[biofuel] Re: Filters and Keith's words on out disagreements
Keith, as you know, I'm on web-only delivery for the messages at this list, unless I email them to myself first. No, I didn't know that. Why would I want to know that? I'm only interested in that if people have problems, and then I have to go to Yahoo to find out. The less time I waste at Yahoo's list controls the better I'm pleased. So because I dont have this stuff archived in my Eudora mail reader program, I just went through and cut-and-pasted into Word all the messages from the past week that you're asking me to respond to. Two, actually. And the first one, which you still haven't responded to. And yes, there's also the other two earlier messages you didn't respond to that everyone's been trying to take no notice of, so I reposted them. But of course if you'd responded to the original message in the first place telling you to stop spamming none of this would have happened, would it? As Gustl said, and it's inescapable. Again (always have to do it again!!!): There are 2 things I do not understand about this discussion. First, is it not enough that a list moderator explains a rule of the list and asks that it be adhered to? If a moderator told me that on this list we do such and such and do not allow such and such I would conform to the regs of the list whether I liked them or not. This only seems reasonable to me. If it offended me that much I would unsubscribe. As it is I think the moderators have good, solid reasoning behind the rules which guide the list. You've just made it worse by generating all this tedious and ugly stuff - this messy flood - here and elsewhere. I put it into Word so I could print it out. Trying this (printing) was a mistake: Not counting my separate posts, not counting James or Gustl's or mine or Terry's or Pan_ruti's or anyone else's posts, Kieth alone has posted to this list, 23,095 words (my word processor gives a word count on it) in the past few days on the topics of me, netiquette, whether im 'promoting' something, whether or not I answered old messages where we disagreed, responses to Terry and Mark McElvy, and and a number of other points (this word count including untrimmed threads that just Keith alone re-posted). This came out to 70 pages of unformatted email in Word, all from one person (I of course then didn't print it, I was expecting about 5 pages). Anyway I bring this up because the reason I posted 'Gentlemen, set your filters' is that peopel regularly complain on lists that high volumes of email are difficult for them to deal with, and because I knew I'd be sending out long stuff, replying in-line to Keith's long posts, etc. That's really why you bring this up? James Slayden asked if this could be 'taken offlist'. I mistakenly thought that more people besides James had also said this onlist (I think they did, but not at [biofuel]. My point about filters was meant for those people who didn't want to get flooded with long emails, and also for those who thought that this should be offlist, (of whom I mistakenly though there were more, requesting this publically). My opinion is that my filter message was taken to read as 'watch out Im going to post something nasty and you might not want to read it' or something like that. That was not what was meant at all. I don't think anyone needs any reminding that this thread is nasty, nor what the subject titles are - though I see you've launched yet another new title rather than keeping it simple with the usual Re: response. Why isn't it titled Re: Gentlemen, set your filters? Why start yet another thread? That's five threads now instead of one, all started by you. But you're trying to make it easy for people? If this were truly your concern here now, being considerate about bandwidth and possible annoyance, something like this would have been adequate: Some people have asked for it to be taken off-list and they'll be long replies, so I just wanted to warn them. 22 words and I wouldn't have had to reply. Instead it's 322 words, and I have to reply, yet a further 1,163 words, more waste. No Mark, sorry, this is just more of the same from you. The reason you bring it up is to demonstrate that Keith has whipped up a huge flood of stuff that's annoyed everyone so you can pretend you're trying to save us all further trouble. Word counts, eh? 23,095 words from me you say. Let's have a look then. Earlier I posted a 193-word reply to Ken Provost listing the relevant urls up to then. It's here. http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/37900/ One purpose in doing that was to provide a handy reference for people so they could get it right before responding, hoping to cut down on the proliferating babble. And the growing smokescreen. With so many people deliberately getting it wrong, having that list there saved a lot of unnecessary requoting of what had gotten all twisted out of shape. That url list included my original message to you telling you to stop spamming, your
Re: [biofuel] Re: Filters
Keith, How true. How very true. All the more reason to get some of these other technologies up and running as fast as we can. At a time when the american people and the world needed a progressive, far seeing individual, with a vision for mankind, they seem to have taken a retrograde step and elected a president who is a chip off the old block with the insular thinking of 50 years ago where the world was divided into power blocs and centres of interests rather than being a truly global economy with man helping man and all of us doing our best to help one another. Perhaps I am prejudging the man but I aint seen nothing yet to even start me thinking that perhaps I am wrong. Still it is early days but I hope we dont get 4 years down the track to find nothing changed. The time for change and the introduction of novel technologies is now. This new Energy Policy seems to have nothing new and with Acceptance of the Status Quo stamped all over it. Lets hope I am wrong. Like JFK or not there certainly was a dynamism about that era with the start of the space age that certainly seems to be lacking in the current crop of world leaders. I believe some of that came about as a result of right or wrong America under a young JFK made a decision and ran with it. It is this sort of impetus that is required today here and now in relation to energy. Otherwise hell who knows if we take all the oil out of the earth as quickly as we are doing at present the world may fall on its side and those now basking in the glow of modern technological advancement may be situated at the position of the North and South Poles. B.r., David We are told that there is enough oil to last 70 years if we keep finding oil at the current rate but with the increasing number of vehicles on the road and countries like China coming on line I seriously doubt if there is 35 years supply left. B.r., David I doubt we can take another 35 years of the side-effects. Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Filters
I just got myself a couple of SEPAR combined de-waterers and filters. The filters can be 2, 10 or 30 microns. I'll let you know how I get on Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Filters
Hi Barry, See I didnt answer this e-mail properly. The fuel filters are basically the same as the oil filters although slightly different. They differ in that while the oil filter has a 50 thou orifice in the inlet opening to drop the oil velocity and to prevent channeling the fuel filter entry is is the same or bigger than the fuel line size so there is no restriction and fuel can progress unrestricted. They also have a cock or tap on the bottom so you can drain them occasionally or every so often, to remove the water which tends to settle out, especially when idle or sitting for a while, and for taking fuel samples for visual examination and inspection. As such the filter element will not fit the canisters you mention. Nevertheless when fitted in conjunction with these as the final filter with a diesel they will give you superfine filtration removing the asphaltine particles and other fine contaminants present in all diesel fuel which are the biggest cause of soot (carbon) and exhaust emissions. When fitted together with a by-pass oil filter they help prevent carbon particles entering the crankcase oil to quite a large degree in the first place and thus help to achieve the cleanest system possible and extended oil and engine life. Both MIL-MAC oil and fuel filters will work exceedingly well on this type of vehicle. There is also generally plenty of room for fitting them and easy access. I can assure you that you will be very happy if you fit them. B.r., David - Original Message - From: Barryt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel Yahoo biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 7:39 PM Subject: [biofuel] Re: Filters David, I was reading your specs for the Mil-Mac filter element. Do you use the same filter for fuel as well as oil? What are the demensions of the element? I dive a toyota 4wd diesel with standard fuel filter element in the metal canaster used by toyota, mitsubishi and daihatsu diesels. Can I make a Mil-Mac filter element fit in one of those? Regards Barryt Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: Filters
David, I was reading your specs for the Mil-Mac filter element. Do you use the same filter for fuel as well as oil? What are the demensions of the element? I dive a toyota 4wd diesel with standard fuel filter element in the metal canaster used by toyota, mitsubishi and daihatsu diesels. Can I make a Mil-Mac filter element fit in one of those? Regards Barryt Also John I have had a good look and I can't find a Mil-Mac web site. I also looked in the online phone book and I can't find an Australian Company called Mil-Mac. the might use another name. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re : Filters
David, Thanks for the emails. I will study them over the weekend. The one thing that I didn't understand until I got the Jpegs was one difference between the differnt models were the number of filter elements they contain. Looks very interesting. Regards Barryt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Filters
snip We are told that there is enough oil to last 70 years if we keep finding oil at the current rate but with the increasing number of vehicles on the road and countries like China coming on line I seriously doubt if there is 35 years supply left. B.r., David I doubt we can take another 35 years of the side-effects. Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
