Re: [Biofuel] The Hidden Agenda Behind the Bird Flu Hoax
D. Mindock wrote: You know, I'm just flat amazed to find Mr Mindock, whom I regarded as about as liberal as they come, in complete agreement with Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative radio gang on anything. And here it is, in black and white. FWIW, which isn't much, I don't think bugs care at all about conspiracies, politics, or big drug companies. I think bugs mutate. Whether bird flu eventually mutates into something that can be passed from person to person because of agribusiness, free range birds, or pigs being fed infected chickens doesn't really matter once it starts to spread. --- David This seems to be inline with the idea of a police state. Collect all the info on citizens possible to be stored in a huge database. The cuckoo bird flu scare (a hoax) is to get us to accept that anyone can be detained for silly reasons along with the database of your airline flights. When they say the data is to be maintained for at least two months, you can believe it will be much longer than that. Just like your online traffic through your ISP, all of it, is to be maintained for at least a year thanks to a proposal by US Congresswoman DeGette (D-CO). Yes, she calls herself a Democrat. We need to write our Congress reps that this BS won't fly with us. It is wrong that the NSA and the Pentagon are spying on us. BushCo is a fear based, secretive, devisive, newspeak government that is totally controlled by corporate powers. I think this is the definition of a fascist regime. No wonder the world is becoming terrified of our goverment. Bush and Dead-Eye Dick appear to be out-of-control. Work for Peace, D. Mindock The Hidden Agenda Behind the Bird Flu Hoax Bird FluA plan to quarantine sick airline and ship passengers in order to combat a potential bird flu outbreak has outraged health experts, airlines, and civil libertarians. *Three-Day Quarantine* Sick passengers would be identified by flight attendants, pilots and cruise ship crews. Passengers identified as sick could be detained in quarantine for as long as three days. *Detailed Information* The proposed rules would also require airlines to collect detailed contact information from their passengers, including the names of any traveling companions and precise information regarding travel plans. The information would be stored for at least two months, and would be provided to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) at any time the government asked for it. USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-04-24-flu-quarantine_x.htm April 25, 2006 Dr. Mercola's Comment: If this news concerns you, believe me, you're not alone. Many health experts, as well as airline personnel and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), feel the same way about the various provisions of this plan. The ACLU argues that the plan basically gives the government a free pass to detain whomever it wants to. The airline industry is balking at the $100-million-plus cost of creating and maintaining the huge passenger information database required. Georgina Graham, head of global security for the International Air Transport Association, also pointed out that it's ludicrous to give the job of identifying sick people to flight crews who have no medical training. It's starting to look like there's a hidden agenda behind the manufactured avian flu scare http://www.mercola.com/2005/oct/25/avian_flu_epidemic_is_a_hoax.htm that goes far beyond pushing needless and potentially harmful drugs that don't work anyway http://www.mercola.com/2006/feb/4/flu_drugs_dont_work.htm. I guess if you can't frighten people with a flu epidemic that never happened http://www.mercola.com/2005/oct/25/rumsfeld_to_profit_from_avian_flu_hoax.htm, you can limit the rights of travelers and collect private information anyway for the sake of nothing. *Sad but true.* *The entire bird flu scare is one of the most blatant hoaxes of recent times, and the popular media continues to reinforce the baseless story. You've been hearing about it for months and months now, and what's come of it? Next to nothing. * *And nothing ever will, except possibly you losing more of your hard-earned freedoms.* *We have been warned that anywhere from 200,000 (at best!) to 2 million people at worst will die http://www.mercola.com/2005/oct/25/avian_flu_epidemic_is_a_hoax.htm from the bird flu. The bird flu epidemic hoax reminds me just how uncommon common sense is. Folks, where is the sound basic science here? * *How do they make the giant leap of faith that the very few deaths so far worldwide will translate to 2 million or even 200,000 deaths from a virus that does NOT readily spread from birds to humans, or humans to humans?* *Most of the people who have acquired this infection were bird handlers who
Re: [Biofuel] The Hidden Agenda Behind the Bird Flu Hoax
Keith Addison wrote: D. Mindock wrote: You know, I'm just flat amazed to find Mr Mindock, whom I regarded as about as liberal as they come, in complete agreement with Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative radio gang on anything. And here it is, in black and white. FWIW, which isn't much, I don't think bugs care at all about conspiracies, politics, or big drug companies. I think bugs mutate. Whether bird flu eventually mutates into something that can be passed from person to person because of agribusiness, free range birds, or pigs being fed infected chickens doesn't really matter once it starts to spread. Then what will you propose, that we sit back and figure out how to prevent it? I haven't proposed anything, and I don't really intend to. The days of risk assessment and waiting for sound science are numbered, the Precautionary Principle is both the future and now, and this isn't it. Neither is the way bird flu is being handled, and that isn't all there is to it, nor is saying that bugs mutate. A bug contemplating a bit of mutation isn't faced with an infinity of possibilities. I'm not flat amazed any more to see Americans explaining things away in terms of political polarisations and somehow mislaying the problem in the doing. One thing you're mislaying David is quite a lot of serious stuff that's been posted here about the why's and wherefore's of the bird flu epidemic. Like this report, for instance: I've mislayed nothing. I specifically said I was not addressing where it came from or how it might mutate. GRAIN, 2006, The top-down global response to bird flu, Against the grain, April 2006, http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=12 The report maintains that the solution being proposed - a complete shift to factory farming - merely brings us back to the source of the current bird flu crisis. GRAIN, 2006, Fowl play: The poultry industry's central role in the bird flu crisis. February 2006, http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=194 Do you think it's because they've been listening to Rush Limbaugh and the conservative radio gang or to the liberal radio gang, if there is such a thing? Decide which is which, then you can stick a label on it and pretend it's not there. I didn't accuse D Mindock of spending time listening to talk radio, I only expressed my surprise that he would be in agreement with them about anything. I thought it amusing that one of our list members has recently brought all kinds of conspiracies to our attention. Among them I count the proposal that the US government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and deliberately blew up three buildings, and the car that runs on water in violation of the laws of physics. Now he's telling us that the whole bird flu thing is a hoax, citing an article with text like: The entire bird flu scare is one of the most blatant hoaxes of recent times, and the popular media continues to reinforce the baseless story. You've been hearing about it for months and months now, and what's come of it? Next to nothing. Obviously if nothing has happened in months and months nothing is ever going to happen. Of course, if we apply the same kind of logic to global warning we're left concluding that there's no need to reduce CO2 emissions because next to nothing has come of it over the last few months. I think passages like this tell us about people whose brain processes have just about stopped, or who are deliberately trying to mislead us: Most of the people who have acquired this infection were bird handlers who were in continuous contact with these sick birds. Does anyone in their right mind envision similar circumstances in the **United States**?* I occasionally listen to talk radio while driving around to see what creative support they have for the neocons in power. I'd consider it funny except that a disturbing number of Americans seem to believe it wholesale. I distinctly recall Limbaugh saying something very like what I just quoted. Everybody I know who is worried about the bird flu is not worried about the current strain of H5N1, they're worried about what happens when it mutates into a human transmissable virus. The passage I quoted above attempts to make people who disagree look stupid because Americans do not handle dead, infected, chickens the way those currently contracting H5N1 do. What it attempts to do is disingenuously redirect the argument away from the real threat. For the record, I AM concerned about the effect this virus will have on the human race once it mutates into a human transmissable virus. I don't believe there are any easy answers for it, but that a lot of preparations should be made for it - or for any other pandemic that might strike. These preparations need to be on a personal, local, and national level. --- David Keith --- David This seems to be inline with the idea of a police state.
Re: [Biofuel] Fw: Car runs on water
D. Mindock wrote: Here is a Philippine inventor who first started running cars on only water almost 30 years ago. He has 100 engines he has converted that will run on just tap or sea water. Needless to say all the car companies have tried to steal his technology so he is going to share it with anybody and everybody in a partnership with profits going to the Philippine people, but not the government. Watch this video at: http://www.mysticfamilycircus.com/Pages/Community/Projects/h2oh29MB.mov 1 liter of water will run the car for an hour. Very efficient electrolysis is used to get the hydrogen from the water while the car's in operation. Peace, D. Mindock To be the first of many, I'm sure, but You don't really believe this do you? I mean I had this very idea when I was in the sixth grade, but I did grow up. Basic physics so I'm not accused of ad-hominem attacks very efficient electrolysis from a physics point of view means that you get most of the energy out of the cell that you put in in electricity. 100% efficient would mean that you've got a perpetual motion machine - just keep electrolyzing the water and running an engine on it. It would be cool if it were otherwise - the energy crisis would be over and we wouldn't even need to make biofuels. Generators could run on water, electricity could be produced and we'd only have water vapor for emissions. Only it can't happen. A liter of water isn't going to electrolyze itself and produce useful energy. It's the result of an energy producing chemical reaction and it's going to take energy to reverse it. Sorry, --- David ___ 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] was WVO-Water Separation: coalescer media, now electric resistance heat efficiency
Joe Street wrote: Hey I just thought of something. If I used your heatpump and connected the output heat exchanger to a sterling motor generator set with an overall efficiency of lets say 50%, I could get 1.5 KW of electrical power from the 3 KW heat energy coming out of the heatpump. Since the heatpump has a CP of say 3 in this case then it only requires 1 KW electical input energy and I have a net 500 watts if I run the heatpump from the sterling generator! Ahh this sounds like a perpetual motion machine eh? But really it is not because there is energy input on the input heat exchanger to the tune of more than 3 KW. Not a very efficient system and using the thermal energy directly as a motive force is still much more eficient but a cool idea since it is completely self powered once it gets started. Hmmm did I miss something obvious here? Yes, you're missing some basic physics here. Any basic textbook will explain that that the most efficient heat engine is the carnot cycle, and that the efficiency of it is 1 - (Temp-out/Temp-in). Temperature here must be on the absolute scale - Kelvin or Rankine, though Kelvin (degrees K) is normally used. A heat pump is a heat engine run backwards. Instead of heat flowing and producing mechanical energy you use mechanical energy to move heat. CP is the inverse of the efficiency of the heat engine, or 1 / (1-Tout/Tin). The net result of that is that your heat pump in air conditioning mode has decreases as the temperature difference increases. IOW, it takes more energy to pump the exhaust up to a higher temperature. The Stirling engine, otoh, can be only as efficient as the carnot cycle allows. So if, for example, the ambient temperature is 300K (17C) and the exhaust is 320K, your max efficiency is 1 - 300/320 or 6.25%. Realistically it will be hard to get any useful energy out of a 20C differential at all. Sorry Joe:) --- David ___ 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] And what does the Economist say about running out of oil?
Mike Weaver wrote: Redler, you never like my ideas. You've made me cry. Now how do you feel? *snif* Ok I can't leave well enough alone. A good friend who follows peak oil pretty closely sent me this. I think it's optimistic at best and pretty delusional at worst. I found it to be very revealing. Keep in mind that "The Economist" is about as conservative as they come. For decades now BigOil(tm) has been telling us that there's no global warming, no shortage of oil, no peak oil event to be concerned about. Reserves were essentially endless and we could all drive our SUV's without a worry. While their conclusions were kind of suspect (Don't worry! Be Happy!) the number of points they conceded was a shocker to me. Things like these: It is true that the big firms are struggling to replace reserves ... And as the great fields of the North Sea and Alaska mature, non-OPEC oil production will probably peak by 2010 or 2015 .. [Note: Do they have ANY idea at all what peak oil OUTSIDE OPEC will mean to the industrial world?] After Ghawar.. Further, just because there are no more Ghawars does not mean an end to discovery altogether. Using ever fancier technologies, the oil business is drilling in deeper waters, more difficult terrain and even in the Arctic (which, as global warming melts the polar ice cap, will perversely become the next great prize in oil). .. In recent weeks a scandal has engulfed Kuwait, too. Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW), a respected industry newsletter, got hold of government documents suggesting that Kuwait might have only half of the nearly 100 billion barrels in oil reserves that it claims (Saudi Arabia claims 260 billion barrels)... The other worry of pessimists is that alternatives to oil simply cannot be brought online fast enough to compensate for oil's imminent decline. .. The best reason to think so comes from the radical transformation now taking place among big oil firms. The global oil industry, argues Chevron, is changing from an exploration business to a manufacturing business. [] Several big GTL projects are under way in Qatar, where the North gas field is perhaps twice the size of even Ghawar when measured in terms of the energy it contains. Nigeria and others are also pursuing GTL. Since the world has far more natural gas left than oilmuch of it outside the Middle Eastmaking fuel in this way would greatly increase the world's remaining supplies of oil... For a right-wing paper like them this is practically a wholesale surrender. They're actually talking about global warming, peak oil, alternative fuels, finding less oil than we're using, etc etc. It's progress - the more they start to acknowledge these things the less the environmentalists/peak-oil people look like nutcases. It's just a different interpretation of timing. They'll come 'round in the end, of course. If they're right about non-OPEC oil peaking in 2010 to 2015 current administrations all around the world ought to sit up and take notice though - with demand growing and non-OPEC production declining they're completely in the drivers seat. --- David How long will it take (and cost) to get all this whiz bang stuff going? There's no doubt in my mind the petro economy is doomed. Now, if we had any sense we'd wean ourselves NOW, while we can, use whatever technology may work to do it and move to the next phase. Even in the best case scenario the price of oil is going to continue to climb and climb. They also make the sweeping statement that "the World is not about to run out of oil". The world WILL NEVER run out of oil. There just WON'T BE ENOUGH for everyone to go as we are. I'm sure there will alwasy be a trickle ot two... Weaver Michael Redler wrote: Schizophrenic/Procrastinating/Clueless economists: They concede to: The rising costs of oil exploration The eminent peak and subsequent end to oil as a main source of fuel The fact that for every three barrels used there is only one barrel of newly discovered oil to replenish it. At the same time they seem to feel that new technology and techniques in exploration and the resulting increase in yield allows you to delay the peak. They also make the sweeping statement that "the World is not about to run out of oil". What does "about" mean and when will they have the foresight to see the value of doing something sooner rather than later? More importantly, who is "the World" and when are they going to count countries (i.e. Iraq) who are slowly losing control of their oil. What a bunch of crap! Weaver!! You couldn't leave well enough alone, could you. Mike */Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6823506 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Re: [Biofuel] small oil presses, WVO and sustainability
Michael Redler wrote: Thanks Jason, Katie and Keith. The reason for my post had mostly to do with soil degradation. I was researching what crops gave the best yield for ethanol production and began looking at sugar beets as a possibility. However, the research suggests that root crops can't be planted every year because of what it takes out of the soil and that you should rotate three other crops in between (four year rotation). My interpretation was that if I never wanted to step foot in a gas station again, I would need an acre of land to produce (roughly) 800 gallons of ethanol. If I kept my driving local, this would work - except I could only do this once every four years (assuming I had the time and energy to process the crop - agh!). So, I started looking at alternating my source of biofuel and considered the possibility of alternating fuels (biodiesel, ethanol, etc.). By the way, besides biodiesel and ethanol, the other viable option I considered was/is producer gas. If you return all the by-product to the soil you'd only be taking out the alcohol itself - hydrogen and carbon fixed by photosynthesis. No nutrients would be removed. Wouldn't this be sustainable? I'm curious how you calculate 800 gallons/acre? I'm not doubting it, just thought I'd read about far lower yields of biodiesel feedstocks. The plan would be that after I developed a sustainable crop rotation for both ethanol and biodiesel production, I would harvest the crop and produce the fuel in the fall. In the meantime, I would use last years crop along with other alternatives PV, wind, etc. to stay off the grid. So, here's the rub; In order to direct a variety of energy sources toward fueling my car (for example), It's apparent that I'll need a common denominator - electric storage. That means an electric car and either flex-fuel of duel generators. If you want to use the wind to produce electricity to run your car with you have a point. Why not just run the car on the alcohol? Cars are very intensive energy users, and liquid fuels provide very dense energy storage. --- David As you can see, my plan starts to get messy in a hurry. To keep the number of variables down, I was hoping for the same (best yielding) crop every year without damaging the soil. Mike */Jason Katie [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: i was looking through the archives trying to find something about that earlier. can you use the cake from an oil press as stock for ethanol, or has it been made unusable in this respect? i am fairly sure you can digest and subdivide it, but if it could be taken that one step further, it might be a more efficient process. - Original Message - From: Michael Redler To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 10:51 AM Subject: [Biofuel] small oil presses, WVO and sustainability I'm glad so see discussions about WVO (supply, sustainability and big business) and methods for pressing your own oil. I always felt that increasing competition for WVO in the future will make that supply unsustainable. That along with the future availability of methanol caused me to shift my interest to ethanol as a fuel. Now I'm wondering if a scheme can me developed for a crop rotation that allows continuous alternations between oil and sugar producing plants so that energy independence might take on a hybrid approach. For example, safflower/sugar beets/soy/potatoes/etc, etc. This is just an example - I'm not a farmer (yet). Mike ___ 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] acids
Johnathan Corgan wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thsi is true that pool dealers mostly deal in muratic acid and not sulphuric. in my youth as a pool boy i have never seen sulphuric acid used in a pool. so it gets back to my problem of purchasing concentrated sulphuric acid since i am an individual and have no tax i.d. number. In my search for local sources of lye, I came across several hardware stores (Home Depot, ACE, OSH) which carry concentrated sulfuric acid. If memory serves (I didn't pay close attention) it was for cleaning septic tank lines, not drains, but was in the drain cleaner section of the store. I don't know if the label concentrated sulfuric acid is standardized, but I thought it meant 95%-98%. It was a liquid in a dark plastic bottle with a further sealed plastic bag around it, with a warning label affixed to the outer bag. Something to check out, anyway. If you're just looking for amounts of sulfuric acid to test with, go to any battery or auto parts store and ask for some battery acid. --- David ___ 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] The Age of Autism: Hot potato on the Hill
D. Mindock wrote: Bob, - Original Message - From: "bob allen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Age of Autism: Hot potato on the Hill D. Mindock wrote: Autism is probably going to be found, in much lesser numbers, in kids who've never been vaccinated. Mercury is in fish, in the flesh of grass fed cows, etc. It spews out by the tons every month from the stacks of power generating plants, city incinerators, etc. So, everyone is exposed to this toxin, whether vaccinated or not. but we're all not autistic, but we're all exposed to Hg, so maybe Hg exposure has nothing to do with autism? Autism shows up in kids. Infants and children have developing nervous systems and are very sensitive to environmental pollution. They act as the canaries in the cave, but not through their choice. Putting ethyl mercury into their very young bodies ensures that they get exposed to mercury at the worst possible time. Directly injecting an infant with thimerosal laden vaccines is criminal. nonsense, the body of epidemiological data shows little or no correlation with autism and exposure to thimerosal. I'm not promoting Hg exposure, but point out that if one is sincere in finding the cause for autism, that time and money are being wasted barking up the wrong tree. If you wish to follow the official line of CDC, FDA, AMA, etc., they will say thimerosal is totally harmless as their studies have shown. Bob, remember, to get to the truth, you gotta follow the money. Studies done by Big Pharma and its associates: FDA and AMA and to a lesser degree the CDC (CDC used to be reliable, i.e., truth telling), always comes through with the desired results. Independent studies of Amish children found no autism in those that had not been vaccinated. The four that did have it had been vaccinated before they were adopted by Amish families. Thimerasol is a possible cause of dyslexia and ADD. Cite for the research on Amish children? It's not listed on the scientific studies link from the web site you do mention. Why put young kids at risk at all? Makes absolutely no sense. Ask yourself too, why not do a formal independent study on autism of Amish versus vaccinated kids? Why is there all that official foot dragging? I'd be interested to see how you think studying Amish children would prove anything at all about thimerosal? If you want *scientific studies*, surely you realize that you need to change only one thing at a time. So such a study would require following X thousand children who received the recommended vaccinations and X thousand other children who did not, and compare autism rates between the two. Comparing children raised in the country with organic food and with a minimum of other things we take for granted in modern life (plastics, drugs, pollution) to children raised everywhere else and then picking out the preservative used in vaccinations as the (sole/primary) cause sounds to me like wishful thinking. Of course I haven't seen the report; perhaps it identifies and isolates all factors other than thimerosal. Other good studies would be a statistical study linking the emerging use of thimerosal since the 1930's when it was introduced, the practice of vaccinating children at ages below whatever you believe is critical, and the resulting rates of autism. See: http://www.generationrescue.org/ Lots of info, links, there. I haven't the time or interest in reading the entire site, but I did look at the scientific story listed as the most credible/important, http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/bernard.pdf I find it difficult to agree with their conclusions, stated in their summary like this: "Due to the extensive parallels between autism and mercury poisoning, the likelihood of a causal relationship is great. Given that possibility, Thimerosal should be removed from all childhood vaccines and the mechanisms of mercury toxicity in autism should be thoroughly investigated." Actually, I don't disagree that it bears more investigation, but I do understand that correlation != causation. I agree that sufficient quantities of mercury can cause the symptoms of autism, based on their study. But there appears to be - 0 - analysis of the quantities of mercury injected (on the order of a microgram per kilogram of body mass) and how it can lead to the ongoing issues listed. I have no idea who funds immunizationinfo.org, but a few minutes research on google led me to this article: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/thimerosal_mercury_detail.cfv?id=3 Of particular interest there is this paragraph: Is thimerosal still in the vaccines that children receive? Currently, all pediatric vaccines in the routine infant immunization schedule are manufactured without thimerosal as a preservative. As of January
Re: [Biofuel] The Age of Autism: Hot potato on the Hill
Appal Energy wrote: Seems much as if you're a student of Mr. Allen, David. Draw whatever conclusions you want. The fact that I agree with some of what he says doesn't make me a student of his. I'm skeptical by nature; when the magnet fuel energizers were brought up on the list, you may recall, I was at the front of the pack saying "show me". I'm still waiting on that one too. So it sounds like we can all be happy now as thimerosal is not used in infant vaccinations any more and the old stocks with it expired three years ago. And what is the expiration date on autism? Not much consolation or "happy juice" to be found in that. Ever asked yourself why, unlike expiration dates, on some crimes there is no statute of limitations? Please try to keep yourself to the topic at hand. When I wrote the message it was whether a microgram of mercury per kilogram of body weight, administered some few number of times during the first couple of years of a childs life, is, in fact, a primary cause of autism. I'm skeptical; I consider that to be an extraordinary claim that requires real evidence to back it up. I haven't seen any real evidence in this thread. Any studies which don't agree with the conclusion that thimerosal is the primary cause of autism are rejected out of hand as part of the global conspiracy of the medical establishments efforts to either save money or not admit guilt. However, real evidence is not being supplied. Are you upset that thimerosal is no longer being used in infant vaccinations? I agree - and did before - that it's a good thing to remove anything that we have any reason to believe may be a cause of autism. I'm not really sure why you're jumping down my throat. I did notice, however, that you didn't address any of the other points I brought up. If you want to convince people here, particularly me, that thimerosal is as bad as you claim you need to start presenting some evidence. I consider myself reasonably open minded and will look at evidence that's reasonably presented. Don't waste my time with more flames. --- David Todd Swearingen David Miller wrote: D. Mindock wrote: Bob, - Original Message - From: "bob allen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Age of Autism: Hot potato on the Hill D. Mindock wrote: Autism is probably going to be found, in much lesser numbers, in kids who've never been vaccinated. Mercury is in fish, in the flesh of grass fed cows, etc. It spews out by the tons every month from the stacks of power generating plants, city incinerators, etc. So, everyone is exposed to this toxin, whether vaccinated or not. but we're all not autistic, but we're all exposed to Hg, so maybe Hg exposure has nothing to do with autism? Autism shows up in kids. Infants and children have developing nervous systems and are very sensitive to environmental pollution. They act as the canaries in the cave, but not through their choice. Putting ethyl mercury into their very young bodies ensures that they get exposed to mercury at the worst possible time. Directly injecting an infant with thimerosal laden vaccines is criminal. nonsense, the body of epidemiological data shows little or no correlation with autism and exposure to thimerosal. I'm not promoting Hg exposure, but point out that if one is sincere in finding the cause for autism, that time and money are being wasted barking up the wrong tree. If you wish to follow the official line of CDC, FDA, AMA, etc., they will say thimerosal is totally harmless as their studies have shown. Bob, remember, to get to the truth, you gotta follow the money. Studies done by Big Pharma and its associates: FDA and AMA and to a lesser degree the CDC (CDC used to be reliable, i.e., truth telling), always comes through with the desired results. Independent studies of Amish children found no autism in those that had not been vaccinated. The four that did have it had been vaccinated before they were adopted by Amish families. Thimerasol is a possible cause of dyslexia and ADD. Cite for the research on Amish children? It's not listed on the scientific studies link from the web site you do mention. Why put young kids at risk at all? Makes absolutely no sense. Ask yourself too, why not do a formal independent study on autism of Amish versus vaccinated kids? Why is there all that official foot dragging? I'd be interested to see how you think studying Amish children would prove anything at all about thimerosal? If you want *scientific studies*, surely you realize
Re: [Biofuel] please confirm or debunk: dieselsecret.com
Andrew Netherton wrote: Don't you remember the episode where Uncle Jesse actually made up a batch of moonshine to run in a car? He had to outrun Roscoe and use up all the fuel so he wouldn't get caught and go to jail! Of course, it wasn't the General Lee that they were burning it in. Anyone else remember that episode? I do, vaguely. I thought it was another uncle who actually brewed up the moonshine. Uncle Jesse went to him because his was the only moonshine they measured in octane. And they did, as usual, outrun Roscoe P Coltrain and use up the 'shine. Every last bit, of course, so they couldn't get a tablespoon out of the tank. And they didn't get in trouble for attempting to evade the police - but then again that never seemed to be a crime in Hazzard County:) --- David On 3/28/06, Paul S Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YEEE-HAW! Kinda makes you wonder how many vehicles run on moonshine ethanol in rural areas under the radar. On 3/28/06, Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A '66 Charger running on ethanol? Paul S Cantrell wrote: I can hear Waylon now... Just two good old boys, never meanin' no harm... Beats all you never saw, been in trouble with the law Since the day they was born. Straightenin' the curves, flattenin' the hills... Someday the mountain might get 'em but the law never will. Makin' their way, the only way they know how... That's just a little bit more than the law will allow. Just two good ol' boys, wouldn't change if they could, Fightin' the system like two modern-day Robin Hoods... Maybe ethanol is for you... Gregg Davidson wrote: Polk County, Georgia. It's in the NW part of the state. Definitely the home of Closed Minded thinking when it comes to Biodiesel. */Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Regular Unleaded Gas... Jeeez, where do you live? -- Thanks, Paul in South Carolina He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - Steven Wright ___ 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] best source for WVO
Bob Carr wrote: It leaves a horrid toffee like deposit on your valves , pistons, rings and every other part that comes into contact with the fuel. When your piston rings are glued into their grooves, the sugar deposits will find their way into your engine oil where they act as an abrasive on all your bearing surfaces. I have actually witnessed 2lbs of sugar poured into a guys tank, his engine was irreparably damaged within 50 miles Was this a gas or diesel engine? I'd think the diesel would be far harder to destroy this way because there's normally a large excess of oxygen available for the combustion of the sugar. With a gas engine running somewhere around a stoiciometric fuel/air ratio having extra carbon would lead to the heavy deposits you describe. It would be interesting if it's as bad in diesels. --- David - Original Message - From: Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] best source for WVO What exactly would sugar do to an engine? The worst I can think of is clogging some filters or increasing carbon deposits. Zeke On 3/22/06, Bob Carr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nor sure about lard, but watch out for sugar in your feedstock. This is an old favourite additive for sabotaging an engine. Reg'ds Bob - Original Message - From: ROY Washbish To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] best source for WVO Hi All Don't donut shops use LARD that is SOLID at room temp? Isn't that lard full of sugar? Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as i am just starting myself, i am thinking towards donut shops. they usually fry no meats in their veg oil and would have less fats. ___ 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/ Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ___ 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/ ___ 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] Global warming, oceans warming up, earth's core climate changes
Mike McGinness wrote: I ran into something new (to me) recently on the topic of global warming, CO2 and the greenhouse gas issue that I decided to follow up on today to see if there was anything to it. I have spent an entire day reading and searching the internet on the topic and here are the best links to what I found listed below. But first let me try to briefly introduce and summarize the highlights of what I found. The main author claims that there is substantial evidence that recent fluctuations (increases) in the amount of heat released to the earth's oceans from the earths core has heated the oceans, raising their temperature and thus resulting in the rapid release of CO2 to the atmosphere (due to equilibrium shifts in CO2 solubility as a function of ocean water temperature) as well as rapid losses of ice at both polar You can certainly color me skeptical. I only looked at the nov55.com site for climate analysis and the rotating hot-spot. That said, the idea that CO2 is being added to the atmosphere by the warming of the oceans releasing CO2 rather than from man-made causes is absurd on the face of it. Think about the rise in ocean levels due to global warming. Half or so of it is supposed to be from the ice caps melting; the other half is from all the water warming up. If this guy had it right that the oceans have already warmed up enough to be releasing trapped CO2 they'd also have expanded and the water levels would be a lot more than an inch higher over the last 50 years. The other thing I notice about the site is that this self proclaimed biologist offers quite a variety of opinions on topics ranging from prions , global warming, flouride, and transgenic crops. Nowhere, however, do I see a single reference - everything is simply stated as a fact. For example: It seems likely that ice ages on earth are caused by a nuclear hot spot in the core rotating toward the surface and heating the Pacific Ocean. The primary evidence for this is that the past ten ice ages have been cycling at 100 thousand year intervals. Environmental changes are not apt to be so cyclic, but a convectional oscillation in the earth's core could be. It's quite significant that a large number of coral reefs are dying from over-heating. Humans are not causing the oceans to over-heat; it appears to be caused by heat from the earth's core. OK, I guess, if a biologist says so. But maybe some calculations would help? --- David ice caps. They are claiming that thermodynamic analysis of the changes in temperature of the oceans and the atmosphere combined with the huge difference in heat capacity of the ocean (liquid water) versus the atmosphere (gases) suggest that the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the major cause of global warming but that the earths core is cyclically heating the oceans and forcing the oceans to release CO2 to the atmosphere. The difference in heat capacity between liquid water and air is several orders of magnitude (liquid water has about 1000 times the heat capacity of air). A lot of their thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium arguments make a lot of sense to me. If they are correct and if their predictions of where the weather is headed as a result is also correct ( see climate and ice ages at http://nov55.com/cli.html and super storms at http://www.unknowncountry.com/edge/quickwatch/ and the "Day after Tomorrow" http://www.cambodianonline.net/earth04014.htm ), we need to do a lot more than just reduce CO2 emissions. You can find the rest of the details in the links below. Theory on Hot Spot Rotating within the Earth at: http://nov55.com/thry.html Heat in the Earth's Core at: http://nov55.com/heat.html A page with a lot more interesting links: http://www.cambodianonline.net/homeearthchanges.htm Glacial Cycles and Astronomical Forcing at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/277/5323/215?rbfvrToken=9b3e6a97683c69e3ba0c9f60006b6165cdf21028 ___ 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] hybrid efficiency
Hakan Falk wrote: That means that bottled water is more expensive than gasoline, as I understand, http://www.bairdpetro.com/gasoline_prices/index.htmhttp://www.bairdpetro.com/gasoline_prices/index.htm @ $1.453 per gallon. So, what was wrong with the original statement? Nothing as I understand it. This is just silly. People want to make a point that gasoline is cheap in the US so they come up with something that makes it sound cheaper than water. It's not enough that we're going to compare gasoline, an industrial fuel, to food quality water that's packaged for individual consumption. Now we're going to compare the industrial, bought in large dollar quantities, price of gasoline without any kind of road or sales tax to water packaged for individual consumption with any and all applicable taxes applied. If you really want to compare the price of gasoline to water, how about using the price of water from the water company? Oh, right, it's because they charge cents per cubic foot and all of a sudden our comparison looks silly. Gasoline IS cheap in the US. It's not highly taxed compared to the rest of the world, and it doesn't include any of the external costs which might double or triple the price. It doesn't include the costs of its use (global warming, pollution, health side-effects), the costs of it's production (pollution, economic and social policies), or its procurement (military intervention, social and economic policies). Rather than dredging up platitudes about it being cheaper than water which just IMHO make people look silly , could we please talk about its real costs? Thanks, --- David ___ 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] Interesting Read
Chip Mefford wrote: In other news, I'll soon also have the 3rdworld CD online. Will post the url when I get it up. If anyone knows how to bust an iso image up into 'chunks' that can be reassembled into a workable iso image, please let me know. I'm glad to say that renegade.sparks.net isn't being deluged, but the more the merrier. As for breaking the image up, it's trivial with dd, a standard unix utility. With Windows you're on your own:) I broke it up into 32 MB chunks on renegade: See http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd/readme gives brief directions on how to reassemble it. Hope this helps. --- David ___ 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] Interesting Read
John Hayes wrote: David Miller wrote: Chip Mefford wrote: If anyone knows how to bust an iso image up into 'chunks' that can be reassembled into a workable iso image, please let me know. As for breaking the image up, it's trivial with dd, a standard unix utility. With Windows you're on your own:) I broke it up into 32 MB chunks on renegade: See http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd/readme gives brief directions on how to reassemble it. Why break it up at all? Distributing large ISOs is practically what BitTorrent was invented for. It is an excellent use of BitTorrent. Not all users have BitTorrent clients though, and not people with server resources have the time /interest/knowledge to run one. I may run one someday; for now I'll just help distribute the CD with what I can easily offer. I would certainly encourage others to make materials like this available via BitTorrent. --- David ___ 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] A wealth of manuals
David Marquis wrote: Hello Michael, I can host it for awhile. Please send me email directly and we can discuss it. I'm not Michael, but I wanted to point out that I'm already hosting it. There's a bunch of discussion of it being on renegade.sparks.net. You are, of course, welcome to host it as well:) --- David Dave --- Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Update 3 March - DOWNLOADS have been temporaily suspended! Sorry - we are suspending downloads temporarily, since the bandwidth load was too great, and has been adversely affecting browing. http://www.cd3wd.com/CD3WD/ Whoa! ...Mike ___ 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/ __ 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/ ___ 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] Calgary Biodiesel Group
Kirk McLoren wrote: Sulphur is not added as a lubricant. WHere do they get that rubbish? Kirk It's not deliberately added, but sulfur does indeed provide a lot of lubrication for the injector pump. My understanding is that it needs to be replaced in very low sulfur fuel, BD makes a great replacement, as they point out here. In effect, they're right, it's just that it's not added intentionally. --- David */Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Spotted this in the March 2006 C3 Views. First I have heard of this group in Calgary. http://www.climatechangecentral.com/resources/c3views/C3_Views_March_06.pdf page 15 === French fries, fried chicken and other fast food may have a bad rap for their calorie-laden fat content. But the greasiest junk food may provide the fuel of choice for Canada’s trucking industry and other diesel-powered machinery in the near future. At least, that’s what a group of Alberta entrepreneurs is hoping as they prepare to open the province’s first biodiesel refinery. “We think there’s a lot of potential,” says Patrick Luft, co-founder of the Calgary Biodiesel Centre, which has plans to begin producing up to 20 million litres of biodiesel per year in a plant on the outskirts of Calgary. “The beauty of biodiesel is that it’s a renewable fuel, it lubricates engines a lot better and it reduces greenhouse gas emissions as well.” Luft and partner Perry Toms have obtained a licence to use technology, developed by the Australian Biodiesel Group, capable of turning used cooking oil and tallow from southern Alberta slaughterhouses into fuel that can power diesel engines.“Because the industry is in its infancy,we’ll have to start off using new canola oil, but it will be capable of using tallow, used cooking oils and non-edible vegetable oil products,” Luft says.“It will be a modular plant so it can be quickly ramped up as demand grows.” Biodiesel demand is expected to balloon when a new air pollution law comes into effect in June, dropping the maximum allowable sulphur content in diesel fuel to 15 parts per million (ppm) from 500 ppm. Sulphur is added to diesel fuel as an engine lubricant. A two-per-cent addition of biodiesel is considered to have the same lubricating power as 500 ppm of sulphur. The Calgary Biodiesel Centre is scouting for possible plant sites near Balzac and in the Municipal District of Rockyview and hopes to begin construction this summer. Once the plant is operating, Luft says, it will be an easily-accessible source of biodiesel for fleets and organizations like the City of Calgary, which has begun using biodiesel in its vehicle fleet. “There are a lot of potential customers,” says Luft,“because more and more people are becoming aware of the benefits of biodiesel.” === -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ 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/ Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com to share photos without annoying attachments. ___ 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] Party Hacks - The fix is in for 2008
Ken Provost wrote: On Mar 4, 2006, at 7:57 AM, robert luis rabello wrote: How can we take our own country back if the electoral system is rigged against our wishes? I used to complain that the German people of the 1930's essentially did nothing to check the rise of the National Socialists to power, but now that I see the same kind of thing happening in my own country, I have a broader appreciation for how difficult it is to swim against the tide. It's a real problem, alright. The only good news is that they can only get away with stealing elections when the real vote would have been close anyway.I assume. You do realize that during the 2004 election there were swings of nearly 10 points between exit polls and votes tallied in a handful of battleground states? And that the difference always favored the Republicans? If pre-election polls and exit polls exceeded 2:1 against the Republicans it might be too much to overcome, but short of an overwhelming advantage like that I wouldn't be too confident. --- David ___ 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] A wealth of manuals
I have a mostly idle server with a 100 Mbit connection to the AOL/TW backbone. Obviously, using it all would be frowned upon, but I'm willing to put it up and see what happens. Has anybody already downloaded it? It sounds like it's not going to happen very fast. Please let me know asap if you have it. Thanks, --- David OK! Kirk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) got a full copy of it and we got it onto my server today. If you have winzip, pkzip, or gzip and can uncompress a file, save a bit of bandwidth on the full ISO with: http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd.iso.gz (471 MB) If you just need the raw ISO file, click on: http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd.iso (694 MB) Note: The CD image contains a pile of self extracting .exe files. You have to run them before being able to view any files at all. I haven't done this, and I don't and can't vouch for any of the programs. If they're full of virii it's not my fault, and I'm not available for help in recovering your system:) Also, I'm limiting the server to 75 simultaneous connections until I see what bandwidth utilization is like. If there are lots of people who can't connect and the utilization isn't too high I can increase that. We'll see how it goes. Hope it helps people. --- David ___ 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] A wealth of manuals
Evergreen Solutions wrote: If there is somebody who has succeeded in getting these, make a .torrent and host it somewhere and put up the link...better sharing for everyone. I have a mostly idle server with a 100 Mbit connection to the AOL/TW backbone. Obviously, using it all would be frowned upon, but I'm willing to put it up and see what happens. Has anybody already downloaded it? It sounds like it's not going to happen very fast. Please let me know asap if you have it. Thanks, --- David ___ 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] A wealth of manuals
doug wrote: Logan Vilas wrote: I'm having the same problems downloading the link, but I'm downloading the entire web site. I'll see how that goes. So far it's about 30-50kb/s Logan Vilas After several attempts at the cd.iso file, I just started going through the links and DL the pages that are of primary interest to me at this time... some ag, some fuels, food preservation, energy systems, etc. Just using the download link target (Right click in Mozilla) doesn't include graphics on each page, and several of the link targets would have opened to another index, listing more links. An FTP would be nice, or Torrent, But this seems to be working. I'd bet that the biofuels list members flocking to this site and viewing and downloading pages may be part of the reason that their server appears so slow. Sure, it could handle the load if it was a high speed connection, but I get the impression that it isn't, or it may be restricted. I'll put it up for ftp access for biofuels members once I get a copy. To that end, if people who are trying to download the whole thing at 50 kbit/sec will hold off and let me transfer it they might get it sooner. My ETA is still about a week, though it looks like it's picking up slightly as it gets later. --- David ___ 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] Compressed air wash
Joe Street wrote: Thanks Jim; I'm not a chemist so maybe you can fill me in on the reaction. Air is about 80% nitrogen so is the degradation that people have been referring to as oxidation just a generalized term that includes a nitrification process as well? Joe PS Helium is expensive! And so is Argon. CO2 isn't too bad, but it's all unnecessary if one stir mixes instead of bubble mixes. --- David ___ 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] So called magnetic fuel conditionersandmagnetic watertreatment
Greg and April wrote: Just because something appears to work, does not mean that it actualy does, unless conclusive scientific testing - that eliminates any other possible variables as the actual reason for the improvement, proves it does. *** Sorry Keith, but, it's time for the pro-magnet crowd to put up verifiable testing or cut the yacking about something that is not proven to work - we may as well be talking about Zero point energy, cold fusion, or perpetual motion machines *** I'm not sure why we need to have debates on this at all, or why it seems to be a matter of belief. Magnets polarize the fuel and increase fuel economy snake oil C'mon. This is simple. If you think that a company sells 10 million dollars of fuel enhancing magnets annually so there MUST be something there, GO BUY IT. Install it on your own vehicle. Tell us how it works. Document carefully how gas mileage changes and tell us about it. While one person doing this and reporting better mileage is a far cry from scientific evidence and a controlled study, it's a useful starting point. If 10 believers strap on magnets guaranteed to increase fuel economy 15% and 8 of them report a 5% savings or better I will personally buy these miracle boosters and put them on engines on a dyno. And if it should boost economy by an iota I will loudly tell everyone and will send a reward to the believers for enlightening me. At this point it falls into the category of things that could help but aren't worth trying. Dancing naked at midnight on a new moon might help my plants grow too, but I'm skeptical enough to figure it's not worth my time. If the believers aren't willing to pay 39.95 to increase their fuel economy 15% then I figure that a) they don't really believe or b) they aren't interested in saving fuel. I doubt many on this list fall in the second category. --- David ___ 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] So called magnetic fuel conditioners
Andres Secco wrote: Dear David, Environment protection agency has been digging in a very serious way since 1972 and they have a complete report on all the work already made. Check this link. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm The general conclussion is they do not recomend a particular device. But if you carefully study the reports you will find the most interisting conclussions in diesel and gas engines. I looked at a couple. I'll look at more if you have something of particular interest. The first consisted of wrapping a loop of the fuel line around the radiator hose to warm the fuel. I can see where that might improve fuel economy under some circumstances, and present big problems like vapor lock in others. Nothing with magnets, which is the subject at hand, jumped out at me. I'm not about to look at them all to see which, if any, actually use magnets. If you want to make a case for magnets increasing fuel economy please select a particular product and provide quotes where the EPA agreed with the manufacturer. I looked at the Fuel Maximiser at some length. The mfg supplied a large quantity of buzzwords about ions, and a number of testimonials. They also supplied data from a number of points without quantifying it in any way. They claimed economy improvements of 2% to 26%. The EPA begins their analysis on page 14, points out how the theory is utter nonsense and the device had no effect on either mileage or emissions in their tests. In all the reports there is a mileage increase and exaust emission improvement. However based on the study of a particular case, there is not possible to recomend nothing in a general way. Why? because there are too many engines in the road, different in size, weight, number of bangers, and so on. Please point to any of the devices where the EPA agrees with the company that it actually increases MPG or decreases emissions. Since we're on the topic of magnets, it would be nice if one of them used magnets. ALL the devices CLAIM to increase efficiency. This is an exercise on the EPA's part to determine which are scams. Like the Fuel Maximiser, for example. Lets say this : if you have a few million 1,6 liter engines made by 15 manufacturers, and get a reduction with the device of 10% in the consumption on two of the manufacturers, there is not possible to recomend it for all because the statistics. For a general conclussion the device must be tested C'mon. Do you really believe this? Don't you suppose that if strapping a couple of magnets the fuel line of a 97 Toyota Corolla 1.6 liter improved economy by 10 percent, like from 35 to 38.5 MPG that Toyota would be all over it? Do you have any idea how much money Toyota spends on fuel efficiency? On pollution controls? And they're not clever enough to figure out how magnets polarize the fuel? Or the oil companies have paid them off? They - and other automotive manufactures - may not do a lot of things we like. They build cars that are too big and too powerful and waste lots of fuel because of the size of the vehicles. But they're not so stupid as to ignore something easy like this. in a significant number of manufacturers. So, EPA do not recommend because statistical significance. By the way, they never found a device which a worst performance than without the device. Of course. But then I don't think that reversing the polarity of the magnets will inversely polarize the fuel and cut mileage either. Big improvement or small improvement, but not the opossite. And that means statistically something. Please, show us where the EPA confirmed a significant increase. I'll wait. You'll excuse me if I don't find the manufacturers claims credible, I hope. --- David - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] So called magnetic fuel conditioners I'd like to see some real scientific information. Not web sites run by people selling magnets, real research. Like Bob Allen said, a peer reviewed journal would be nice. Where other scientists review claims and articles, and often times perform their own research to confirm results. Have *you* applied this and seen *any* increase in milage while changing *nothing* else? I don't mean to sound harsh, but the willingness of people to believe miracles of magnets seems overwhelming. They cure cancer, defeat gravity, energize fuel, reduce pollution, and make rainy days turn sunny. Not really, but there seem to be no end of people willing to pay good money believing such nonsense. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http
Re: [Biofuel] So called magnetic fuel conditioners
Andres Secco wrote: Dear all, Magnets are being offered through spam e-mail and its has been so since early '90 ties. The professional use of magnets is very wide. My experience in industrial cooling towers, boilers and engines is very possitive and in some cases have it documented. How it works? This is the link http://www.tinet.org/~sje/mag_fuel.htm Yes indeed. Pasted from the page: / Fuel mainly consists of hydrocarbons. Groupings of hydrocarbons, when flowing through a magnetic field, change their orientations of magnetization in a direction opposite to that of the magnetic field. The molecules of hydrocarbon change their configuration. At the same time intermolecular force is considerably reduced or depressed. These mechanisms are believed to help to disperse oil particles and to become finely divided. In addition, hydrogen ions in fuel and oxygen ions in air or steam are magnetized to form magnetic domains which are believed to assist in atomizing fuel into finer particles. / / Generally a liquid or gas fuel used for an internal combustion engine is composed of a set of molecules. Each molecule includes a number of atoms, which is composed of a nucleus and electrons orbiting around their nucleus. The molecules have magnetic moments in themselves, and the rotating electrons cause magnetic phenomena. Thus, positive (+) and negative (-) electric charges exists in the fuel's molecules. For this reason, the fuel particles of the negative and positive electric charges are not split into more minute particles. Accordingly, the fuels are not actively interlocked with oxygen during combustion, thereby causing incomplete combustion. To improve the above, the fuels have been required to be decomposed and ionized. The ionization of the fuel particles is accomplished by the supply of magnetic force from a magnet. / /The resultant conditioned fuel/air mixture magnetized in opposite polarities burns more completely, producing higher engine output, better fuel economy, more power and most importantly reduces the amount of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust. Another benefits if these devices is that magnetically charged fuel and air molecules with opposite polarities dissolve carbon build-up in carburetor jets, fuel injectors, and combustion chambers help to clean up the engine and maintain the clean condition. / Jeez, doesn't this set off any snake-oil alarm? /For this reason, the fuel particles of the negative and positive electric charges are not split into more minute particles. /and/ //Accordingly, the fuels are not actively interlocked with oxygen during combustion, thereby causing incomplete combustion./ If this is a scientific analysis some of my teachers are going to be eating their textbooks. There are many suppliers of those small devices for passenger cars and at lower prices os 20 bucks, but the real magnets cost much more than thant. Check this link http://www.magnetic-innovations.co.uk/ Yes indeed! Magnetic products for sale. *SAVE 15% ON YOUR FUEL BILLS WITH EMMISSION MASTER! Guaranteed! *They'll give me a money back guarantee that I can save 15% on my fuel bill. So my 50 MPG TDI can now get 57.5 MPG. Pity the poor VW engineers, stupid enough to spend millions refining the engine when they could get another 15% by adding magnets in the right place. What on earth could be wrong with them? I remember scientific information related and will post soon, if I can find it over the net. I'd like to see some real scientific information. Not web sites run by people selling magnets, real research. Like Bob Allen said, a peer reviewed journal would be nice. Where other scientists review claims and articles, and often times perform their own research to confirm results. Have *you* applied this and seen *any* increase in milage while changing *nothing* else? I don't mean to sound harsh, but the willingness of people to believe miracles of magnets seems overwhelming. They cure cancer, defeat gravity, energize fuel, reduce pollution, and make rainy days turn sunny. Not really, but there seem to be no end of people willing to pay good money believing such nonsense. --- David ___ 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] So called magnetic fuel conditioners
Andres Secco wrote: All will depend on how strong is the magnet. With 6000 gauss or more settled in the gasoline inlet will be enough to get good results on the gas efficiency. Also engine runs much better. Polarization of different materials including boilers fuel, gasoline engines, cooling towers and diesel engines has been extensively studied and the results are VERY scientific and very good. There is a big industry behind the applications. I have been using magnets for different purposes for years. Andres Do you have some kind of reference for this? I'm quite confused what polarization of fuel means and how or why it would make combustion either higher temperature or more efficient. A google search on magnetic polarization diesel fuel produced no results from anybody who wasn't selling magnetic products that discussed any benefits on the first two pages of results. Pointers, please. Inquiring minds want to know. --- David ___ 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] Termites, global warming
Joe Street wrote: Well there may be something to this. It may not be the main source of greenhouse gas but IIRC methane is 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are a lot of cows being grown to serve the north american obsession with beef. And they do fart a hell of a lot! Consider also that the lion's share of oxygen comes not from trees as many a tree hugger has suggested but from algae in the sea. Tiny bubbles. Well I have heard that more methane is released by termites than any other single source. Is this information debunkable? I'd like to know. I think the actual figure is that methane is ~24 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. For real information on global warming and climate change, move on over to http://www.realclimate.org. That's a site run by actual climate scientists, and there is no doubt in their minds about mankinds changes to the environment. As for termites, you can color me skeptical. http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html lists methane from livestock (see enteric fermentation) as about 20% of US methane emissions from human related sources, following landfills and natural gas systems. http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_02/AGU_news_100902.html certainly makes it sound like the majority of methane released (60%) to the atmosphere is related to human activity. Google doesn't seem to have much on termites, methane, and global warming in the first few pages of results, that would indicate termites are a significant source. --- David ___ 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] Breakup of the religious right?
From http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060208/ZNYT02/602080410 Published Wednesday, February 8, 2006 86 Evangelical Leaders Join to Fight Global Warming By LAURIE GOODSTEIN New York Times Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors. Among signers of the statement, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, are the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller The Purpose-Driven Life. For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority, the statement said. Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough. The statement calls for federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market-based mechanisms — a phrase lifted from a Senate resolution last year and one that could appeal to evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business. The statement, to be announced in Washington, is only the first stage of an Evangelical Climate Initiative including television and radio spots in states with influential legislators, informational campaigns in churches, and educational events at Christian colleges. We have not paid as much attention to climate change as we should, and that's why I'm willing to step up, said Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton College, an influential evangelical institution in Illinois. The evangelical community is quite capable of having some blind spots, and my take is this has fallen into that category. Some of the nation's most high-profile evangelical leaders, however, have tried to derail such action. Twenty-two of them signed a letter in January declaring, Global warming is not a consensus issue. Among the signers were Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Their letter was addressed to the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of churches and ministries, which last year had started to move in the direction of taking a stand on global warming. The letter from the 22 leaders asked the National Association of Evangelicals not to issue any statement on global warming or to allow its officers or staff members to take a position. E. Calvin Beisner, associate professor of historical theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., helped organize the opposition into a group called the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. He said Tuesday that the science is not settled on whether global warming was actually a problem or even that human beings were causing it. And he said that the solutions advocated by global warming opponents would only cause the cost of energy to rise, with the burden falling most heavily on the poor. In response to the critics, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Rev. Ted Haggard, did not join the 86 leaders in the statement on global warming, even though he had been in the forefront of the issue a year ago. Neither did the Rev. Richard Cizik, the National Association's Washington lobbyist, even though he helped persuade other leaders to sign the global warming initiative. On Tuesday, Mr. Haggard, the pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, said in a telephone interview that he did not sign because it would be interpreted as an endorsement by the entire National Association of Evangelicals. But he said that speaking just for himself, There is no doubt about it in my mind that climate change is happening, and there is no doubt about it that it would be wise for us to stop doing the foolish things we're doing that could potentially be causing this. In my mind there is no downside to being cautious. Of those who did sign, said the Rev. Jim Ball, executive director of the Evangelical Environmental Network: It's a very centrist evangelical list, and that was intentional. When people look at the names, they're going to say, this is a real solid group here. These leaders are not flighty, going after the latest cause. And they know they're probably going to take a little flak. The list includes prominent black leaders like Bishop Charles E. Blake Sr. of the West Angeles Church of God in Christ in Los Angeles, the Rev. Floyd Flake of the Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral in New York City, and Bishop Wellington Boone of the Father's House and
Re: [Biofuel] Annexing Khuzestan; battle-plans for Iran
Marty Phee wrote: One disturbing article I saw was about China. They've decided to stop buying so much US debt and diversify their holdings. What happens when we can't sell our debt? Also, the US foreign policy is losing ground to China. Their making friends/alliances with many more countries than we are. Bush is hostile to any country that doesn't want to bend over to the US. Axis of Evil. Look at Iran. From everything I've read they are in full compliance with the nuke treaty even if Bush says their not. If China decides to stop buying US bonds (debt) then the interest rates will have to rise to whatever is necessary to support the dollar. Naturally, if it goes too high it could have a crippling effect on the economy. Foreign holders of US debt are caught in a trap though. They can continue holding dollars and pretend they're worth what they paid for them. If anyone tries actually redeeming them, however, the value drops and everybody has to acknowledge their holdings are worth far less than face value. It's kind of a game of chicken; the end result has to be an extermely rapid devaluation. Someone will decide to liquidate their holdings, probably someone who holds less of it than the major players like China, and the stampede will be off. Another is the gov't unlimited spending spree. Since Bush has been in office the national debt has increased $3T. Our debt to gdp ratio is somewhere around 71%, while EU is around 63%. EU has just as many purchasers as the US does. That's an interesting little factoid. Source? I'd love to followup on that one. It's only going to get worse. Who's going to pay for all of these wounded soldiers coming back who are going to need long term or life long care? This war is costing us a hell of a lot more than they'll admit, but no one seems to care. People care, but not the ones making the decisions. Actually, I'm sure they care too, but they have a very different set of priorities than many of us do. --- David ___ 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] Annexing Khuzestan; battle-plans for Iran
Keith Addison wrote: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11743.htm Annexing Khuzestan; battle-plans for Iran By Mike Whitney [snip] The bottom line on the bourse is this; the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. It's utterly worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros then the world's central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral. Can someone please explain in simple terms how The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. is true? My understanding is that the international currency traders trade hundreds of billions of dollars worth of currencies and/or currency derivatives every day, an amount that swamps the value of imported oil by a wide margin. If Japan wants to buy oil they don't have to come to the US government to get dollars, they just trade a large pile of yen for 60 million dollars or so from their friendly neighborhood currency trader and buy a million barrels of oil with it. Actually, that's not quite right in most cases: some international energy company buys oil in dollars and sells it in yen; the sales price will depend on the relative value of dollars and yen as determined by their friendly neighborhood currency trader. The US has only indirect means of controlling the value of the dollar compared to other currencies, they certainly can't dictate to the traders what its value will be with respect to other currencies. They may support the dollar by raising interest rates or persuading the central banks of other nations to buy dollars on the open market with their own currencies, but these aren't very direct. This leaves me at a loss as to why having oil priced in euros instead of dollars creates a direct problem for the dollar as a currency. Thanks, --- David ___ 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] Daniel Kammen on Ethanol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A potentially weird aside: If woody feedstocks are effective, I wonder if the paper industry could make ethanol from their pulp, and still use the resultant stock for paper production? As mentioned in the original, wood is composed primarily of lignin and cellulose. In the manufacture of paper the lignin is removed, and the cellulose (fiber strands in this case) is used for the paper. My understanding is that the lignin is primarily flushed down the river. It would be terrific if it could economically be turned into alcohol. There would have to be an efficient way to remove it from the water first though. --- David ___ 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] considering a purchase of a diesel home generator, input appreciated
Paul S Cantrell wrote: Mark, I agree that a 50 kVA genset is overkill unless you live in a mansion, BUT you can check with your local utility (Reliant? or Coop?) about Net Metering. Since your meter would run backward, you could 'store' power into the grid when you run it and pull power from the grid when you aren't. Then during outages you could run it and disconnect from the grid, so you don't electrocute anyone! Anyway, the trick is convincing them that biodiesel will qualify as 'renewable,' which will depend somewhat on whether your account rep is a yokel or a semi-educated yokel. ;-) Is it as simple as this? My understanding is that you can't take your normal genset and connect it to the grid - getting it in phase and keeping it synced is a problem. You CAN just use a standard AC motor and overdrive it - if you turn it a little faster than its designed to run it produces electricity rather than consumes it, and it stays sync'd because the grid is providing the excitation. But that leaves you with a motor to feed the grid and a generator to power the house. Anybody know for sure? --- David ___ 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] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
robert luis rabello wrote: Michael Redler wrote: [snip] Yet the religious principle of do no harm to your neighbor and do not harm a child come directly from a tradition far older than psychology and the field of child development. (I can give you book, chapter and verse in the New Testament, if you require them, but I think you know exactly the places to which I'd refer.) Can you See, here's the crux of the problem. Here is what you're missing. Whose religious principle of do no harn to your neighbor and do not harm a child do you hold? Yes, I see that you can quote chapter and verse from the new testament. I, on the other hand, can quote from the old testament, and from the koran, that neighbors and children are required to be harmed under certain circumstances. Most of these calls-to-harm are based on the neighbors/children doing something repugnant to your religion. For example, according to the old testament, one is to stone or kill members of ones own family who try to lead you from the true path of worshipping the One True God. Muslims, of course, have no problem killing infidels.. The problem with quoting religious sources is that one can justify anything at all. Aldulterers, which conveniently could only be women at the time, were to be stoned in the public square. successfully deny that these principles, upon which our statutes are based, have no root in religion? Were statutes that protect children from such predators enacted only AFTER developmental psychologists discovered that children have a fundamental lack of ability to consent? Der Schutz des Kindes im Recht des frühen Mittelalters : eine Untersuchung über Tötung, Missbrauch, Körperverletzung, Freiheitsbeeinträchtigung, Gefährdung und Eigentumsverletzung anhand von Rechtsquellen des 5. bis 9. Jahrhunderts. By Heinz Wilhelm Schwarz. Siegburg : F. Schmitt, 1993. Bonner historische Forschungen ; Bd. 56 [Robarts - KJC 1018 .S38 1993X] The above citation, though in German, gives an overview of the body of law concerning child abuse during the Middle Ages. Hmm, and this was the time of the crusades, was it not? So there were laws concerning abuse of children but it was fine to fight a war against Muslims for the sin of occupying Jerusalem? Sorry, but I think we need to get past the idea of morals being something taught by religions. There IS a largely objective way to view them outside a religious context: look at the philosophy of objectivism. Intellectually consistent, but I'm sure you'll not be happy with them because they don't consider immoral things which you've probably been taught are immoral. --- David ___ 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] Bin Laden citing US polls about withdrawing from Iraq
Keith Addison wrote: Hello David I could perhaps agree with the point you're making, but I think you stretch it so far it breaks. robert luis rabello wrote: Michael Redler wrote: [snip] Yet the religious principle of do no harm to your neighbor and do not harm a child come directly from a tradition far older than psychology and the field of child development. (I can give you book, chapter and verse in the New Testament, if you require them, but I think you know exactly the places to which I'd refer.) Can you See, here's the crux of the problem. Here is what you're missing. Whose religious principle of do no harn to your neighbor and do not harm a child do you hold? Yes, I see that you can quote chapter and verse from the new testament. I, on the other hand, can quote from the old testament, and from the koran, that neighbors and children are required to be harmed under certain circumstances. Most of these calls-to-harm are based on the neighbors/children doing something repugnant to your religion. For example, according to the old testament, one is to stone or kill members of ones own family who try to lead you from the true path of worshipping the One True God. Muslims, of course, have no problem killing infidels.. Well actually, infidels have been killing a great many more Muslims than Muslims have been killing infidels these days, and not only these days. You think witch-hunts are out of fashion in the West? I don't think they're out of fashion. And lynchings are very recent history, it's too soon to say they're a thing of the past. I could go on and on. If you want to make that point you shouldn't be so one-sided, it goes both ways. Maybe I'm just being slow here, but I fail to see your point. I said nothing about witch hunts or lynchings, let alone whether I think they're still going on or not. My point was that Robert wanted to take religious principles and incorporate them into moral law. Or at least recognize that moral law has it's origins in religious principles. My inquiry was simply whose religious principles, pointing out that there are religious principles from both Christianity and Islam that few on this list would consider moral. That leaves us in the (to me) uncomfortable position of picking and choosing what we like from the religious texts of our choice. he problem with quoting religious sources is that one can justify anything at all. That's right, and it seems to me that's just what you're doing. Excuse me? I'm not advocating religious principles as a basis for moral law for precisely these reasons. Aldulterers, which conveniently could only be women at the time, were to be stoned in the public square. Are you talking of the Old Testament or the Koran? The Old Testament. successfully deny that these principles, upon which our statutes are based, have no root in religion? Were statutes that protect children from such predators enacted only AFTER developmental psychologists discovered that children have a fundamental lack of ability to consent? Der Schutz des Kindes im Recht des frühen Mittelalters : eine Untersuchung über Tötung, Missbrauch, Körperverletzung, Freiheitsbeeinträchtigung, Gefährdung und Eigentumsverletzung anhand von Rechtsquellen des 5. bis 9. Jahrhunderts. By Heinz Wilhelm Schwarz. Siegburg : F. Schmitt, 1993. Bonner historische Forschungen ; Bd. 56 [Robarts - KJC 1018 .S38 1993X] The above citation, though in German, gives an overview of the body of law concerning child abuse during the Middle Ages. Hmm, and this was the time of the crusades, was it not? So there were laws concerning abuse of children but it was fine to fight a war against Muslims for the sin of occupying Jerusalem? Some people say it's just fine to fight such a war right now, and indeed such wars are being fought right now. Does that mean everything else about our era is therefore morally bankrupt? Don't paint things with so broad a brush, human affairs are much richer than that. We're not communicating again. I point out that what most of us would consider a great moral discrepency existed in the middle ages. How you can get from there to me painting us as morally bankrupt today is a mystery to me, unless you think that the Crusades was a morally positive thing. Sorry, but I think we need to get past the idea of morals being something taught by religions. The idea that religion and philosophy have not contributed to society's moral codes and to much more besides is just silly, of course they have. Indeed. But that's not inconsistent with what I wrote. Maybe it would be clearer if I said dictated by religions or taught exclusively by religions ? There IS a largely objective way to view them outside a religious context: If you exclude the religious context you won't understand them any
Re: [Biofuel] Dewatering with vacuum.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back to Science class! Vacuum- I have worked very little with vacuum. While in the Navy, I was learning OJT a little about refrigeration. At that time I was taught inches of Hg. and 30Hg is the max but extremely hard or impossible to achieve. One of the problems is that inches of vacuum is measured relative to the atmosphere, and thus depends on atmospheric pressure. The atmospheric pressure is often well below 30 and so a 30 vacuum is often impossible to obtain. 5 deg. C = 6.5mm Hg .25Hg 55 deg. C = appr. 110 mm Hg4.33Hg If H2O is 18 and Hg is 200.59, Hg is 11.14 time heavier .25 Hg = 2.785 water 4.33 Hg = 48.24 water Those sound about right. An atmosphere is ~30 mercury and ~30 feet of water. Where does micron come in? When you get to the kind of scientific pump that Joe Street has you can start measuring things in microns. One mm Hg is the pressure that a layer of mercury a single millimeter high produces. In high vacuum applications you'll see this referred to as a torr. A micron is 1/1000 of a mm. A torr is also about 1.3 mBar where a Bar = a standard atmosphere. Dave Miller spoke of an old scientific pump you had that went to 002mm Hg. Scientific pump suggests to a very good pump, but .002 sounds like very little vacuum. (unless zero is not the same place). He also mentioned I should look for a 50? I am sure this will become quite clear, but now, it's not sinking in. you in this case being Joe Street. I forget who made his pump, but those kinds of pumps are usually rated below a micron and actually deliver something more like 5 - 10 micron. Yes, they actually pump down to about 5 millionths of an atmosphere, and are commonly used for things like evacuating the glass tubes when making neon signs. No, you don't need anywhere near this level of vacuum for dewatering BD. I chipped in because I know something about vacuums and wanted to try to help:) FWIW, a micron or so is only considered a medium vacuum for scientific purposes. Other kinds of vacuum pumps start here (10 ^ -3 torr) and go down by a factor of at least another million (10 ^ -9 torr). Supercollidors and such pull a huge ring down to 10 ^ -10 torr. And the vacuum of space is still far emptier than this. I'm not sure what you're referring to in I should look for a 50. I'd suggest looking for a dry pump that doesn't require oil lubrication. These are commonly used for refridgeration or freeze drying of food, should go to the required vacuum levels, and should last a long time. Scientific pumps generally don't like that kind of water vapor. The key to the operation is to have the fuel hot and a cool place for it to condense. You don't have to pump all the water vapor out, just create the conditions where the water will boil out of the fuel and condense in the condensor. That means a vacuum of 25 - 27 inches. HTH, --- David Thanks John - Original Message - *From:* Joe Street mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2006 2:00 PM *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] Dewatering with vacuum. David Miller wrote: Snip Somebody had the vapor pressure tables for water earlier in this thread, maybe he could look up the pressure for 55 and 5 degrees C. --- David 5 deg. C = 6.5mm Hg 55 deg. C = appr. 110 mm Hg It means that water does not have to be removed from the trap (as was stated ) since water at 5 deg.C has a vapour pressure low enogh as not to interfere with drying the fuel. It will never be perfectly dry and even if you could, it would adsorb water from the air when you take it out of the vacuum chamber. In practical terms just run cold water through your condenser and when the vacuum in the reactor gets to 27 Hg or better you are done! I do it all the time. It works well. I reheat the reactor during washing and after draining the last wash the vacuum is started. An hour later the fuel is dry, crystal clear and ready to use. Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from journeytoforever.org claiming to be* http://journeytoforeverorg/biofuel.html 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] Dewatering with vacuum.
Jeromie Reeves wrote: inline David Miller wrote: [snip] I'm not sure what you're referring to in I should look for a 50. I'd suggest looking for a dry pump that doesn't require oil lubrication. These are commonly used for refridgeration or freeze drying of food, should go to the required vacuum levels, and should last a long time. Scientific pumps generally don't like that kind of water vapor. Would a home grade vacuum sealer (for food bag + jars) be sufficient? I have seen many older units at yard sales (wife wont let me get near her new one that does bottles/jars!) Interesting idea, but I doubt it. It might work for the 1 gallon test batches, but I'm not sure I can see it working on a 50 gallon batch. I don't know what they have for vacuum pumps in them, but I doubt they're made to run that long. It wouldn't cost that much to try one though. The key to the operation is to have the fuel hot and a cool place for it to condense. You don't have to pump all the water vapor out, just create the conditions where the water will boil out of the fuel and condense in the condensor. That means a vacuum of 25 - 27 inches. That sounds easy enough with a few pipes and some peltiers. How cold does the surface need to be for condensing water in a 25~27 inch vacuum? What about boiling temp? I know boiling temp goes down as the atmospheric pressure goes down but I do not know scale. Is there a online chart showing this? What kind of vessel would be needed for a 25~27 inch vacuum (and so I am sure, that is a negative PSI rating yes?) These numbers have been posted a bunch of times now. 5 deg. C = 6.5mm Hg 55 deg. C = appr. 110 mm Hg As Joe Street said several times on this thread if you keep the fuel hot (55C) and have a room temperature condensor (5-10C) you can just run the vacuum pump until you get to 27 or so and you're done. Water can be drained out the condensor afterward. These aren't the only numbers that will work, but they give you an idea. You can do it at atmospheric pressure if you raise the temperature enough, or reduce the temp of the fuel by decreasing the pressure. You have to look up vapor pressures of water at different temperatures if you want to rigorously engineer something, but these look like good rules-of-thumb. --- David ___ 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] Fwd: [lost-arts] Help Stop the USDA
Appal Energy wrote: And the rationale behind this? At least the official rationale? I can think of one. How about start with the animals and get the system down pat. Then with the stroke of a pen go for the humans? I thought it was obvious. The stated goal as I understand it is to be able to track disease. Mad cow has been mentioned, but bird flu is a likely up-and-comer. That may well be cover, of course, it could be about driving the smaller producers out of business. --- David ___ 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] Dewatering with vacuum.
William Adams wrote: Your water-to-steam volume change calculation is not correct. The correct volume increase is 1,244x, obtained as follows: One mole (molecular wt. in gm) of liquid water = 18 gm = 18 cc. One mole of steam = 18 gm h2o vapor = 22,400 cc. At standard temperature and pressure, and for equal molar quantities, the volume change is simply: steam volume / liquid volume = 22,400/18 = 1,244.44... Cheers, Bob (West Linn) Excellent analysis Bob! As far as dewatering goes we'd also have to correct for pressure and temperature. At 29 inches of vacuum the water vapor would take up much more volume:( This part is conjecture; I don't have a processor and never tried to dewater anything. If a condensor was kept at a much lower temperature (5 degrees C?) than the fuel, then a vacuum pump would not have to pump all the water vapor out. By lowering the pressure appropriately, the water will boil in the high temperature fuel and condense in the low temperature condensor. By draining off the liquid condensate one should be able to get most of the water out of the fuel. Once the vapor pressure was low enough to not condense anymore, you'd have to vacuum pump the rest of the water out. But that might be dry enough anyway:) Somebody had the vapor pressure tables for water earlier in this thread, maybe he could look up the pressure for 55 and 5 degrees C. --- David ___ 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] Dewatering with vacuum.
logan vilas wrote: Water boils off at 43F at 20-50mmhg of vacuum at sea level. At 140F it takes about 150-200mmhg. When fluids are mixed togther the Pressure of Vaporization changes especially when thouroughly mixed. You do not need a condensor if you are useing a AC type vacuum pump(that's what they are designed for). I know iowa's BECON program flash heats their oil to 230F then runs it through a vacuum chamber to achieve dewatering. Unless you have a very large vacuum pump or very little water in your oil it will take a long time. Water multiplies in volume by 10-18 thousand times when boiled. Say WHAT? I'm not sure what number you mean by 10-18 thousand. The number I remember is about 1700 times. 1 Cubic foot = 1728 cubic inches 1 Cubic Inch of water when boiled off = 5.79 cubic feet minimum 1 gallon = 231 cubic inches Vacuum Distilation alone would take a huge amount of time. I would still heat then let it settle and remove the water off the bottom. Then use vacuum distilation. Remember if you buy a 5CFM vacuum pump that is displacement of the piston at no load and full rpm. When you start pulling a vacuum that number falls off quickely and at 30 that is probably less then 1CFM. You have to multiply the CFM by the pressure. 1/30 atmosphere * 5 CFM = 1/6 CFM. It you're trying to pump off a cubic foot of water it would take something like 1700 * 6 minutes. That's a long time to wait:) --- David ___ 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] Alternative way of producing bd (using electric)
Zeke Yewdall wrote: Come on Mike. How do you argue that a perpetual motion machine wouldn't be useful? Perpetual motion machines could indeed be useful. And the patent office WILL grant patents on them. You just have to provide them with one as proof:) I expect to be showing them mine any day now, as soon as I get the last few bugs worked out where IS that flux capacitor when you need it? --- David ___ 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] Alternative way of producing bd (using electric)
bob allen wrote: Howdy Teoman, looking back in the archives I find the link: http://tinyurl.com/8hjv7 this is to a patent application, not a patent. Even if the process is patented, does that mean that the patent office has checked out the process and confirms that it actually works as described, or simply that the process is novel and has not been described before? The application that someone has figured out something they consider new, useful, and worth protecting and has applied to the patent office for protection. The USPTO does not verify that inventions work as their applicants state. As I understand it they pretty much trust the inventor except in the case of perpetual motion machines. They require a demonstration for those:) The fact that a patent has been granted on a drug to cure stupidity does not mean that the USPTO has seen such a drug work. --- David ___ 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] Alternative way of producing bd (using electric)
Mike Weaver wrote: HAY David then pills you sold me dont werk MIKE Mike, like I told you, you have to take them longer. At least 30 days, and if you miss a day you have to start all over. You obviously missed a day, so I'll be expecting your next order right away! --- David David Miller wrote: bob allen wrote: Howdy Teoman, looking back in the archives I find the link: http://tinyurl.com/8hjv7 this is to a patent application, not a patent. Even if the process is patented, does that mean that the patent office has checked out the process and confirms that it actually works as described, or simply that the process is novel and has not been described before? The application that someone has figured out something they consider new, useful, and worth protecting and has applied to the patent office for protection. The USPTO does not verify that inventions work as their applicants state. As I understand it they pretty much trust the inventor except in the case of perpetual motion machines. They require a demonstration for those:) The fact that a patent has been granted on a drug to cure stupidity does not mean that the USPTO has seen such a drug work. --- David ___ 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] Steam hybrid from BMW to enter market with 'Turbosteamer'
Joe Acquisto wrote: Zeke Yewdall[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/16/05 3:01 PM Although it doesn't specify, I would suspect that this is a turbine design, not a piston design. I've seen a 30kW steam turbine that wasn't much larger than an AC compressor for a car. Add a heat exhanger in the exhaust manifold, and it could be quite compact. Of course it was also noisy enough to hear from a good 200 feet away, and would require a geared stepdown drive to provide useful torque -- I think it ran at 20,000 rpm or something? I would be very interested in finding out more about this steam turbine, for another project. Is the KW rating the HP equivalent? Can you point me in the right direction? 1 HP = .745 KW = 745 watts. IOW, divide the KW rating by .745 to get hp. Sorry, can't help on the turbine itself. --- David ___ 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] Steam hybrid from BMW to enter market with 'Turbosteamer'
Paul S Cantrell wrote: On 12/16/05, *David Kramer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't such a steam engine increase the weight of the vehicle and thereby the amount of energy needed to drive it? David David, Yes I would think so, too. I would have expected more of a 'boost' to fuel economy than 15%. It must add some weight. The main weight of a steam engine is it's boiler, since this is replaced by a heat exchanger, this and the steam piston(s) will be the major weight gainers. I'd like to see it implemented in a diesel. You realize, of course, that there would be quite a bit less energy available in the exhaust of the diesel, and that the diesel already weighs a lot more than the gasoline engine, right? :)i That said, combined cycle generation has the potential to save quite a lot of energy overall in cases where weight really doesn't matter. --- (another) David ___ 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] Biofuels revolutionize Brazil's auto industry
From http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/0/9/73364090.html /Sao Paulo, Dec 12, 2005 (EFE via COMTEX) -- /By Jaime Ortega Carrascal. ).- The flex fuel technology developed and implemented in Brazil that allows a car to run on either gasoline or alcohol has revolutionized the local auto industry and caught the eye of other nations seeking to reduce the burning of hydrocarbons. Biofuel vehicles, which hit the Brazilian market in mid-2003, became a big hit with consumers this year, accounting for 71 percent of all new vehicles sold in November. More than 1 million biofuel vehicles are on the streets of Latin America's largest 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): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bob Allen -Other Vaccines during WWI - THE 1918 INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC
Zeke Yewdall wrote: Yet they are already being sued over drugs like vioxx. Are the threats of law suits any higher for vaccines than for other drugs released with insufficient testing? Vaccinations have their own special problems. For starters, they're all different and time-sensitive. IE, you can't test a flu vaccine for three years because you need a different one every year. For another, the profits on them are miniscule compared to other drugs, which makes it harder to justify a long, expensive, trial. Personally I'm really bothered that viox and bextra were taken off the market. I understand that it increased the potential of heart attacks and strokes by some 2-3 times among people taking it long term. However, I can easily see that that's an acceptable proposition to some people. If you're crippled by arthritis but can live a nearly normal life with bextra it's probably worth 3X the chance of having a heart attack. And they were great inflamation reducers for those with temporary problems that wouldn't be taking it long term. My thoughts, worth what you paid for them:) --- David On 12/6/05, Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No one wants to touch them because of fears of being sued. Zeke Yewdall wrote: If vaccines are big business being forced on us for profit, then why does no one want to actually make them. Last year, less than half of the people in the US who wanted to get flu vaccines couldn't even get them, because there was only one or two companies who produced them, and one got shut down. Wouldn't the big drug companies be falling over themselves to get into this business if there was any money to be made in it? Vaccinating someone only gets you $5, once a year for flu, or maybe $60 once every 10 years for other stuff. Better to sell them fancy patented drugs for $80 a month... On 12/6/05, Marylynn Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Big snip] ___ 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] Preheating heat source - BriteLyt? Petromax
Mike Weaver wrote: I've done some initial research but haven't delved into one. Sooner or later I'll find an oil furnace someone is throwing away and see what I can do. If I had to cut the BD with another agent to make it easier to use I would do that. Does anyone have any suggestions? Gasoline? I have 55 gallons of 99% Isopropyl alcohol - is that suitable? I'm not clear on whether you want to cut the BD for use in a backpacking stove for heating your reactor or in a modified furnace. There's a big differnce. With the camp stove you have a fairly open system, and one where the fuel is supposed to vaporize. Cutting with something fairly volatile will probably thin out the BD and make ignition much easier. Gasoline should work, as would mineral spirits, acetone, alcohol, etc. You really really don't want to mix volatiles into a closed system like a boiler or furnace. It's common when having problems with them for some fuel to puddle in the burner; something like gasoline could easily result in an explosive condition. That's my take on it at least. Check out the altfuelfurnace list at yahoo if you want more info, but know that they won't entertain any discussion of cutting with volatile liquids there at all. --- David -Mike Zeke Yewdall wrote: What about the type of burners that are designed to use a liquid fuel directly rather than volatilize a liquid fuel? Like fuel oil furnaces, and waste engine oil burners. All of these I have seen are in the 100,000 Btu/hr range though -- if you could find one more like 10 or 20 kBtu, it might work well for heating the reactor. http://www.espar.com/ something like this may be able to be modified. Not cheap though. On 12/6/06, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] ___ 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] Fwd: Free Range Birds and Avian Flu
Keith Addison wrote: Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:00:47 EST Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Free Range Birds and Avian Flu To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [snip] We need to even the playing field and get a true assessment of the health of birds grown intensively for maximum weight gain / growth rate / stocking density and minimum feed conversion using chemicals and therapeutants versus birds grown for optimal health without disease fighting agents. Let's call a one year moratorium on the use of chemicals, drugs, and therapeutants. Then let's take a bird from each rearing method and expose them to the avian flu and see what happens. I suspect that intensively reared birds will do poorly. I also suspect that there is too broad a range of practices that fall into the category of free range / organic and that some of these birds would do poorly as well. However, I also suspect that birds that are truly reared for optimal health will survive the test. Perhaps we can finally vindicate Antoine Bechamp and focus more on rearing methods that focus on health and less on battling external disease. Hmm, my impression was that the H5N1 has been in asia for at least 8 years now, and that the area in which it seems to have originated and in which it is now most frequently found is by and large how Aquatfs advocates growing them. IE, they're largely free range, have a wide variety of foods in their diets, coexist with other animals. I agree in general with the sentiments written here, but we have to recognize that it's entirely possible that this very combination is what creates the new pathogens in the first place. Evidence points to pigs as a likely source for them to mutate into something that attacks humans. The combination of access to wild birds that carry the disease, domestic chickens and geese that harbor the disease, and pigs in immediate proximity to catch the disease - possibly from feeding on the diseased chickens - is the ideal environment for creating new pathogens that humans are suseptible to. I'll also admit that the human means of dealing with chickens in the area is also partly responsible; live chicken markets, many people slaughtering the birds, and insufficient cooking is a recipe for introducing the pathogen to humans from infected birds. All in all it's a formula for disaster, and many scientists believe that it's happened in the past. --- David ___ 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] Fwd: Free Range Birds and Avian Flu
Keith Addison wrote: Helklo David I think you don't know much about organics, eh? Not as much as you or others on this list. More than most though. Try this: An Agricultural Testament by Sir Albert Howard, Oxford University Press, 1940. 11. The Retreat of the Crop and the Animal before the Parasite Humus and Disease Resistance The Mycorrhizal Association and Disease The Investigations of Tomorrow http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/howardAT/AT11.html 12. Soil Fertility and National Health http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/howardAT/AT12.html There's a lot more in the Small FarmsLibrary - the Cheshire Testament, Sir Robert McCarrison, G.T. Wrench... All worth a good read. The disease isn't the problem, the susceptibility is. So is it your contention that the asian areas where the new pathogens develop not organic? I can't say that I know for sure, but everything I read describes them as far closer to organic than to the animal factories we have around here in the US. --- David ___ 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] US Guvmint to tax alternate fuel vehicles?
Mike Weaver wrote: All kidding aside, do the members of this list think the idea of an advocacy group to defend BD has merit, and more importantly would anyone pay to be a member? I would pay something just to support the cause. Probably in the $50-100 range. --- David ___ 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] US Guvmint to tax alternate fuel vehicles?
Joe Street wrote: Why not just add some of the dye yourself ..doh! Because here in the states they put the dye in the untaxed fuel (HHO, K1), not in the stuff that's taxed. So adding dye would be a way of saying that you didn't pay taxes on fuel that you actually had. --- David ___ 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] [OT] Diebold problems in NC
For anyone interested in the veracity of our elections, this slashdot discussion is very troubling: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/11/29/2024208.shtml?tid=103tid=123tid=219 There's reference in the article to what statistically looks like fraud here: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1559 ... with apologies to non-US readers who aren't interested in US election troubles. --- David ___ 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] US Guvmint to tax alternate fuel vehicles?
Joe Street wrote: Oh I thought from the previous post it meant that taxed fuel is dyed. So then on a spot inspection how is anyone to know if you are using taxed fuel or home brew anyways? (assuming it is not B100 which could be identified by smell alone) Why worry about it then? I doubt if many (bio)diesel car owners worry about it at all. Diesel car owners are such small pickins next to a company running a fleet of trucks that I've never seen or even heard of someone being tested. I know a number of them who regularly use heating oil or K1 (with the dye) in their cars without concern. I don't do it because to it's not worth saving thirty cents a gallon if it means having to drain it out of the tank in 5 gallon buckets and pour it into the car. It's nice to know I have the reserve though. Biodiesel is attractive for other reasons; I wouldn't save enough money in a long time to make it worthwhile financially. --- David Joe David Miller wrote: Joe Street wrote: Why not just add some of the dye yourself ..doh! Because here in the states they put the dye in the untaxed fuel (HHO, K1), not in the stuff that's taxed. So adding dye would be a way of saying that you didn't pay taxes on fuel that you actually had. --- David ___ 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] Supplemental Hydrogen Injection for Class 8 Trucks
robert luis rabello wrote: Greg and April wrote: This makes allot more sense. [snip] #5I wonder if it makes a difference if the 100 hours at 15 mph or at 75 mph? It won't. The unit is not tied into the onboard fuel injection management computer. From what I understand, it operates in a steady state mode. With a steady rate of H2 and O2 flowing into the engine, the % of these gases will vary with the RPM of the engine. The effect on the overall combustion process should vary depending on how much fuel is added. As a WAG without any supporting data I'd guess that it would have more effect at lower throttle settings by promoting the initial combustion, and less effect as more fuel is used. If true, that would help explain why the trucker hauling a heavy load over the mountains got less of a benefit from it. That said, I'm still skeptical. I want to see some independent, non-anecdotal, corroborating evidence:) --- David ___ 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] truckers choose hydrogen power
Darryl McMahon wrote: when water is broken down to O2 and H2 applied to fuel at a rate of 1/375? So now we are supposed to believe that some device will improve efficiency Catalysts can work at even lower ratios. That's not really relevent here since we're not talking about any kind of catalytic reaction. Used only distilled water and works down to -40* C below?Must be some strange kind of new type of distilled water that that doesn't start to freeze at 0* C. The company says they have overcome the problem of the water freezing. No indication they have changed the properties of water to do so. Of course not. It was a silly claim. Distilled water is a poorer conductor than water with some types of impurities in it. Yes, but the impurities will cause residues in the electrolysis unit, so best to avoid them. This was the reason I wrote. You don't electrolyze pure water, you need a high concentration of something that conducts electricity, like salt or acid. Someone is blowing smoke, but, I doubt it is the diesel trucks. I understand and support skepticism about the claims. However, until we have evidence to counter the company's claims (and they have years of research and testing behind them, and testimonials from people at company names I recognize), I don't think we should label them as charlatans. Do you have that evidence? Personally, I think the jury is still out. There's certainly not enough evidence to call them charlatans, but I haven't heard anything here from someone with first - or even second - hand knowledge of the results. I've certainly heard enough wild claims by inventors and their companies to be very skeptical in the face of something that sounds very far fetched. We've estimated that the amount of hydrogen that's added is something on the order of .1% of the incoming air, and taking company claims at face value that that's enough hydrogen to boost the combustion efficiency of the diesel fuel by something over 10% is enough to make me skeptical. I can't say that it's physically impossible, just that I need some *independent* corroborating evidence:) --- David ___ 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] truckers choose hydrogen power
William Adams wrote: David, Thanks for the correction of air intake. Agreed, it would be good to look at the beast. Can the anecdotes can be believed ? And, is the concept for real? Let's try putting a couple of things together here Darryl says: According to the CHEC website (http://www.chechfi.ca/), the unit uses 4 litres of distilled water in 12,000 km. You calculated that 12 cc of liquid water electrolyzes to 15 liters of H2 gas. I figured that a 10 liter engine at 1800 RPM uses ~120 liters of air/second. If we assume 100 km/hr driving speed that's 4 liters of water in 120 hours, or 1 liter in 30 hours. In 30 hours of driving we have 30 * 60 min/hr * 60 sec/min = 10800 seconds. 10800 seconds * 120 liters/sec = 1296000 liters of air. 1 liter water * 15 liters H2/.012 liters water = 1250 liters H2. 1250 liters/H2 / 1296000 air = .09% H2 by volume. That H2 would seem to be pretty potent stuff if .09% of it can increase the efficiency of the engine by a net 10%. --- David ___ 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] truckers choose hydrogen power
William Adams wrote: Interesting calculation, and good for back-of-the-envelope stuff. I just wanted to point out that an 1800 RPM 10 liter engine will consume 150 liters of air/second, not 300 since it only takes in air every other stroke. That's assuming a 4 stroke engine, of course:) In fact, that's the maximum, assuming 100% volumetric efficiency. For envelope stuff 80% is probably closer, so we'd be looking at something more like 4.8 mL of water. Interesting numbers though. I wonder what % H2 they really use. As I mentioned earlier, I'd love to see the electrolyzer:) --- David Hi Greg, On water consumption, some order of magnitude, back of an envelope, calculations can be done (don't look for precision, I'm making several assumptions). A 10 liter diesel engine at 1800 rpm will consume (no turbo) 300 liters of air per second. If significant enhancement of performance requires 5% H2 in the intake airstream, the H2 production rate must be 15 liters/second (.05 x 300 liters). This represents 0.67 moles H2, (one mole H2 is 22.4 liters). Electrolylsis of one mole of H2O (18 ml) yields one mole of H2. In one hour of operation at 1800 rpm the engine will consume 2,412 moles of H2 (54,029 liters of H2 gas). To produce this volume of H2 gas will require electrolysis of 43.4 liters of water (about 11.5 gallons) per hour, or about 260 liters on a typical 6 hour run. Another aspect has to do with the amount of electrical energy needed to transform, per second, 12 cc of liquid water to 15 liters of H2 gas. I leave that, and the associated efficiency losses to others. I make no judgment about the overall efficiency, efficacy or worthiness of this technique. As to whether it works or not, as Hakan might say, puede que si, o puede que no. Cheers, Bob, West Linn, OR - Original Message - From: Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] truckers choose hydrogen power I have been wondering what the rate of water usage is. Greg H. - Original Message - From: robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 19:37 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] truckers choose hydrogen power This process does not violate thermodynamics, and may POSSIBLY result in a small improvement in overall efficiency. A minor improvement in thermal efficiency using a 5% hydrogen supplement has been documented by scientists as renown as Sir Harry Ricardo. This is because hydrogen acts to speed up combustion, and gases that would otherwise continue to expand through the engine's exhaust port and manifold are hurried into producing work while still in the chamber. Now, whether or not this results in a net efficiency gain depends on how efficient the onboard electrolytic device happens to be. I have built several electrolyzers and I'm skeptical, particularly when I read the hype written into this article. A ten liter truck engine inhales an AWFUL lot of air, particularly under boost, so that electrolyzer would have to put out a fairly significant volume of hydrogen to make a difference. 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/ ___ 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] rigged voting machines was Oil and democracy -was-Scientific method
Alt.EnergyNetwork wrote: It might be a good idea to get rid of those nasty Diebolt rigged voting machines that left no paper trail. During the election the ceo of that co, told Bush I'll deliver Ohio. This is being parroted way out of context. The CEO of Diebold was chairman of some committee - I forget whether it was the Republican party or a re-election committee - that was working on re-electing Bush. He was clearly speaking in this capacity. Yes, he should have known better than to utter something like that, but surrounded by fellow Republicans at a re-election rally it's understandable. On a similar note, a local professor obtained the machine code for the units and had his students analize it. They found that it used an encryption key that had been discontinued in 1994 and was easily hackable by phone line. Might want to leave a proper paper trail next time, so at least the count can be verified for irregularities. My take on the last election is that if something happened to steal the election it was likely done at the central points that tallied votes from voting machines all over - optically scanned systems as well as the paperless blackboxes. Anyone interested in knowing more should surf on over to http://blackboxvoting.org/ and get a good background. BTW, if anyone has the exit polls of the 2004 presidential election before the polling organization corrected them to match the reported vote totals, please contact me off-list. --- David ___ 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] US Montana’s energy future
MH wrote: Sounds like a great conference! This paragraph caught my attention: A second coal story came out of Great Falls, where the City Council voted 4-1 to spend $2 million of that city’s funds on “preparations” for the proposed 250 megawatt Highwood coal-burning power plant east of the city. Five rural electric cooperatives forming the Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative are partnering with Great Falls on this project because they need the city’s rights to water from the Missouri River. Running a coal-fired generating plant takes a lot of water. Why does running a coal fired generating plant require so much water? Thanks, --- David ___ 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] Multi Fuel Engines
Kurt Nolte wrote: On 10/16/05, *Jeromie Reeves* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about a rotary engine that doest take those delicate graphite seals? Long story short I had one via my lil brother that only had 1 working cell and still put out enough HP to go 85mph. Jeromie From what I understand, a rotary engine is actually a step /down/ in thermal efficiency; maybe it's just the materials used, but I seem to hear something about how they may have more power density, but their thermal efficiency suffers too much to really make them widespread. It's not the materials used, it's that there is so much surface area per unit of volume. All the extra surface area absorbs heat, which is wasted out the cooling system, and quenches the flame which increases pollutants. Rotaries (wankels, at least) are well suited for aircraft use in some ways - they're light, powerful, smooth, and reliable. Their failure mode tends to be losing power gradually, as opposed to piston engines that fail catestrophically when they seize up or break a piston or swallow a valve or the timing belt breaks. Unless you have something like an airplane, however, they're usually too thirsty to take seriously. Maybe when rotaries have more research put into them like the piston engine has they'll meet and even exceed the efficiency and power density of reciprocating piston engines, but right now I don't believe they're there yet. Besides which they are, as you have just implied, rather delicate as opposed to the near brash ruggedness of a RP engine. Unless research leads to materials that simply don't need to be cooled (the adiabatic diesel is a long time dream in the military) I wouldn't get my hopes up. I also wouldn't get my hopes up on the other rotary and unconventional designs with cam-type camshafts. I'm a little surprised no one mentioned the dynacam (http://www.dynacam.com) which has been six months from the market for several decades IIRC. Internal combustion and sliding vanes present seal problems that aren't going to be fixed by a shade-tree mechanic of any kind. Sorry, but that's life. Opposed piston engines, OTOH, have some real advantages. Getting rid of the head and valve train simplifies things somewhat, and having hot pistons facing each other eliminates two heads and the heat loss associated with them. The Germans used opposed piston diesels in Junkers transport aircraft and could fly all the way to Brazil without refueling. Fairbanks Morse still makes them - see http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engines/commercial/op/op_data.htm Personally I'm a gas turbine fan, but I don't see them overtaking everything and replacing all other engines anytime soon, so I figured I might as well get with something people are a little more familiar with. ;p Simple rotating devices have a big attraction:) The biggest drawback with turbines is that major parts of the engine that are under severe stress must operate at the peak combustion temperature. Unfortunately this guy named Carnot passed a law that said lower peak temps would operate at lower efficiency, so they won't be able to match diesels for efficiency until we make some, uhh, remarkable advances in materials:) Hope someone finds this interesting. I know a lot more about engine design than making biodiesel so far. --- David ___ 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] Multi Fuel Engines
robert luis rabello wrote: I've been looking at this one for a long time: http://www.freedom-motors.com/ Apparently, it can run as a gen set with externally mixed diesel fuel and the engine puts out very little in the way of pollution. Unlike some of the other manufacturers we've discussed on this list, Freedom Motors is actually producing units for sale. It looks like it would be a good fit for a hybrid / electric vehicle, as the engine is very compact and high powered. I love looking at new engines:) How'd that old mazda commercial go? Engines that go h ? I didn't see the bit about genset usage. The diesel usage looked like it just adjusts the mixture some, uses a high pressure injector, and spark ignition. The biggest drawback to this engine would seem to be the efficiency - the faq lists its best case as .47 lb per horsepower hour, and .55 or more was pretty typical. By comparison, an efficient piston diesel will be down in the low .3's. In other words it would use about 50% more fuel for the same HP output. --- David ___ 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] Multi Fuel Engines
Kurt Nolte wrote: From what I understand, a rotary engine is actually a step /down/ in thermal efficiency; maybe it's just the materials used, but I seem to hear something about how they may have more power density, but their thermal efficiency suffers too much to really make them widespread. It's not the materials used, it's that there is so much surface area per unit of volume. All the extra surface area absorbs heat, which is wasted out the cooling system, and quenches the flame which increases pollutants. Rotaries (wankels, at least) are well suited for aircraft use in some ways - they're light, powerful, smooth, and reliable. Their failure mode tends to be losing power gradually, as opposed to piston engines that fail catestrophically when they seize up or break a piston or swallow a valve or the timing belt breaks. Unless you have something like an airplane, however, they're usually too thirsty to take seriously. Ahh, I see now. I knew they had some major disadvantage going against them, but couldn't remember what. Just out of curiousity, what's the hangup with cam-shafted engines? You put them in the same class as sliding vane engines (seal problems I can understand, those would have to wear out faster than more traditional arrangements), but I'm not really seeing a seal problem with the cam-cranked engines. Is there just something I'm missing? I put them in the same category because there have been so many to get - at best - to the prototype stage, and always seem to stall out at the just looking for the investor to start mass production, but we'll take a deposit on your engine now stage. They've all seemed like scams. The theory on them is alluring. Modifying the compression/expansion cycle to - for example - expand the combustion gases quickly and thereby reduce pollution seems like a great potential. Another would be to halt the piston at/just beyond top dead center and let combustion finish. Those both have some pretty serious issues when it comes to actual implementation. Another that's intriguing is the ability to have the expansion stroke longer than the intake stroke for more efficiency. I think the reason they never caught on is complexity, which translates into cost. It's easier to make a matching block and head when all the cylinders line up, and the valve gear required in a barrel engine is just awful. And the manifolding. the list goes on. You end up with an engine that's small in theory but has stuff sticking out all over. My dream for a long while was to combine the barrel (cam) engine with a cam at each end driving opposed pistons and a two stroke diesel. Needless to say, my RD budget and machining abilities never got me to the prototype stage:( --- David ___ 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] Multi Fuel Engines
robert luis rabello wrote: David Miller wrote: I love looking at new engines:) How'd that old mazda commercial go? Engines that go h ? You're dating yourself, now! (And me, too!) Hey, I can remember Coke I'd like to teach the world to sing commercial. I was pretty young then though, so that does help date me:) The biggest drawback to this engine would seem to be the efficiency - the faq lists its best case as .47 lb per horsepower hour, and .55 or more was pretty typical. By comparison, an efficient piston diesel will be down in the low .3's. In other words it would use about 50% more fuel for the same HP output. How would this compare to a typical Otto cycle piston engine? Typical 4 stroke otto cycle (OK, that's redundant:) engines usually run in the .4 to .5 lbs/hp-hour. This engine is pretty typical for a wankel. It's interesting that the airplane crowd has to take special precautions with wankels because the exhaust is so hot. Obviously this is because a mark of its inefficiency - the higher the efficiency the lower the exhaust temperature. --- David ___ 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] Why aren't there more manufacturers?
Keith Addison wrote: Hello David snip Forgot this bit... I also wonder what people are really doing with the leftover glycerine and wash water with excess methanol. I suspect a lot of both get dumped, as do batches that just go bad. I don't know that, but would be interested to hear from those actually making BD what they do with their wash water. Why do you suspect it? Of course it happens, but you also assume this: I would suspect it because it's human nature. I think most people who do it do it mostly as a way of not using petro-diesel much more than to save money. On the basis of that assumption people are mostly doing it for environmental reasons, minus the ones who're silly enough to think they're decreasing US dependence on foreign oil / Saudi oil / not putting money in the pockets of terrorists and all the other nonsense, take your pick... But probably mostly for environmental reasons. So they're likely to be more careful of where they dump the wastes. Only there aren't any wastes really. You can use it all, and I believe most people are. Plenty of ways of doing it, see the archives and the JtF biodiesel section. I live in the country and have my own well and septic system; introducing methanol into the ground water is not something I'm interested in doing. Perhaps I don't understand the process well enough and the by products aren't a problem? That's about right. You can put the wash-water through a simple greywater system, you can dilute it and spray it on your pasture fields. See: I don't have a pasture to spray it on. But thanks for the pointers, methanol appears to be much less toxic than I thought. Perhaps because it's a simpler molecule to break down? Whatever the reason it's good to know that it's pretty benign. Thanks, --- David ___ 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] Why aren't there more manufacturers?
Bobby Clark wrote: Why are there not a lot of people manufacturing biodiesel? Is it because that petro diesel is cheaper? It seems that I have seen estimates of between $2-$3 per gallon if you make it from virgin oil. If it burns cleaner (which it does) then why aren't manufacturers taking advantage of this opportunity? I'm slowly starting to think of it, but I'm not convinced yet. I think most people who do it do it mostly as a way of not using petro-diesel much more than to save money. I doubt I'd save much on fuel for my TDI. I'd have to buy the pieces for the processor, buy the chemicals, and go through the process of getting WVO, and practice until I get it right. If I don't get it right I run the risk of damaging my engine; rebuilding it or the injection pump or replacing the injectors will cost more than I'll save making biodiesel in a long, long time, even if the WVO is free. I have three things I want to do with every free hour I have now, so making a processor and learning to use it has some serious competition. As far as reducing my personal impact on the planet regarding fossil fuels I'm more inclined to use the WVO I can get as a replacement for some of the home heating oil I use. I have an extremely well insulated house and use ~650 gallons of heating oil last year. I think next summer I'll cut at least 150 off with solar hot water heaters. If I can get 250 gallons of WVO and mix it with K1 I can save 400 of the 650 gallons without risking the engine in my TDI:) That's a significant savings, bring me down to 10-20% of what most houses use in these parts. I also wonder what people are really doing with the leftover glycerine and wash water with excess methanol. I suspect a lot of both get dumped, as do batches that just go bad. I don't know that, but would be interested to hear from those actually making BD what they do with their wash water. I live in the country and have my own well and septic system; introducing methanol into the ground water is not something I'm interested in doing. Perhaps I don't understand the process well enough and the by products aren't a problem? --- David ___ 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] Supplemental Heat by BD or byproduct
Darryl McMahon wrote: Kurt Nolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/3/05, Paul S Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: iI live near Charleston, SC USA about 40 miles from the coast,/i so it gets cold for a few weeks or a couple of months depending on your definition of cold. Anyway heating season is about November to March and natural gas prices are through the roof. I'm really keen on what you find out as a solution here, too. I'm also an SC-er, Upstate, near Clemson/Anderson. Similar scenario, centralized heating with a forced air natural gas furnace in the basement, and we're staring an estimated two grand in heating costs for the winter. (Wide open house. Dumb idea when it freezes regularly during the winter. Heating all that airspace sucks up the gas. x.x) So if you get suggestions or ideas, please share? I'll be keeping an ear out myself and send some your way if I hear them. I can only assume these are large homes. I live in Ottawa, Canada. South Carolina is where our snowbirds go in the winter to get away from the cold. My annual natural gas heating bill, including hot water, is about Cdn$600, approximately US$500. It is a reasonably small house though. Heating season here is October to May. (But it's getting shorter courtesy of global warming.) I'd just like to echo Darryls message that reducing your energy usage is a much better idea than finding an alternate energy source. I live in Maine with far colder winters, and heat a fair sized house (~2500 sq feet) and hot water for 4 with ~700 gallons per year. I built the house with 6 walls and an inch and a half of foam on the outside and a foot or so of fiberglass in the ceiling. In South Carolina you'd probably save more on AC in the summer than you do on heat in the winter. And the exhaust from your power plants wouldn't rain as much acid down on Maine:) --- David ___ 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] Cheap and easy filtering of WVO
Joe Street wrote: Careful. Even a modest vacuum will result in tremendous forces developing on the large surface area of that drum which is way too wimpy metal for the job as a vacuum vessel. You will end up crushing the drum and making a huge mess! I'll give odds on the sheet giving out long before the cylindrical drum. And it'll make one awful mess in the vacuum. My vote would be for filtering warmer oil. Let it set longer in the sun before filtering it:) --- David ___ 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] Double wall heat exchange - Solar Hot Water Heater
Zeke Yewdall wrote: You can actually buy C-PVC pipe for hot water piping here. Since the heat exchanger is not going to be operating at over 90C or so, it should work fine, except that it may be very difficult to get 100mm diamter CPVC. Normally anything that large is drain pipe not hot water supply, and will be normal PVC instead.As I understood your idea, you were going to put a few runs of copper pipe back and forth submerged inside the large PVC pipe, right? Isn't the gray plastic electrical conduit C-PVC? Check with your local electrical shop rather than your home depot. --- David ___ 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] U.S. market doesn't make it
Ken Riznyk wrote: Here in Pennsylvania diesel cars are exempt from emission inspections. I was recently bear hunting in Maine. The local folks told me that Maine no longer permits sales of Jetta TDI's because of diesel emissions. My question is this - what pollutes more? A cleaner gas powered SUV getting 15 miles a gallon or a jetta diesel getting 45 miles per gallon. Interesting question, and there are a lot of different answers to it. Obviously getting three times the mileage reduces CO2 emissions by two thirds. But it doesn't mean the car emits less unburned hydrocarbons or NOx per mile than the gas guzzler. On a related note, one might wonder why SUV'x are regulated as trucks and not subject to as stringent pollution standards. Lastly, as a Maine resident I'll point out that we have the California emissions standards which the TDI's don't meet. We can buy a used TDI here, or buy one in neighboring NH and register it here, but we can't buy a new one at the dealer. This is a fairly recent development; I bought my 2000 Jetta TDI new at a Maine dealer. FYI:) --- David ___ 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] Flat Panel Solar Hot Water Collector
Ken Dunn wrote: On 9/20/05, *Zeke Yewdall* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The best collectors are actually vaccuum tubes, to reduce convective losses. This leads me to believe that creating a lower profile box and reducing dead airspace would be very advantageous. Is that correct? It probably wouldn't make much difference. Windows need an inch or so between the panes for best R-value; less is not always better. There's a point where more wouldn't be better either, and a wide range in between. If there were a way to evacuate even some of the air it would help with both convective and conductive losses through the air, but evacuating flat surface collectors is a non-starter. If it were sealed tightly enough, which you probably can't do in a home-build environment, a heavier gas such as argon will increase the R value as well. HTH, --- David ___ 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] Flat Panel Solar Hot Water Collector
Ken Dunn wrote: On 9/20/05, *David Miller* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It probably wouldn't make much difference. Windows need an inch or so between the panes for best R-value; less is not always better. There's a point where more wouldn't be better either, and a wide range in between. If there were a way to evacuate even some of the air it would help with both convective and conductive losses through the air, but evacuating flat surface collectors is a non-starter. If it were sealed tightly enough, which you probably can't do in a home-build environment, a heavier gas such as argon will increase the R value as well. Does using a sliding glass door solve this problem as best as a backyard builder can expect? I was referring to reducing the dead airspace behind the glazing. Is that what you meant? I intend to thoroughy insulate and seal the box itself but, I have not intention on evacuating it or filling it with a heavy glass. As much as I'd like to get crazy technical with this, I'd like for it to be practical, reliable and reproducable - cheaply. If you're building with used and available components where cost is an object and recycling a goal you should forget all about vacuum and argon gas. Vacuum is not well suited to the home builder, it's a fairly high tech thing that requires real glass working skills, and getting water in and out of the vacuum isn't trivial. Sealing the system so that argon stays where its put isn't a homebuilder thing either. I'd definitely encourage you to go ahead and work with what you've got and let us know how it goes. --- David ___ 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] Debatable statement?
Greg and April wrote: Ok, given the same vehicle ( and about the same weight ), how does one go about picking a replacement engine and perhaps the replacing the transmission as well? The reason I ask, is that I would like to replace the engine I have with a better engine, but, I don't want to over power. My advice from a practical standpoint is to put one of whatever was in it back in. If you put a 4 cylinder in place of a 6, or a 6 in place of an 8 everything will be different, assuming something made within the last 20 years. The computer hookup and wiring harness will be all different, exhaust will be custome, fuel delivery will be different. If your time is worth anything to you I doubt you'd ever make it back on a $$ basis for the fuel saved. The transmission might be a slighly different proposition. Gearing it so the engine RPM is slower will probably raise your mileage a little, as long as you're not slowing the engine down into a less efficient mode. There's no sure way to tell without looking at the same kind of car with the different options. A manual transmission should give you a little better mileage as well, but if you've got an automatic now it would seem like a nightmare to setup the clutch and shifting linkage so that it works well. My thoughts, worth at least what you paid for them:) --- David ___ 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] Debatable statement?
Zeke Yewdall wrote: One major way acceleration hurts is that engines are set to richen the mixture during hard acceleration in order to prevent detonation (knocking, pinging) at high cylinder pressures. Does this apply to diesel engines which almost always operate with excess oxygen? Not if the diesel is setup properly. When the black smoke (soot) starts coming out it's because there's not enough oxygen for all the fuel. Short of that you're all set. --- David ___ 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] Draft US Defense Paper Outlines Preventive Nuclear Strikes
Tom Irwin wrote: Hi All, Hi Tom; Sorry I had to laugh to keep from crying. Let's see, Bush and the neocons will use weapons of mass destruction on bad people thinking about making weapons of mass destruction. Exactly who are the bad people. Oh Brave New World. Someone ought to tell them that nuclear winter doesn't negate global warming. Are you sure about that? Maybe they'd balance each other out. ;-) Let's not suggest it as a possibility or we'll have people suggesting nuclear war as a solution to global warming. --- David ___ 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] Debatable statement?
Joe Street wrote: I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (but smaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get better mileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fuel dumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. If you accelerate you are doing work. If you accelerate slowly you use less fuel per unit time but for a longer time. If you use high acceleration you use more fuel per time but for a shorter time. However definitely the frictional losses are higher when the engine is asked to produce high torque, thus dropping the efficiency. The first half of this is a good observation. The second half, however, is all wrong. Sorry:( Horsepower is proportional to torque times RPM. Engine losses depend on a number of things, but are mostly proportional to RPM. Using maximum torque and minimum RPM is usually the most efficient way to produce power. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because of low part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always trying futiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixed ratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at a higher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas a higher power engine could downshift sooner. The engine turning at higher rpm is not necessarily using more fuel. It depends on the power the engine is producing and other factors including thermal efficiency, bearing friction etc. There are a family of curves for the engine showing torque vs rpm, power vs rpm and fuel consumption vs rpm at a given load. For instance years ago one of the bikes I used to ride got better fuel economy on the highway by driving in 4th gear at higher rpm than in 5th gear at a lower rpm for the same highway speed. This is by far the exception though, and is most likely due to camshaft curves that favored higher RPM. I remember the days when motorcycles could exceed the national speed limit in first gear too:) But they're special cases, as are the 454 cid corvettes that got better mileage at higher speeds because it could produce the incremental horsepower needed for the higher speeds much more efficiently than the base horsepower to idle down the road at 55 MPH. The general answer to this question, from an engineering perspective, is that a car will get better fuel consumption with a smaller engine as long as you don't get into a mode where the engine becomes less efficient at producing the required horsepower. This could be due to excess fuel used in the mixture or excessive RPM. Note that there are many other parameters for the choice of a proper engine than horsepower, however. Pollution, drivability, longevity, reliability, and sufficient power to remove oneself from dangerous situtations come to mind. --- David ___ 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] wind and current power
Kirk McLoren wrote: Sometimes engineering proposals are just gee whiz stuff. Just to show that you are capable of thinking outside the box. They don't have to have much to do with practicality. The hazard to air navigation is enough to scuttle this idea let alone the liability considerations of falling stuff. Just try to erect a tower and see the restraints and then imagine what would happen should you decide you want to hang this apparatus several km in the sky. We used to have sayings to describe this -- Such as Here's a neat idea --Course it's as practical as airbrakes on an ant but still neat. Well, megawatt turbines way up in the sky would qualify as one of these. Neat. You may be dismissing this a little too easily Kirk. Since the jetstream is pretty much everywhere this is something that could be put in the middle of nowhere. It's not hard to imagine such a turbine being flown in the middle of the desert, for example, where there isn't anyone for miles around. IIRC, the article in PopSci had motor-generators onboard and they used them as motors to get them up into the jetstream. No balloon necessary. I think the technical problems can be solved. I'm not entirely sure it's a good idea. I'm also much less than sure that it can be an economical source of power. --- David Kirk */TarynToo [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: On Sep 11, 2005, at 3:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect that large arrays of wind farms would have an effect similar to forests. We've chopped down a lot of forests over tha last few hundred years, so this doesn't worry me. Tidal power would slow the earth's rotation a little faster than it is slowing anyway from friction - probably not a big deal. Removing a significant fraction of energy from say the Gulf Stream strikes me as asking for trouble. Regarding jet streams, I would be worried if it were possible. They wiggle around so much that I can't imagine any practical method of tapping their energy. I remember some blue sky stuff that proposed wind turbines hanging from high altitude balloons, anchored by long tethers. I suppose the tethers were supposed to carry current to the ground, though I'm now struck by the weight of a few miles of high tension copper or aluminum line. As far as staying in the jet stream, It seems like it would be trivial to design a self-steering system like that used for singlehand sailing. If the tether's anchor points were far enough apart, the system could probably swing a few miles north and south and around a hundred degrees or more of the compass, tracking the strongest winds. I think the jet stream shifts hundreds of miles, so I don't know what that would be worth. Anyway it was this kind of big scale extraction that seemed like it could have devastating consequences. Of course you'd need millions of acres of ground level turbines to extract the kind of energy that a wind farm hanging in the jet stream might capture. But I remember reading about this and the proposals to hang big blades in the gulf stream and thinking, Oh Jeez! Another massive engineering project with wildly unpredictable side effects! Taryn http://ornae.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/ Yahoo! for Good Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter ___ 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] Robertson et al VS. followers
Keith Addison wrote: Hello David Hi Keith:) I expect that's covered under free speech. I'd personally rate Robertsons comments as up there with any number of people who advocate the death of Bush for crimes against humanity or somesuch. If Bush were assasinated would these people really be responsible? Maybe I didn't notice but I have not heard of anyone calling for the death of Bush. Excepting some of the victims of course, but not anybody in the US, which I think is what you're talking about. Surely you could imagine such a thing? Perhaps around a coffee table? Offering your opinion that X should be assasinated either is or is not a crime; whether it's done on national TV or around the neighborhood watering hole is really irrelevent. What if Chavez is murdered is murdered and CIA is behind it, will he not be pursued for suggesting it? I don't believe so. The idea that the CIA would do something because this nut thought it was a good idea is laughable. Take a step back and listen to yourself. Does anyone on this list thing anyone at the CIA is going to wake up and say HEY! Robertson thinks we should assasinate a foreign head of state! Guess we'd better start laying plans C'mon, that's just silly. I'd be surprised if there weren't at least elements within the CIA who're thinking the same way as Robertson. I think the administration thinks the same way as Robertson. A lot of people think that. I think Chavez thinks that too. Have a look at this: Either I'm losing my debating touch or you're taking my arguments a long ways away from where they were aimed. I responded to Hakan Falk who seemed to think that Robertson had already broken the law and wondered why he hasn't been already arrested. My central point is that expressing your opinion that the CIA ought to assasinate someone isn't breaking any laws. Period. That's it. That is the answer to Hakans question. I don't doubt for a second that there are people within the current administration and all the various arms of intelligence and defense who would like to assasinate Chavez because he's not sufficiently pro-American. I am not one of them. I do not support Robertson. I did not support the current administration in their drive to war in Iraq. I do not support all the meddling we have done in the affairs of foreign states. But that does not make Robertsons statement illegal. He's expressing a moronic, immoral opinion, not calling people to action. I'm not trying to support Robertson, just trying to defend free speech. You see if you want to be able to speak freely you have to let others do so too, even if you don't like what they say. There is no society that doesn't put restrictions on free speech, of necessity, and it's a very difficult line to draw. Inciting to violence is a case in point - it's obvious? Maybe, but it's a restriction of free speech just the same, and there are many others, along with a constantly shifting grey area. You'd best watch what you wish for, IMHO. The US government over the last few administrations, and this administration in particular, seems very interested in quashing dissent. Imagine the effect on dissent if we were to stifle the kind of hateful speech which may be the way the administration is already thinking. And I'd suggest that people here think along those lines. Nothing new to us David. But it's more than just a label, or maybe less. You're making a mistake in writing off much of this discussion as rhetoric, as you did. If you took a less blinkered look you'd see that a great deal of information has been provided, the list archives is now a good resource on Pat Robertson. Any future discussion here of Pat Robertson or of any similar event will be better informed from the start, as with many other subjects. And that's what's needed as a true basis for free speech - free information. The true enemy of free speech and all freedom is spin as much as fascism, IMHO, and Pat Robertson has provided us with yet another example of that too. Several. I agree with you about the spin. But the topic at hand was whether Robertson should have already been arrested for his comments. Are you really agreeing with Hakan that he should have been? If expressing the opinion that a criminal act would have a desirable outcome becomes a crime then free speech no longer exists. IE, if someone suggests that the world would be a better place without Bush are you calling for a crime to be committed and subject to arrest? In the US we call that dissent, These days you (pl) call it treason as much as anything else. What's the punishment for treason in the US? See, here's where I think you blow it. If anyone who doesn't think Robertson should be arrested for his comments is one of them then there's not much hope left IMHO. I don't agree with Robertson. I think he's an arrogant fool.
Re: [Biofuel] Robertson et al VS. followers
Hakan Falk wrote: Robert, A question, In many countries death threat and instigation of murdering a person is against the criminal laws. Is it not the same in US and if, why have they not arrested and questioned Robertson? It's tempting to reply to the effect that he's a supporter of Bush and the neocon agenda, but that's irrelevent. I've read the quotes, and I've never liked Robertson. That said, he never made a threat agains Chavez. He never asked any of his followers to kill the man. He offered his unsolicited opinion that the CIA should assasinate him. Suggesting that a government agency should kill a foreign leader may be stupid, mean, immoral, and a number of other things, but it's not illegal to offer a mean, stupid, and immoral opinion. If he were funding an undercover operation to kill someone - anyone - then he could be arrested under any number of laws. But we're very short on evidence that's the case, and long on rhetoric about his hypocritic nature. I'm not trying to support the man, just trying to inject a little reason back into the discussion. --- David ___ 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] Robertson et al VS. followers
Hakan Falk wrote: David, So it is legal in US to suggest that a man should be assassinated? I expect that's covered under free speech. I'd personally rate Robertsons comments as up there with any number of people who advocate the death of Bush for crimes against humanity or somesuch. If Bush were assasinated would these people really be responsible? It's legal in the US to hold an opinion that someone should be killed. It's legal to express that opinion. Bear in mind, of course, that IANAL. It crosses the line when it becomes inciting to violence or something clearer, like paying someone to perform the murder. What if Chavez is murdered is murdered and CIA is behind it, will he not be pursued for suggesting it? I don't believe so. The idea that the CIA would do something because this nut thought it was a good idea is laughable. Take a step back and listen to yourself. Does anyone on this list thing anyone at the CIA is going to wake up and say HEY! Robertson thinks we should assasinate a foreign head of state! Guess we'd better start laying plans C'mon, that's just silly. I know that it is against US law to have any agency to kill a leader of an other Nation. This means also that Robertson is instigating a crime, by suggesting it. Why is he not in jail? He's not instigating a crime. He's not causing a crime to be committed. He's not soliciting anyone to commit the crime. He's not offering money or other reward for the crime, he's not issuing a challenge to his followers that one of them should go kill the man. He's expressing a moronic, immoral opinion, not calling people to action. I'm not trying to support Robertson, just trying to defend free speech. You see if you want to be able to speak freely you have to let others do so too, even if you don't like what they say. And I'd suggest that people here think along those lines. If expressing the opinion that a criminal act would have a desirable outcome becomes a crime then free speech no longer exists. IE, if someone suggests that the world would be a better place without Bush are you calling for a crime to be committed and subject to arrest? In the US we call that dissent, and the government may be trying to extinguish it but they haven't yet succeeded. Lets not give them any ammo in their efforts. --- David ___ 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/
