date:20050922







Sorry about being inacurate enough to get the engine sizewrong, I was writing from memory, I was actually quoting from a book that collected27 of the 50+ mechanic and newspaper reviews done on this guy's engine mod. The book reprint online can be found here:

http://www.himacresearch.com/books/secret5.html

Don't shoot the messenger, if you don't like his engine mod, talk to the mechanics that reviewed it, not me. He was granted a patent on it, but died about the same time, which is probably why we haven't seen an commercial development of it.

Jerry



---Original Message---


From: robert luis rabello
Date: 09/21/05 17:56:09
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Trevon Kollars wrote:
 Actually, the Chevy 350 has three variants; Small Block, Big Block, and
 the Blue Print (which is really a 355).

 You're confusing horsepower and building technique with casting type.
Go here for enlightenment:


http://proformanceunlimited.com/chevystreet.html

http://www.mortec.com/bbc.htm

http://www.mortec.com/castnum.htm


 The "rumors" of the 200 mpg and such are somewhat true.

 Like someone can be "somewhat" pregnant?

The small block
 350 was able to run at 110 mpg on heated gasoline.The fuel was
 vaporized prior to entering the carb.The big block was able to run at
 around 80 mpg with the same apparatus.The problem was that the engines
 were not in a vehicle but in a test stand and actual numbers were not
 verified.

 If the numbers are not verified, they shouldn't be presented in this
forum as factual.

 Smokey Yunick spent years working on a design and it was superseded by
 fuel injection which did the same thing but mechanically.

 No V 8 engine of 5 liters or greater displacement, fuel injected or
not, comes CLOSE to the claim of 100 mpg in the real world.Don't
dodge the bullet!And don't invoke the revered name of Smokey Yunick
to support this kind of nonsense!


 The propane and methane work but do not have the energy of gasoline or
 diesel for that matter.

 This is what I said.What you missed is that fuel economy with a
gaseous fuel is PROPORTIONAL to its energy content.

The best vapor to use is atomized gas with an
 injection of hydrogen.This will give you the best burn in a NA
 engine.

 Oh no!Hydrogen!

 You can supercool the air in the cylinder but you don't want to
 cool the intake.

 You're writing to a "gearhead" who drives a fuel injected,
supercharged and intercooled truck every day.


 Hope this inspired someone!

 Inspired someone to WHAT?You need to get your facts straight!

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 9/19/2005

.







___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 2 questions about BD production

2005-09-22 Thread Evergreen Solutions

The solvent effect is interesting.Perhaps keeping the injector cleanis the benefit? But I thought that modern diesel had detergents and
such included in it to do this.
Honestly I don't know, I'm just going by the biodiesel used in a
non-native environment will remove engine buildup that can clog fuel
filters easily statement. With any luck at all, I'll have some really
good emissions testing to share w/i a few months.

Correct me if I'm wrong, basing this off information about tax info,
(which doesn't even LIST d1), D2 is the commercially available diesel.

If d2 has only a 40 cetane rating and b100 boasts 50-60, we're talking
20% + gain, can we be sure that this is acceptable w/i the engine,
and/or can we expect dyno-able results?

~Thanks!~
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill

2005-09-22 Thread Darryl West









I couldnt have put it better myself











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Aragorn
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005
4:19 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled'
peace activist gets $11,700 bill









Thats because our prime minister is Bush's main lap dog and butt
licker.











Sorry for the language, but howard is a disgusting traiterous dog who





doesn't even deserve a capital letter for his name.











Any policy of Bush and Blair, he immediately immitates down here.











He doesn't serve our country, he serves Bush. 











The only reason he is the leader here is because the general population





is too stupid to do first grade math and is easily distracted by the
words:





interest rates





The gall of trying to charge someone you jail and deport for their
jailtime





and deportation costs is just disgraceful.

















Bob






Kirk McLoren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baffled-peace-activist-gets-11700-bill/2005/09/16/1126750099540.html











In
the talks I gave I wasn't even openly critical of Australia, Parkin said.

I
was being openly critical of the US
occupation (of Iraq)
and I was being openly critical of Halliburton.









Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to
the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





Send
instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 






___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of globalwarming

2005-09-22 Thread Chris lloyd

Just seen this on our BBC TV channel  every 800 miles travelled by a jumbo 
jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Chris


Wessex Ferret Club
www.wessexferretclub.co.uk



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] turbocharged vs supercharged diesels

2005-09-22 Thread Chris lloyd

 I have no problem with turbodiesels, just wondering why that design won 
 out over supercharging.

A supercharger can use up to 20bhp of an engines output and turbos are 
cheaper to make.  Chris.

Wessex Ferret Club
www.wessexferretclub.co.uk



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

2005-09-22 Thread Bob

Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?

I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no
access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still 
without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one
if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.

I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
with no one that operates asuccessful fuelstill.

Thanks
Bob

		Do you Yahoo!? 
 
The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database.___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Hello Jeromie

I have heard that
bd tends to carbonize in the injectors.

I wonder where you heard that. It's not true, as many research 
reports and many millions of miles of on-road use have shown. There's 
more than 20 years of experience with biodiesel, major car 
manufacturers warranty their cars for biodiesel use.

Using straight vegetable oil (SVO) as diesel fuel direct without 
processing it into biodiesel can result in injector coking if the 
engine hasn't been converted for SVO use.

See:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html
Straight vegetable oil as diesel fuel

Best wishes

Keith




John Hayes wrote:

 Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 
 What do you drive that gets 45mpg? Are you running a 2 to 1 mix of
 BD/Petro, was that for starting, or both?
 
 I drive a stock 2003 Jetta TDI 5-sp. I typically put in B100 homebrew
 and then top off at with commercial petrodiesel, either immediately or
 sometimes a couple of days later. The Jetta's recirculating pump takes
 care of any mixing right in the main fuel tank. No preblanding required.
 
 Here's my last 10 fills:
 
 BD   Petro
 
 7.5  11.533
 6.0  11.367
 016.003
 6.0  10.462
 10.5 5.864
 015.280
 5.0  9.554
 4.9  10.087
 014.200
 9.9  7.290
 
 You can clearly see that the ratio is not at all consistent. In reality,
 it is even more variable than that because I may not dilute the B100
 with petrodiesel until a couple of days later, meaning the engine may be
 running on a very high or very low BD blend at any given moment.
 
 jh
 
 
It seams that there are a fair number of Jetta drivers on the list. Wish
I could afford to buy one.  My Escort
get 29~35mpg on gasoline. For now I am looking to get a diesel pickup or
wagon and setup a processor.
This is what my intrest in the processor that was mentioned in the news
story is about (and yes ignoring the
fantasic mpg claims). It looks like you run on average more petro then
bd. Any reason for this? How many
miles have you put on the car, how many with a bd mix? I have heard that
bd tends to carbonize in the injectors.

Jeromie


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?

I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still

It does work, sort of, but it doesn't do what its promoters claim for 
it. They claim 5-7 gallons per hour of 180-190-proof ethanol, but 
it'll only do about 3 gallons per hour of 160-proof, if you're lucky.

That's if you ever manage to build the thing, the plans and 
instructions are very confused. Parts lists don't match either the 
plans or the instructions (which don't match the plans) and so on.

The main point of it seems to have been to make money out of selling 
the automatic temperature control valve the whole thing's said to 
depend on (though the original builders regarded it as a helpful 
add-on), with the sole source of the valve kept a secret (but it's in 
the list archives and at the Journey to Forever website). The price 
of both the plans and especially the valve went up and up, to double 
what you could buy the valve for direct, about $200. People sent 
cheques and never received their plans, and so on and on. It all 
happened here, years ago, the whole thing was a real PITA.

It turned out the design wasn't original anyway, it was filched from 
the Tallgrass Institute (which recently came back into operation). 
Maybe you might have more luck with the Tallgrass Institute.

But, people did manage to build Charles 803 stills, though it took 
professional plumbing or engineering skills to figure out the plans 
properly. They weren't impressed with the performance and, in one 
case, ended up bastardising parts of the still to make a better 
still. You can find some details of that here:

http://homedistiller.org/designs.htm#plate
Home Distillation of Alcohol (Homemade Alcohol to Drink)

If the anchor doesn't work scroll down to Plates instead of Packing.

and I have no
access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still
without accurate plans.

There are two complete free full-text online manuals here:

Mother Earth Alcohol Fuel
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html#ME

The Manual for the Home and Farm Production of Alcohol Fuel
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html#alcmanual

The Mother Earth Alcohol Fuel manual includes Six-Inch Column Still 
Plans, Three-Inch Column Still Plans, and Two Low-cost Backyard 
Stills.

There are more resources here:

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_link.html
Ethanol resources on the Web

See also:

Brewing equipment
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_supply.html#brew

I could possibly pay someone to build one
if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.

I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
with no one that operates a successful fuel still.

I think you didn't search very well.

Best wishes

Keith


Thanks
Bob


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Hello everybody,
If my knowledge of ethanol-water fractionation data serves me correctly, you cannot get 190proof alcohol by fractional distillation of alcohol-water mixture.Onlyup to170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get 100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve any water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with toluene in which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.
ManickhBob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?

I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no
access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still
without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one
if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.

I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
with no one that operates asuccessful fuelstill.

Thanks
Bob

Do you Yahoo!?The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database.___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of global warming

so I'm a skeptic.  you can believe in the boogie man if you wish.  And a 
comment for future 
reference. I find it mildly disconcerting the you plant my name in the subject 
line. I know that I 
am trying to talk about chemtrails and your trying to talk about me, but let's 
please keep the 
discourse civil and at the very least keep the personalities out of the subject 
line. I get enough 
spam as it is thank you.


Appal Energy wrote:
 Nice song and dance Bob,
 


-- 
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves - Richard Feynman

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Does anyone distill ethanol here?

2005-09-22 Thread Brian Rodgers

I can only speak as one person in a group of thousands of alternate
fuelers, I came to this list earlier this Summer thinking ethanol and
stills but listening to the difficulties in that process compared to
biodiesel processing made me change everything I was planning.
Although I am a rusty mechanic who worked exclusively with gas powered
VWs I never really worked with diesel engines. The people in this
group are an incredible inspiration. I have modified everything
mechanical that I own, never satisfied with 'off the shelf' products.
I have a still in the back of my head and intend to do it someday but
it is actually the beer (mash) brewing that has me leery, not the
distillation. JTF has info and links to every type of still ever
conceived. The continuous feed still used in the whisky industry is
state of the art. However the dry process still used in the mid-west
U.S. takes corn and turns it into 190 proof ethanol with record
efficiency. Wait until you see how complex and expensive not to
mention dangerous ethanol is compared to bio-diesel. Just Google any
of these terms like 'ethanol' or 'dry mill process'  There is a reason
that just about any alternate fuel search query brings up a reference
to Journeytoforever web pages, these people 'have it going on.' Yeah,
not to be discouraged about ethanol, I'm not. It is overwhelmingly
encouraging how much more suited to the back yard shop the bio-diesel
process is. So much so that I believe it is frugal to switch my
vehicles to diesel and learn all there is to learn about this
technology while it's hot. Want to see a totally amazing gas engine
mod? Take a look at Robert's Hydrogen supercharged gas Ranger. 
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
Doing the flip flop... again!
Keep an open mind if you can
Brian Rodgers

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise





Better yet just install a large magnet on the front bumper. I've heard
magnets are amazing.

John Donahue wrote:

  Its much easier to just install 6" taller tires on the rear axel, that
way you will be going down hill all the time.

You'll get like 800mpg that way

Jeromie Reeves wrote:

  
  
My wife came home from work today talking about Channel 7 news out of 
Boise. It seams
they had a segment with a person who installed a WVO processor in there 
pick-up (at a
cost of 3000$ USD) and got 300 MPG. They still needed to start the 
vehicle on dino. Can
anyone shed some light on this as a Google search came back with less 
then nothing. I find it
very hard to believe this is true (tho that never stopped the news before).

Jeromie

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

 


  
  
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of global warming







Michael Redler wrote:

  
  
  Right-on Todd.
  
  There have been REAL discussions on the disposal radioactive
waste in any number of consumer products, in trace amounts.
  
  


The most recent example of this I have heard about is a proposal to add
nuclear waste in small amounts to the smelters during metal
fabrication. In this way it was proposed that the nuclear material can
be diluted and spread around. The proponent's argue that it can be
diluted to the point that radiation levels are in the background
noise. I remember reading this in an article in Scientific American
about a year or two ago but couldn't say which exact issue. The article
said imagine that this means that waste from a nuclear reactor could
one day end up in the braces in your daughter's teeth!

  
  
  
  The most"convenient"method of disposal so far has been in the
production of depleted uranium munitions which areboth horribly
destructive on the battlefield AND allows one to leave it in the
countrywith which they were fighting, with little possibility of
recovery.
  
  

Yes DU weapons are a crime. One day I hope the criminals will be
brought to justice. But who will do it?

  
  
  
  Those who are too quick to accuse someone of being paranoid are
watched carefully by those who are thinking of doing the seemingly
unthinkable.
  
  

I am no conspiracy theorist but this is not to say that those in the
positions of power and wealth definitely like the fact (and probably do
work to maintain) that the public is willing to dismiss much as the
ravings of a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists. Besides it is
hard to really call it a conspiracy when the entire organizational
system of our society works to support and serve the interests of those
at the top of the food chain. It is more like a self fulfilling
prophesy than a diabolical plan of a few spoiled rich greedy
megalomaniacs. The system works so well that they (at the top) don't
really have to do a lot except make a few tweaks now and again.


Joe 

  
  
  
  Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  U.,
let's see Bob,

Paranoia is it?

You seem to forget at minimum thirty years of using thousand of US 
citizens as human guinea pigs for radioactive materials testing. That 
nasty little "paranoid" conspiracy theory unraveled in the early 90's.
http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V1N1McCally.html

You seem to forget the thousands of US military personel exposed during

Operation Crossroads as well as thousands more intentionally positioned

to observe atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons at the Nevada
test 
sites, not to mention the forty years of denial and deceit that
followed.

Let's forget the decades that literally millions of US citizens were 
exposed to fad, over-the-counter drugs containing radium, such as 
Dentarium, Ointarium, Kaparium, Linarium and just plain Arium, or the 
water "elixir" labeled "Radithor." They were all being deemed perfectly

safe and denials were issued by all private and government entities 
fifteen years after people started dropping like flies and up to the 
very days that each was separately pulled from the market..

You seem to forget that for thirty-eight years, between 1932 and 1970, 
the US Public Health Service and the Tuskegee Institute conducted 
studies on 399 black men diagnosed with syphilis. They intentionally 
withheld treatment and diagnostic information from these men for 
decades, treating them with "placebos" and setting up elaborate "free 
medical" schemes to keep their "study group" from venturing out of
their 
purview so that they could maintain the "integrity" of their data.

And even with such a dispersed yet long-lived historical track record 
and monumental data sets, you continually poo-poo and dismiss all 
reports or concerns of all other deceit and debilitating chicanery as
if 
claims of such are the ravings of lunatics.

Nonsense.

One of us is either really gullible or really stupid Bob. You if you 
don't believe precisely what cold and calculated depths concerted
public 
and private interests are capable of stooping to, and me if I accept 
your overly eager dismissals of anything and everything as being
nothing 
more than "paranoia."

Todd Swearingen

**

bob allen wrote:

woo-woo alert!


Charles Tounah wrote:
 

Hello,

As far as the grey layer of crud that's built up in
the atmosphere, there have been airplanes whose sole
apparent purpose has been to lay that grey layer down
in the atmosphere. 
 


oh really?




 I have personally observed them in
 

many different cities, even in different countries,
for about the last five years. The phenomenon is
called chemtrails,
 


other than usual exhaust emissions- water vapor, CO2, and trace 
combustion products such as NOX, what is there?


 and you can find a whole education
 

on the internet regarding it. www.carnicom.com
 


woo-woo. woo-woo.

 

(which I have not visited in years) is probably

Re: [Biofuel] new subject line was personal name, thank you

no comments here just want out of the limelight so to speak

Joe Street wrote:
 
 
 Michael Redler wrote:
 
 Right-on Todd.
  
 There have been REAL discussions on the disposal radioactive waste in 
 any number of consumer products, in trace amounts.
 
 
 The most recent example of this I have heard about is a proposal to add 
 nuclear waste in small amounts to the smelters during metal 
 fabrication.  In this way it was proposed that the nuclear material can 
 be diluted and spread around.  The proponent's argue that it can be 
 diluted to the point that radiation levels are in the background noise.  
 I remember reading this in an article in Scientific American about a 
 year or two ago but couldn't say which exact issue. The article said 
 imagine that this means that waste from a nuclear reactor could one day 
 end up in the braces in your daughter's teeth!
 
  
 The most convenient method of disposal so far has been in the 
 production of depleted uranium munitions which are both horribly 
 destructive on the battlefield AND allows one to leave it in the 
 country with which they were fighting, with little possibility of 
 recovery.
 
 Yes DU weapons are a crime.  One day I hope the criminals will be 
 brought to justice. But who will do it?
 
  
 Those who are too quick to accuse someone of being paranoid are 
 watched carefully by those who are thinking of doing the seemingly 
 unthinkable.
 
 I am no conspiracy theorist but this is not to say that those in the 
 positions of power and wealth definitely like the fact (and probably do 
 work to maintain) that the public is willing to dismiss much as the 
 ravings of a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists.  Besides it is hard 
 to really call it a conspiracy when the entire organizational system of 
 our society works to support and serve the interests of those at the top 
 of the food chain.  It is more like a self fulfilling prophesy than a 
 diabolical plan of a few spoiled rich greedy megalomaniacs.  The system 
 works so well that they (at the top) don't really have to do a lot 
 except make a few tweaks now and again.
 
 
 Joe  
 

 */Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:

 U., let's see Bob,

 Paranoia is it?

 You seem to forget at minimum thirty years of using thousand of US
 citizens as human guinea pigs for radioactive materials testing. That
 nasty little paranoid conspiracy theory unraveled in the early 90's.
 http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V1N1McCally.html

 You seem to forget the thousands of US military personel exposed
 during
 Operation Crossroads as well as thousands more intentionally
 positioned
 to observe atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons at the
 Nevada test
 sites, not to mention the forty years of denial and deceit that
 followed.

 Let's forget the decades that literally millions of US citizens were
 exposed to fad, over-the-counter drugs containing radium, such as
 Dentarium, Ointarium, Kaparium, Linarium and just plain Arium, or the
 water elixir labeled Radithor. They were all being deemed
 perfectly
 safe and denials were issued by all private and government entities
 fifteen years after people started dropping like flies and up to the
 very days that each was separately pulled from the market..

 You seem to forget that for thirty-eight years, between 1932 and
 1970,
 the US Public Health Service and the Tuskegee Institute conducted
 studies on 399 black men diagnosed with syphilis. They intentionally
 withheld treatment and diagnostic information from these men for
 decades, treating them with placebos and setting up elaborate free
 medical schemes to keep their study group from venturing out of
 their
 purview so that they could maintain the integrity of their data.

 And even with such a dispersed yet long-lived historical track record
 and monumental data sets, you continually poo-poo and dismiss all
 reports or concerns of all other deceit and debilitating chicanery
 as if
 claims of such are the ravings of lunatics.

 Nonsense.

 One of us is either really gullible or really stupid Bob. You if you
 don't believe precisely what cold and calculated depths concerted
 public
 and private interests are capable of stooping to, and me if I accept
 your overly eager dismissals of anything and everything as being
 nothing
 more than paranoia.

 Todd Swearingen

 **

 bob allen wrote:

 woo-woo alert!
 
 
 Charles Tounah wrote:
 
 
 Hello,
 
 As far as the grey layer of crud that's built up in
 the atmosphere, there have been airplanes whose sole
 apparent purpose has been to lay that grey layer down
 in the atmosphere.
 
 
 
 oh really?
 
 
 
 
  I have personally observed them in
 
 
 many different cities, even in different

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of global warming





Even if it were true the chances of it being very slim, you have to
consider how it could be accomplished. One would have to have access
to jet fuel supplies which are controlled and regularly tested. Not
easy. But supposing that as a given, now you have to add your
chemicals at some point downstream of the fuel production and testing
point. Probably the easiest would be close to the point of use but
this would be less adantageous for global distribution of 'the
chemical' and would require operatives on site at each location.
That's a lot of mouths to keep shut. And now the kicker. Your
chemical, carefully formulated to cause it's desired effect, whatever
that may be, must also survive a high pressure high temperature
incinerator (the turbine engine) in order to make it into the conn
trail. Ahhh that's a wee bit of a problem.

But as you say we should never close our minds completely to the
possibility that strange things can happen I guess.

Joe

Appal Energy wrote:

  Actually Bob,

We both know that what was written was far from irrelevant in light of 
your heavily "nuanced" statement that those who tend to think of the 
possible (or at least the "chemtrail" possibility) are essentially paranoid.

What I pointed out was the fact that on numerous occassions what was 
previously deemed to be unthinkable has been revealed to be actual fact, 
replete with wanton collusion, fraud and wreckless disregard for human 
life. And even when found out, the rationale is what? That those who 
object aren't looking at the "bigger picture?"

Enter Josef Mengele..., all for the greater good, right?

So one would think that knowing what you know and in light of the 
historical record of deviant human behaviors, you might be a little less 
half-cocked and not so flip with your dismissals. Something as simple as 
aerial dispersal of unknown materials upon an unaware public is 
completely within the realm of reason, and in fact, it's already been 
accomplished on a number of occassions. Google search "Green Run" and 
then follow up on the numerous other intentional releases for "research."

And as you well know, absence of proof is not proof of absence, as all 
the examples provided in my post unerrantly point out.

But you'd rather declare the thoughts of those who perceive such as 
being paranoid. This game of "plausible denial," or just flat out 
denial, that you play is devious, destructive, distracting and 
fraudulently manipulative, no matter whether it is intentional or not. 
And we both can be pretty sure that it's not exactly unintentional.

As for

  If I use your logic, I have to construe that you accept every claim
  regardless of source, or physical possibility, rational or not, as valid.

Not at all McDuff. You don't have to construe any such thing. In fact, 
if you do, you're playing a little fast and loose with the rules of 
logic, much less how I would and do apply them.

To deny, disregard and vaguely denegrate as flippantly as you do is 
foolhardy, deceptive, distracting and even illogical, especially in 
light of what has transpired in nearly inumerable instances and is no 
doubt occurring somewhere, in some venue or another, several times over 
as this is being typed. The same can also be said about those who openly 
accept every claim as being irrefutable fact.

While you may take the route of glib dismissal, I'd rather keep one eye 
open and half a wit aware should ever a confirming slip of proof (paper 
trail or other) be stumbled across, as all things are possible, 
plausible, and all too often probable when dealing with the aberrance of 
the human mind.

Todd Swearingen

  
  
Todd, other than everything you wrote was irrelevant to my writing, I 
agree with you whole-heartedly. My comments were directed at fears of 
"chemtrails" , which I stand by as paranoia until I see a lot more 
proof.  Show me some evidence that the observed chemtrails are something 
other than the usual vapor trails emitted from jets.  Show me a rational 
as to why someone or some entity would be doing such a thing.  For 
profit? meanness? world domination?  I just do not see much motive, do you?

more below


Appal Energy wrote:
 



  U., let's see Bob,

Paranoia is it?

You seem to forget at minimum thirty years of using thousand of US 
citizens as human guinea pigs for radioactive materials testing. That 
nasty little "paranoid" conspiracy theory unraveled in the early 90's.
http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V1N1McCally.html
   

  

You're preaching to the choir, here as I agree.


 



  You seem to forget the thousands of US military personel exposed during 
Operation Crossroads as well as thousands more intentionally positioned 
to observe atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons at the Nevada test 
sites, not to mention the forty years of denial and deceit that followed.
   

  

agreed
 



  Let's forget the decades that literally millions of US

[Biofuel] Australia isn't the only place it happens... It is also in the UK

http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Greetings Manickh

Hello everybody,
If my knowledge of ethanol-water fractionation data serves me 
correctly, you cannot get 190proof alcohol by fractional 
distillation of alcohol-water mixture. 

Maximum 96% by distillation, 192-proof, then it stops because of 
azeotropism. The boiling temperature of 96% ethanol is lower than 
that of pure ethanol. Quite a lot of home distillers do get 
190-proof, but not with a Charles 803 still.

Best wishes

Keith

PS: Sorry I got waylaid Manickh, I haven't forgotten you, I'll get 
back to what we were discussing as soon as I can. All best meanwhile, 
K.


Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get 
100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor 
followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve any 
water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try 
azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with  toluene in 
which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water 
leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first 
check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.
Manickh

Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?

I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no
access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still
without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one
if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.

I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
with no one that operates a successful fuel still.

Thanks
Bob



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 'Nuff Said, was Dear --- ----- was Re: There's no proof of global warming

There you go again Bob,

  you can believe in the boogie man if you wish.

It's not a matter of believing in the boogie man or not. It's a matter 
of not turning a blind eye to what members of my species are perfectly 
capable of doing, have repeatedly done and far too often are willing to do.

But you trivialize that truth and degrade the exercise of prudent 
caution and/or discernment when you issue such statements.

Again, that is the entire point of my responses to your remarks, which, 
by the way, is also relevant to your name appearing in lights. Your 
sweeping and quippy remarks are so destructive, especially when you 
present yourself as being someone of learned mind, that it serves well 
to not let them get lost in a flurry of posts on a completely different 
matter.

One thing is for absolute certain. It didn't escape your attention.

And no, you're not limiting your viewpoint  to just chem-trails. You've 
broadened it into the psychiatry of those minds who think that the 
unthinkable is possible while at the same time downplaying as absurd 
essentially any and/or all reasons why other minds might implement such 
folly.

Frankly Bob, few people have knowledge of the depths and breadths to 
which sectors of mankind have already stooped in the name of 
protecting or serving the public good. And any effort that attempts 
to downplay those possibilities, especially when they are unfolding 
around us every day, doesn't serve the public's best interests.

It's one thing to say that we don't know. It's all together another to 
sweepingly declare something as paranoic speculation.

Todd Swearingen


bob allen wrote:

so I'm a skeptic.  you can believe in the boogie man if you wish.  And a 
comment for future 
reference. I find it mildly disconcerting the you plant my name in the subject 
line. I know that I 
am trying to talk about chemtrails and your trying to talk about me, but let's 
please keep the 
discourse civil and at the very least keep the personalities out of the 
subject line. I get enough 
spam as it is thank you.


Appal Energy wrote:
  

Nice song and dance Bob,





  


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] noproof of global warming

I guess interpreting the evidence is up to the individual.  I, for one, 
have chosen or have been convinced that there is indeed global warming. 
OTOH, I don't believe drinking cow's milk will keep you from getting 
osteoporosis.  I have looked at the evidence and come to a different
conclusion than 90% or so of Americans.

bob allen wrote:

so I'm a skeptic.  you can believe in the boogie man if you wish.  And a 
comment for future 
reference. I find it mildly disconcerting the you plant my name in the subject 
line. I know that I 
am trying to talk about chemtrails and your trying to talk about me, but let's 
please keep the 
discourse civil and at the very least keep the personalities out of the 
subject line. I get enough 
spam as it is thank you.


Appal Energy wrote:
  

Nice song and dance Bob,





  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 2 questions about BD production

  Honestly I don't know, I'm just going by the biodiesel used in a
 non-native environment will remove engine buildup that can clog fuel filters
 easily statement. With any luck at all, I'll have some really good
 emissions testing to share w/i a few months.

  Correct me if I'm wrong, basing this off information about tax info, (which
 doesn't even LIST d1), D2 is the commercially available diesel.

I can vouch for biodiesel removing deposits of stuff and clogging up
filters when used in a vehicle that was previously used with
petro-diesel.

As for #1 diesel, I have seen it at truck refueling places, where you
can sometimes get #1, #2, or a 50/50 blend of them, but never at the
local gas station.  And even the #2 diesel at truck stops seems to run
better than the diesel from in town gas stations.  I suspect that
these places don't sell enough diesel to people who care to bother
getting high quality stuff.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill

So I guess it's crazy to think of moving to OZ? Nuts. I guess it's 
Canada, then.

Darryl West wrote:

 I couldn’t have put it better myself

 

 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Aragorn
 *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:19 PM
 *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill

 Thats because our prime minister is Bush's main lap dog and butt licker.

 Sorry for the language, but howard is a disgusting traiterous dog who

 doesn't even deserve a capital letter for his name.

 Any policy of Bush and Blair, he immediately immitates down here.

 He doesn't serve our country, he serves Bush.

 The only reason he is the leader here is because the general population

 is too stupid to do first grade math and is easily distracted by the 
 words:

 interest rates

 The gall of trying to charge someone you jail and deport for their 
 jailtime

 and deportation costs is just disgraceful.

 Bob


 */Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:

 
 http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baffled-peace-activist-gets-11700-bill/2005/09/16/1126750099540.html

 In the talks I gave I wasn't even openly critical of Australia,
 Parkin said.

 I was being openly critical of the US occupation (of Iraq) and I
 was being openly critical of Halliburton.

 

 Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ to
 the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

 Send instant messages to your online friends 
 http://au.messenger.yahoo.com



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] noproof of global warming

True, there is no proof of global warming.  But my roommate said it
well last night while we were watching the scare coverage of Rita on
Fox news.  He said that he was willing to admit that it was possible
that it could be just cyclical variations in hurricane patterns and
not global warming, if they were willing to admit that it might be
global warming...  Its the whole if you're not with us, you're
against us thing, and if there is no choice to be in the middle
somewhere, I for one will chose the latter.

On 9/22/05, Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I guess interpreting the evidence is up to the individual.  I, for one,
 have chosen or have been convinced that there is indeed global warming.
 OTOH, I don't believe drinking cow's milk will keep you from getting
 osteoporosis.  I have looked at the evidence and come to a different
 conclusion than 90% or so of Americans.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Uh, Keith, hate to step in here but it works by binary fusion not fission.  
You're going to give
people the wrong idea.

Also, where's my link?

It works by 'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising 
 combustion efficiency. Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit, 
 where's my wallet?



Darryl McMahon wrote:

Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance 
improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-board splitting of 
water based on zero-point energy.  I like the binary fission angle though.  
Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when I finish my 
research 
on trinary fission (based on tritium, don't you know).

Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?

Facetiously yours,

Darryl McMahon

Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  

Hello all



Jerry Eyers wrote:
  

Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented
cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.


 Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under
what test conditions?


  

The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor 


only carb (like a
  

propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the
vapor.


 I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and
NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as
propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,
hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the
difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not
as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall
energy available for combustion.

 To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel
economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that
liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast
majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is
unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!
  

But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've just 
been instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the 
biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's not 
called Brand X):

Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science 
and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuel 
reserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization of 
electrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons 
in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for all 
diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. Brand 
X reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion 
technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible and 
Brand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternative 
energy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel 
internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with all 
kinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel or 
biofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is 
inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly.

It works by 'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising 
combustion efficiency. Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit, 
where's my wallet?

Best wishes

Keith




That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,
only straight gas.


 A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of higher
compression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
reduces pumping losses.  In addition, diesel fuel contains more energy
than gasoline.

robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
  

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] noproof of global warming

lest we're confused here, I am not skeptical about the reality of global 
warming.  I became entangled in this thread via chemtrails The globe 
is certainly warming and to deny anthropogenic influences is difficult 
at best.

Mike Weaver wrote:
 I guess interpreting the evidence is up to the individual.  I, for one, 
 have chosen or have been convinced that there is indeed global warming. 
 OTOH, I don't believe drinking cow's milk will keep you from getting 
 osteoporosis.  I have looked at the evidence and come to a different
 conclusion than 90% or so of Americans.
 
 bob allen wrote:
 
 
so I'm a skeptic.  you can believe in the boogie man if you wish.  And a 
comment for future 
reference. I find it mildly disconcerting the you plant my name in the 
subject line. I know that I 
am trying to talk about chemtrails and your trying to talk about me, but 
let's please keep the 
discourse civil and at the very least keep the personalities out of the 
subject line. I get enough 
spam as it is thank you.


Appal Energy wrote:
 


Nice song and dance Bob,


   


 

 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
 


-- 
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves — Richard Feynman

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] There's no proof of global warming

2005-09-22 Thread des

I'm still trying to get to the sites listed in this post.  is everyone 
else able to get to them?  Just trying to go to http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/
times out.

doug swanson



Jerry Eyers wrote:
   What did the photos show?
  
 In the late 1960's, it was a beautiful blue sphere,
 clear atmoshpere, very nice.
  
 Now, there is a smokey white smudge over everything.
 There is no nice, clean, blue ball anymore, just
 a smokey, murkey haze all the time.
  
 Compare this picture (apollo 7 docking with satellite):
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=AS7browsepage=Gohitsperpage=20pageno=1photoId=AS07-03-1531
  
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=AS7browsepage=Gohitsperpage=20pageno=1photoId=AS07-03-1531
  
 With this picture (space shuttle docking with satellite):
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=STS77browsepage=Gohitsperpage=10pageno=3photoId=s77e5069
  
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=STS77browsepage=Gohitsperpage=10pageno=3photoId=s77e5069
  
 And look at the earth in the background.
  
 Jerry
   
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

-- 
All generalizations are false.  Including this one.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software.
No Microsoft databits have been incorporated herein.
All existing databits have been constructed from recycled databits.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] turbocharged vs supercharged diesels

2005-09-22 Thread Trevon Kollars

I was being sarcastic here. Sorry. I was referring to the fact there isn't very many supercharged diesels out there. The only difference (efficiency wise) between a turbo and a supercharger is the psi and speed at which it will produce it. Superchargers are usually slower at speed then the turbos which can range in the 100,000 rpms. Believe it or not but they tend to heat the air more than turbos even though turbos use the hot exhaust to turn. Superchargers use the crankshaft belt and can be turned on when you need it.
I guess my post has caused a lot of commotion. Sorry, Robert, if I have insulted your intelligence in some way. Smokey Yunick is almost a god in the engine world. I was talking about his attempt to get more out of his engine by experimenting with vapor carbs and engine efficiency and I guess I made you mad over it. I too have done some experimenting with the 350 and even 1.9L VW engines. There are so many things you can do to an engine to get it to perform well, it is almost unbelievable. Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to make the diesel even better... turbo the hell out of it but do notput a supercharger on it.This was in another thread going off another direction. But myquestion is, why not supercharge a diesel engine. There must be somereason, because you don't seem them too often (we have a supercharged2 cycle 2 cylinder direction injection diesel engine in a 1953bulldozer, but aside from that I haven't seen one). Is it just thatit is higher efficiency to use the heat of exhaust gases that would bewasted anyway, vs taking HP off the crankshaft to run a compressor? But there is a big advantage in materials to a supercharger in that itdoesn't have to withstand the heat of the exhaust and go throughcooldown after working hard to avoid seizing the bearings, and I wouldthink engine manufacturers would sieze on any cheaper way to get
morepower out of a diesel (since everyone in the US thinks they areslow...).I have no problem with turbodiesels, just wondering why that designwon out over supercharging.___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Corporations are ready to act on global warming but...

The architects Atelier Ten had designed a cooling system based on the 
galleries of a termite mound. By installing a concrete labyrinth in 
the foundations, they could keep even a large building in a hot place 
- such as the arts center that they had built in Melbourne - at a 
constant temperature without air conditioning. The only power they 
needed was to drive the fans pushing the cold air upwards, using 10% 
of the electricity required for normal cooling systems...

---

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0920-23.htm
Published on Monday, September 20, 2005 by the Guardian/UK

It Would Seem That I Was Wrong About Big Business
Corporations are ready to act on global warming but are thwarted by 
ministers who resist regulation in the name of the market

by George Monbiot

Climate-change denial has gone through four stages. First the 
fossil-fuel lobbyists told us that global warming was a myth. Then 
they agreed that it was happening, but insisted that it was a good 
thing: we could grow wine in the Pennines and take Mediterranean 
holidays in Skegness. Then they admitted that the bad effects 
outweighed the good ones, but claimed that climate change would cost 
more to tackle than to tolerate. Now they have reached stage four. 
They concede that climate change would be cheaper to address than to 
neglect, but maintain that it's now too late. This is their most 
persuasive argument.

Today the climatologists at the Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado 
will publish the results of the latest satellite survey of Arctic sea 
ice. It looks as if this month's coverage will be the lowest ever 
recorded. The Arctic, they warn, could already have reached tipping 
point - the moment beyond which the warming becomes irreversible. As 
ice disappears, the surface of the sea becomes darker, absorbing more 
heat. Less ice forms, so the sea becomes darker still, and so it goes 
on.

Last month, New Scientist reported that something similar is 
happening in Siberia. For the first time on record, the permafrost of 
western Siberia is melting. As it does so, it releases the methane 
stored in the peat. Methane has 20 times the greenhouse warming 
effect of carbon dioxide. The more gas the peat releases, the warmer 
the world becomes, and the more the permafrost melts.

Two weeks ago, scientists at Cranfield University discovered that the 
soils in the UK have been losing the carbon they contain; as 
temperatures rise, the decomposition of organic matter accelerates, 
which causes more warming, which causes more decomposition. Already 
the soil in this country has released enough carbon dioxide to 
counteract the emissions cuts we have made since 1990.

These are examples of positive feedback: self-reinforcing effects 
that, once started, are hard to stop. They are kicking in long before 
they were supposed to. The intergovernmental panel on climate change, 
which predicts how far the world's temperature is likely to rise, 
hasn't yet had time to include them in its calculations. The current 
forecast - of 1.4C to 5.8C this century - is almost certainly too low.

A week ago, I would have said that if it is too late, then one factor 
above all others is to blame: the chokehold that big business has on 
economic policy. By forbidding governments to intervene effectively 
in the market, the corporations oblige us to do nothing but stand by 
and watch as the planet cooks. But last Wednesday I discovered that 
it isn't quite that simple. At a conference organized by the Building 
Research Establishment, I witnessed an extraordinary thing: companies 
demanding tougher regulations - and the government refusing to grant 
them.

Environmental managers from BT and John Lewis (which owns Waitrose) 
complained that, without tighter standards that everyone has to 
conform to, their companies put themselves at a disadvantage if they 
try to go green. All that counts, the man from John Lewis said, is 
cost, cost and cost. If he's buying ecofriendly lighting and his 
competitors aren't, he loses. As a result, he said, I welcome the 
EU's energy performance of buildings directive, as it will force 
retailers to take these issues seriously. Yes, I heard the cry of 
the unicorn: a corporate executive welcoming a European directive.

And from the government? Nothing. Elliot Morley, the minister for 
climate change, proposed to do as little as he could get away with. 
The officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, to a 
collective groan from the men in suits, insisted that the measures 
some of the companies wanted would be an unwarranted intervention in 
the market.

It was unspeakably frustrating. The suits had come to unveil 
technologies of the kind that really could save the planet. The 
architects Atelier Ten had designed a cooling system based on the 
galleries of a termite mound. By installing a concrete labyrinth in 
the foundations, they could keep even a large building in a hot place 
- such as the arts center that they

[Biofuel] More Blood, Less Oil

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050921/more_blood_less_oil.php

More Blood, Less Oil

Michael T. Klare

September 21, 2005

Michael T. Klare is the professor of Peace and World Security Studies 
at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of Blood and Oil: 
The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on 
Imported Petroleum (Owl Books) as well as Resource Wars, The New 
Landscape of Global Conflict. This article first appeared 
on TomDispatch and is reprinted with permission.

It has long been an article of faith among America's senior 
policymakers-Democrats and Republicans alike-that military force is 
an effective tool for ensuring control over foreign sources of oil. 
Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first president to embrace this view, 
in February 1945, when he promised King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia 
that the United States would establish a military protectorate over 
his country in return for privileged access to Saudi oil -a promise 
that continues to govern U.S. policy today. Every president since 
Roosevelt has endorsed this basic proposition, and has contributed in 
one way or another to the buildup of American military power in the 
greater Persian Gulf region.

American presidents have never hesitated to use this power when 
deemed necessary to protect U.S. oil interests in the Gulf. When, 
following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the first President Bush sent 
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in August 1990, 
he did so with absolute confidence that the application of American 
military power would eventually result in the safe delivery of 
ever-increasing quantities of Middle Eastern oil to the United 
States. This presumption was clearly a critical factor in the younger 
Bush's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Now, more than two years after that invasion, the growing Iraqi 
quagmire has demonstrated that the application of military force can 
have the very opposite effect: It can diminish-rather than 
enhance-America's access to foreign oil.

Floating On A Sea of Oil

Oil was certainly not the only concern that prompted the American 
invasion of Iraq, but it weighed in heavily with many senior 
administration officials. This was especially true of Vice President 
Dick Cheney who, in an August 2002 speech to the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, highlighted the need to retain control over Persian Gulf oil 
supplies when listing various reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein. 
Nor is there any doubt that Cheney's former colleagues in the oil 
industry viewed Iraq's oilfields with covetous eyes. For any oil 
company, one oil executive told The New York Times in February 2003, 
being in Iraq is like being a kid in F.A.O. Schwarz. Likewise oil 
was a factor in the pre-war thinking of many key neoconservatives who 
argued that Iraqi oilfields-once under U.S. control-would cripple 
OPEC and thereby weaken the Arab states facing Israel.

Still, for some U.S. policymakers, other factors were preeminent, 
especially the urge to demonstrate the efficacy of the Bush Doctrine, 
the precept that preventive war is a practical and legitimate 
response to possible weapons-of-mass-destruction ambitions on the 
part of potential adversaries. Whatever the primacy of their ultimate 
objectives, these leaders shared one basic assumption: that, when 
occupied by American forces, Iraq would pump ever-increasing amounts 
of petroleum from its vast and prolific reserves.

This sense of optimism about Iraq's future oil output was palpable in 
Washington in the months leading up to the invasion. In its periodic 
reports on Iraqi petroleum, the Department of Energy (DoE), for 
example, confidently reported in late 2002 that, with sufficient 
outside investment, Iraq could quickly double its production from the 
then-daily level of 2.5 million barrels to 5 million barrels or more. 
At the State Department, the Future of Iraq Project set up a Working 
Group on Oil and Energy to plan the privatization of Iraqi oil assets 
and the rapid introduction of Western capital and expertise into the 
local industry. Meanwhile, Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi-then the 
Pentagon's favored candidate to replace Saddam Hussein as suzerain of 
Iraq (and now Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister in charge of energy 
infrastructure)-met with top executives of the major U.S. oil 
companies and promised them a significant role in developing Iraq's 
vast petroleum reserves. American companies will have a big shot at 
Iraqi oil, he insisted in September 2002.

Aside from the purely pecuniary benefits of seizing Iraqi oil, 
administration officials of all persuasions saw another key 
attraction: once Iraqi fields were pumping oil again, the resulting 
revenues would essentially pay for the war and the costs of 
occupation. We can afford it, White House economic adviser Larry 
Lindsey said of the planned U.S. invasion, because rising Iraqi oil 
output would invigorate the U.S. economy. When there is regime 
change in

[Biofuel] Sun Rising Over New Orleans

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050920/sun_rising_over_new_orleans.php

Sun Rising Over New Orleans

John F. Wasik

September 20, 2005

John F. Wasik writes for Bloomberg News and is the author of the 
upcoming book, Merchant of Power: Samuel Insull, Thomas Edison and 
the Creation of the Modern Metropolis (Palgrave-Macmillan).

As hundreds of thousands of souls return to the birthplace of jazz, 
one of the most critical questions facing the Big Easy is how to 
rebuild the estimated 200,000 homes that were damaged by Hurricane 
Katrina.

Let's take some of the estimated $100 billion or more it will take to 
fix the city and create the nation's largest, most sustainable solar 
city.

The logic for creating a solar city is powerful: Not only would 
innovative, energy-producing housing save thousands of dollars on 
operating costs for financially strapped homeowners-many of whom 
weren't covered by flood insurance-but it would jump-start a new 
industry, build a badly needed alternative energy infrastructure, and 
reduce the emissions that cause global warming.

There are now only about 20,000 people working in the solar equipment 
industry, which is growing at a 20-percent annual rate. At least that 
many again would be required to provide the equipment to outfit New 
Orleans as a solar-powered city, adding up the manufacturing, 
installation and utility-support jobs. Why not give a boost to an 
industry that benefits our entire country?

Already there is a lot of discussion about how to rebuild New Orleans 
to ensure that the insecurity and injustice uncovered by Katrina do 
not return. Yet however that larger land-use debate plays out, many 
homes will have to be completely demolished. Ideally, the wood, stone 
and metal from the houses being razed could be recycled and re-used 
for building materials or levees. That leaves a lot of empty lots and 
the critical question of home design. If we are to leverage the 
reconstruction of New Orleans to launch the American solar power 
industry, this is where we must begin.

The first thing to do is have architects compete to design 
attractive, sustainable, low-cost panelized homes that could be 
manufactured in factories and quickly assembled on site. The homes 
would range from updated yet spacious shotgun shacks to antebellum 
deluxe models.

These new homes would be graced by solar collectors to heat water and 
photovoltaic panels to provide electricity. Passive-solar designs 
would capture winter heat and high-efficiency heat pumps would keep 
them cool in summer.

If all this sounds excessively idealistic, it's not. The 
technologies, designs and products exist. The recently passed federal 
energy bill already has a number of tax incentives for installing 
solar and energy-efficient appliances. The bill didn't go far enough, 
though. For the alternative energy industry to thrive, it needs even 
more government funding and tax breaks and large scale use. Enter New 
Orleans.

At present, tax incentives for building solar homes in Louisiana are 
practically non-existent. While the state grants you a minor break 
from property tax valuation if you have a solar appliance installed 
on your home, there are no state tax credits offered. Contrast that 
with the state of Oregon, which, through a non-profit and state 
partnership, offers up to $10,000 in incentives to homeowners and up 
to $35,000 to businesses. Even the new 1,700-page federal energy law 
gives some carrots to homeowners for installing solar equipment. If 
you install a solar hot water heater, for example, you may receive a 
tax credit of up to $3,000. The more generous tax breaks, however, 
don't go into effect until 2006.

To make solar energy economically competitive with conventional forms 
of power, the cost of producing it needs to drop by a factor of 
three. Only mass production of solar appliances and homes can make 
that possible. That's why New Orleans is the perfect place to start, 
requiring only that far-sighted state and local politicians adopt 
solar-friendly rebuilding codes. That's because the challenge in 
front of solar power is not technological. We already have the 
technology and brainpower on the shelf, courtesy of the U.S. 
Department of Energy's many national laboratories, including the 
National Renewable Energy Lab. What solar power needs is widespread 
commercialization.

New Orleans has already given birth to innovative food, music and 
culture, leaving an indelible mark on the American character. Up 
until Katrina, she's always had a sunny disposition. Now it's time to 
bring that back and share it with the rest of the country.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):

Re: [Biofuel] global warming tipping point

I was serious though, the list could start an initiative here, 
members willing, but it'll have to be specific or nothing will 
happen.

Everyone seems to be bandwagoning New Orleans, including Haliburton 
et al, and on the other hand there've been quite a few biofuelers 
involved in various worthy relief efforts.

What of the future of the city?

Are you going to let Haliburton reconstruct New Orleans, like they're 
supposedly reconstructing Iraq?

It seems kind of obvious that New New Orleans should incorporate 
everything possible to make it a sustainable city, not just 
environmentally but economically too (much the same thing, often, 
when it comes down to it). This surely means a rational energy and 
transport infrastructure, for one thing. I think list members here 
have examined most of the ground that covers.

Then there's this, for instance:

http://www.alternet.org/katrina/25745/
AlterNet: Hurricane Katrina:
Defining a New 'New Deal'
By William Greider, The Nation. Posted September 21, 2005.
Must the country continue to give precedence to private financial 
gain over human lives and public values? Or shall we now undertake a 
radical restoration on behalf of society and people?

Also the piece I just posted, Sun Rising Over New Orleans.

This from another piece, Corporations are ready to act on global 
warming but...:

The architects Atelier Ten had designed a cooling system based on 
the galleries of a termite mound. By installing a concrete labyrinth 
in the foundations, they could keep even a large building in a hot 
place - such as the arts center that they had built in Melbourne - at 
a constant temperature without air conditioning. The only power they 
needed was to drive the fans pushing the cold air upwards, using 10% 
of the electricity required for normal cooling systems...

A subject close to Hakan's heart perhaps, among others.

Why not take an entire city virtually off the GHG map? The Biofuel 
list is a real think-tank, IMHO, it shouldn't be too much to ask.

Best wishes

Keith


Hi Terry

Hi Keith,

I must compliment you on the great effort you are giving the world to reduce
green house gases.

Thankyou. Actually we'd no intention of trying to have any direct 
effect on GHGs with Journey to Forever but it seems to have happened 
anyway.

The work you are doing should be highly praised.  Right now though there
seems to be a resistance to moving quicker; there doesn't seem to be a sense
of urgency considering that we are so close to the tipping point.  Maybe
some sort of legislation needs to be enacted such as restricting large
trucks from using regular deisel instead of bio deisel.

Biodiesel and biofuels are hardly even considered as energy issues 
in the US, they're still agriculture commodities, nice things for 
Big Soy and Big Corn and all the usual suspects.

A needed sense of urgency has been lacking for rather a long time. 
While Rome burnt. Well, at least Rome didn't emit fossil-fuel GHGs 
when it burnt.

I was serious though, the list could start an initiative here, 
members willing, but it'll have to be specific or nothing will 
happen.

Best wishes

Keith


Terry Dyck


 From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] global warming tipping point
 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:55:54 +0900
 
 Hello Terry, tallex and all
 
   Hello,
   Why not discuss the story and implications right here.
   This list is full of individuals that can help make a difference.
 
 Can and have helped, are helping. Biofuel list members save lots of
 carbon. It's been said the list has helped save more carbon than most
 governments, or was it more than any government? Who knows.
 
 It's one of the things I like about the biofuels movement that nobody
 has any real idea how much biodiesel and ethanol and heating oil and
 stuff people are making or re-using or whatever or how much fossil
 fuel they're not using, but it's easy to figure that it's in the
 millions of gallons a year and up in the US alone, and it's worldwide.
 
 Anyway, I think the carbon saved is not just by making and using
 biofuels, people take it in all kinds of directions with their own
 projects and campaigns. I keep hearing of spin-offs I had no idea
 existed, there must be many more of them.
 
  I am one of those individuals that would like to make a difference.  Were
 is
  the starting gate?  Lets get started.
 
 Well I think we did get started already, long ago some of us. What
 would you or anyone suggest we should do that we're not doing already?
 
 If other members could say what they're doing and how they see it
 that might be a start, and it would encourage others to do the same.
 
 Best wishes
 
 Keith
 
 
  
  Terry Dyck
   Believe me the well financed global warming skeptics and traditional
 fossil
   fuel suppliers
   won't win in the long run if we face them head on.
   We will be confronting serious problems in the near future

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

2005-09-22 Thread John Short




I have built this still for producing spirits but it can be use to distill 
about anything, I have not tryed yet but should work well for methonal 
recovery.
http://www.moonshine-still.com

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bob 
  To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:11 
  AM
  Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [Biofuel] 
  Purchasing a still for ethanol
  
  Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 
  proof)?
  
  I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no
  access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still 
  without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one
  if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.
  
  I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
  with no one that operates asuccessful fuelstill.
  
  Thanks
  Bob
  
  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?The 
  New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full 
  Actor Database.
  
  

  ___Biofuel mailing 
  listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 
  at Journey to 
  Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the 
  combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
  messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Annan has paid his dues

The UN declaration of a right to protect people from their 
governments is a millennial change.

And from their corporations? Not that the corporations are theirs 
any more than their governments are theirs. - K



http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1573765,00.html
Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment |
Comment

Annan has paid his dues

The UN declaration of a right to protect people from their 
governments is a millennial change

Ian Williams
Tuesday September 20, 2005
The Guardian

By the time John Bolton had hacked large parts out of the UN's 60th 
anniversary draft declaration, and then had to agree to much of it 
going back in after Condoleezza Rice told him to be nice to US 
allies, it was no surprise that some observers saw the result as a 
smack in the face for Kofi Annan.

In fact, Annan scored a major triumph, a positive answer to the 
question he posed at the millennium summit five years ago: If 
humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on 
sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica - to 
gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every 
precept of our common humanity?

In the final declaration last week 191 countries, including Sudan and 
North Korea, went along with a restatement of international law: that 
the world community has the right to take military action in the case 
of national authorities manifestly failing to protect their 
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes 
against humanity. It comes too late to help Darfur, not to mention 
Rwanda and Cambodia, but it is a millennial change.

Tony Blair, whose speech did not mention the crucial millennium 
development goals in case it upset his friend President Bush, 
welcomed the new development: For the first time at this summit we 
are agreed that states do not have the right to do what they will 
within their own borders.

This is quite true, but one suspects he has forgotten the corollary: 
nor do they have the right to do what they will outside their own 
borders. His retrospective - and spurious - invocation of the 
principle of humanitarian intervention to justify the invasion of 
Iraq has done much to inflame the suspicions of other member states 
about this seductive but dangerous principle.

Humanitarian intervention was invoked to cover allied action to 
support the Kurds after the Gulf war. At the time UN lawyers admitted 
privately that the clearest precedent was Adolf Hitler's invocation 
of it to justify invading Czechoslovakia because of alleged 
maltreatment of the Sudeten Germans. No wonder some leaders, such as 
Hugo Chàvez - whose assassination was recently prayed for by Pat 
Robertson, George Bush's favourite pastor - are worried about this 
development.

However, the egg of national sovereignty, beloved of American 
conservatives and Korean communists alike, is now thoroughly 
shattered and cannot be put together again. The only question left is 
what kind of omelette it makes. Instead of trying to confront the 
change, states such as Cuba and Venezuela should welcome the 
principle - and push hard for the details.

Because there is a sound recipe. When a Canadian-convened 
international commission examined the concept in answer to Annan's 
question, they set out precautionary principles to prevent 
expedient invocation of humanitarianism to justify military 
aggression. They suggested that it should have the right intention, 
so that the primary purpose should be to halt or avert human 
suffering; that it should only be the last resort, when every 
non-military option has been explored; that there should be 
proportional means, so that the scale, duration and intensity of 
the intervention should be the least necessary; that there should be 
reasonable prospects of halting or averting the sufferings and that 
the action does not make things worse.

The report also invoked right authority - authorisation by the UN. 
It is clear that the Anglo-American attack on Iraq met none of these 
criteria. And while Cuba's ways with dissidents may leave much to be 
desired, there is no licence for an intervention there.

So what will this mean in Darfur? Very little immediately, but if 
Khartoum continues to facilitate mass killing, next time the issue 
comes before the security council, the Sudanese regime's friends will 
not be able to invoke legal arguments about sovereignty to cover 
them, although they will raise others. But in the long run Annan, 
self-indicted as a UN bureaucrat for inaction over Srebrenica and 
Rwanda, has paid his dues to humanity with this declaration.

· Ian Williams is the author of UN for Beginners. His latest book is 
Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776
· [EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Jerry Eyers wrote:
 Sorry about being inacurate enough to get the engine size wrong, I was 
 writing from memory,  I was actually quoting from a book that 
 collected 27 of the 50+ mechanic and newspaper reviews done on this 
 guy's engine mod.

I forgive you.  You'll find a LOT of very sharp people who contribute 
to this forum; people who don't broker nonsense.  If you report 
something as fact, you'd better be prepared to back it up.


 Don't shoot the messenger, if you don't like his engine mod, talk to the 
 mechanics that reviewed it, not me.

You sir, were the person who posted the message.

 He was granted a patent on it, but 
 died about the same time, which is probably why we haven't seen an 
 commercial development of it.

A familiar story . . .

robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] reprocessing biodiesel

2005-09-22 Thread Todd Hershberger

I tested some biodiesel after processing it by treating it as new  
virgin oil and some additional glycerine dropped out.  My questions are-

Do I use 10% methanol and 3.5 g NaOH/liter per JTF to reprocess?

Won't that cause washing problems because of the additional NaOH  
causing an emulsification?

Thanks for helping a newbie,
Todd

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Does anyone distill ethanol here?

Brian Rodgers wrote:


 Want to see a totally amazing gas engine
 mod? Take a look at Robert's Hydrogen supercharged gas Ranger. 
 http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/

Woah, Brian!  As much as I'd LOVE to take credit for that, the 
hydrogen modifications were done by the Xerox company, not me!  My 
truck still burns gasoline, but that's going to change . . .


robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] turbocharged vs supercharged diesels

Trevon Kollars wrote:

 I was being sarcastic here.  Sorry.  I was referring to the fact there 
 isn't very many supercharged diesels out there.  The only difference 
 (efficiency wise) between a turbo and a supercharger is the psi and 
 speed at which it will produce it. 

My supercharger is about 15% LESS efficient than a turbo.  Most of 
that inefficiency is expressed as heat.

  Sorry, Robert, if I have 
 insulted your intelligence in some way.

No sir, you're not insulting me.


 Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.

I think you're misunderstanding.  Calling you into accountability for 
accuracy does NOT imply hatred or discontent.  Please be careful with 
your facts in the future!

robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Methanol handling tips needed





Try www.omega.com for stainless heater elements.

Joe

Zeke Yewdall wrote:

  How about standard water heater elements?  You might be able to get
stainless steel ones for the higher quality tanks, or if not, the
cheap ones are only about $10, so replace them every 10 batches or
something.  I know, throwing away stuff is not what we are going for
here, but it's an idea to get it started till you can find something
better.

Zeke

On 9/21/05, Darryl West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
Hi Guys,

I am at the same point as you John trying to get a 5 Gallon processor going.
I have found getting a submersible heating element a hassle.  Can anyone
suggest a place to get an old (or maybe new) element as I have looked around
and haven't come across anything!  (I am most likely looking in the wrong
places)

Cheers
Darryl

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Keith Addison
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:33 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Methanol handling tips needed

Hello John



  Greetings,

I'm finally finding the time to make a processor, but find myself
hanging on a couple of points.  First off I'm just going with
something that resembles the 5gal processor listed on JTF to start.
The problem is that I'm not grasping the process in handling the
methanol and lye properly.  The idea of forcing air into the methoxide
tank thus forcing methoxide out other tube into processor makes sence.
I just dont see where/how the methanol and lye are measured and
placed into mixing container to begin with.
  

Use translucent HDPE containers for mixing methanol and mark them at
the required volume. Use the air pump to pump methanol out of the
container it comes in into the mixing container to the required
volume. Weight out the lye (or KOH), we measure it out into plastic
bags on the scales (adjusted for the weight of the bag) so that
there's minimal exposure to the air and moisture in the air. Then add
it to the methanol mixing container. Opening the lid for this purpose
won't expose you to fumes as the methanol is at room temperature and
it's not being agitated. We use a funnel made from the top of a
2-litre PET bottle (the kind you buy water in) to pour the KOH in
from its plastic bag. Mix it this way: Methoxide the easy way
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_aleksnew.html#easymeth

Then pump it into the processor with the air-pump.



  So, I'm looking for
pointers on how others measure and handle these to get them into mix
tank.  Additonally, I'm not sure what to use for heating element
(electric at this point) so would appreciate any insight on this as
well.
  

With the 5-gal processor type you're more or less confined to
electric heating, those cans don't last very long with an open flame
under them. You can only use an open heat source for pre-heating the
oil anyway - no more open flames as soon as there's any methanol
involved. Maybe a heat exchanger would do, but that would probably be
a bit of a hassle in only a 5-gal can. Get a submersion heating
element, stainless steel, about 1.5 kw should do or maybe less. Try
to get one that fits (unlike ours!).

Best wishes

Keith




  Thanks,
John
  


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



  
  
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof ofglobalwarming

2005-09-22 Thread Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD)


So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
it in perspective.  

Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 

Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 

Mark


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
ofglobalwarming


Just seen this on our BBC TV channel  every 800 miles travelled by a
jumbo 
jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Chris


Wessex Ferret Club
www.wessexferretclub.co.uk



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

2005-09-22 Thread Thomas Kelly




 I've recently acquired a 
1982 Mercedes 300SD. It is clean, rust-free, and very well maintained, but has 
never run on BD.
 Could someone familiar 
with Mercedes of this vintage comment on my checklist of things to 
do:
 -Remove in-tank fuel 
screen (Car alreadyhas a prefilter and a fuel filter accessible from 
above).
 -Set timing back 2 -3 
degrees.
 -Keep a couple of 
prefilters and in-line filters in the trunk.
 -The hoses and seals 
appear to be in very good condition. I don't plan on replacing 
them.
 I have diesel mechanics in the family who are 
willing to do whatever is necessary,but their area of expertise is buses, 
so any info. would be appreciated.

 
Tom


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 2 questions about BD production

2005-09-22 Thread Evergreen Solutions

Ok, so that's a pretty good answer on the cetane question, anyone know
anything about the diesel additive method of avoiding diesel taxes?

~Thanks~
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Does anyone distill ethanol here?

2005-09-22 Thread Brian Rodgers

Still very cool mods there Robert. I know that it takes so much time
to do the type of thing you are working on with your Ranger and then
on top of that documenting the whole process, wow. Great job.
I was a bit confused about the supercharger and reference to hydrogen,
sorry about that.
Do you foresee injecting hydrogen into gas engines in the future as feasible?
Respectfully,
Brian Rodgers

On 9/22/05, robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Brian Rodgers wrote:


  Want to see a totally amazing gas engine
  mod? Take a look at Robert's Hydrogen supercharged gas Ranger.
  http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/

 Woah, Brian!  As much as I'd LOVE to take credit for that, the
 hydrogen modifications were done by the Xerox company, not me!  My
 truck still burns gasoline, but that's going to change . . .


 robert luis rabello
 The Edge of Justice
 Adventure for Your Mind
 http://www.newadventure.ca

 Ranger Supercharger Project Page
 http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

hope everyone understands

Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote:
 So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
 it in perspective.  
 
 Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
   Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
   300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
   That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
   Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 
 
   Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
   
 Mark
   
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
 Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
 ofglobalwarming
 
 
 Just seen this on our BBC TV channel  every 800 miles travelled by a
 jumbo 
 jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Chris
 
 
 Wessex Ferret Club
 www.wessexferretclub.co.uk
 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
 g
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
 


-- 
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves — Richard Feynman

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 2 questions about BD production

Aren't there tax credits for biodiesel fuel (in the US at least) that
would negate the effects of having to pay taxes?

On 9/22/05, Evergreen Solutions [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Ok, so that's a pretty good answer on the cetane question, anyone know
 anything about the diesel additive method of avoiding diesel taxes?

  ~Thanks~

 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

2005-09-22 Thread Jan Warnqvist

Hello Tom,
it seems that you have done
everything right, maybe with the exeption that you should have proper tools in
the trunk for changing filters if necesarry. But I doubt that you will need them
though, assuming that your BD is of high quality.

Best of luck to you !
Jan

- Original Message -
From:
Thomas
Kelly
To: biofuel
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:35
PM
Subject: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo
Diesel

I've recently acquired a
1982 Mercedes 300SD. It is clean, rust-free, and very well maintained, but has
never run on BD.
Could someone familiar
with Mercedes of this vintage comment on my checklist of things to
do:
-Remove in-tank fuel
screen (Car alreadyhas a prefilter and a fuel filter accessible
from above).
-Set timing back 2 -3
degrees.
-Keep a couple of
prefilters and in-line filters in the trunk.
-The hoses and seals
appear to be in very good condition. I don't plan on replacing
them.
I have diesel mechanics in the family who are
willing to do whatever is necessary,but their area of expertise is
buses, so any info. would be appreciated.

Tom

___Biofuel mailing
listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel
at Journey to
Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the
combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

I just started using B100 in a 1984 Mitsubishi diesel.   Similar
vintage, although different design.

Why remove the in-tank fuel screen?  I think the gunk that biodiesel
dissolves is usually much smaller particles than will clog this screen
(someone else correct me if I'm wrong), and you loose protection from
getting large particles farther along the fuel system.

I would replace all the fuel filters after a while, even if you don't
think you need it.  I replaced mine after 2,000 miles on biodiesel,
and found a noticeable increase in power, although I hadn't noticed
any real problems before.  Little tiny rust and dirt particles in the
filter.  Plus its easier to do as a planned replacement, than an
emergency one on the side of the road, even if you do have extras in
the trunk.

What is the consensus on retiming the injection pump?  I advanced mine
about 3 degrees, but that was also because I went to higher elevation,
not because of switching to biodiesel.

I am keeping an eye on the hoses and seals, but have not replaced any.

On 9/22/05, Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  I've recently acquired a 1982 Mercedes 300SD. It is clean, rust-free,
 and very well maintained, but has never run on BD.
  Could someone familiar with Mercedes of this vintage comment on my
 checklist of things to do:
  -Remove in-tank fuel screen  (Car already has a prefilter and a fuel
 filter accessible from above).
  -Set timing back 2 -3 degrees.
  -Keep a couple of prefilters and in-line filters in the trunk.
  -The hoses and seals appear to be in very good condition. I don't plan
 on replacing them.
  I have diesel mechanics in the family who are willing to do
 whatever is necessary, but their area of expertise is buses, so any info.
 would be appreciated.

 Tom


 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...





Well that's probably what the chemicals that they are dispersing are
supposed to achieve ;-) 

bob allen wrote:

  hope everyone understands

Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote:
  
  
So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
it in perspective.  

Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
	Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
	300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
	That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
	Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 

	Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
	
Mark
	

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
ofglobalwarming


Just seen this on our BBC TV channel " every 800 miles travelled by a
jumbo 
jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."  Chris


Wessex Ferret Club
www.wessexferretclub.co.uk



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





  
  

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof ofglobalwarming

2005-09-22 Thread John Hayes

Mark.

I *completely* agree with your overall point. However, the pedant in me 
needs to point out that the 777 is engineered with fuel consumption in mind.

What do the numbers look like for an older 737 or MD-80?

jh


Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote:
 So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
 it in perspective.  
 
 Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
   Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
   300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
   That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
   Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 
 
   Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
   
 Mark
   
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
 Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
 ofglobalwarming
 
 
 Just seen this on our BBC TV channel  every 800 miles travelled by a
 jumbo 
 jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Chris
 
 
 Wessex Ferret Club
 www.wessexferretclub.co.uk
 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
 g
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 


-- 
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] There's no proof of global warming







Hmm... I can't reach them today either. Just go to any nasa sight, and search for apollo pictures of the earth, then search for space shuttle pictures of the earth.


Jerry

---Original Message---


From: des
Date: 09/22/05 10:51:36
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] There's no proof of global warming

I'm still trying to get to the sites listed in this post.is everyone
else able to get to them?Just trying to go to http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/
times out.

doug swanson



Jerry Eyers wrote:
 What did the photos show?

 In the late 1960's, it was a beautiful blue sphere,
 clear atmoshpere, very nice.

 Now, there is a smokey white smudge over everything.
 There is no nice, clean, blue ball anymore, just
 a smokey, murkey haze all the time.

 Compare this picture (apollo 7 docking with satellite):
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=AS7browsepage=Gohitsperpage=20pageno=1photoId=AS07-03-1531
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=AS7browsepage=Gohitsperpage=20pageno=1photoId=AS07-03-1531

 With this picture (space shuttle docking with satellite):
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=STS77browsepage=Gohitsperpage=10pageno=3photoId=s77e5069
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=STS77browsepage=Gohitsperpage=10pageno=3photoId=s77e5069

 And look at the earth in the background.

 Jerry



 

 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


--
All generalizations are false.Including this one.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software.
No Microsoft databits have been incorporated herein.
All existing databits have been constructed from recycled databits.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 9/19/2005

.







___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] turbocharged vs supercharged diesels

2005-09-22 Thread Trevon Kollars

Here is a clip for Smokey if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick
A little bit on the carburetor for the lamen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carburetor
Even though he liked to "cheat", I like him because of his vision and application, which is why I said "I hope this inspired someone". I find that knowledge is not gained to its full extent unless you do the research yourself and have to dig to find it. The drive! The willing to learn! I guess I spent too much time as an instructor/facilitator. No need to be careful just to inspire.robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trevon Kollars wrote: I was being sarcastic here. Sorry. I was referring to the fact there isn't very many supercharged diesels out there. The only difference (efficiency wise) between a turbo and a supercharger is the psi and speed at which it will produce it. My supercharger is about 15% LESS efficient than a turbo. Most of that inefficiency is expressed as heat. Sorry, Robert, if I have insulted your intelligence in some way.No sir, you're not insulting me. Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.I think you're misunderstanding. Calling you into accountability for accuracy does NOT imply hatred or discontent. Please be careful with your facts in the future!robert luis rabello"The Edge of Justice"Adventure for Your
Mindhttp://www.newadventure.caRanger Supercharger Project Pagehttp://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Using E10 in the new car

2005-09-22 Thread mkmiller

Patrick.

I live in Wisconsin and have been using E10 for almost two decades in all of my 
gasoline powered vehicles.

I worked at a Ford and Chrysler dealership in the service department during the 
'80's and earliy '90's. Both vehicle manufacturers modified their products' 
fuel systems to accomodate alcohol back in the late '80's.

If anything, your new car is more compatible with E10 than your older car. It 
may even be E85 compliant. Check your owners manual.

I too have found my vehicles start better on E10 throughout the year. I suspect 
this is due to the characteristic of alcohol to remove water from the fuel 
system. I do not need to add any fuel treatment during the winter because the 
fuel has alcohol in it already.

I did try E85 in both my '94 Ford Crown Victoria and my '96 Ford E150 van. Both 
vehicles operated normally with the exception of the amber Check Engine light 
coming on. When I filled up again with E10, the light went out. 

I had a friend scan the vehicles for emmission codes. Both vehicles indicated a 
lean operating condition, but no other malfunctions. I suspect the lean 
condition was due to the additional oxygen present in alcohol.

I hope this helps.

Michael


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] turbocharged vs supercharged diesels

  Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.

I think you're misunderstanding. Calling you into accountability for
accuracy does NOT imply hatred or discontent. Please be careful with
your facts in the future!

snip
No need to be careful just to inspire.

Yes there is. It takes both otherwise you'll mislead. Or you've come 
to the wrong place.

Keith Addison



Here is a clip for Smokey if you're interested: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunickhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wi 
ki/Smokey_Yunick
A little bit on the carburetor for the lamen: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carburetorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
Carburetor
Even though he liked to cheat, I like him because of his vision 
and application, which is why I said I hope this inspired someone. 
I find that knowledge is not gained to its full extent unless you do 
the research yourself and have to dig to find it.  The drive!  The 
willing to learn!  I guess I spent too much time as an 
instructor/facilitator.  No need to be careful just to inspire.

robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Trevon Kollars wrote:

  I was being sarcastic here. Sorry. I was referring to the fact there
  isn't very many supercharged diesels out there. The only difference
  (efficiency wise) between a turbo and a supercharger is the psi and
  speed at which it will produce it.

My supercharger is about 15% LESS efficient than a turbo. Most of
that inefficiency is expressed as heat.

  Sorry, Robert, if I have
  insulted your intelligence in some way.

No sir, you're not insulting me.


  Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.

I think you're misunderstanding. Calling you into accountability for
accuracy does NOT imply hatred or discontent. Please be careful with
your facts in the future!

robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Hi Mike

Uh, Keith, hate to step in here but it works by binary fusion not 
fission.

Oh. That sounds rude to me, are you sure that isn't rude? This is a 
family list you know.

You're going to give
people the wrong idea.

But isn't that the plan?

Also, where's my link?

:-) I'll forward your request to the gentleman concerned. I refuse to 
be dragged into this row over which is the *real* Brand X, you can 
fight it out between you, this list just isn't big enough for two 
Brand X's.

All best

Keith


It works by 'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
  combustion efficiency. Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
  where's my wallet?



Darryl McMahon wrote:

 Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance
 improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-board 
splitting of
 water based on zero-point energy.
 
I like the binary fission angle though.
 Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when I 
finish my research
 on trinary fission (based on tritium, don't you know).
 
 Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?
 
 Facetiously yours,
 
 Darryl McMahon
 
 Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
 Hello all
 
 
 
 Jerry Eyers wrote:
 
 
 Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
 although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented
 cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.
 
 
Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under
 what test conditions?
 
 
 
 
 The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor
 
 
 only carb (like a
 
 
 propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the
 vapor.
 
 
I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and
 NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as
 propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
 injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,
 hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the
 difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
 fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not
 as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall
 energy available for combustion.
 
To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel
 economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that
 liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
 burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast
 majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is
 unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!
 
 
 But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've just
 been instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the
 biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's not
 called Brand X):
 
 Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science
 and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuel
 reserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization of
 electrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons
 in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for all
 diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. Brand
 X reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion
 technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible and
 Brand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternative
 energy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel
 internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with all
 kinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel or
 biofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is
 inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly.
 
 It works by 'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
 combustion efficiency. Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
 where's my wallet?
 
 Best wishes
 
 Keith
 
 
 
 
 That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,
 only straight gas.
 
 
A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of higher
 compression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
 reduces pumping losses.  In addition, diesel fuel contains more energy
 than gasoline.
 
 robert luis rabello
 The Edge of Justice
 Adventure for Your Mind
 http://www.newadventure.ca
 
 Ranger Supercharger Project Page
 http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Hi Darryl

Darryl McMahon wrote:

 Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance
 improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-board 
splitting of
 water based on zero-point energy.

They laughed at Einstein too. (But they laughed at the Marx Brothers 
even more.)

I like the binary fission angle though.

Yes! New in the annals of energy scams.

 Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when I 
finish my research
 on trinary fission (based on tritium, don't you know).

Everyone's gone fission.

 Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?

Naah, these guys are way ahead, they're working with molecular 
elements and elementary molecules.

 Facetiously yours,

:-) Likewise,

Regards

Keith


 Darryl McMahon
 
 Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
 Hello all
 
 
 
 Jerry Eyers wrote:
 
 
 Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
 although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented
 cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.
 
 
Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under
 what test conditions?
 
 
 
 
 The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor
 
 
 only carb (like a
 
 
 propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the
 vapor.
 
 
I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and
 NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as
 propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
 injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,
 hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the
 difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
 fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not
 as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall
 energy available for combustion.
 
To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel
 economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that
 liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
 burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast
 majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is
 unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!
 
 
 But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've just
 been instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the
 biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's not
 called Brand X):
 
 Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science
 and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuel
 reserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization of
 electrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons
 in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for all
 diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. Brand
 X reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion
 technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible and
 Brand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternative
 energy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel
 internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with all
 kinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel or
 biofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is
 inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly.
 
 It works by 'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
 combustion efficiency. Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
 where's my wallet?
 
 Best wishes
 
 Keith
 
 
 
 
 That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,
 only straight gas.
 
 
A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of higher
 compression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
 reduces pumping losses.  In addition, diesel fuel contains more energy
 than gasoline.
 
 robert luis rabello
 The Edge of Justice
 Adventure for Your Mind
 http://www.newadventure.ca
 
 Ranger Supercharger Project Page
 http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

I just started using B100 in a 1984 Mitsubishi diesel.   Similar
vintage, although different design.

Why remove the in-tank fuel screen?  I think the gunk that biodiesel
dissolves is usually much smaller particles than will clog this screen
(someone else correct me if I'm wrong), and you loose protection from
getting large particles farther along the fuel system.

Petro-diesel often has water in it and tanks on older cars can get 
rusty, especially if they're left standing for awhile before you buy 
them. A couple of cases have been discussed here before. The 
biodiesel loosens the rust and it gunges up the in-tank fuel screen, 
which you then wish wasn't inside the tank but outside it. It can 
stop you if you're not ready for it. It happened to us too. We 
installed a fine mesh screen outside the tank, which we had to clean 
a few times and had to change a filter element in the meantime too, 
but later when we checked the inside of the tank we found it's clean, 
the problem solved itself.

Otherwise, it all sounds good.

Best

Keith


I would replace all the fuel filters after a while, even if you don't
think you need it.  I replaced mine after 2,000 miles on biodiesel,
and found a noticeable increase in power, although I hadn't noticed
any real problems before.  Little tiny rust and dirt particles in the
filter.  Plus its easier to do as a planned replacement, than an
emergency one on the side of the road, even if you do have extras in
the trunk.

What is the consensus on retiming the injection pump?  I advanced mine
about 3 degrees, but that was also because I went to higher elevation,
not because of switching to biodiesel.

I am keeping an eye on the hoses and seals, but have not replaced any.

On 9/22/05, Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   I've recently acquired a 1982 Mercedes 300SD. It is clean, rust-free,
  and very well maintained, but has never run on BD.
   Could someone familiar with Mercedes of this vintage comment on my
  checklist of things to do:
   -Remove in-tank fuel screen  (Car already has a prefilter and a fuel
  filter accessible from above).
   -Set timing back 2 -3 degrees.
   -Keep a couple of prefilters and in-line filters in the trunk.
   -The hoses and seals appear to be in very good condition. I don't plan
  on replacing them.
   I have diesel mechanics in the family who are willing to do
  whatever is necessary, but their area of expertise is buses, so any info.
  would be appreciated.
 
  Tom


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] They laughed at the Marx Brothers

trinary fission

Stop!  I have a patent on this!



Keith Addison wrote:

Hi Darryl

  

Darryl McMahon wrote:



Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance
improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-board 
  

splitting of


water based on zero-point energy.
  


They laughed at Einstein too. (But they laughed at the Marx Brothers 
even more.)

  

I like the binary fission angle though.



Yes! New in the annals of energy scams.

  

Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when I 
  

finish my research


on trinary fission (based on tritium, don't you know).
  


Everyone's gone fission.

  

Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?
  


Naah, these guys are way ahead, they're working with molecular 
elements and elementary molecules.

  

Facetiously yours,
  


:-) Likewise,

Regards

Keith


  

Darryl McMahon

Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



  

Hello all





Jerry Eyers wrote:


  

Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented
cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.




   Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under
what test conditions?




  

The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor




only carb (like a


  

propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the
vapor.




   I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and
NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as
propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,
hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the
difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not
as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall
energy available for combustion.

   To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel
economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that
liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast
majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is
unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!


  

But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've just
been instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the
biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's not
called Brand X):

Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science
and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuel
reserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization of
electrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons
in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for all
diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. Brand
X reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion
technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible and
Brand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternative
energy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel
internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with all
kinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel or
biofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is
inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly.

It works by 'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
combustion efficiency. Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
where's my wallet?

Best wishes

Keith






That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,
only straight gas.




   A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of higher
compression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
reduces pumping losses.  In addition, diesel fuel contains more energy
than gasoline.

robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:

Re: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

Aha. I stand corrected.  Thinking about it more, I've actually had the
rust problem with a WVO setup on a schoolbus because we got a used
tank that was really rusty inside. We thought we had really dirty oil
because the canister filters were only lasting about 100 miles, but
after the tank was clean, they last several hundred miles now.

 Petro-diesel often has water in it and tanks on older cars can get
 rusty, especially if they're left standing for awhile before you buy
 them. A couple of cases have been discussed here before. The
 biodiesel loosens the rust and it gunges up the in-tank fuel screen,
 which you then wish wasn't inside the tank but outside it. It can
 stop you if you're not ready for it. It happened to us too. We
 installed a fine mesh screen outside the tank, which we had to clean
 a few times and had to change a filter element in the meantime too,
 but later when we checked the inside of the tank we found it's clean,
 the problem solved itself.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Jeepers, as long as it is not that other Mike!

Binary fusion is a lot of fun, BTW.  I don't know about the rest of you 
but I don't let my kid read this list.  Don't want her getting a bunch 
of crazy ideas!

Keith Addison wrote:

Hi Mike

  

Uh, Keith, hate to step in here but it works by binary fusion not 
fission.



Oh. That sounds rude to me, are you sure that isn't rude? This is a 
family list you know.

  

You're going to give
people the wrong idea.



But isn't that the plan?

  

Also, where's my link?



:-) I'll forward your request to the gentleman concerned. I refuse to 
be dragged into this row over which is the *real* Brand X, you can 
fight it out between you, this list just isn't big enough for two 
Brand X's.

All best

Keith


  

It works by 'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising


combustion efficiency. Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
where's my wallet?
  


Darryl McMahon wrote:



Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance
improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-board 
  

splitting of


water based on zero-point energy.

  

I like the binary fission angle though.


Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when I 
  

finish my research


on trinary fission (based on tritium, don't you know).

Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?

Facetiously yours,

Darryl McMahon

Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



  

Hello all





Jerry Eyers wrote:


  

Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented
cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.




   Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under
what test conditions?




  

The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor




only carb (like a


  

propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the
vapor.




   I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and
NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as
propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,
hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the
difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not
as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall
energy available for combustion.

   To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel
economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that
liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast
majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is
unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!


  

But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've just
been instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the
biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's not
called Brand X):

Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science
and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuel
reserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization of
electrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons
in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for all
diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. Brand
X reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion
technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible and
Brand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternative
energy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel
internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with all
kinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel or
biofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is
inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly.

It works by 'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
combustion efficiency. Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
where's my wallet?

Best wishes

Keith






That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,
only straight gas.




   A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of higher
compression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
reduces pumping losses.  In addition, diesel fuel contains more energy
than gasoline.

robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
  



___
Biofuel mailing list

Re: [Biofuel] reprocessing biodiesel

2005-09-22 Thread Thomas Kelly

Todd,
  I reprocessed a 95L batch using 10% methanol and 3.5 g NaOH/liter as 
per JTF.
 I recall having the same question you pose re: the lye.
I simply followed the instructions given at JtF and slightly more than a 
gallon of additional glycerine mix separated out. The reprocessed BD washed 
beautifully w/o emulsion and after three washings and a few days drying in 
the sun was crystal clear and ready to use.

You asked:
 Won't that cause washing problems because of the additional NaOH 
causing an emulsification?

 I wondered about that myself, so before reprocessing the entire batch I 
first washed the 1L BD produced by the quality test. It went well so I 
proceeded to wash the remaining 95L. (stir washing as per JtF)
  As I understand it, soap and/or unreacted glycerides are the cause of 
emulsions. Perhaps lye itself, in the absence of water, does not cause 
emulsions.

  Though a newbie myself, I thought that I would pass along my 
experience w. reprocessing. Maybe someone more knowledgable about the 
reaction can fill us in on the mystery of the excess lye.

 Follow the directions at JtF and proceed with confidence.
 Tom

- Original Message - 
From: Todd Hershberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] reprocessing biodiesel


I tested some biodiesel after processing it by treating it as new
 virgin oil and some additional glycerine dropped out.  My questions are-

 Do I use 10% methanol and 3.5 g NaOH/liter per JTF to reprocess?

 Won't that cause washing problems because of the additional NaOH
 causing an emulsification?

 Thanks for helping a newbie,
 Todd

 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


 



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] They laughed at the Marx Brothers

2005-09-22 Thread Fred Finch

Mike, 

Coffee through the nose is not pleasent.

Also, I may have to charge you for a new keyboard. Mine is wet from the coffee.

fredOn 9/22/05, Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
trinary fissionStop!I have a patent on this!Keith Addison wrote:Hi DarrylDarryl McMahon wrote:Oh, come on Keith!Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance
improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-boardsplitting ofwater based on zero-point energy.
They laughed at Einstein too. (But they laughed at the Marx Brotherseven more.)I like the binary fission angle though.
Yes! New in the annals of energy scams.Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when Ifinish my research
on trinary fission (based on tritium, don't you know).Everyone's gone fission.Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?
Naah, these guys are way ahead, they're working with molecularelements and elementary molecules.Facetiously yours,
:-) Likewise,RegardsKeithDarryl McMahonKeith Addison 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hello all
Jerry Eyers wrote:Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documentedcases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.
 Documented by whom?(By the way, a 350 is a small block.)Underwhat test conditions?
The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor
only carb (like a
propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding thevapor.
 I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, andNEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such aspropane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
injected liquid fueled engine.(Though it is true that certain gases,hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.However, thedifference in economy is incremental.)The calorific value of gaseous
fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are notas dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overallenergy available for combustion.
 To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fueleconomy.Among some people, there remains a persistent myth thatliquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
burning a fuel load.People who believe this insist that the vastmajority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber isunburned, yet this is simply NOT true!
But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've justbeen instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the
biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's notcalled Brand X):Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science
and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuelreserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization ofelectrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons
in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for alldiesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. BrandX reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion
technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible andBrand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternativeenergy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel
internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with allkinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel orbiofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is
inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly.It works by 'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximisingcombustion efficiency. Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
where's my wallet?Best wishesKeith
That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,only straight gas.
 A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of highercompression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
reduces pumping losses.In addition, diesel fuel contains more energythan gasoline.robert luis rabelloThe Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mindhttp://www.newadventure.caRanger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/___
Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

Mark,

Your conclusion below is inaccurate.

It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel 
economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.

Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.

A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel 
economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG). 
(62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm , 
premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A fuel.)

In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an 
equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.

More so, the BBC did not do as claimed, present[ing] information for 
shock value, without putting it into perspective. Were they to have 
conducted the rest of the exercise and presented it in its entire 
perspective, the facts would have proven shockingly more in disfavor of 
air travel.

That said, even the rudimentary apples to apples comparison above 
can't be deemed virtually accurate. Passenger mile fuel economy would 
be even lower on maximum range trips if the Boeing model with optional 
tanks were used, as it takes fuel to transport fuel. And, of course, it 
takes fuel to transport fuel to refueling stations on the ground as 
well. Including this type of cradle-to-grave energy variable would make 
the Jetta's passenger mile fuel economy less as well.

Transportation fuel economy is best, first by rail, second by bus, third 
by fuel efficient sedan and fourth by air. Motocyclettas fit in there 
somewhere.

But I'll let those with well paraffined slide rules calculate the 
minutia on this one.

Todd Swearingen

hope everyone understands

Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote:
  

So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
it in perspective.  

Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
  Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
  300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
  That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
  Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 

  Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
  
Mark
  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
ofglobalwarming


Just seen this on our BBC TV channel  every 800 miles travelled by a
jumbo 
jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Chris


Wessex Ferret Club
www.wessexferretclub.co.uk



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/








  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

I think it's actually more accurate to compare each vehical in it's
most commonly filled state.  At least the airplane usually has more
than one person in it... whereas most the cars I see here have one
person in them most of the time.  All the people who I see driving to
work each morning, alone, in their suburbans, are getting about 14
PMPG.  woo hoo.  I figure I get about 210 PMPG when I take the
bus.

On 9/22/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Mark,

 Your conclusion below is inaccurate.

 It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel
 economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.

 Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.

 A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel
 economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG).
 (62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm ,
 premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A fuel.)

 In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an
 equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

2005-09-22 Thread dwoodard

I've known Bruce McBurney, the fellow who runs himacresearch, for about 14
years now. He lives in Niagara Falls, Ontario, about 12-15 miles from me.
I regard him as a total flake. I suspect that the others whose exploits he
talks about, and whose literature he sells, are much the same.

Bruce told me that he had built a supercarburetor (from purchased
plans) and had installed it in his van. It involved heating gasoline and
steam, using the engine's coolant and exhaust heat, in the presence of
steel wool whch presumably served as an iron catalyst. He ran the system
for a while and then removed it. I asked him about driveability problems;
he indicated that there were some but refused to discuss details. He
claimed high mileage; I think he said 60 miles per gallon. He also said
that the device only worked for a short time due to poisoning of the
iron catalyst by additives in the gasoline, which sounded plausible to me.

Bruce claimed that the device worked because it transformed the fuel into
uniform small molecules. He also showed me a report of an analysis of the
product of his device by a Dr. Cherniak, a professor of chemistry at
Brock University in St. Catharines. It showed ethane and other
hydrocarbons including several alcohols (i.e. the analysis made nonsense
of Bruce's theory which didn't appear to register with him). Dr.
Cherniak was not able to test for hydrogen, but I expect there was some.
I don't recall whether the report said anything about carbon monoxide;
again I would expect there was some produced.

Hydrogen and some of the hydrocarbons will ignite at extremely lean
mixtures and will enable other fuels which will ordinarily not ignite at
very lean mixtures to do so. I surmise that this lean mixture operation
would produce an improvement in fuel economy. However the heating of the
fuel/air mixture in the device would drastically lower the misture density
and the power produced. That and the changes in mixture ratio, chemical
composition and density of the mixture during warmup would be likely to
produce serious performance and driveability problems, which seems to
have been the case from the limited information I was able to extract
from Bruce.

There is a likely efficiency improvement from another source besides the
lean mixture; see if you can guess it what it is.

Bruce claimed to me that the inventors of supercarburetors had been
routinely assassinated by big oil companies, also that the companies were
responsible for the rewriting of textbooks of chemistry and physics to
conceal the possibility of such devices from the public. It seemed that
nothing was too complicated or expensive for the companies to do to
suppress the inventions. Bruce appeared to believe that he had re-invented
true chemistry and physics although he was unable to produce any coherent
account of what he claimed to have done.

I talked to Dr. Cherniak by phone (he died shortly after); he told me
among other things that Bruce didn't want to learn which accords with my
experience.

I have had some experience with flakes in other lines, one a prophet of
monetary reform as the solution to all our economic ills. I've concluded
that ordinary sensible people have no conception of the number of wackos
there are walking around, who are able to function in daily life and earn
their livings, but who have only the weakest connection with reality in
any context which doesn't bring that reality home to them in their daily
lives. These experiences have made my reading of religious and political
history and its high content of madness much more understandable. The
stuff I have encountered about zero-point energy has sounded quite
familiar.

I also put just as much stock in written testimony as it seems to deserve
from its context. Think about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Think
about  ...hmmm... I'd better let you fill in the blanks or I'm liable to
be assassinated myself.

To return to Mr. Ogle and Secret 5, I read in the 1970s that
Siemens in Germany had experimented with the heating of gasoline to get
complete vapourization to enable operation on slightly lean mixtures with
resultant improvements in efficiency (nothing like a fivefold increase in
mileage though). I gathered that the efficiency improvement was useful, but
aparently the system never went into production. I guess the problems of
volumetric efficiency, weight and bulk, plus driveability were too much.

I think myself that treatments involving raising the temperature of the
fuel can be useful but that we will have to develop methods of injecting
the fuel into the cylinder not far from top dead centre in the cycle;
certainly after the intake valves close.

When evaluating reports of engine efficiency improvements
it's important to remember that for about 70 years we have been able to
build gasoline engines running on knock-resistant fuels which have turned
about 33% of the heat energy in the fuel into shaft horsepower, when
operated at cruise at high BMEP

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

 I think it's actually more accurate to compare
 each vehical in it's most commonly filled state.

Perhaps, to achieve real world passenger mile fuel economy averages, 
presuming an average occupancy rate per vehicle could be achieved. No doubt 
someone has done that somewhere. At least you can bank on the fact that the 
airlines have.

Still, even if 50% occupancy was considered the average, that particular 
airliner would only net a 31-34 PMPG, whereas the Jetta would net 100 PMPG. 
Seventy percent occupancy versus thirty-three percent? That would be 
approximately 43-47 PMPG vs 66 PMPG for the Jetta.

Almost no matter how you slice it, air transportation at the industrial scale 
remains the least fuel efficient method.

Todd Swearingen


I think it's actually more accurate to compare each vehical in it's
most commonly filled state.  At least the airplane usually has more
than one person in it... whereas most the cars I see here have one
person in them most of the time.  All the people who I see driving to
work each morning, alone, in their suburbans, are getting about 14
PMPG.  woo hoo.  I figure I get about 210 PMPG when I take the
bus.

On 9/22/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Mark,

Your conclusion below is inaccurate.

It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel
economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.

Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.

A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel
economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG).
(62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm ,
premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A fuel.)

In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an
equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




  


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

Okay, in this case I take your point that with average occupancy rate
the jetta is more efficient.  But it is also roughtly twice the mpg as
the average car in the US.  So, I still think that 30 PMPG is more
realistic an average for car travel  about the same as the
efficient airplane.

On 9/22/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I think it's actually more accurate to compare
  each vehical in it's most commonly filled state.

 Perhaps, to achieve real world passenger mile fuel economy averages, 
 presuming an average occupancy rate per vehicle could be achieved. No doubt 
 someone has done that somewhere. At least you can bank on the fact that the 
 airlines have.

 Still, even if 50% occupancy was considered the average, that particular 
 airliner would only net a 31-34 PMPG, whereas the Jetta would net 100 PMPG. 
 Seventy percent occupancy versus thirty-three percent? That would be 
 approximately 43-47 PMPG vs 66 PMPG for the Jetta.

 Almost no matter how you slice it, air transportation at the industrial scale 
 remains the least fuel efficient method.

 Todd Swearingen


 I think it's actually more accurate to compare each vehical in it's
 most commonly filled state.  At least the airplane usually has more
 than one person in it... whereas most the cars I see here have one
 person in them most of the time.  All the people who I see driving to
 work each morning, alone, in their suburbans, are getting about 14
 PMPG.  woo hoo.  I figure I get about 210 PMPG when I take the
 bus.
 
 On 9/22/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 Mark,
 
 Your conclusion below is inaccurate.
 
 It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel
 economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.
 
 Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.
 
 A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel
 economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG).
 (62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm ,
 premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A fuel.)
 
 In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an
 equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
 
 
 

 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

Not yet Zeke.

If the airline wants to tout it's highest fuel economy vehicle, so can 
the ground transportation sector.

Using you're method you'd be giving an unfair leg up to the airline by 
accepting their high fuel efficiency model but handicapping ground 
transport by introducing an average efficiency value. Best to best. 
Average to average. Worst to worst.

At least they're getting off the hook by not being scrutinized under an 
emissions regimen (which is actually where this thread started, come to 
think of it), where the Jetta would would cash in nicely with B-100 as 
nearly carbon neutral, compared to their 100% carbon negative.

Todd Swearingen

 Zeke Yewdall wrote:

Okay, in this case I take your point that with average occupancy rate
the jetta is more efficient.  But it is also roughtly twice the mpg as
the average car in the US.  So, I still think that 30 PMPG is more
realistic an average for car travel  about the same as the
efficient airplane.

On 9/22/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

I think it's actually more accurate to compare
each vehical in it's most commonly filled state.
  

Perhaps, to achieve real world passenger mile fuel economy averages, 
presuming an average occupancy rate per vehicle could be achieved. No doubt 
someone has done that somewhere. At least you can bank on the fact that the 
airlines have.

Still, even if 50% occupancy was considered the average, that particular 
airliner would only net a 31-34 PMPG, whereas the Jetta would net 100 PMPG. 
Seventy percent occupancy versus thirty-three percent? That would be 
approximately 43-47 PMPG vs 66 PMPG for the Jetta.

Almost no matter how you slice it, air transportation at the industrial scale 
remains the least fuel efficient method.

Todd Swearingen




I think it's actually more accurate to compare each vehical in it's
most commonly filled state.  At least the airplane usually has more
than one person in it... whereas most the cars I see here have one
person in them most of the time.  All the people who I see driving to
work each morning, alone, in their suburbans, are getting about 14
PMPG.  woo hoo.  I figure I get about 210 PMPG when I take the
bus.

On 9/22/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


  

Mark,

Your conclusion below is inaccurate.

It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel
economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.

Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.

A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel
economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG).
(62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm ,
premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A fuel.)

In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an
equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/






  

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




  


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof ofglobalwarming

2005-09-22 Thread S. Chapin

Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote:

So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
it in perspective.  

Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
   Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
   300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
   That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
   Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 

   Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
   
Mark
   

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
ofglobalwarming


Just seen this on our BBC TV channel  every 800 miles travelled by a
jumbo 
jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Chris


Wessex Ferret Club
www.wessexferretclub.co.uk



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


  

And a Greyhound bus? Amtrak? anyone out there with #s?
I am guessing both would make 68mpg look gluttonous, but I could be wrong.
S.Chapin

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof ofglobalwarming

I have heard that trail transport of freight is only 20% the energy as
highway transport of freight, but can't remember the source right now.
   Does anyone else remember seeing this?

On 9/22/05, S. Chapin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote:

 So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
 it in perspective.
 
 Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel
300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
Or 68 mile/gallon/seat.
 
Compare that to your average car you don't even get close.
 
 Mark
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
 Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
 ofglobalwarming
 
 
 Just seen this on our BBC TV channel  every 800 miles travelled by a
 jumbo
 jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Chris
 
 
 Wessex Ferret Club
 www.wessexferretclub.co.uk
 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
 g
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
 
 And a Greyhound bus? Amtrak? anyone out there with #s?
 I am guessing both would make 68mpg look gluttonous, but I could be wrong.
 S.Chapin

 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Does anyone distill ethanol here?

Brian Rodgers wrote:

 Still very cool mods there Robert. I know that it takes so much time
 to do the type of thing you are working on with your Ranger and then
 on top of that documenting the whole process, wow. Great job.

Thank you!  It's been a long road, and I'm not finished yet.  Right 
now I have a bit of a problem with the mass airflow unit that will 
probably result in dispensing with the factory computer and putting in 
a speed density system like the Megasquirt.

 I was a bit confused about the supercharger and reference to hydrogen,
 sorry about that.

That's ok.  I was flattered, at least for a moment!

 Do you foresee injecting hydrogen into gas engines in the future as feasible?

Maybe not pure H2, but a gas fuel will definitely work.  (Although 
with gas prices going up all the time, electrolytic hydrogen might 
actually be cheaper pretty soon!)  Direct injection is the way to go 
with gaseous fuels, and since my cylinder head has TWO spark plugs for 
each chamber, I don't have to modify the head to do it.  I've been 
looking into building a modified gasification unit to run a 
combination of compressed wood gas (for volatility) and vegetable oil, 
since I can't do ethanol up here.  With a programmable onboard 
computer, I can change the injection parameters to suit any fuel I 
want to run.  Whether I can pull that off on my own is another story, 
however . . .


robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

2005-09-22 Thread Chris lloyd

 Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
 Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel
 300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
 That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
 Or 68 mile/gallon/seat.

 Compare that to your average car you don't even get close.

About 5% of pollution from cars gets into the upper atmosphere but nearly 
100% of a jumbos pollution gets there. The UK government has found that to 
meet its pollution targets it would have to stop any increase in air travel 
which now causes 85% of atmospheric pollution over the UK.Chris.


Wessex Ferret Club
www.wessexferretclub.co.uk



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

So, what is the fuel economy of the average airplanes, instead of the
efficient ones?  I have no idea how different airplanes compare.

Speaking of emissions, what about using biodiesel in airplane engines.
 I know that quite a few people are excited about the new compression
ignition airplane engines that can burn jet fuel instead of aviation
gas, because it opens up the possibility of using biodiesel for small
airplanes.  So this implies that jet fuel and biodiesel are somewhat
similar?  I would think that the gell point of biodiesel would be
a big problem at 30,000 feet though.

On 9/22/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Not yet Zeke.

 If the airline wants to tout it's highest fuel economy vehicle, so can
 the ground transportation sector.

 Using you're method you'd be giving an unfair leg up to the airline by
 accepting their high fuel efficiency model but handicapping ground
 transport by introducing an average efficiency value. Best to best.
 Average to average. Worst to worst.

 At least they're getting off the hook by not being scrutinized under an
 emissions regimen (which is actually where this thread started, come to
 think of it), where the Jetta would would cash in nicely with B-100 as
 nearly carbon neutral, compared to their 100% carbon negative.

 Todd Swearingen

  Zeke Yewdall wrote:

 Okay, in this case I take your point that with average occupancy rate
 the jetta is more efficient.  But it is also roughtly twice the mpg as
 the average car in the US.  So, I still think that 30 PMPG is more
 realistic an average for car travel  about the same as the
 efficient airplane.
 
 On 9/22/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 I think it's actually more accurate to compare
 each vehical in it's most commonly filled state.
 
 
 Perhaps, to achieve real world passenger mile fuel economy averages, 
 presuming an average occupancy rate per vehicle could be achieved. No doubt 
 someone has done that somewhere. At least you can bank on the fact that the 
 airlines have.
 
 Still, even if 50% occupancy was considered the average, that particular 
 airliner would only net a 31-34 PMPG, whereas the Jetta would net 100 PMPG. 
 Seventy percent occupancy versus thirty-three percent? That would be 
 approximately 43-47 PMPG vs 66 PMPG for the Jetta.
 
 Almost no matter how you slice it, air transportation at the industrial 
 scale remains the least fuel efficient method.
 
 Todd Swearingen
 
 
 
 
 I think it's actually more accurate to compare each vehical in it's
 most commonly filled state.  At least the airplane usually has more
 than one person in it... whereas most the cars I see here have one
 person in them most of the time.  All the people who I see driving to
 work each morning, alone, in their suburbans, are getting about 14
 PMPG.  woo hoo.  I figure I get about 210 PMPG when I take the
 bus.
 
 On 9/22/05, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
 
 Mark,
 
 Your conclusion below is inaccurate.
 
 It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel
 economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.
 
 Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.
 
 A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel
 economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG).
 (62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm ,
 premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A 
 fuel.)
 
 In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an
 equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
 
 
 

 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

[Biofuel] Protect Organics!~ What will they attack next?

2005-09-22 Thread Jai Haissman

Hello All,

I am forwarding this because clean food and responsible agriculture are 
so dear to me. Please take a moment, and help protect our food supply 
from Bush and corporate interests. Hoping this finds you well,

Jai Haissman

http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] There's no proof of global warming

2005-09-22 Thread John Mullan




IMHO, the difference in the pictures are a 
good evidence of cause of the warming. But also, I don't think that a 
natural cycle would account for this. Even over 100 years. Good old 
Mother Earth takes thousands of years to go through these cycles and this one is 
happening a little too fast.

Again, my 2cents.

John


  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jerry 
  EyersSent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:00 PMTo: 
  Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] There's no proof 
  of global warming
  

  
Hmm... I can't reach them today 
either. Just go to any nasa sight, and search for apollo pictures 
of the earth, then search for space shuttle pictures of the earth.


Jerry

---Original Message---


From: des
Date: 09/22/05 
10:51:36
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: 
[Biofuel] There's no proof of global warming

I'm still trying to get to the sites listed in this 
post.is everyone
else able to get to them?Just trying to go to http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/
times out.

doug swanson



Jerry Eyers wrote:
 What did the photos show?

 In the late 1960's, it was a beautiful blue sphere,
 clear atmoshpere, very nice.

 Now, there is a smokey white smudge over everything.
 There is no nice, clean, blue ball anymore, just
 a smokey, murkey haze all the time.

 Compare this picture (apollo 7 docking with satellite):
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=AS7browsepage=Gohitsperpage=20pageno=1photoId=AS07-03-1531
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=AS7browsepage=Gohitsperpage=20pageno=1photoId=AS07-03-1531

 With this picture (space shuttle docking with 
satellite):
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=STS77browsepage=Gohitsperpage=10pageno=3photoId=s77e5069
 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=trueselections=STS77browsepage=Gohitsperpage=10pageno=3photoId=s77e5069

 And look at the earth in the background.

 Jerry



 


 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives 
(50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


--
All generalizations are false.Including this one.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
*

This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software.
No Microsoft databits have been incorporated herein.
All existing databits have been constructed from recycled 
databits.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 
9/19/2005

.

  

  
  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill

2005-09-22 Thread Darryl West

Na its not all that bad, although you have to wonder about what is happening
with free of speech and where things are heading.  It kind of funny as I was
only in Iran the other week and chatting with someone about having the
freedom of choice...guess I could have been wrong.  


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Weaver
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:20 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill

So I guess it's crazy to think of moving to OZ? Nuts. I guess it's 
Canada, then.

Darryl West wrote:

 I couldn't have put it better myself

 

 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Aragorn
 *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:19 PM
 *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill

 Thats because our prime minister is Bush's main lap dog and butt licker.

 Sorry for the language, but howard is a disgusting traiterous dog who

 doesn't even deserve a capital letter for his name.

 Any policy of Bush and Blair, he immediately immitates down here.

 He doesn't serve our country, he serves Bush.

 The only reason he is the leader here is because the general population

 is too stupid to do first grade math and is easily distracted by the 
 words:

 interest rates

 The gall of trying to charge someone you jail and deport for their 
 jailtime

 and deportation costs is just disgraceful.

 Bob


 */Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baffled-peace-activist-gets-11700-bill/2
005/09/16/1126750099540.html

 In the talks I gave I wasn't even openly critical of Australia,
 Parkin said.

 I was being openly critical of the US occupation (of Iraq) and I
 was being openly critical of Halliburton.




 Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ to
 the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

 Send instant messages to your online friends 
 http://au.messenger.yahoo.com



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of global warming

2005-09-22 Thread capt3d


well said, joe. this is the imo tragicdepth we have reached. not that this precludes the possibility of diabolical plans, however. the big wankers that run things are inflicting diabolical plans on us all the time (the existing status quo is itself a diabolical plan if there ever was one).

regards,

-chris b.


Joe Street wrote:

Besides it is hard to really call it a conspiracy when the entire organizational system of our society works to support and serve the interests of those at the top of the food chain.
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Corporations are ready to act on global warming but...

2005-09-22 Thread Tom Irwin





Hi All,

In shocked, shocked to hear that the market hasn´t taken care of this problem already.So some in industry are begging for regulations so they can compete. That high pitched whine is so hard on my ears,please give us laws because we can´t do things for ourselves. Hard driving captains of business mewling like sheep ready for slaughter. Forward thinking visionaries of the 21st century dumbfounded by the prospect of something beyonda three year payback on investment.Here´s a free clue for the clueless, think aboutwhat will happen to your business whenGB has a climate similar to Siberia in the 1950´s. Invest now while it´s cheap, it only gets progressively more expensive as the problem becomes worse. It´s Forrest Gump logic, stupid is as stupid does.

Tom







From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:26:13 -0300Subject: [Biofuel] "Corporations are ready to act on global warming but..."The architects Atelier Ten had designed a cooling system based on the galleries of a termite mound. By installing a concrete labyrinth in the foundations, they could keep even a large building in a hot place - such as the arts center that they had built in Melbourne - at a constant temperature without air conditioning. The only power they needed was to drive the fans pushing the cold air upwards, using 10% of the electricity required for normal cooling systems...---http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0920-23.htmPublished on Monday, September 20, 2005 by the Guardian/UKIt Would Seem That I Was Wrong About Big BusinessCorporations are ready to act on global warming but are thwarted by ministers who resist regulation in the name of the marketby George MonbiotClimate-change denial has gone through four stages. First the fossil-fuel lobbyists told us that global warming was a myth. Then they agreed that it was happening, but insisted that it was a good thing: we could grow wine in the Pennines and take Mediterranean holidays in Skegness. Then they admitted that the bad effects outweighed the good ones, but claimed that climate change would cost more to tackle than to tolerate. Now they have reached stage four. They concede that climate change would be cheaper to address than to neglect, but maintain that it's now too late. This is their most persuasive argument.Today the climatologists at the Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado will publish the results of the latest satellite survey of Arctic sea ice. It looks as if this month's coverage will be the lowest ever recorded. The Arctic, they warn, could already have reached tipping point - the moment beyond which the warming becomes irreversible. As ice disappears, the surface of the sea becomes darker, absorbing more heat. Less ice forms, so the sea becomes darker still, and so it goes on.Last month, New Scientist reported that something similar is happening in Siberia. For the first time on record, the permafrost of western Siberia is melting. As it does so, it releases the methane stored in the peat. Methane has 20 times the greenhouse warming effect of carbon dioxide. The more gas the peat releases, the warmer the world becomes, and the more the permafrost melts.Two weeks ago, scientists at Cranfield University discovered that the soils in the UK have been losing the carbon they contain; as temperatures rise, the decomposition of organic matter accelerates, which causes more warming, which causes more decomposition. Already the soil in this country has released enough carbon dioxide to counteract the emissions cuts we have made since 1990.These are examples of positive feedback: self-reinforcing effects that, once started, are hard to stop. They are kicking in long before they were supposed to. The intergovernmental panel on climate change, which predicts how far the world's temperature is likely to rise, hasn't yet had time to include them in its calculations. The current forecast - of 1.4C to 5.8C this century - is almost certainly too low.A week ago, I would have said that if it is too late, then one factor above all others is to blame: the chokehold that big business has on economic policy. By forbidding governments to intervene effectively in the market, the corporations oblige us to do nothing but stand by and watch as the planet cooks. But last Wednesday I discovered that it isn't quite that simple. At a conference organized by the Building Research Establishment, I witnessed an extraordinary thing: companies demanding tougher regulations - and the government refusing to grant them.Environmental managers from BT and John Lewis (which owns Waitrose) complained that, without tighter standards that everyone has to conform to, their companies put themselves at a disadvantage if they try to go green. "All that counts," the man from John Lewis said, "is cost, cost and cost." If he's buying ecofriendly lighting and his competitors aren't, he loses. As a result, he said, "I welcome the EU's energy

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Hello Keith and all,
My earlier posting that 190 proof is not possible is not correct. I am sorry about this but the cost of fractional distillation will be relatively high as a lot of stages are required. I checked out toluene also. It is not listed as azeotrope forming and it scrambles the brain. I posted without first checking first. May I now suggest another possible fuel which is low boiling and lot easier to rectify to 100% - ethyl acetate. It is also relatively easier to prepare with some H2SO4 catalyst.and simple equipment. Do not know how suitable it will be for combustion in engines with or without petrol. It isfairly oxygenated in structure and has pleasant fruity odour.Just a suggestion worth exploring. Cheers,
ManickhKeith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings ManickhHello everybody,If my knowledge of ethanol-water fractionation data serves me correctly, you cannot get 190proof alcohol by fractional distillation of alcohol-water mixture. Maximum 96% by distillation, 192-proof, then it stops because of azeotropism. The boiling temperature of 96% ethanol is lower than that of pure ethanol. Quite a lot of home distillers do get 190-proof, but not with a "Charles 803" still.Best wishesKeithPS: Sorry I got waylaid Manickh, I haven't forgotten you, I'll get back to what we were discussing as soon as I can. All best meanwhile, K.Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get 100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve
any water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with toluene in which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.ManickhBob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have noaccess to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough stillwithout accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build oneif I knew exactly what to tell them to build.I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come upwith no one that operates a successful fuel
still.ThanksBob___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] It's been whispered about in DC

No one is really talking on the record but the chatter has been around since 
the pretzel incident.



IT AIN'T THE MOST REPUTABLE SOURCE, BUT THE SIGNS ARE ALL THERE.

EVEN MORE REASON TO BE SORRY FOR THE COUNTRY.


BUSH'S BOOZE CRISIS
By JENNIFER LUCE and DON GENTILE



Faced with the biggest crisis of his political life, President Bush has hit
the
bottle again, The National Enquirer can reveal.

Bush, who said he quit drinking the morning after his 40th birthday, has
started boozing amid the Katrina catastrophe.

Family sources have told how the 59-year-old president was caught by First
Lady
Laura downing a shot of booze at their family ranch in Crawford, Texas, when
he
learned of the hurricane disaster.

His worried wife yelled at him: Stop, George.

Following the shocking incident, disclosed here for the first time, Laura
privately warned her husband against falling off the wagon and vowed to
travel with him more often so that she can keep an eye on Dubya, the sources
add.

When the levees broke in New Orleans, it apparently made him reach for a
shot, said one insider. He poured himself a Texas-sized shot of straight
whiskey and tossed it back. The First Lady was shocked and shouted: Stop
George!

Laura gave him an ultimatum before, 'It's Jim Beam or me.' She doesn't want
to
replay that nightmare especially now when it's such tough going for her
husband.

Bush is under the worst pressure of his two terms in office and his
popularity
is near an all-time low. The handling of the Katrina crisis and troop losses
in
Iraq have fueled public discontent and pushed Bush back to drink.

A Washington source said: The sad fact is that he has been sneaking drinks
for
weeks now. Laura may have only just caught him but the word is his drinking
has been going on for a while in the capital. He's been in a pressure cooker
for months.

The war in Iraq, the loss of American lives, has deeply affected him. He
takes
every soldier's life personally. It has left him emotionally drained.

The result is he's taking drinks here and there, likely in private, to cope.
And now with the worst domestic crisis in his administration over Katrina,
you
pray his drinking doesn't go out of control.

Another source said: I'm only surprised to hear that he hadn't taken a shot
sooner. Before Katrina, he was at his wit's end. I've known him for years.
He's
been a good ol' Texas boy forever. George had a drinking problem for years
that
most professionals would say needed therapy. He doesn't believe in it
[therapy], he never got it. He drank his way through his youth, through
college
and well into his thirties. Everyone's drinking around him.

Another source said: A family member told me they fear George is 'falling
apart.' The First Lady has been assigned the job of gatekeeper. Bush's
history
of drinking dates back to his youth. Speaking of his time as a young man in
the
National Guard, he has said: One thing I remember, and I'm most proud of,
is
my drinking and partying. Those were the days my friends. Those were the
good
old days!

Age 26 in 1972, he reportedly rounded off a night's boozing with his
16-year-old brother Marvin by challenging his father to a fight.

On November 1, 2000, on the eve of his first presidential election, Bush
acknowledged that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of
alcohol near his parents' home in Maine. Age 30 at the time, Bush pleaded
guilty and paid a $150 fine. His driving privileges were temporarily
suspended
in Maine.

I'm not proud of that, he said. I made some mistakes. I occasionally
drank
too much, and I did that night. I learned my lesson. In another interview
around that time, he said: Well, I don't think I had an addiction. You know
it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very
addicted...
and they required hitting bottom (to start) going to AA. I don't think that
was
my case.

During his 2000 presidential campaign, there were also persistent questions
about past cocaine use. Eventually Bush denied using cocaine after 1992,
then
quickly extended the cocaine-free period back to 1974, when he was 28.

Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington D.C. psychiatrist and author of Bush On The
Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President, told The National Enquirer: I do
think that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program,
like
the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great.

I think it's a concern that Bush disappears during times of stress. He
spends
so much time on his ranch. It's very frightening.

Published on: 09/21/2005

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000

[Biofuel] help please

2005-09-22 Thread Garth Kim Travis

Greetings,
I have been suffering from a life attack the last few weeks and unable to 
participate on the list.  I do expect my power to go down tomorrow night 
and not be up for at least a week. Will someone please stop my emails from 
coming to my address for me?  I know I am suppose to know how to do it, 
myself, but my brains quit working a few hours ago.  Rita sure is a 
demanding visitor.

We do have enough power for fridges and freezers, some gas for cooking and 
a safe building. I am getting exhausted by clearing room for all the 
animals to come inside for the duration of the storm.  This was suppose to 
be a vacation week, the highlight of which was suppose to be seeing the 
Dali Lama in person.  We tore the bathroom out last weekend to rebuild it 
this week as the plumbing had sprung a leak under the floor.  I am babbling 
so I had better go to bed.

Bright Blessings,
Kim



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of globalwarming

2005-09-22 Thread Ray J

Specs on the current model Boeing 747-400,   57,000 U.S. gallons fuel 
capacity with 8,000 mile range so it gets something like  6-9 gallons a 
mile. so lets say 8 gallons/mile, at around 8 pounds per gallon,= 65 
pounds of fuel per mile...so it uses around 26 tons of fuel in 800 
miles  but they say they put out 28 tons of co2 in the same distance?

thats interesting...

Ray J


Just seen this on our BBC TV channel  every 800 miles travelled by a jumbo 
jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Chris


  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Hello everybody,
Here are two websites that cite ethyl acetate as auto fuel. Note the low price. I think it is viable now. Any comments on this suggestion would be welcome. Cheers
ManickhKeith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings ManickhHello everybody,If my knowledge of ethanol-water fractionation data serves me correctly, you cannot get 190proof alcohol by fractional distillation of alcohol-water mixture. Maximum 96% by distillation, 192-proof, then it stops because of azeotropism. The boiling temperature of 96% ethanol is lower than that of pure ethanol. Quite a lot of home distillers do get 190-proof, but not with a "Charles 803" still.Best wishesKeithPS: Sorry I got waylaid Manickh, I haven't forgotten you, I'll get back to what we were discussing as soon as I can. All best meanwhile, K.Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get 100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve
any water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with toluene in which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.ManickhBob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have noaccess to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough stillwithout accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build oneif I knew exactly what to tell them to build.I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come upwith no one that operates a successful fuel
still.ThanksBob___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] First bach of Biodiesel

2005-09-22 Thread JJJN

If you wish to learn what was said by those who offer their experience, 
please google translation software and you can get some great help in 
deciphering, as well as learn a great deal about linguistics of others 
in the process.  It does require some time but not like it used to.

I really have to agree with Keith on this one, as it seems though an 
unhealthy number of people in the USA think that no one else has 
anything to say or bring to the table - unless they speak fluent 
English.  That attitude is just a more suppressed form of racism 
enough on that ...my opinion only.  Sorry no data to back it up just gut 
feelings.

Jim
Wisdom to all

Keith Addison wrote:

Hey no fair I can't read this reply?
I wanted to hear it too.
Brian Rodgers



Maybe it's no fair when both of them and very many others here 
struggle to read our imperialistic English all the time?

Best wishes

Keith


  

On 9/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Caro João, a temperatura é uma variável que deve ser levada em consideração
uma vez que a cinética da reacção varia com a temperatura, ou seja, maior
temperatura significa menor tempo de reacção. No entanto, num reactor à
pressão atmosférica não se deverá ultrapassar os 60ºC pois  a 
  

temperatura de


ebulição do metanol é cerca de 63ºC.

Boa sorte e disponha sempre

Filipe Paulette
Chemical Engineer

Citando joão martins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 Hi there,

 I plan to start doing the first bach of biodiesel, and
 I will use Methanol.

 I'd like to know if we need always to heat everything
 to 50ºC, and way???

 Best Regards
 João Martins
 www.martinsportscar.com
  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


  


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Greetings everyone,
Got 2 references for use of ethyl acetate as auto fuel and octane boosting. I believe it will be better than ethanol since it is miscible with petrol and a lot easier to make and rectify, unlike ethanol. Sorry I forgot to include their url in previous mail. Cheers.
Manickh
http://www.speclab.com/compound/c64175.htm
http://www.icislor.com/il_shared/Samples/SubPage208.asp
Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings ManickhHello everybody,If my knowledge of ethanol-water fractionation data serves me correctly, you cannot get 190proof alcohol by fractional distillation of alcohol-water mixture. Maximum 96% by distillation, 192-proof, then it stops because of azeotropism. The boiling temperature of 96% ethanol is lower than that of pure ethanol. Quite a lot of home distillers do get 190-proof, but not with a "Charles 803" still.Best wishesKeithPS: Sorry I got waylaid Manickh, I haven't forgotten you, I'll get back to what we were discussing as soon as I can. All best meanwhile, K.Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get 100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve
any water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with toluene in which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.ManickhBob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have noaccess to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough stillwithout accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build oneif I knew exactly what to tell them to build.I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come upwith no one that operates a successful fuel
still.ThanksBob___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] First bach of Biodiesel

Esperanto!

JJJN wrote:

If you wish to learn what was said by those who offer their experience, 
please google translation software and you can get some great help in 
deciphering, as well as learn a great deal about linguistics of others 
in the process.  It does require some time but not like it used to.

I really have to agree with Keith on this one, as it seems though an 
unhealthy number of people in the USA think that no one else has 
anything to say or bring to the table - unless they speak fluent 
English.  That attitude is just a more suppressed form of racism 
enough on that ...my opinion only.  Sorry no data to back it up just gut 
feelings.

Jim
Wisdom to all

Keith Addison wrote:

  

Hey no fair I can't read this reply?
I wanted to hear it too.
Brian Rodgers
   

  

Maybe it's no fair when both of them and very many others here 
struggle to read our imperialistic English all the time?

Best wishes

Keith


 



On 9/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   

  

Caro João, a temperatura é uma variável que deve ser levada em consideração
uma vez que a cinética da reacção varia com a temperatura, ou seja, maior
temperatura significa menor tempo de reacção. No entanto, num reactor à
pressão atmosférica não se deverá ultrapassar os 60ºC pois  a 
 



temperatura de
   

  

ebulição do metanol é cerca de 63ºC.

Boa sorte e disponha sempre

Filipe Paulette
Chemical Engineer

Citando joão martins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Hi there,

I plan to start doing the first bach of biodiesel, and
I will use Methanol.

I'd like to know if we need always to heat everything
to 50ºC, and way???

Best Regards
João Martins
www.martinsportscar.com
 



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


 




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Scales for LYE

2005-09-22 Thread bio


Would it be okay to use an old set of digital scales from weight watchers to
measure grams of LYE. I'm now sure it would be as accurate as a balance
scale. 


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

2005-09-22 Thread Thomas Kelly




Thanks Zeke, Jan, and Keith for your quick 
responses,

 You have inspired me to fill it up with 
homebrewed
biodiesel. After all that's what I got if for.

 
Tom

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise