It seems like every list that is set up to do some public good is infected with these folks who just keep causing friction. I sure wish these know-it-all creeps who offer nothing but opinion yet demand proof, would get their own damn list. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Appal Energy wrote: Permit me to point out that [you are] not exactly value-free and neutral. You haven't exactly hesitated to bring a basketful of your own pre-suppostions to the table, now have you? Precisely. The above is not something I needed to have pointed out to me. One difference between you and me is that I am epistemologically self-conscious of what my presuppositions are. I am not accusing anyone of having presuppositions; rather, it is simply a fact of life that all people do have presuppositions. Everyone sees the world through colored glasses, you and me included. Are you aware of what your own presuppositions are? Are you aware of how your epistemological starting point predetermines your own thinking, of what you will accept as valid evidence and what you will reject? The universal tendency among human beings is to think, What my net doesn't catch isn't fish. Epistemological self-consciousness is as important as it is rare. Don't allow yourself the luxury of thinking that you are totally open-minded and free from prejudice. It is an impossibility. Seems that your values tend to be those that deride the values of others That is an observation that cuts equally well both ways here. Perhaps you should . . . start your own cult? (Laughing) Gee, it sounds like I inadvertently stepped on the toes of a true believer. Cult? I can't believe Mr. Prejudice-Free, Open-Minded and Tolerant to All is actually saying this. [You appear to be] a professional contrary, corporately funded perhaps, with no other intent than to keep as much valuable time of others tied up as possible . . . Again, where is your much-vaunted tolerance? Do you have any shred of evidence for this slander? It is solely your inference. Reminder concerning your valuable time: you can always hit the delete key. It doesn't take much time. Which pretty much brings all conversation to an abrupt halt. If you need it to be put a little less politely and in fewer words, please feel free to let your imagination roam. What a waste. Todd Swearingen Todd, go back and re-read your earlier admonitions about tolerance and open-mindedness. You would be well advised to practice what you preach. If this is the only way you can deal with someone who disagrees with you, how confident can you be in what you think you know? If you have the truth, you don't need to start foaming at the mouth and making all sorts of slanders about my motives, etc. (which are sheer conjecture on your part). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
yah, i heard about this too. its not global warming but global cooling and the next ice age is just around the corner they said. They also said if it were to happen Europe would be first to know cause Europe's climate is supported by the warm waters coming from the equator off the US coast. With Global warming, it breaks off the ice bergs from the North and these drift to the south, into the warm water streams path thus cooling it. Bringing less heat to the European continent. We can all agree that man had something to do with the climate changes happening. Even though there are natural cycles that could lead to this. Man certainly advanced or slowed down the tiemline for these events to happen. The question now is what to do about it and to what extent. Do we suspend everyone's liberties and do what we think could save the planet or do nothing since everyone can't even agree whats causing climate change and what will happen next. Factor in the politics, vested interests and showmanship, well, i'd rather make BD than make myself depressed. It's good that we have this forum to share and debate ideas, this builds concensus and understanding between groups of people and their respective concerns. However in the end, agreeing with one another is paramount for any idea to become action. This problem of climate change knows no borders nor boundaries. And it has to be addressed in the name of Mankind. snip My glib and simple dismissal is because I actually have a MEMORY. I remember all the mountains of irrefutable scientific evidence trotted out by environmentalists in the early 1970s warning that we faced a new ice age unless the government took immediate and massive action. Today, using much of the same data, they claim we are endangered by global warming. These are the same climatologists who can't tell us whether it will rain next Friday, but who are certain that the earth's temperature will be x degrees celsius higher in 2011 than today. The proposed solution to this Greenhouse Effect is, surprise!, socialism -- more government spending and control, and lower human standards of living. Yet the net rise in world surface temperature during the last century is about one degree Fahrenheit, nearly all of it before 1940, notes syndicated columnist Alton Chase. And the northern oceans have actually been getting cooler. The much-vaunted 'global warming' figures are concocted by averaging equatorial warming with north temperate cooling. Note too that the recent news article bearing the same title as this message blames not warming but rather COOLING of the Northern Hemisphere as the cause of perennial drought in the Sahel. So which is it? Global cooling, or global warming? Desertification, or ice age? A National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration study of ground temperature in the U.S. from 1889-1989 found no warming. And a recently concluded 10-year satellite weather study by two NASA scientists at the Huntsville Space Center and the University of Alabama also found zero warming. snip Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Oh get off it would you? You stated clearly that others bring presupposition to the table and implied sanctimoniously that somehow your thought processes were superior. Now you attempt to disclaim your collective arrogance in the hopes of what? That all of sudden you'll be treated like a bud? Face it. You came off like a jackass and you still do. You want tolerance? The next time you choose to jump anyone's ass in the midst of one of your arrogance, superiority and ego trips think about the word reciprocity. Frankly, I've got a great deal more respect for a horse that shits on my shoe than I have for someone who comes in all barrel chested and tries to lay a load of crap on me or anyone else. I would tend to believe it safe to say that you have reached the furthest extent of your knowledge base - enough so that it's rather clear that you're now being tormented by the abyss of your own ignorance. It's either that or you've either been smokin' too much grass or attending too many self-help seminars. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa Appal Energy wrote: Permit me to point out that [you are] not exactly value-free and neutral. You haven't exactly hesitated to bring a basketful of your own pre-suppostions to the table, now have you? Precisely. The above is not something I needed to have pointed out to me. One difference between you and me is that I am epistemologically self-conscious of what my presuppositions are. I am not accusing anyone of having presuppositions; rather, it is simply a fact of life that all people do have presuppositions. Everyone sees the world through colored glasses, you and me included. Are you aware of what your own presuppositions are? Are you aware of how your epistemological starting point predetermines your own thinking, of what you will accept as valid evidence and what you will reject? The universal tendency among human beings is to think, What my net doesn't catch isn't fish. Epistemological self-consciousness is as important as it is rare. Don't allow yourself the luxury of thinking that you are totally open-minded and free from prejudice. It is an impossibility. Seems that your values tend to be those that deride the values of others That is an observation that cuts equally well both ways here. Perhaps you should . . . start your own cult? (Laughing) Gee, it sounds like I inadvertently stepped on the toes of a true believer. Cult? I can't believe Mr. Prejudice-Free, Open-Minded and Tolerant to All is actually saying this. [You appear to be] a professional contrary, corporately funded perhaps, with no other intent than to keep as much valuable time of others tied up as possible . . . Again, where is your much-vaunted tolerance? Do you have any shred of evidence for this slander? It is solely your inference. Reminder concerning your valuable time: you can always hit the delete key. It doesn't take much time. Which pretty much brings all conversation to an abrupt halt. If you need it to be put a little less politely and in fewer words, please feel free to let your imagination roam. What a waste. Todd Swearingen Todd, go back and re-read your earlier admonitions about tolerance and open-mindedness. You would be well advised to practice what you preach. If this is the only way you can deal with someone who disagrees with you, how confident can you be in what you think you know? If you have the truth, you don't need to start foaming at the mouth and making all sorts of slanders about my motives, etc. (which are sheer conjecture on your part). Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America havebrought the world's worst drought to Africa
Correct. And as others have taken such great pains to debunk psuedo-science http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A 8809EC588EEDF why should anyone take equal or greater pains here? At least not since the rebuttal was thorough and principally accurate. I'm afraid Mr. Witmer is not much more than a lost looking for a cause. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Olga Lange [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America havebrought the world's worst drought to Africa There's quite a bit of detailed disussion of Lomborg's book at the Scientific American site below: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0B96-9517-1CDA-B4A 8809EC588EEDFp ageNumber=1catID=4 Well said Keith, this guys numbers are totally out of whack. They are so far from correct, that I suspect that Christoper is a paid propaganda writer. His words sound very much like someone who is involved in the black ops profession. It seems like every list that is set up to do some public good is infected with these folks who just keep causing friction. I sure wish these know-it-all creeps who offer nothing but opinion yet demand proof, would get their own damn list. kris --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, Mr Witmer It's not often that a person has both Gary North and Bjorn Lomborg quoted at him in the same day. If you and them make three straight saws, I'll be fully confident in cutting a dead straight line with my allegedly bent one. No, it's not something akin to a religious confrontation, not by any means. That would simply be the last resort of someone who's been confronted with contrary evidence and been unable to produce any of his own, abandoning his points along the way as they became untenable, pretending they never existed in the first place, and finally being left without a leg to stand on, and hence this retreat into an essentially non-rational arena, hoping to find safety there. It's just cant. As is the stuff below about science. Well, Keith and other friends, what we really have here is something akin to a religious confrontation, because the disagreement involves fundamental differences in worldview and presuppositions. For example, a perusal of reviews of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World ( http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521010683/ ) shows that there is virtually no middle ground: everyone either loves it or loathes it. And that has been the case since the modern environmentalist movement began with books like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which similarly produces extreme reactions from readers. I have profound disagreements with the entire set of Malthusian, Darwinian, Marxist and Freudian presuppositions that pervade most of modern thought, especially in the sciences. Science is hardly value-free and neutral. The set of presuppositions that any scientist brings to his work will surely affect the outcome of that work. As I see it, modern scientists include lots of brilliant men, and most of them are cutting with a bent saw. It doesn't matter how sharp a bent saw is, it still can't cut straight. The vast majority of scientists study neither the history of scientific thought nor the philosophy of science, and thus fail to recognize that according due to the presuppositions of their modern worldview, there is no way they can explain how science even ought to be possible. To me these scientists seem to be living an incongruity without ever becoming aware of the fact. Be that as it may, I recognize there is a huge body of research purporting to support the conclusion that a global warming disaster is in the making. Well, if our bent-saw researchers continue cutting long enough, they shall come full circle. They shall produce new theories to replace their previous discredited theories, and the new theories will be accepted as gospel, just like the earlier ones were. Not to worry, there will no doubt be a steady stream of new environmental crises to keep everyone fully employed. As for me, I plan to continue driving a biodiesel or SVO vehicle happy in the knowledge that I am thereby saving money and eliminating unnecessary local pollution and waste, but not overly concerned about how that affects the climate/weather on the opposite side of the globe. I will gratefully avail myself of the excellent biodiesel resources available on this list and at websites like Keith's JTF, and shall simply sidestep what I perceive to be the ideological cow patties littering the field. Sorry for having taken up bandwidth with a discussion that, albeit important, is peripheral to this list's main matter of
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Todd, if I replied that the feeling is mutual I would be a liar. I believe that all human beings are created in the divine image and therefore worthy of respect. But tell me, does your disdain also apply to the researchers and policy advisors who in the 1970s laid a load of crap on us that human industrial activity is bringing on another ice age? Appal Energy wrote: Frankly, I've got a great deal more respect for a horse that shits on my shoe than I have for someone who comes in all barrel chested and tries to lay a load of crap on me or anyone else. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa
Yawn (Stretch with Yawn...) A discussion with Denis Lee would be far more entertaining. Just as wothless but entertaining. - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:00 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America have brought the world's worst drought to Africa Todd, if I replied that the feeling is mutual I would be a liar. I believe that all human beings are created in the divine image and therefore worthy of respect. But tell me, does your disdain also apply to the researchers and policy advisors who in the 1970s laid a load of crap on us that human industrial activity is bringing on another ice age? Appal Energy wrote: Frankly, I've got a great deal more respect for a horse that shits on my shoe than I have for someone who comes in all barrel chested and tries to lay a load of crap on me or anyone else. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Sight tube material
I would like to know what a sight tube could be made of for a biodiesel processing tank. Preferrably flexible tubing that could be fixed to barbed fittings on the tank. With thanks, Matt Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: Revealed: how the smoke stacks of America ...
Look guys, I don't why it matters whether the earth is warming or cooling. Either way, the public is convinced that more SOCIALISM is necessary!! Either way, the public is convinced that all multinational corporation need to merge into ONE ... you know ... into GLOBAL EMPLOYMENT. The one world company. Either way, the public is convinced that all governments should also merge into one ... here's a very nice name ... the GLOBAL GOVERNMENT. Either way, the public is convinced that only one truth shall be the absolute truth above all else ... like a GLOBAL CHURCH. I don't know what's the big deal. The main thing is that the HIGHER PURPOSE gets accomplished. Signed, [EMAIL PROTECTED] aka CEO,Global Employment aka President, WorldGovt.com aka Prophet, EveryonesChurch.com trying to inject just a bit of humor into our world, Curtis --- Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The proposed solution to this Greenhouse Effect is, surprise!, socialism -- more government spending and control, and lower human standards of living. -snip I am not opposed in principle to the research, but I have to oppose the so-called solutions which inevitably call for more government spending, more government control and limitations on personal freedom, and forced redistribution of wealth. There is no shortage of cheerleaders for these sorts of solutions because there is no shortage of resentment, envy and covetousness in the world. = Join the Revolution! http://thincnet.com/revolution9/downline/vdownline.html?9107 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
