Re: [Biofuel] hydrogen fuel balls from a gas pump?
I guess we will all just have a BALL, LOL. OK, I guess it's not really funny after all. GOOD Question I just wrote a published paper late last year on the hazards of NanoTech particles on just this sort of item. Mike McGinness Joe Street wrote: Uh huh and what happens when you breathe them? Joe Kirk McLoren wrote: [0]navalynt writes New Scientist reports that the Department of Energy has filed a patent for [1]hydrogen fuel balls. From the article 'The proposed glass microspheres would each be a few millionths of a metre (microns) wide with a hollow center containing specks of palladium. The walls of each sphere would also have pores just a few ten-billionths of a metre in diameter.' They are supposedly safe and small enough to be pumped into a fuel tank in the same manner as gasoline. ___ 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] American diesels
What year was it made? Mike McGinness Marty Phee wrote: My Jeep liberty has a 2.7L diesel. Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote: Mainly because there are very few small diesel power cars. The standard is the 4000lb+ trucks with V8 Cummins Turbo diesels. Im not sure there is a 4 cylinder US made diesel in the 2L range. Mark *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jan Warnqvist *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:46 PM *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Subject:* [Biofuel] American diesels Hello everybody in the Americas! I have one question for you concerning BD and the cars consuming it. It seems as if you all are prefering European cars for fueling BD instead of American diesels. Is that true, and in this case why? Arn´t GM:s diesels good for BD ? Jan Warnqvist ___ 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] HELP
Alex, Try Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook, by Perry Green, in the reference section of the library. Mike McGinness Alex Mashego wrote: hi guys i need help, i have a task to design a heat exchanger to cool 78% sulphuric acid, but i cant seem to find the chemical and physical properties any where, can any if you help me in this regard. thank you regards Alex ___ For super low premiums, click here http://www.webmail.co.za/dd.pwm http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service ___ 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] EPA to citizens: Frack you
Marylynn, I seem to recall that there is some kind of special immunity for members of the US Congress and the US Senate as well as the President and V.P. It was set up back when the USA was formed to protect the law makers while they were in office from harasment by their opponents. The protection ends once they are out of office. As I recall they must be impeached or thrown out of office first by the US Congress before they can tried for crimes like a felony, or maybe it is jailed? I also seem to recall that it requires a US Marshal to arrest them? Don't recall all the details, but it is not a simple matter. On second thought, I am now wondering about Tom Delay's recent problems. Unless I am mistaken he was charged with a felony while still in office. Any way, I do recall from my Civics classes and US History that there is some kind of special protection and rules for them while they are in office, so, OK, I went and looked it up: The US Constitution says: They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to or returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. Now the question is what does that mean today! It does not spell out what happens in the case of Felony's, Treason, etc. I suspect there is some case law somewhere that gets into the details. Any Legal Eagles out there? Mike McGinness Marylynn Schmidt wrote: The AMA, the AVMA are both trade associations .. and if you look you will find that all these trade associations are international .. all these international trade associations are international money. Laws are on the books that dis-allow any one .. even citizens .. but more so any elected official to accept any money or gifts from any foreign group. A little research should perhaps happen first .. it would be nice to know the exact wording. I should think that any elected official who receives any favor, any gift from any lobbyist from any trade association would be guilty of treason. I've never tried it but I believe citizens still have the right to arrest .. if that is so, then one small group in one state COULD ARREST .. I'd love it if it were to be Senator Frisk from Tenn .. for treason for accepting any contributions from the AMA. .. a better plan would be for enough states to arrest enough senators at the same time so the GOP wouldn't jump on some hastily devised bill that changed that law. Mary Lynn Rev. Mary Lynn Schmidt, Ordained Minister ONE SPIRIT ONE HEART TTouch . Reiki . Pet Loss Grief Counseling . Animal Behavior Modification . Shamanic Spiritual Travel . Behavior Problems . Psionic Energy Practitioner . Radionics . Herbs . Dowsing . Nutrition . Homeopathy . Polarity . The Animal Connection Healing Modalities http://members.tripod.com/~MLSchmidt/ http://allcreatureconnections.org From: D. Mindock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] EPA to citizens: Frack you Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 22:00:15 -0500 This is what happens when a governmental agency becomes corrupt. The people are put in harm's way and told to live with it. Let's see; which gov. agency is still clean? I can't think of a single one. Maybe the Government Accounting Office (GAO)? We need to figure out a way, soon, to keep the corporate dollars/favors away from our spineless, can't say no, politicians. Peace, D. Mindock = From: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/05/fracking/index.html EPA to citizens: Frack you In the Rockies, a gas-extraction process called fracking may be releasing a carcinogenic stew of chemicals. Dozens of people say it has made them seriously ill, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuses to investigate -- a failure one of its own engineers calls irrational and corrupt. By Rebecca Clarren Photos by AP/David Zalubowski A natural-gas derrick towers over a home in the Dry Hollow area outside Silt, Colo. May 5, 2006 | SILT, Colo. -- The 20 miles of interstate highway between rural Silt and Parachute, Colo., slice a crusty landscape where sagebrush clings to ochre mesas. Nearby, the snakelike silver Colorado River carves a valley floor where poplar trees, naked in the winter cold, cast spindly blue shadows across the snow. There are few exits through this section of Garfield County, where the local population of deer and elk rival the number of ranchers, retirees and others who live here. Susan Haire, a former elementary teacher who ranches on a small scale, has lived atop one of the surrounding mesas for nearly a decade. But she says the landscape has been turned against her. When she drives down this stretch of highway, her nose bleeds, her eyes burn, and her head
Re: [Biofuel] New Biodiesel Catalyst
John, It says the particles are made of sand and calcium. The actual catalysts are attached to the surface of the particle and the active catalyst compound is not described (except to call them mixed oxides). I say catalysts because they mention having both acid and base catalysts on the same particles. by creating a mixed oxide catalyst that has both acidic and basic catalytic sites. Acidic catalysts on the particle can convert the free fatty acids to biodiesel while basic catalysts can convert the oils into fuel. Mike McGinness John Beale wrote: Searching the Des Moines Register website, I found this article: http://snipurl.com/q4m4 Searching the Iowa State University website, I found this article: http://snipurl.com/q4mj It says on the second article that the catalyst is made of calcium and sand, not sugar and sulfuric acid. -John On May 6, 2006, at 11:35 PM, JJJN wrote: My mother in law sent me an article by Anne Fitzgerald writing for the (Des Moines?) Register. The article states that Victor Lin and two fellow University of Iowa Chemists have created a new catalyst that is reusable (20 times) and can be filtered. The catalyst will be quite a bit more expensive than what we are using now but will pay out over time because of the reuse. West Central cooperative is going to test the catalyst on a commercial scale. Anne Fitzgerald can be reached at 515 284 8122 or at [EMAIL PROTECTED] This sounds very much like the glucose/carbon/sulfur carbon compound. BUT I do not know if it is or something new. Well lets hope this becomes available to us all very soon. My best Jim. ___ 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] was WVO-Water Separation: coalescer media, now electric resistance heat efficiency
Joe, Not sure, I would need to think hard on it and do some modeling but I suspect there are several problems, one of which may be temperature difference limits, i.e. the driving forces needed to move the heat through your proposed system to reach those efficiencies. What is the upper temperature limit of the hot side of a typical residential electric heat pump? Then what is the upper temperature operating limit of the hot side to ensure adequate heat flow? Then lastly what does that temperature limit do to your sterling engine model? Can you get 50% efficiency with 120 or 140 degree F heat input into a sterling engine? A typical residential heat pump probably can not sustain a hot side temperature over about 140 degrees F and still operate properly. Of course you could use other refrigerants and higher pressure systems to reach higher temperatures but then that might negatively affect the efficiencies. From what little I do know of thermodynamics and heat transfer the heat exchanger process and driving forces needed to push them is a big choke point in systems like you proposed. Also the need to waste heat to another place to complete the cycle is a killer. Perhaps the reason the heat pump model they used can reach a CP of 3 is that they have two nearly infinite volumes, one on the cold side (the great outdoors) and the hot side (the indoors that is connected to the great outdoors) of the process? The idea of a heat pump I was focusing on was that you can move a useful quantity of heat from a 20 degree F cold outdoor area into a 70 degree F warm area 3 times more efficiently when using electricity than you can create directly with resistance electrical heating. That is something most people don't know, and many people have a hard time believing. I was later thinking that I could cool my house in Houston (something I refuse to live with out in our 100 degree F, 100 % humidity weather here) while heating a biodiesel process using a heat pump (or an A/C unit) to maybe 120 or 140 degrees F, or even heating a water heater for shower and washing water! By the way have you all heard this version of the three laws of Thermodynamics!!! Rule 1: You can't win! Rule 2: You can't break even! Rule 3: You can't get of the game! LOL Heard it from a Rice University physics professor (my brother). Best, Mike McGinness 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? Joe Mike McGinness wrote: Joe, Your claim that Electric resistance heating converts nearly 100% of the energy in the electricity to heat is right but: I found the following at a US DOE site: Electric Resistance Heating: Electric resistance heating converts nearly 100% of the energy in the electricity to heat. However, most electricity is produced from oil, gas, or coal generators that convert only about 30% of the fuel's energy into electricity. Because of electricity generation and transmission losses, electric heat is often more expensive than heat produced in the home or business using combustion appliances, such as natural gas, propane, and oil furnaces. If electricity is the only choice, heat pumps are preferable in most climates, as they easily cut electricity use by 50% when compared with electric resistance heating. The exception is in dry climates with either hot or mixed (hot and cold) temperatures (these climates are found in the non-coastal part of California; the southern tip of Nevada; the southwest corner of Utah; southern and western Arizona; southern and eastern New Mexico; the southeast corner of Colorado; and western Texas). For these dry climates, there are so few heating days that the high cost of heating is not economically significant. This is at: http://www. ere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12520 The above sounds like a contradiction, but it is explained here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatpump.html#c2 Specifically it says: they (electric heat pumps) can use one unit of electric energy to transfer more than one unit of energy from a cold area to a hot area. For example, an electric resistance heater
Re: [Biofuel] Water in recovered methanol?
In additon, a fractionating column requires a reflux, the partial return and recycling of distillate product from the condenser back down the fractionating column which increases the energy tax (energy costs) of purifying the methanol. Mike McGinness bob allen wrote: without getting into excessive detail, the boiling point of a mixture is the weighted average of the stuff present. At first you have pure methanol coming off. as the temperature rose, increasing amounts of water contaminated the alcohol. You need a fractionating column to obtain pure methanol. Joe Street wrote: 3A sieves will work but are normally used for getting tiny amounts of water out of solvents to bring them into the low ppm range. They will work of course but you might saturate them and have to do a second stage. There is a significant energy input into regenerating the seives as well. You have to bake them at well over 100 degrees C more like 200, but you can get by with lower temps if you bake them out with vacuum. Try putting a thermometer in your condenser and monitor vapour temperature to get a better endpoint and you will have an easier time. You have answered some of my own questions. I have recovered some methanol but not tried to use it yet. Sounds like if straight distillation is carefully done the methanol is dry enough to use without further drying. Great news and thanks for the post! :) I have some excellent references on solvent drying I can mail you if you want. No soft copy sorry but I might be able to scan them. Joe Thomas Kelly wrote: Good day to all, After splitting the glycerine coproduct from roughly 1200L of processed WVO, I distilled approximately 100L of the glycerine/methanol component. The first drops of methanol began to fall from the condenser at 145F. As the temp rose to 150F there was a steady flow of clear liquid from the condenser. Throughout the day I turned the heat off when the flow was steady and back on when it slowed. I filled a 4.5 gal (17.7L) cubie with clear liquid and started a second one. At this point the temp was over 160F. I let the still run up to 200F. At this point the second cubie had 4 gallons of clear liquid (and it was now 1AM) giving a total of 8.5 gal. I was thrilled with the result (and tired). I used the first 4.5 gal (17.7L) to run one batch, and while that was settling ran a second batch using the second 4 gal of recovered methanol. The first batch washed OK, but was a little slow to separate. It failed the methanol quality test. The second batch did not even pass the wash test. I have been making consistenly high quality BD for several months ... thank you JtF and list members. I don't think I made mistakes in measurement or titration. My question: As my distillation temps rose towards 200F (93C) could I have been including water in my distillate? (The methanol recovered at lower temps performed better than the methanol recovered at higher temps.) If so, can I use Zeolite molecular sieves in the future to remove it? Thanks, Tom ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ 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
Re: [Biofuel] Water in recovered methanol?
Thomas, Part of the answer to your question is that the gas temperature (and the gas pressure) can go up beyond the boiling liquid temperature if you are heating a surface that is in contact with both the gas and the liquid and if the heated surface is hotter than the liquid. It has to do with heat flow rates, gas and liquid density and heat capacities. Therefore the gas can get hotter that the boiling liquid and the internal gas pressure can rise as well given enough heat input and the right physical configuration. Also the boiling point of a mixture, water and methanol, changes since you boil off more methanol and less water initially. There is a gradual increase in boiling temperature as the water content (% water) increases in the boiling mix, and there is a gradual increase in the water content in the condensate as the boiling temperature increases. Best, Mike McGinness Thomas Kelly wrote: Joe,Thanks for the time you put into your response.Re: Zeolites. I should probably buy some and experiment. I have a note to but 3A molecular sieve. I'll check to make sure that's the right one.As I understand it, with pressure constant, a liquid at boiling point does not increase in temp. as energy is added.The energy (latent heat of vaporization) goes into producing the phase change. My impression was that the temp increase stalled at 150F even though I had the heater on.It rose very slowly to 160F, but at this point I turned the heater off and let the methanol flow. I gave it a bit of heat every now and then, but the temp stayed between 155 - 170F. This went on for hours and by then I had collected more than 4.5 gal (17.7L) of methanol. It got late, I got tired and decided to just crank it up ... leave the heater on. Above 160F the temp seemed to rise more quickly. Maybe much of the methanol had been removed --- less energy being used to evap methanol, more to heating remaining mix I'm not through with this yet. In fact I have plenty more glycerine/methanol to try.You wrote:Let me see about digging out the paper. You may be able to find it. I cant remember the guy's name but I think he was Malaysian and he used tritiated water as a radioactive tracer in various solvents to measure the efficacy of the sieves in drying. Effective if not alarming Is this the idea?Knowing the conc. of radioactive water in the ethanol/water mix, the amount of radioactive water remaining in the ethanol after treating w. the zeolite would allow calc. of the amount of water removed. Thanks again, Tom - Original Message - From: Joe Street To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Water in recovered methanol? Hi Tom; Sieves are porous ceramic which microscopically look like a sponge. The pore size depends on manufacture and will allow molecules smaller than the pore size to go into the labrynth of passageways withing the bulk of the material. Larger molecules are excluded. Refer to manufacturers data for details but IIRC the numeric part number refers to the pore size in angstrom units. http://catalog.adcoa.ne /item/activated-alumina/type-3a/ms3a001?plpver=10origin=keywordby=prodassetid=specfilter=0 I do remember making a mental note that 3A was the one I wanted and don't get the powder, get the beads which work better for this application. The reasons are complicated and I won't get into them here but it is explained or actually hypothesised why in the paper. When it comes to regenerating, the porous maze works against us. Molecules of water which wander into the maze have nothing but thermal kinetic energy to determine thier fate and they get lost in the maze. Some find thier way out but until the material is saturated more go in due to diffusion laws and statistical rules until an equilibrium is reached where as many go in as out. Raising temperature gives the molecules more energy to bounce around and find an exit and a hot dry low pressure environment reverses the balance point to where molecules try to get out but it takes time, and energy helps. I have a hunch that a microwave oven may do wonders but I havent tried it and as the sieves approach dry the magnetron will have almost nothing as a load which may overheat and destroy it so try it with a junker oven if you can. Eventually a new equilibrium is reached where the zeolite has little water content and you can reuse it. BTW you would be stunned to learn just how much surface area these nanoporous media have. For example a chunk of charcoal made from the husk of a coconut which is just one cubic centimeter in volume has a surface area about the same as a football field
Re: [Biofuel] was WVO-Water Separation: coalescer media, now electric resistance heat efficiency
Joe, Your claim that Electric resistance heating converts nearly 100% of the energy in the electricity to heat is right but: I found the following at a US DOE site: "Electric Resistance Heating: Electric resistance heating converts nearly 100% of the energy in the electricity to heat. However, most electricity is produced from oil, gas, or coal generators that convert only about 30% of the fuel's energy into electricity. Because of electricity generation and transmission losses, electric heat is often more expensive than heat produced in the home or business using combustion appliances, such as natural gas, propane, and oil furnaces. If electricity is the only choice, heat pumps are preferable in most climates, as they easily cut electricity use by 50% when compared with electric resistance heating. The exception is in dry climates with either hot or mixed (hot and cold) temperatures (these climates are found in the non-coastal part of California; the southern tip of Nevada; the southwest corner of Utah; southern and western Arizona; southern and eastern New Mexico; the southeast corner of Colorado; and western Texas). For these dry climates, there are so few heating days that the high cost of heating is not economically significant." This is at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12520 The above sounds like a contradiction, but it is explained here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatpump.html#c2 Specifically it says: "they (electric heat pumps) can use one unit of electric energy to transfer more than one unit of energy from a cold area to a hot area. For example, an electric resistance heater using one kilowatt-hour of electric energy can transfer only 1 kWh of energy to heat your house at 100% efficiency. But 1 kWh of energy used in an electric heat pump can "pump" 3 kWh of energy from the cooler outside environment into your house for heating. The ratio of the energy transferred to the electric energy used in the process is called its coefficient of performance (CP). A typical CP for a commercial heat pump is between 3 and 4 units transferred per unit of electric energy supplied" Therefore an electric heat pump can be several times more efficient at heating than an electric resistance heater. This is something I learned in my sophomore chemical engineering thermodynamics class at U of H that really STUCK with me! Best, Mike McGinness Joe Street wrote: Yes but the electrical energy is converted to heat with practically 100% eff regardless of it's source of generation which is what I meant. You are right of course, electrical generation is not without it's environmental impact, even hydro. But what of your emissions from burning?? J Hakan Falk wrote: Joe, Electricity more efficient for heating? A lot of the electricity production is using oil, with around 35% efficiency to make the electricity. Heating with oil have 70 to 85% efficiency in burners. I would not give anything for this manual, the author lacks knowledge and understanding. A pity that it is a women who wrote it, because now I am going to be accused of being a male chauvinist. It does however not effect the fact that it is much more efficient to heat with oil, than with electricity. Hakan At 15:16 27/04/2006, you wrote: Getting it really cold means removing heat. Whether you remove heat or add heat it takes time and energy. Adding heat would be a more efficient process unless you live in the arctic and can let good old mother nature do the work for you. BTW someone recently passed me a manual written by a woman who shall remain nameless that is for sale about making biodiesel. It says that heating oil for dewatering is a very inefficient process. An electrical resistance heater is as close to 100 percent efficient as anything I can imagine. Just be careful about heat density. Too much power confined to too small an area will degrade the oil at the heater surface. Better to use several low density heaters to speed things up. Joe Jason Katie wrote: what about applejack style dewatering? get it REALLY cold so the oil solidifies, or the water freezes, whichever comes first and screen it out? thats how the old folks used to make apple whiskey for hard cider when my grandma was a kid. - Original Message - From: "Ryan Pope" mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>biofuel@sustainablelists.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:19 PM Subject: [Biofuel] WVO-Water Separation: coalescer media I'm trying to think of alternate ways to reduce/eliminate water in WVO that are both easy (i.e. passive) and don't involve the energy use of heating a bulk volume of oil to near water BP. Coalescing media comes to mind, has anybody every looked into this further or heard of its use in biodiesel production? All I see on JtF is variations on heating and settling. I
Re: [Biofuel] Teeny reactor pumps out Biodiesel
Kirk, I wonder if they have considered putting these right in the vehicles and feeding the VO to the onboard mini-reactor to produce biodiesel as needed to fuel the vehicles. Mike McGinness Kirk McLoren wrote: Wired News: Teeny Reactor Pumps Out Biodiesel http://wired.com/news/wireservice/1,70702-0.html1 of 2 4/20/2006 8:00 AMTeeny Reactor Pumps Out BiodieselAssociated Press 16:57 PM Apr, 19, 2006PORTLAND, Oregon -- A tiny chemical reactor that can convert vegetableoil directly into biodiesel could help farmers turn some of their crops intohomegrown fuel to operate agricultural equipment instead of relying oncostly imported oil.This is all about producing energy in such a way that it liberates people,said Goran Jovanovic, a chemical engineering professor at Oregon StateUniversity who developed the microreactor.The device -- about the size of a credit card -- pumps vegetable oil andalcohol through tiny parallel channels, each smaller than a human hair, toconvert the oil into biodiesel almost instantly.By comparison, it takes more than a day to produce biodiesel with currenttechnology.Conventional production involves dissolving a catalyst, such as sodiumhydroxide, in alcohol, then stirring it into vegetable oil in large vats for abouttwo hours. The mixture then has to sit for 12 to 24 hours while a slowchemical reaction forms biodiesel along with glycerin, a byproduct.The glycerin is separated and can be used to make other products, such assoaps, but it still contains the chemical catalyst, which must be neutralizedand removed using hydrochloric acid, a long and costly process.The microreactor under development by the university and the OregonNanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute eliminates the mixing, thestanding time and maybe even the need for a catalyst.If we're successful with this, nobody will ever make biodiesel any otherway, Jovanovic said.The device is small, but it can be stacked in banks to increase productionlevels to the volume required for commercial use, he said.Wired News: Teeny Reactor Pumps Out Biodiesel http://wired.com/news/wireservice/1,70702-0.html2 of 2 4/20/2006 8:00 AMBiodiesel production on the farm also could reduce distribution costs byeliminating the need for tanker truck fuel delivery, part of the growing effortto meet fuel demand locally -- instead of relying on distant refineries andtanker transport.Distributed energy production means you can use local resources -- farmerscan produce all the energy they need from what they grow on their ownfarms, Jovanovic said. --- Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. ___ 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] Chemical Grades
Chris, Impurities can interfere with the reaction. The interference can be positive or negative. You asked about impurities in lab grade chemicals versus Reagent or ACS grade. Here in the USA we consider Reagent and ACS grade to be lab grade. We call the next lower grade commercial and / or industrial grade. Just pointing this out for clarification. A question you should ask yourself first is do you want test results using high purity reagents or do you want real world home made batch test results using the industrial / commercial purities that are readily available at a much lower cost and therefore are more likely to be used by many of us in this group, in your experiments. This is an issue / question I have had to deal with in my own R D lab as I usually want my data to translate into results that I can use in the field. It is possible that some impurities might help rather than hurt the yield and purity of the final product(s). One problem with using lower purity reagents is the difficulty of getting reproducible results. If you use the lower purity reagents you might consider also running multiple tests with several different commercial grade sources and determining the variance +/- in product yield. If you want to focus on comparing the relative completeness of the reaction of several recipes by measuring total glycerol ONLY and you want to eliminate other extraneous variables, then ACS Reagent grade chemicals would be the best choice. For instance if you get a batch to batch variation of 20% due to impurities and the true variation between recipes is only 15%, your data, the data you want, will be some what hidden within the 20% variations. Best, Mike McGinness Chris Tan wrote: To Prof. Bob Allen, I plan to compare the relative completeness of the reaction of several recipes by measuring total glycerol. Is it okay to use laboratory grade chemicals for the analysis instead of reagent or ACS grade? Will the impurities in lab grade chemicals significantly interfere with the results? Reagent and ACS grade chemicals cost so much. Thanks, Chris ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ 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] pump position problem
Jason Katie, It probably will not stay flooded once the pump starts up. A priming chamber depends on having the chamber filled with fluid where a large part of the chamber is lower than the inlet pipe connection. That way the chamber can not drain back all of its contents back into the suction pipe. The chamber is then high enough with respect to the pump impeller and impeller housing to keep the pump head / impeller area flooded during pump and while the pump is off. Mike McGinness Jason Katie wrote: couldnt you put a check valve in line before the pump, and use the pump chamber itself as a priming tank? - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:50 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] pump position problem I use a fairly crappy drill pump and prime it with a spot of SVO in several spots in my process Appal Energy wrote: Is there anotherh alternative? Can anytone help? Depends on how your pump is plumbed in. If you can, put a standpipe with a valve in front of the intake on the pump. You can charge (fill) the standpipe with whatever liquid is appropriate for whatever you're trying to pump and use that charge as a pump primer. Todd Swearingen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. I have a problem with my new processor. I asked the person who was selling it if it was self priming and he responded yes, it could even suck water from 6meters. Ofcourse I didnt believe him, but I hotught that it probabbly could manage 40 cm. Well it cant. And #305; have already mounted above the fluid level. I have to use a vaccum pump to pull the wvo in to the pump :( Is there anotherh alternative? Can anytone help? THank you in advance Teoman Rudtard Kipling is rolling is his grave but William Easterly probably approves of pretty much everything you've said. Michael Redler wrote: I just wanted to chime in here. Keith wrote: It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. It's also too common to see a reactionary restriction of expression, screening all posts before distribution (for example). This forum proves that a loose framework is very effective at maintaining individual freedoms while allowing it's membership to participate in maintaining continuity. Kim: I read some of your posts and couldn't help notice the similarities between your views and the ideology driving the White Man's Burden. Maybe it's time to rethink the ideals to which we, in the US, have been indoctrinated. Maybe it's a good time to question the perceived credibility and legacy left behind by people like McCarthy and accept the fact that it's not acceptable to steer the culture, economy and government of another country simply because you feel you're better. You wrote: Our right to determine the direction of our life today is unparalleled in human history. So, Babylon, Ancient Greece, etc. don't count. The Magna Carta was just a piece of paper (if I can borrow an expression from our president). There have been and are, better examples of democracy in human history than the republic we Americans pretend to push on others in the process of building an empire. Do some research on our Constitution and it's origins. It will lead you in a few directions - one of which is toward the Iroquois nation. Ask an Iroquois about their right to determine their life - if you can find one. You talk about the reassignment of land for the greater good but conveniently under emphasize the eradication of those people in the process of fulfilling that illusion. Mike */Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Hello Kim Greetings, I do believe that many people on this list don't read real well. I think you're relying on it. No doubt a new subject-title and dumping all the evidence helps. The ones who disagree with you read quite well though. The un-keyhole view is of Kim trying to backpedal her way up a pedestal, in defiance of the laws of gravity and pedals. I did say I was in favor of colonizing the stars, not the colonizing that happened in past history and is happening today by the corporate world. Um, sorry, not so. In fact you were also criticised for the colonising the stars bit, and you ignored that too. But for a lot of forbearance you could have got the boot just for that, and much besides. You should read the list rules again. They're there for a reason. It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. They had to be put into a form that people could be referred to and told to read and comply with when they joined. If not no list any more
Re: [Biofuel] pump position problem
Teoman, If the pump is really a self priming centrifugal pump then it will have a pump chamber or pump head around the impeller that must be filled with the solution you are pumping before it will lift the fluid up hill. In other words self priming pumps must have the pump chamber filled first, or as we call it primed? I know that sounds ridiculous, priming a self priming pump. Anyway once the pump housing is primed (if that is what you have) it will lift the fluid up and fill the suction piping with fluid thus priming the suction pipe. Also, have you asked the vendor? If it is not a self priming pump you can add a small flooded priming tank directly in front of the pump. They make separate priming chamber / inlet filters for straight centrifugal (non-selfpriming) pool pumps. Good luck, Mike McGinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. I have a problem with my new processor. I asked the person who was selling it if it was self priming and he responded yes, it could even suck water from 6meters. Ofcourse I didnt believe him, but I hotught that it probabbly could manage 40 cm. Well it cant. And #305; have already mounted above the fluid level. I have to use a vaccum pump to pull the wvo in to the pump :( Is there anotherh alternative? Can anytone help? THank you in advance Teoman Rudtard Kipling is rolling is his grave but William Easterly probably approves of pretty much everything you've said. Michael Redler wrote: I just wanted to chime in here. Keith wrote: It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. It's also too common to see a reactionary restriction of expression, screening all posts before distribution (for example). This forum proves that a loose framework is very effective at maintaining individual freedoms while allowing it's membership to participate in maintaining continuity. Kim: I read some of your posts and couldn't help notice the similarities between your views and the ideology driving the White Man's Burden. Maybe it's time to rethink the ideals to which we, in the US, have been indoctrinated. Maybe it's a good time to question the perceived credibility and legacy left behind by people like McCarthy and accept the fact that it's not acceptable to steer the culture, economy and government of another country simply because you feel you're better. You wrote: Our right to determine the direction of our life today is unparalleled in human history. So, Babylon, Ancient Greece, etc. don't count. The Magna Carta was just a piece of paper (if I can borrow an expression from our president). There have been and are, better examples of democracy in human history than the republic we Americans pretend to push on others in the process of building an empire. Do some research on our Constitution and it's origins. It will lead you in a few directions - one of which is toward the Iroquois nation. Ask an Iroquois about their right to determine their life - if you can find one. You talk about the reassignment of land for the greater good but conveniently under emphasize the eradication of those people in the process of fulfilling that illusion. Mike */Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Hello Kim Greetings, I do believe that many people on this list don't read real well. I think you're relying on it. No doubt a new subject-title and dumping all the evidence helps. The ones who disagree with you read quite well though. The un-keyhole view is of Kim trying to backpedal her way up a pedestal, in defiance of the laws of gravity and pedals. I did say I was in favor of colonizing the stars, not the colonizing that happened in past history and is happening today by the corporate world. Um, sorry, not so. In fact you were also criticised for the colonising the stars bit, and you ignored that too. But for a lot of forbearance you could have got the boot just for that, and much besides. You should read the list rules again. They're there for a reason. It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. They had to be put into a form that people could be referred to and told to read and comply with when they joined. If not no list any more long ago already. A major reason for it was to put a stop to this kind of vanishing act that denialists of all stripes like to pull with what they said yesterday. You're not a denialist? But you walk the walk. The rules are all about integrity. Please go and read them. http://snipurl.com/mx7r I do find good in many bad situations. Do I wish that certain changes had come about
Re: [Biofuel] Help needed.
Chris, Good question and good thinking! Make sure it is cool, and not standing out in the sun building up pressure. If the drum is left outdoors in direct sunlight it can heat up and the internal pressure can get dangerously high. If the top is bowed outwards it may be under pressure, if the lid is concave or if you can flex the lid by putting your body weight on it (try pushing down on it with your hands) then it is probably OK, or at least not under a lot of pressure. If it is under pressure (just be safe and assume it is!) you need to loosen the bung (one of the threaded plugs on top) very slowly until you hear some gas venting. While you are loosening it stay out of the way just in case the plug blows out (usually straight up) from the internal pressure. The pressure will relieve itself through the loose threads. It may take a while (several minutes) to relieve all the pressure, just take it slow and easy. Be safe, Mike McGinness Chris Tan wrote: Greetings Everyone, Do any of you know just how to safely open a sealed 55gal steel drum full of methanol? It's my first time. Thanks, Chris ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ 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] Xenophobic email for 'Merikans - tax question
Mike, I think I found the answer, or at least where to start trying to decode the answer. Here are some links: http://www.biodiesel.org/news/taxincentive/Biodiesel%20Notice%202005-62.pdf http://www.biodiesel.org/news/taxincentive/IRS_Fuel_Tax_Guidance_Document_121604.pdf http://www.biodiesel.org/news/taxincentive/ From what this seems to say there may be a complex calculation of credits and taxes that becomes a wash or they may even owe you money. Best, Mike McGinness Mike Weaver wrote: Thank you - I was wondering about federal taxes bob allen wrote: Howdy Mike, I once contacted the tax folks in Arkansas about this issue and they basically said go away. They have no mechanism for collecting road taxes in Arkansas for non-traditional fuels. And until there is evidence for enough tax collection to justify the salary and benefits for a clerk to take care of the tax collection, it won't happen. It may even require legislation to define how to tax it. Federal taxes I don't know about, but as someone else mentioned in a post just today or so, there may be some sort of exemption for small produces. Similar to tax exemptions for small scale beer and wine production? Mike Weaver wrote: I have been keeping track of the BD I am burning in my car - it's not much - does anyone know how to pay the sales tax due? -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/ ___ 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] galvanized tanks
Andrew, I do know that the zinc (Galvanizing) will rapidly dissolve in mild caustic or acid. It may be safe enough for clarifier use if the entire solution is between a pH of about 6 to 9, but I would use extreme caution as any unreacted acid or base will dissolve the zinc and contaminate the batch. Perhaps someone else can advise you on the pH's of the phases at the clarification stage, or if they have tried this before. Best, Mike McGinness Andrew Leven wrote: Hi ,I just finished bubblewashing a 30L batch of bio but it is still cloudy.I have a galvanized tank from an old jet pump setup that is ported ideally for plumbing and adding a heating element. I want to use it for a clarifying tank but am unsure whether the galvy will react with my bio. Anybody have any info on this?Andrew Leven ___ 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] BYU professor's group accusesU.S.officialsoflyingabout 9/11
Speaking of peaceful protests we have just had nearly 2 weeks of massive peaceful protests here in the USA by people protesting the proposed new immigration laws in the US Congress that would have instantly made felons out of over 10 million (based on current estimates) illegal US immigrants currently residing in the USA. These PEACFUL protests have already had a huge impact on Congress. Some of the protesters were High School Student Valedictorians (they have the highest grades in their class) who are not yet here legally, but who are setting one hell of a good example for others. The US Senate shelved the proposed law for now, as a result of the public outcry and protests! They recognized the huge mistake they were about to make thanks to the protests. Peaceful protests do happen and they do succeed! Mike McGinness Keith Addison wrote: I have to agree that social change does not happen with peaceful protests. Social change does not ONLY happen with peaceful protest. And peaceful protest does most certainly happen. The people benefiting from the imbalance that causes peaceful protests won't let go so easily (especially when they pay someone to fight their battles). The fight ends up being between the only two forms of power that mean anything in our society - money and people. When individuals believe they should have more than most, they accumulate wealth and with it, power. Those who are effected by that power and are not wealthy, organize and gather consensus among their fellow citizens. (IMO) the violence starts when the two powers have had time (years) to build. Peaceful protests are a tell-tale, signaling the possibility of violence. They signal the failure of the system to deliver on its promises, so alternative means must be found of bringing public opinion to bear on public events, and peaceful protest is one of them. The conflict won't end until antagonists (ruling class) have become exhausted from the fight and it's clear that there isn't much (money) left to gain by continuing. That's how it's been in the past, but despite all the apparently lost battles what history shows nonetheless is a steady pushing forward of the frontiers of human rights. That all the battles of the past have been lost (they weren't) wouldn't necessarily mean that the next one will be the same, especially not when there are some really new factors in the mix, which there are. The whole long 10,000-year war could be won or lost now, not just a battle. The reason for such an imbalance can't be placed squarely on the shoulders of the narcissists who gather wealth for the purpose of projecting power. If citizens played a bigger role in the everyday business of government, the imbalance would be seen earlier and kept from becoming the threat that it is today. Why do they consent to leaving it all to the government and the authorities in the first place? That's just what Edward Bernays said he invented public relations to achieve after all. Best Keith ...my $.02 Mike Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, let's take this in chunks. Not okay: Why not answer the rest of the question Gary? It went like this: snippetysnippetysnip... Snipping's supposed to remove previous irrelevant matter to save space. But you're a compulsive snipper, and not to save space. Then the chunks you're left with aren't quite the same thing, eh? You can just take a little nibble or two in order to spit it out again and leave all the rest snipped by the wayside. It just evades the issue, and among other things somehow leads you to conclude that you're knocking one of my heroes, for heavens sakes. Do you think King Asoka's my hero too? We're not talking about hero-worship. Why don't you try giving a proper response? I'm not going to stitch it all back again, do it yourself. Who said anything about saints? Only you. Who's trying to avoid politics other than you? And who are you trying to tell about media coverage? If you'd been paying a little more attention you might have learnt a little about just what media coverage means and doesn't mean and the role it plays and doesn't play in issues such as these. Not necessarily what you just naturally assume. You have to skip over (snip snip) large chunks (not just niblets) of recent and current history for your view of it to make any sense. It's just prejudice anyway (pre-judgment). Force reality into it if you wish, but you're not persuading anyone but yourself that it fits. Peaceful protest doesn't work, what a load of old bullshit, same with peace with justice doesn't exist. You're talking nonsense. Gandhi I've only got a passing familiarity with, even though he seems to be referred to as the father of non-violent protest. Maybe he was perfect and maybe his followers were never incited to riot or to violence. If so, then in this case I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. I'd like
Re: [Biofuel] Xenophobic email for 'Merikans - tax question
Mike, I would ask the state comptroller first for the state you live in. Here are 2 links for the state of Texas (where I live and know how to easily find the answer): http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/fuels/biodiesel.pdf http://www.window.state.tx.us/ It seems from the first link above that the state of Texas has exempted biodiesel, B-100, or that portion which is biodiesel from taxation. Best, Mike McGinness Mike Weaver wrote: I have been keeping track of the BD I am burning in my car - it's not much - does anyone know how to pay the sales tax due? -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/
[Biofuel] Gas and Ethanol shortage, more price hikes this summer
Just read that all the US refiners are going to stop using MTBE as a gas additive in 4 weeks, reportedly because the US Congress will not pass a bill stopping, or mitigating MTBE ground water contamination law suits. The only replacement for MTBE is ethanol and there is not and will not be enough ethanol online for 10 more months to replace MTBE, according to the article. Result, huge gas shortages this summer in the USA with huge price hikes to be the result. Get ready for $?.00 / gallon gas. Source Waste News Magazine, April 10th, 2006, pg. 8. Mike McGinness ___ 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] sustainable biodiesel from Casto : Big is notbeautiful, small is more sustainable
Greetings Doug, You said, They are not related. This may be true sometimes (1), but I think there is some kind of relationship between the two, but it may not be easy, or simple to explain. I found an excellent online reference on lubrication, friction and viscosity here: http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em1110-2-1424/c-2.pdf I found this on page 6 of the reference: Lubricants: Reduced wear and heat are achieved by inserting a lower viscosity (shear strength) material between wearing surfaces that have a relatively high coefficient of friction. The army took ten pages to cover the topic of lubrication, so it is a somewhat complex topic. This site also had some interesting data on biodiesel as a lubricity enhancer / additive: http://www.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/Pages/bio23.html I was taught in my fluid mechanics class that viscosity is the resistance (friction) to flow of fluid under an applied sheer force. I think that too low or too high a viscosity motor oil (all other parameters being equal) increases friction in the engine (less apparent lubricity of the fluid?). There is an optimal viscosity. From what I have read, friction (or the inverse? lubricity, or lack of friction?) is a complex property of the entire system, where the two surface materials on either side of the fluid, the fluid, any particles released from the two sliding surfaces, and the viscosity of the fluid all affect the sliding friction. Said another way, there is a relationship between friction and lubricity. A higher lubricity lubricant reduces the friction in a system. Viscosity is a measure of the resistance (a kind of friction. The army document above discusses different, other kinds of friction.) to flow of fluid between two sliding surfaces (an applied sheer force). The problem is the relationship is very complex. Film thickness also gets involved which involves viscosity. Lastly viscosity, and film thickness are affected by temperature which increases with heat (friction). (1) To make matters worse (in answering this question and getting to the heart of engineering definitions), there are dry film lubricant coatings (Teflon and Moly) that I am familiar with, that increase the lubricity of the sliding surface. They are dry films, not fluids and to my knowledge they do not have a viscosity. In this case I guess you would be right, viscosity would not be related to lubricity. Finally I found this on page 8-9. It was an eye open for me, as I had not run across it before. Oiliness. Lubricants required to operate under boundary lubrication conditions must possess an added quality referred to as oiliness or lubricity to lower the coefficient of friction of the oil between the rubbing surfaces. Oiliness is an oil enhancement property provided through the use of chemical additives known as antiwear (AW) agents. AW agents have a polarizing property that enables them to behave in a manner similar to a magnet. Like a magnet, the opposite sides of the oil film have different polarities. When an AW oil adheres to the metal wear surfaces, the sides of the oil film not in contact with the metal surface have identical polarities and tend to repel each other and form a plane of slippage. Most oils intended for use in heavier machine applications contain AW agents. Best, Mike McGinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that lubricity has to do with the ability of the oil to maintain a lubricating film under pressure. Viscosity has to do with how readily the oil flows. They are not related. An early detailed study of the properties of lubricants was done by Ricardo Engineering for the British Air Ministry in the 1920's. I'm sure there has been a lot done since. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Keith Addison wrote: [snip] ...the difference between lubricity and viscosity isn't that clear, or at least not to me, especially when you add high temperatures. Anyone know better? ___ 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] [SPAM] Re: Garrison Keillor on Bush II
You got it Gary, they have adopted the Bush policy of pre-emptive strikes by walking into the Texas bars and looking for and arresting people who are over the legal blood alcohol limit for driving before they leave and get on the road. They jail them for public intoxication. PreCrime is now a fact here in the great State of Texas! Actually I heard there was enough political backlash that they are now rethinking their position on Pre-Crime here in Texas. Of course the DEA has been into PreCrime for years now, guilty until proven innocent, another Bush I and II legacy. Lucky for me my only real vice is eating healthy, raw organic vegetables. Mike McGinness Gary L. Green wrote: Speaking of beer, and I was, ... Mike, I read they are going into bars and arresting people for being drunk. Pre-crime. I never thought I'd see it in my life time. On 09Apr, 2006, at 2:40 AM, Mike McGinness wrote: However, this Texan would rather see him sent to Iraq to fight his own war. We don't need him back in Texas, and we can't leave him in Washington either. By the way I voted against the republicans and the Bushes since 1990, so don't blaim me. Mike McGinness __ ___ 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: [IP] Is the US preparing to bomb Iran?]
Reading the article discussed below is just plain scary as hell. If it's true we need to contact our congresspersons and senators and tell them how we feel so that they can put a stop to this madness now before it is too late. Since there is an election coming up in November, something tells me if they hear from enough of us now they will take decisive action. Mike McGinness Marty Phee wrote: Original Message Subject:[IP] Is the US preparing to bomb Iran? Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 15:43:42 -0400 From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ip@v2.listbox.com References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Begin forwarded message: From: Tim Finin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: April 8, 2006 3:40:18 PM EDT To: Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Is the US preparing to bomb Iran? Seymour Hersh has a 6000 work article in next week's New Yorker on possible plans for a pre-emptive bombing strike against Iran including the use of nuclear weapons. While Hersh has not always been right in his predications, he has a pretty good track record on the whole. It's a good article and also a worrisome one. No matter what you believe of the wisdom of attacking Iran, if we do there are bound to be many more difficulties ahead before things get better. -- THE IRAN PLANS Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? Seymour M. Hersh, New yorker issue of 2006-04-17, posted 2006-04-10 http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium. ... A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do, and that saving Iran is going to be his legacy. One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government. He added, I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?' ... http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact - You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New American Bumper stickers - Oh boy
Doug, Well I am not a god, but I will be happy to exclude you from Terry's us below. Terry, I apologize for the error. Perhaps that was a Freudian (chains, Chainey?) slip on my part, LOL. Thanks for correcting the spelling, your right it is Dick Cheney. Mike McGinness doug wrote: Terry Wilhelm wrote: Not sure who you and your friend have for a Vice President, but the rest of us support Dick *_CHENEY._* Terry Wilhelm I pray the gods that I'm excluded from the crowd of us that supports Dick Cheney! doug swanson -- Contentment comes not from having more, but from wanting less. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New American Bumper stickers
Marylynn, Hello, Nice web site. I have no doubt that US electronic elections will all eventually end up with a paper trail, and an independent startup certification test of the systems by independent means. The paper trail would be produced at and stay at the voting site to verify the electronic votes at that site. Trying to get voters to retain hard copies of there votes and get them all to surrender them for a recount will never happen. It would violate the voting privacy laws here and too many would never surrender the paper work thus affecting the final count. Election fraud is not new and will continue to be a problem. That is why we the voters must take part in the election process and in the policing of the elections. For instance, the election laws allow both parties and independents to place (I think they are called) poll watchers at each election site to insure that the election judges do not deny eligible registered voters the right to vote. They are also there to ensure that the vote count is accurate and not tampered with. As I said election fraud is not new. Back when Kennedy beat Nixon in 1959, Kennedy's running mate, LBJ had his friends in Texas, specifically Duval County vote all the dead people in the county cemetery, thus carrying Texas and Kennedy into office in a very close election. No Doubt the Kennedy's bought the election in Chicago (Mayor Daily as I recall) as well. They did not have electronic votes back then. I still recall that a Houston journalist went to Duval county to investigate the alleged vote fraud after the election. The Duval county coroner signed his death certificate (the journalist) showing the cause of death to be suicide. He shot himself in the back with a shot gun, twice! Voter fraud can tip the scales if the election is close, but if the election is not close and everyone gets out and votes even some election fraud will be overwhelmed by enough MAD as HELL voters who have had enough and decide to go cast their votes. Gerrymandering is also a favorite way to rig the vote by incumbents. And the latest gerrymandering here in Texas has just been overturned by a court!! Sometimes we win!! But if enough people are fed up with Bush and they vote for the other people, all the gerrymandering in the world won't help them this time. Republicans are usually elected when the voting is light, i.e. poor turn out by the rest of the voters when they get too apathetic about the election process, the issues and whether or not they think it really makes any difference who gets elected. The next 2 elections here in the USA could determine the future of life on this planet and our survival. If we do not vote then we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we all vote and the polls show a landslide for democrats and independents and electronic votes show otherwise then the public outcry will be loud and will be heard. The close election in Ohio, and the Ohio polls, 2 years ago were too close to prove election fraud to enough of the public. However, we and the press are going to keep a much closer eye on this election. Also, if there is fraud maybe someone on the inside will get fed up and spill the beans to press. So get out and vote this time! Make a difference! Be a poll watcher in your local election, it is a volunteer thing! Join a local voters rights activist group. Best, Mike McGinness Marylynn Schmidt wrote: Just my opinion .. nothing more If the ballet system doesn't include a write-in and ALSO A PAPER TRAIL I wouldn't trust it .. I'm hearing .. and believing a lot of information about electronic ballet systems that can be tampered with .. as if they haven't been there and done that.. (as in tampered). As if loads of people are going back and handing in their paper receipts of their individual elected choices .. it's hard enough to get them to come out and vote!! This particular governing system has been in office enough time to have influenced .. and/or .. sorry .. (stronger words) .. to have corrupted the whole system. .. we are .. in general .. totally ignorant of technology .. sorry but I just had my computer .. taken out and cleaned .. uggh .. can't find anything .. and I know I'm not unique in this arena. I read somewhere .. perhaps this list .. that we, as American citizens could not pass judgment against the citizens of pre-war Germany as the Nazi's were taking control. .. I do feel a camaraderie with those individuals who .. perhaps .. stood against what was happening with their country. My little spit into the darkness .. please check out our new website: http://allcreatureconnections.org Mary Lynn Mary Lynn Schmidt ONE SPIRIT ONE HEART TTouch . Animal Behavior Modification . Behavior Problems . Ordained Minister . Pet Loss Grief Counseling . Radionics . Dowsing . Nutrition . Homeopathy . Herbs. . Polarity . Reiki . Spiritual Travel The Animal Connection Healing Modalities http://members.tripod.com
Re: [Biofuel] [Fwd: [IP] Is the US preparing to bomb Iran?]
Hakan,
Agreed. The sh-t would hit the fan. Hopefully enough reason and sanity will
eventually prevail like it did during the cold war (we survived it somehow). Of
course it may have been MAD (a form of insanity called Mutually Assured
Destruction, the idea that no one wins, except by not fighting or starting a
nuclear war), that actually saved us during the cold war.
What I find to be so ludicrous (silly, ridiculous) is that if IRAN really
wanted
to Nuke Israel or the USA they would not need a real nuclear weapon, and they
would have done it already with a dirty nuclear weapon since they already have
nuclear power plants with uranium.
I suspect they have not done so, even if they wanted to, because they know if
they
did the US or Israel would level Iran in retaliation, probably with nukes.
The really scary part, I fear, is that even if the US does back down, Israel
will
still not allow Iran to make nuclear bombs and therefore will not back down. So,
anyway you look at it, if Iran does not back off on the nuclear issue we will
all
be in deep sh-t.
What also concerns me is that if the US attacks Iran, North Korea will probably
freak out and go nuts since they would believe they were next. I have heard no
mention of this yet in the news.
Let's all pray that reason and sanity prevail once again.
Best wishes for world peace,
Mike McGinness
Hakan Falk wrote:
Mike,
As a foreigner and hearing Bush preparing for attacks on Iran, I
sometimes have a very short moment of wishing him doing it, because
it would be so stupid and probably finish him. Then I think about my
American friends with my positive experiences from US and wish
strongly that he would be stopped. If US attack Iran, then we would
rapidly understand what the expression the sh-t hits the fan means.
The global consequences for US would be enormously negative.
Hakan
At 06:16 09/04/2006, you wrote:
Reading the article discussed below is just plain scary as hell. If
it's true we
need to contact our congresspersons and senators and tell them how we feel so
that they can put a stop to this madness now before it is too late.
Since there
is an election coming up in November, something tells me if they hear from
enough of us now they will take decisive action.
Mike McGinness
Marty Phee wrote:
Original Message
Subject:[IP] Is the US preparing to bomb Iran?
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 15:43:42 -0400
From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tim Finin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: April 8, 2006 3:40:18 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Is the US preparing to bomb Iran?
Seymour Hersh has a 6000 work article in next week's New
Yorker on possible plans for a pre-emptive bombing strike
against Iran including the use of nuclear weapons. While
Hersh has not always been right in his predications, he has a
pretty good track record on the whole. It's a good article
and also a worrisome one. No matter what you believe of the
wisdom of attacking Iran, if we do there are bound to be many
more difficulties ahead before things get better.
--
THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
Seymour M. Hersh, New yorker issue of 2006-04-17, posted 2006-04-10
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy
in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has
increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified
planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former
American military and intelligence officials said that Air
Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and
teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran,
under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish
contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The
officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the
Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program,
planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
...
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian
leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was absolutely
convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb if it is not
stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do
what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future,
would have the courage to do, and that saving Iran is going
to be his legacy.
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive
issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military
planning was premised on a belief that a sustained bombing
campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and
lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government. He
added, I
Re: [Biofuel] Using Pex?
Luke, PEX should work OK, but the life span would depend on what it is exposed to. It is not good for long term outdoor use as UV breaks it down after several months in the sun. Also, it probably won't last too long if used for straight sodium methoxide or high strength sodium hydroxide service, but you may get a few months of continuous service before it fails. I do know that 50% sodium hydroxide breaks it down pretty quick (a couple of months). Heat and pressure will shorten the life further. It should hold up pretty well to the WVO and biodiesel. An interesting site, biodiesel reactor how to page, listed below shows PEX being used for a sight gauge on his processor tank. http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor3.html I also found this: Joseph, Using polyethylene, cross linked pex tubing is rated for petrochemical use. you will have no problems using it for svo, or biodiesel fuel and processing. It is also rated for pressure and temperature,usually around 200 degress F.and 100 p.s.i. I use it in my business all the time. Good Luck and keep going!! D.Streeter by searching PEX in the lists search engine at the bottom of this page. Here is the link to the page quoted above: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg37063.html PEX is basically a crosslinked polyethylene and polyethylene is basically a synthetic wax (chemically like wax) and is pretty resistant to many chemicals and solvents just like wax, but it is no where near as good as teflon or kynar for the straight sodium methoxide, sodium hydroxide. Also the standard 55 gallon plastic drums are made of HDPE (High Density PolyEthylene) which is what some of the PEX tubings are made out of (HDPE). Here is a site with some info on PEX, but I could not find an online chemical resistance chart for it. http://www.ppfahome.org/pex/faqpex.html Also, Nylon is probably even better than PEX. -Mike McGinness WM LUKE MATHISEN wrote: I have some PEX tubing left over from plumbing our house, any one with experience using PEX to build a processor? Will the lye react to it? I am thinking of using it to heat the processor from our tankless waterheater which we use to heat the floor, as well as for mixing. Also will a washing machine water pump work? Luke ___ 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] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials oflyingabout 9/11
This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this topic. I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was going through the emergency details and when she got to the breathing oxygen part I though of this recent discussion. It dawned on me that there is some oxygen onboard these planes for emergency breathing use in case the plane is depressurized. So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board, and how much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature of the fire once released? Does anyone know? Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum (mass of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the instantaneous force of impact as the momentum of the plane went to zero and how much heat that released on impact as the momentum was converted to pure heat energy (it must have been huge), not to mention the mechanical structural damage effects of that energy transfer from the impact made on the building. Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these buildings are generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of wind, or air before something starts to give (like the windows at least). However, they are not designed, or even modeled for impacts by XXX tons of an airliner moving at several hundred miles per hour with all the force of impact being concentrated on one small area, or corner of one to two floors of the building. I agree with Doug's comments below about a bounce effect (and any oscillation it caused) plus the changes in the properties of the metals and alloys when exposed to the heat. They must have been major factors in the collapse. Lastly, if there were charges then why didn't the fire set them off right away and collapse the buildings immediately? Mike McGinness lres1 wrote: Just a note, not from an expert. Steel cutting torches operate at a temperature that burns the steel and turns the waste into slag. A lot of small brass and alloy foundries that use small furnaces use Diesel or Kerosene as the source of heat. The amount of heat to destroy the steel and alloy in the towers was only limited by the amount of oxygen available. At the height of the towers the natural movement of wind would have been like a blow torch on all the metals given enough fuel to start with. Several tons of Kerosene + wind + alloys + other combustibles would make the placing of explosives only a marginally required secondary insurance that the towers would fall. There was enough in the planes and the buildings construction materials/furnishings and the fuel tanks to achieve more than what a giant cutting torch would achieve. Think of a Plumbers kerosene blow lamp, now multiply it by the amount of wind and fuel available plus the burning materials mentioned above.Take a look at a vehicle that has burnt. you will notice that the suspension has collapsed due to the annealing of the springs or torsion bars etc. It does not take a real great amount of heat to change the characteristics of metals and alloys.Take away the heating from combustibles from the plane and building. Just the fuel and the heat from the fuel. How much stress in expansion over a few floors in a building of such height can it take? That is a building of such height expands slowly during the day and heat, shrinks during the cool. Given the height of the building this over a 24 hr period would be a significant change in height. If a small amount of boiling water is put into a glass the expansion is not uniform the glass will break. Uniform expansion in structures is an important part in considering conductivity of heat and orientation. To have had four or five floors expand beyond their limit and incongruously from the rest of the structure would again render the structure unsafe. This without burning anything just expanding out four or five floors rapidly and then contracting them all but as fast. The "bounce" effect in the topmost floors must have been quite horrific as they would have risen several inches and then dropped the same in a very short time frame. This "bounce" alone would nearly be enough to collapse a structure of such size in upon itself with no burning of combustibles from the construction or furnishings or even the alloys in the plane. Compare it to using the topmost floors as an enormous hammer that hammered the lower floors due the effect of the "bounce". Sorry this got longer than I thought.Doug- Original Message - From: MARIA BURGER To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lyingabout 9/11 I'm certainly no "expert" either, but I would presume that charges placed in the middle of the building would initiate structural collapse from the middle. Nothing says you have to put them at the bottom! Cheers!Chris - Original Message - From: bob allen To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent:
Re: [Biofuel] Garrison Keillor on Bush II
A quote from the end says: Let's bring the boys home. Otherwise, let's send this man back to Texas and see what sort of work he is capable of and let him start making a contribution to the world. However, this Texan would rather see him sent to Iraq to fight his own war. We don't need him back in Texas, and we can't leave him in Washington either. By the way I voted against the republicans and the Bushes since 1990, so don't blaim me. Mike McGinness "D. Mindock" wrote: Garrison Keillor, Tribune Media Services Published March 15, 2006 Spring arrived in New York last week for previews, a sunny day with chill in the air, but you could smell mud, and with a little imagination you could sort of smell grass. I put on a gray jacket, instead of black, and went to the opera and saw Verdi's "Luisa Miller," 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] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lyingabout 9/11
"D. Mindock" wrote: Mike,You are overlooking that Building 7, not hit by any plane, collapsed in the same controlled manner as the towers. OK, I will have to read up on building 7. Also the momentum energy of the planes would've been spread over a couple hundred feet. The stoppage wasnot instantaneous. I would somewhat disagree on this point as the nose of the plane would have hit first and focused the most intense "Impulse" force in the first second of impact. I agree that not all the energy was released in the first second, perhaps spread out over 4 to 5 seconds and spread out further as the wings hit, but still I would expect at least 50% of the energy to have converted to heat in a focused area between the nose of the plane and the part of the building that the nose hit in the first 1 to 2 seconds. That would be quite significant. And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft. OK, I will take your word for it. But have those designs ever been real world tested? Any onboard oxygen, if released, would have been used up in a second. Large steel columns have considerable thermal capacity and conduct heat effectively, spreading it out. No building with a steel frame has ever collapsed, before or since 9/11, from fires, some of which were more intense and lasted much longer than the ones in the towers, which were relatively short lived and not hot enough to melt steel. OK, but intense heat in that one second would not have had time to flow and dissipate through the steel. Also, steel does not have a large heat capacity like water, it does however have a high thermal conductivity rate, but a rapid instantaneous localized burst of intense heat from the aircraft impact plus the explosion would rapidly heat the local, exposed column(s) causing rapid expansion of that part of the column(s) resulting in changes in the steel's properties (strength) and causing structural damage due to the sheer forces involved. Imagine four corner columns heated unequally (one severely, two only slightly, and the fourth on the far corner not all) with one expanding rapidly in a few seconds while the others did not. Picture the instantaneous sheer forces involved. A regular building fire would be slower, less intense and would be thermally spread out as you suggest. In my opinion (which may be wrong) melting steel is not required to cause the collapse. Sheer force damage to one corner column should have been enough to create the needed instabilities to lead to the collapse. Also, to my knowledge this is the first time a large commercial airliner of this size has flown into a building like this at full speed? Therefore we have no real experience with this type of building damage and fire? Right? There are a plethora of unanswered questions, if we wish assume the official government line.See: http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=archive_by_topic Lots of more info to mull over. Thanks for the feedback, I will look them over. I also still wonder how, if there were explosives in the building, how they avoided being triggered by the impact, explosion and fire from the plane's impact? And if they did use explosives, and if the explosives did survive the fire, impact and explosion why did they wait so long to set them off? Mike McGinness Peace, D. Mindock - Original Message - From:Mike McGinness To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials oflyingabout 9/11 This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this topic. I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was going through the emergency details and when she got to the breathing oxygen part I though of this recent discussion. It dawned on me that there is some oxygen onboard these planes for emergency breathing use in case the plane is depressurized. So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board, and how much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature of the fire once released? Does anyone know? Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum (mass of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the instantaneous force of impact as the momentum of the plane went to zero and how much heat that released on impact as the momentum was converted to pure heat energy (it must have been huge), not to mention the mechanical structural damage effects of that energy transfer from the impact made on the building. Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these buildings are generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of wind, or air before something starts to give (like the windows at least). However, they are not designed, or even modeled for impacts by XXX tons of an airliner moving at several hundred miles per hour with all the force of impact being concentrated on one small area, or corner of one to two floors of the building. I agree with Doug's
Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officialsoflyingabout 9/11
Hakan, Great, Thanks! If we can come up with an O2 flow rate needed per person we could do some calcs and what-if-ing. Also, I know a few pilots here, I will ask them if they know how big the supply is? Mike McGinness Hakan Falk wrote: Mike, If it follows the rules for the pilots, it should be enough for 30 minutes. The rules say that over a certain level it must be 30 minutes for the pilots and over next specified level also for the passengers. It is a lot of oxygen. Hakan At 08:56 08/04/2006, you wrote: This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this topic. I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was going through the emergency details and when she got to the breathing oxygen part I though of this recent discussion. It dawned on me that there is some oxygen onboard these planes for emergency breathing use in case the plane is depressurized. So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board, and how much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature of the fire once released? Does anyone know? Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum (mass of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the instantaneous force of impact as the momentum of the plane went to zero and how much heat that released on impact as the momentum was converted to pure heat energy (it must have been huge), not to mention the mechanical structural damage effects of that energy transfer from the impact made on the building. Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these buildings are generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of wind, or air before something starts to give (like the windows at least). However, they are not designed, or even modeled for impacts by XXX tons of an airliner moving at several hundred miles per hour with all the force of impact being concentrated on one small area, or corner of one to two floors of the building. I agree with Doug's comments below about a bounce effect (and any oscillation it caused) plus the changes in the properties of the metals and alloys when exposed to the heat. They must have been major factors in the collapse. Lastly, if there were charges then why didn't the fire set them off right away and collapse the buildings immediately? Mike McGinness lres1 wrote: Just a note, not from an expert. Steel cutting torches operate at a temperature that burns the steel and turns the waste into slag. A lot of small brass and alloy foundries that use small furnaces use Diesel or Kerosene as the source of heat. The amount of heat to destroy the steel and alloy in the towers was only limited by the amount of oxygen available. At the height of the towers the natural movement of wind would have been like a blow torch on all the metals given enough fuel to start with. Several tons of Kerosene + wind + alloys + other combustibles would make the placing of explosives only a marginally required secondary insurance that the towers would fall. There was enough in the planes and the buildings construction materials/furnishings and the fuel tanks to achieve more than what a giant cutting torch would achieve. Think of a Plumbers kerosene blow lamp, now multiply it by the amount of wind and fuel available plus the burning materials mentioned above. Take a look at a vehicle that has burnt. you will notice that the suspension has collapsed due to the annealing of the springs or torsion bars etc. It does not take a real great amount of heat to change the characteristics of metals and alloys. Take away the heating from combustibles from the plane and building. Just the fuel and the heat from the fuel. How much stress in expansion over a few floors in a building of such height can it take? That is a building of such height expands slowly during the day and heat, shrinks during the cool. Given the height of the building this over a 24 hr period would be a significant change in height. If a small amount of boiling water is put into a glass the expansion is not uniform the glass will break. Uniform expansion in structures is an important part in considering conductivity of heat and orientation. To have had four or five floors expand beyond their limit and incongruously from the rest of the structure would again render the structure unsafe. This without burning anything just expanding out four or five floors rapidly and then contracting them all but as fast. The bounce effect in the topmost floors must have been quite horrific as they would have risen several inches and then dropped the same in a very short time frame. This bounce alone would nearly be enough to collapse a structure of such size in upon itself with no burning of combustibles from the construction or furnishings or even the alloys in the plane. Compare it to using the topmost floors as an enormous hammer that hammered the lower floors due the effect
[Biofuel] April 3, 2006 issue of Time Magazine
Greetings all, I am not a reader of Time, but I was waiting for my flight and picked it up at the newsstand as the cover page, and nearly the entire issue was all about global warming. Most of the rest of it was about the US Immigration debate in Washington, Republican congressmen distancing themselves from Bush and Cheney as fast as they can and Iran. It seems that Global warming is rapidly becoming a common, hot (pun intended) topic in the mainstream daily news here in the USA. It also has some positive news about positive efforts that have been undertaken by cities, states, US corporations and individuals as well as others worldwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions including CO2 inspite of Bush and the current US congress. It is a good read and highly recommended. Mike McGinness Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html Also see: http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1176989,00.html It also has a story on the Greening of Walmart, The Climate Crusaders, Clean Power for China, Dehli without Diesel, The Impact of Asia's Giants - How China and India could Save the Planet - or Destroy it, and Republicans on the Run! On a more positive not, the story on the Greening of Walmart details how a major retailer can change and start behaving better when it's CEO starts to see publicity about Walmarts negative environmental impacts begin to affect consumers and their purchasing patterns! In other words as people wake up and start changing their buying habits the big boys like Walmart must react or die and become extinct themselves. From what I read here, and in other recent articles, that change has started taking place from the top down (the CEO, Lee Scott) at Walmart. Walmart, CEO Lee Scott, according to Time is making major commitments across the board to try and become more environmentally benign. They are not becoming altruistic says Scott, but they have changed their business philosophy probably seeing it as requirement for their long term survival and profitability in my opinion. My point is regulation is not the only way we can force major businesses to change. Time reports that one environmentalist, Amory Lovins(?) head ot the Rocky Mountain Institute (?) who is now a paid Walmart environmental consultant, believes Walmart is seriously interested in change. Lee Scott has committed to reducing the CO2 impact of all Walmart operations worldwide by 20% (at existing stores)...I just wish I could post the entire text here as they are talking about their goals of looking at changing packaging to reduce its impacts, going green by going to wind and solar power to power their stores, increasing fuel efficiency of their truck fleets, and rewarding suppliers like those in China for going green! As I recall there was a resent post about there proclamation to move into organic produce as well, it was mentioned here too. Only Time (I know very Puny) will tell if Walmart is really serious, but if they are and if they are successful it could have a huge worldwide impact. Let's hope it's true and that others continue to follow suit. There may yet be hope for Humanity, Mike McGinness ___ 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] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials oflyingabout 9/11
Thanks Mike, I seem to recall the same thing, architect interview, but on a recent PBS broadcast on the topic. Probably why I thought the size of the planes made a bigger difference, or a bigger impact . Best Mike McGinness D. Mindock wrote: And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft. Mike Weaver wrote: I read an interview with the architect - he said the buildings were designed to withstand a hot from the planes of the time the towers were built; these planes were smaller and carried less fuel. In typical list fashion, I don't rememebr the source, but I think it was The New Yorker. Mike McGinness wrote: D. Mindock wrote: Mike,You are overlooking that Building 7, not hit by any plane, collapsed in the same controlled manner as the towers. OK, I will have to read up on building 7. Also the momentum energy of the planes would've been spread over a couple hundred feet. The stoppage wasnot instantaneous. I would somewhat disagree on this point as the nose of the plane would have hit first and focused the most intense Impulse force in the first second of impact. I agree that not all the energy was released in the first second, perhaps spread out over 4 to 5 seconds and spread out further as the wings hit, but still I would expect at least 50% of the energy to have converted to heat in a focused area between the nose of the plane and the part of the building that the nose hit in the first 1 to 2 seconds. That would be quite significant. And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft. OK, I will take your word for it. But have those designs ever been real world tested? 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] New EPA Rules
Keith, Greetings from Houston Texas. I respect your opinion and point of view on the topic of corporations, but I see a little bit different perspective on corporations. But first let me agree that many large and small corporations do commit criminal acts, many of which they get away with, which is most unfortunate to say the least. snip Keith Addison wrote: You can't change a corporation's mindset by education, nor by any means other than hurting their bottom line. Isn't hurting their bottom line a form of education? How about the fear of hurting their bottom line or the promise of improving their bottom line? The humans who work for them notwithstanding, corporations are not human and do not have human drives or instincts or inhibitions, their only drive is profit-growth. I am one man who has incorporated a one man environmental consulting business (I help other companies, including corporations do what I think is the right thing to do, environmentally. I try and show them how to reduce their negative impacts on the earth. It is mostly an educational process. I feel like I have a made a difference educating decision makers in many for-profit and non-profit corporations. Isn't my corporation a reflection of me, and of my humanity? If I were a criminal running a one man corporation wouldn't my corporation be a reflection of me, or more specifically of my inhumanity? Also what about non-profit corporations, non-profit incorporated foundations and environmental organizations that are corporations? That said, part of my point is that corporations are a reflection of those humans making the big decisions at the top of the corporation. Not counting those corporate leaders who are just out and out criminals, if they make bad decisions it is the human(s) corporate leaders, the decision makers who made those decisions who are partly to blame. The rest of the blame goes to a poor education of those decision makers, and to the imperfections of uncontrolled capitalism and free markets as well as imperfect governments and imperfect regulations and laws which all leads back to us, humans, those who create and run the corporations, governments, laws, regulations.and so on! Isn't it really people who are to blame? People can be just as in inhuman as a corporation. I once had an environmental cartoon on my desk, years ago. This guy was looking in the mirror and the caption at the bottom said, I have meet the enemy! Their PR budgets help people to think they're oh-so-human, but the money's only spent because it helps the bottom line. You can educate them like Pavlov educated his dogs, via shocks that hurt their bottom line and rewards that improve it. Unlike dogs, it doesn't work without the shocks. Yes, PR budgets are all about boosting or protecting the bottom line. However, sometimes corporations (or more specifically their CEO's) go out and actively look for new directions to take their corporations in, with out being forced with a sledge hammer. Some of them have found adopting environmental policies and sustainable economic policies to be in their best interests. I see this as more of a self education process than a forced shock process at work in this example. Yes, it still gets back to the bottom line, but some are learning that there are better ways to do business and some are just looking for better ways to do business (economically sustainable). Of course a bit of a reality shock from somewhere can help heard more of them in the right direction. So as I see it, it depends on the people at the top of the management team as to whether they learn by shock and awe, or by opening their eyes and seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I don't see all corporations as evil, non-human entities, but I will agree there are too many of them out there that are evil, non-humane, criminal beasts that are out of control. Best, Mike McGinness Best Keith Some are driven only by regulation and some are also being driven by fear of litigation. I am already hearing rumblings in the legal circles of new class action lawsuits in the works, here in the USA, suing the large CO2 sources and their fuel suppliers for causing global warming and the resulting damage and financial losses it is causing. Large corporations would rather no spend money fighting such lawsuits and are starting to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of avoiding future lawsuits. But class action lawsuits are now more difficult to file, thanks to a bill Mr. Bush signed into law last year. He called them junk lawsuits. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4504703 It seems that there's a concerted effort on the part of this administration to undermine environmental protections that have been historically championed by conservatives in the United States. I find it very difficult to trust ANYTHING coming out
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Robert, The quotation below reported to be from "John Walke" contains some inaccurate information. Specifically the statement says: "Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five tons to 25 tons." Perhaps it was just a bad example, but here in Texas most (if not all) of the refineries were (and still are) exempt from the CAA and were protected under a grandfather clause from enforcement as long as they made no significant process changes or upgrades (Called new source review, NSR). They were / are exempt if they were built before the CAA was passed into law. Many had emissions well over 1000 tons per year, and I think some still do! Texas passed a similar law (to the topics proposed law) a few years ago that gave grandfathered sources in Texas such as refineries an opportunity to voluntarily make major modifications to reduce emissions without going through formal BACT and MACT (Best Available Control Technology, Maximum Achievable Control Technology) permitting as long as the net result was reduced emissions. The idea was that these facilities were avoiding making any changes because they would trigger NSR and thus trigger forced, federally mandated, MAJOR costly upgrade costs site wide based on MACT, BACT requirements. The new rule allowed them to make voluntary changes that reduced total emissions without triggering NSR permitting. Those refineries that did not voluntarily enter the program and reduce emissions were promised that new laws would be passed in a few years eliminating the grandfather clause entirely thus forcing them into buying BACT, MACT hardware site wide. Many joined the program voluntarily and made major changes that reduced emissions substantially. The idea was to encourage these facilities to implement low to medium cost changes that would immediately make major reductions in their emissions and substantially reduce local air pollution. Some of those changes actually paid for themselves, some actually had an RTO, but none of these companies were making any of these changes in the last 40 years before the new law was passed for fear of triggering NSR. It was an experiment in Texas environmental policy that worked. I am not saying this proposed new rule should not be scrutinized for unwarranted loopholes, but there are two sides to this story. Best, Mike McGinness robert luis rabello wrote: It looks more like the "Endangering Permission Agency" . . . http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132 A leaked document from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that the agency is considering a significant change in air-pollution rules. It would give chemical factories, refineries and manufacturing plants new leeway to increase emissions of pollutants that cause cancer and birth defects. John Walke, who heads the clean-air program for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, says he received the document from sources at the EPA who wanted the public to become aware of this "backward step." Currently, any factory that emits more than 25 tons of toxic chemicals into the air each year must reduce its pollution as much as it feasibly can. Walke says the draft proposal would give a break to companies that own those plants. After they clean up, their only requirement would be to keep their pollution below 25 tons a year. "Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five tons to 25 tons." ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules
Robert, My replies are below but first, let me say I see nothing wrong with raising the alarms about these kinds of changes in the regulations as you and others have done. They do need to watched closely and when such changes are made the results need to be measured to determine if they worked: robert luis rabello wrote: Mike McGinness wrote: > Robert, snip> > The idea was that these facilities were avoiding making any changes > because they would trigger NSR and thus trigger forced, federally > mandated, MAJOR costly upgrade costs site wide based on MACT, BACT > requirements. The new rule allowed them to make voluntary changes that > reduced total emissions without triggering NSR permitting. Those > refineries that did not voluntarily enter the program and reduce > emissions were promised that new laws would be passed in a few years > eliminating the grandfather clause entirely thus forcing them into > buying BACT, MACT hardware site wide. Many joined the program > voluntarily and made major changes that reduced emissions substantially. But would they have joined the voluntary program without the threat of legislation compelling them to do so? I've seen the same sort of dynamic at play in California with respect to auto makers and emissions controls. Yes, many would not spend money on environmental protection without some kind of fear or threat. However, many large US companies have recently made large voluntary financial commitments to environmental protection and stewardship as a new generation has begun taken over the reins of the board of directors. Some of them are beginning to move briskly into sustainable economic practices as they see it to be necessary to ensure their long term survival. Some are driven only by regulation and some are also being driven by fear of litigation. I am already hearing rumblings in the legal circles of new class action lawsuits in the works, here in the USA, suing the large CO2 sources and their fuel suppliers for causing global warming and the resulting damage and financial losses it is causing. Large corporations would rather no spend money fighting such lawsuits and are starting to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of avoiding future lawsuits. Many cities and states here have given up on Bush and the Feds for now and they have taken many steps and initiatives already to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by going greener with their own energy purchases (heating, cooling, transportation fuels, and electricity) plus they have worked hard on reducing energy and fuel consumption practices under their control (local and state governments). The real argument is, or should be, how best to motivate businesses and people (individuals) to reduce consumption and pollution rates. I know this, it all starts with education Then we need research to find out and know what is bad and what is good (in areas where we don't already have all the facts). Then we need to make it easier for people and businesses to do the right thing, and harder for them to do the wrong thing. This is where massaging the regulations to make it easier, less costly, and less time consuming for people and businesses to figure what to do, why, and how best to reduce pollution, consumption and to get them to properly recycleetc. I know from experience (mine and others) that the old regulatory method (regulating each industry, each pollutant, and then trying to police them all, everywhere) is very time consuming and costly to government and industry, and therefore to each of us. There is a point of diminishing returns using such methods and efforts. That does not mean we should not have some of this kind of regulation, inspections and enforcement. It is definitely still needed to handle the environmental criminals at the least. I see the need for both the old and the new style of regulation. What they are doing, or trying to do with some of the changes in these regulations is to get the largest reductions in pollution for the least amount of money, thereby maximizing the reductions in pollution for a fix amount of available money. In a way that has always been the case, but in the past they would decide ahead of time who would be required to do exactly what to meet the reduction goals and then they would pass industry based limits to meet those goals. Then new technologies would come along, but they could not be used because the environmental regs did not allow them to make changes. One example is say Exxon wants to build a new plant but they can not get the permit for the air emissions even if they use BACT, MACT technology because of other pollutants from existing neighbors already in the local area are already too high (they are already at established health limits). If Exxon can somehow reduce the pollution from those other nearby sources by say 100 tons per year (this is where the emissions trading program came in) by permanently removi
Re: [Biofuel] acids
I must be in the wrong business. How about I sell it to you for $50/ gallon all day long. Just kiding. We buy it in 93% and 98% grades in 55 gallon drums for about $6.00 gallon for pH control of waste water. Somebody is getting rich fast and its not me. LOL. Let's see $94/gallon profit at $100/gallon, 55 gallons, thats $5,170 /drum profit. Half a truck load and I could retire. Mike McGinness JJJN wrote: David, The only place you are going to find 98% Acid is either a lab supply or a Chemical supply. In the United States there is a Hazmat charge and a Homeland Security charge as well. (at least where I shop commercially) It also runs about $100.00 a gallon at that grade. The Crap at the hardware store is about 25% if that. I reccomend the base base if you are non commercial. I make wood preservatives out of the stuff not auto fuel as my business therefore I can get around several of the triangles involved with buying supplies but I still must wash wash wash just like if I did make fuel. I have tested some in my truck off road and found it to be great stuff but until I can pay taxes on it to both State and Federal I do not run it in a vehicle on a taxed road. (I also use it for generators and farm tractors.) Jim David Miller wrote: 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/ ___ 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] Glycerine use and other fancy stuff
Joe, I don't quite understand it either, but apparently the higher frequency helps the colloidal emulsion break up and separate better (it may be affecting the Zeta potential of surface charges on colloidal particles that tend to keep emulsions stable) while the lower frequency keeps it mechanically mixed. It sounds like its partly a physics topic, not just physical chemistry. Mike McGinness Joe Street wrote: I guess you didn't read the abstract which says that settling time IS also reduced with ultrasonics (although I don't understand the mechanism or how that works). Joe Tonomr Andrs wrote: Joe, In my well isolated reactor the tempreture stays above 55 deg for 3 hours. so the amount of enregy needed goes in with the initial heating and this is independent from how long I process my fuel. In fact I use mechanical stirrer wich means there is no heat loss in the tubes outside tubes, and the mechanical energy remains in the reactor also as heat. Other thing is that the reaction time is 10 or 60 or 120 minutes doesn't matter. the reason is that you have to settle for 12 - 24 hours anyway. in my point of view speeding up the settling would be something much more logical direction to go. Another reason for this is that the 2 stage mathods require a re-heating, which could be avoided if separation was compete in 1 hour vs. 24 hours Keep going Andrew - Original Message - From: "Joe Street" [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Glycerine use and other fancy stuff Hey Greg ; If I run my reactor (which has a 1500 watt element but is a 220 volt unit running on 110v) I am consuming 350 watts and current wisdom says to allow 1 hr or more for the reaction so that's 350 Wh of energy used. If I use a 300 watt US generator and the reaction completes in 10 minutes that's only 50 Wh of energy used. for the u-sonics and another 58 Wh for heating during that 10 minutes, but in fact the insulation will keep the mixture hot for that amount of time so I can get away with just 50Wh of energy. Plus if the abstract is right I use less catalyst and less excess methanol and you have to consider the energy that went into producing those as well. All told it is a significant savings! Joe greg Kelly wrote: snip The discussion of speeding up the acid/base process with ultrasound seems a little out there. If the idea is to use renewable fuels, how much electrical energy from the natural gas fired generating plant will be used to speed up an equlibrium process? I think too much to keep with the ideals. I don't mean to be critical. I ain't been here long enough for that. And the people here have such a strong hold on the concepts, I am just wondering if/what I am missing? respectfully, Greg Kelly ___ 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] Recent PBS report Persons of Interest TALON program - US AirForce
Greetings all, I recently watched the PBS broadcast, interview whose transcript is below. It is about our own government (USA) breaking the law and spying on its own citizens, in general. It speaks for itself...It also says a lot, in my opinion as to why so few in the USA spoke out against the war in Iraq, until recently. They were afraid to labeled as traitors, including the democrats in congress. I think and hope that tide has changed here as I am seeing more and more of this sort of report getting into the news lately. Transcript, March 24, 2006 Here is a short bit to wet your appetite for reading the whole transcript: BRANCACCIO: Welcome to NOW, on the road this week in Central Florida, in sight of what military officials call the home game. Before the attacks of September 11th, the U.S. Armed Forces paid attention to threats outside our borders. Now our military is expanding the way it watches for potential threats here at home. The Pentagon, working with local law enforcement, now has secret databases to keep tabs on possible terrorist activity. And it is surprisingly easy to get swept into the system. In some cases, it's been as easy as joining a peace march here in Florida. The program is called TALON, and as we found out, it's operating without much in the way of Congressional oversight. Bryan Myers produced our report. BRANCACCIO: October 4th, 2002. An alarming report works its way thru a sheriff's office in central Florida. A confidential source warns the Brevard County authorities that a planned peace protest at nearby Kennedy Space Center may turn violent. Calling the protest group sinister, the source warns something special is in store. The day of the rally, captured on home video, sheriff's deputies and NASA security officials are everywhere, ready for the worst. PROTESTER: I came today to protest against the anti-weapons and nuclear power in the space program. BRANCACCIO: The sinister protestors. Funny, maybe, but something very serious is going on here. It's the story of just why the authorities got so nervous about a bunch of law-abiding citizens. It turns out, the confidential source who raised the alarm was our own United States Air Force. PRESIDENT BUSH: I, George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear... BRANCACCIO: After President Bush was re-elected in 2004, Jeff and his fellow activists had an idea: hold a so-called counter inaugural at the local city hall where they would publicly reaffirm their liberal values. 34 others joined them for what would be a peaceful rally. NALL: At some point, we were there after the ceremony had sort of ended, and we were holding signs, somebody says, Look over there, what's going on? There's an officer with a camera pointed right at us. BRANCACCIO: The local police didn't see the rally as so innocent. In fact, it's the police tape you've been watching. Nall enlisted the local ACLU to find out what was going on. He learned the videotape was the tip of the iceberg. Over the years, the local sheriff had written hundreds of pages of reports about Nall's group and others... Please browse to: http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcriptN0W212_full_print.html for the rest of the story. Mike McGinness ___ 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] Speeding up the acid/base process
Joe, WOW! Great find. I take back what I said in my earlier reply today about being too costly, etc. From the data its looks like the ultrasonic might be producing OH free radicals in the water and thus reducing the amount of added base catalyst required, which in turn is increasing the yield and purity? (at the lower frequency). Also, 600 khz equipment was not around in my day of selling ultrasonic equipment, 75 kHz was the highest frequency around then. Probably the electronics were not fast enough in the 1970's? I notice they are using two different frequencies, one for the reaction (28 khz) and another for the separation stage (600 khz). The patent claims an even wider range of usable frequencies, up to 3,000 khz! Here is the US version of the patent itself: Patent I am not sure that I follow the math on claim #4!?? -Mike McGinness Joe Street wrote: Well I found THIS which gives a little more info about frequency and power density. It looks like this is done in a tank without agitation and settling happens with higher frequency u-sonics. Hmmm. Joe Joe Street wrote: To answer the question what am I talking about, I heard about it on another biodiesel list and I'm not sure about the exact setup. I expect it is a way of adding energy into the process. I am interested in this as I was in the so called electrically catalized alternative process which I as yet have not been able to reproduce. The idea here is that energy added can help speed up a reaction and I think ( chemists blast me if I'm wrong) can tip the balance in favor of one direction in equilibrium type reactions. Actually heating the oil is a form of this type of energy input and we do this already. I have been curious about other ways of coupling energy into the system such as UV radiation, RF radiation and now I hear about ultrasonics. Typically the transducers comercially available are in the 40 Khz frequency range. The little jewelery cleaners are low power and I wouldn't waste my time although they are good for assisting in nano particle production and electro-colloid generation. An industrial power level US generator might be 300-500 watts and often is capable of frequency swept operation. I don't think the frequency is so important from a quantum perspective as it would be in the case of higher frequency stimulation like RF, microwave, or UV radiation where energy absorbtion depends on the bandgap of the material being radiated, but in the case of ultrasonics it is more due to mechanical effects. Microcavitation creates small scale shockwaves which have surprisingly high energy densities though so it is a powerful technique. The idea I am toying with is to put a cell disrupter in the recirculation line and pass the reaction through a confined but high energy density zone while the reaction proceeds. So yes it does only affect a small volume but since it is in the recirculation line I can move the entire volume of the fluid through 'the 'zone' First I have to source a surplus disrupter. If only I had some romulan friends.sigh (lol no that comment does not indicate this whole thing is an april fools joke) Joe Mike Weaver wrote: You can buy fairly small ones - they are advertised (or used to be) to clean jewelry. Keith Addison wrote: I think he was talking about a dip tank like what is used to clean industrial parts en masse. it relies on complementary ultrasonic frequencies to basically heat and rattle the crud out of things my friend uses them at the printing shop where he works. He does? And it works?? Why doesn't someone sell them to the mainstream press? Or d'you think you'd have to nuke the journalists instead? Best Keith - Original Message - From: JJJN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Speeding up the acid/base process Joe. What are you talking about when it comes to ultrasonics? Jim Joe Street wrote: Hey Bob; You ever considered using ultrasonics to speed up the reaction? You still have to deal with the settling time but I hear the US can make the reaction happen in minutes instead of hours. I'm trying to get my hands on a cell disrupter to put inline on my recirculation tube to test this but haven't had any luck yet. Something to ponder and if any of the chem whiz's out there in e-land care to comment I'm all eyes. Joe Bob Carr wrote: Hi all, Time to report on my acid /base progress, and then ask for advice from more experienced list members. I have made several batches of very good Bd from all manner of feedstocks, by following Aleks Kac's foolproof process to the letter. But being
Re: [Biofuel] Speeding up the acid/base process
Joe Street wrote: To answer the question what am I talking about, I heard about it on another biodiesel list and I'm not sure about the exact setup. I expect it is a way of adding energy into the process. I am interested in this as I was in the so called electrically catalized alternative process which I as yet have not been able to reproduce. The idea here is that energy added can help speed up a reaction and I think ( chemists blast me if I'm wrong) can tip the balance in favor of one direction in equilibrium type reactions. I do not think it will tip the balance, only speed up reaching equilibrium. Actually heating the oil is a form of this type of energy input and we do this already. I have been curious about other ways of coupling energy into the system such as UV radiation, RF radiation and now I hear about ultrasonics. Typically the transducers comercially available are in the 40 Khz frequency range. The little jewelery cleaners are low power and I wouldn't waste my time although they are good for assisting in nano particle production and electro-colloid generation. The jewelry cleaners are typically 60 Khz. Some commercial jewelry cleaners and lab units like Cole-Palmer lists, though way overpriced (like by 50%), are high enough in power density to do the job if the surface tension is not to high. The issue of best frequency would be debateable. I do recall that all these units do not cavitate the solution until the liquid has been degassed!! So keep that in mind!! An industrial power level US generator might be 300-500 watts and often is capable of frequency swept operation. I don't think the frequency is so important from a quantum perspective as it would be in the case of higher frequency stimulation like RF, microwave, or UV radiation where energy absorbtion depends on the bandgap of the material being radiated, but in the case of ultrasonics it is more due to mechanical effects. Microcavitation creates small scale shockwaves which have surprisingly high energy densities though so it is a powerful technique. This is correct. They create a high frequency wave motion in the liquid that forms tiny gas bubbles at the low pressure end of the wave. The bubbles are then collapsed at the high pressure end of the wave front. This all happens at say 20 to 75 KHz (whatever frequency the generator is designed for). The collapse, or cavitation is said to produce instantaneous temperatures (but on a molecular scale) as high as 5000 degrees (degrees F as I recall). The energy rapidly decays into bulk heat in the solution. The idea I am toying with is to put a cell disrupter in the recirculation line and pass the reaction through a confined but high energy density zone while the reaction proceeds. So yes it does only affect a small volume but since it is in the recirculation line I can move the entire volume of the fluid through 'the 'zone' First I have to source a surplus disrupter. If only I had some romulan friends.sigh (lol no that comment does not indicate this whole thing is an april fools joke) I am sure Quark ( the Feringi ) could have gotten you a great deal on one, LOL. Your comment reminds me of the Feringi Rules of Acquisition. It is a unique piece of humor, still LOL. For instance rule number 28 is: Morality is always defined by those in power! OK, back on topic, I sold and serviced industrial Ultrasonic cleaners in the late 1970's and early 80's. They are great at creating micro mechanical scrubbing action in hard to reach areas that helps speed up and improve cleaning of delicate intricate parts. They also can mix and disperse colloidal material which might help your reaction go faster by dispersing colloidal particles in solution better and faster, but the energy costs and hardware costs, in my opinion, would be way out of proportion with any advantages. I would think that a simple centrifugal pump with high internal shear forces would accomplish the same end results as an ultrasonic unit, and do it faster and at much less cost. Hope this helps. Best Mike McGinness Joe Mike Weaver wrote: You can buy fairly small ones - they are advertised (or used to be) to clean jewelry. Keith Addison wrote: I think he was talking about a dip tank like what is used to clean industrial parts en masse. it relies on complementary ultrasonic frequencies to basically heat and rattle the crud out of things my friend uses them at the printing shop where he works. He does? And it works?? Why doesn't someone sell them to the mainstream press? Or d'you think you'd have to nuke the journalists instead? Best Keith - Original Message - From: JJJN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Speeding up the acid/base process Joe. What are you talking about when it comes to ultrasonics
[Biofuel] More on complexities of Global warming and recent solar input update
Published March 9, 2006, from: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L05708, doi:10.1029/2005GL025539, 2006 Phenomenological solar contribution to the 19002000 global surface warming N. Scafetta Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA B. J. West Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA Abstract We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature during four periods of the industrial era (19002000, 19001950, 19502000 and 19802000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 4550% of the 19002000 global warming, and 2535% of the 19802000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted. Received 19 December 2005; accepted 30 January 2006; published 9 March 2006. Index Terms: 1616 Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513); 1626 Global Change: Global climate models (3337, 4928); 1650 Global Change: Solar variability (7537); 1699 Global Change: General or miscellaneous; 1739 History of Geophysics: Solar/planetary relationships. Full Article (Nonsubscribers may purchase for $9.00, Includes print PDF, file size: 156579 bytes) Citation: Scafetta, N., and B. J. West (2006), Phenomenological solar contribution to the 19002000 global surface warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L05708, doi:10.1029/2005GL025539. Copyright 2006 by the American Geophysical Union. Original link is at: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2005GL025539.shtml ___ 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] Speeding up the acid/base process
Joe, The link on my last message did not get through (I sent it as text by mistake). Here is the USPTO web site page, again with the full text of the patent: The US Patent Only problem seems to be hardware start up cost, but for larger operations it sounds like it would be very cost effective. -Mike McGinness Joe Street wrote: Well I found THIS which gives a little more info about frequency and power density. It looks like this is done in a tank without agitation and settling happens with higher frequency u-sonics. Hmmm. Joe ___ 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] Free Earth-Policy Institute newsletter
Keith, I have been a subscriber to the Earth-Policy Institute newsletter since its beginning a number of years ago. Sounding the alarm about global warming has been one of their major topics for some time now. I checked your mail archive database first before posting this and I did not find any mention of them here so far and I thought you and others here might want to know about them. Their e-newsletter is free. You might also want to bring what you are doing to their attention since they seem to have many similar goals to yours. -Mike McGinness Here is a link to one of their pages. http://www.earth-policy.org/About/index.htm And be sure and check out this page before you draw any conclusions about them: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/index.htm Also here is the text of their most recent newsletter: Earth Policy News - 2005 Hottest Year on Record Eco-Economy Indicator GLOBAL TEMPERATURE March 28, 2006 Eco-Economy Indicators are the twelve trends the Earth Policy Institute tracks to measure progress in building an eco-economy. Taking the earth's temperature tells us about the relative health of the planet. 2005 HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD Joseph Florence The year 2005 was the hottest on record. The average global surface temperature of 14.77 degrees Celsius (58.6 degrees Fahrenheit) was the highest since recordkeeping began in 1880. January, April, September, and October of 2005 were the hottest of those months on record, while March, June, and November were the second warmest ever. In fact, the six hottest years on record have all occurred in the last eight years For entire text see http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006.htm For data see http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Temp_data.htm For an index of Earth Policy Institute resources related to Temperature and Climate see http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Temp/index.htm And for more information on the effects of rising temperature and how to stabilize climate, see Chapters 4 10 in PLAN B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble by Lester R. Brown (New York: W.W. Norton Company, 2006), posted at http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB2/index.htm --- ___ 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] Free Earth-Policy Institute newsletter
Keith, I had searched for just earth policy and earth-policy, and came up with zero hits the first time. I figured if those did not turn up anything in the data base then narrower terms like www.earthpolicy.org would not turn up anything either so I stopped the search. Now I am really puzzled! I just went and re searched those same terms and got lots of hits. Only difference is that I searched from a different starting page this time. Both pages had a search tool but this time I used the page at the link you gave me below: http://snipurl.com/ody7 As I recall I used: http://www.journeytoforever.org/ for the original search I did and it still does not show any hits for earth policy. Therefore, I guess these two are not directly connected, do not entirely overlap, or use a different search engine??? So where is the best place or page to search from? Never mind, I Just figured it out, it is at the bottom of the newsgroup emails (the part I never read anymore because it never changes). If it was snake it would have bitten me!: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ A thousand apologies. Mike P.S. I left the dribble, confusion, journey listed above for anyone else who missed this little item like I did for so long. Maybe it will help some others avoid my error. Thanks, Mike Keith Addison wrote: Hello Mike Thanks. I know them well, Lester Brown's group. Quite a lot of material from them has been posted here before. http://snipurl.com/ody7 Search results for 'www.earthpolicy.org' Here's a recent one, posted by Chip on 7 March. Check the rest of the discussion at the thread links at the end of the page, interesting. http://snipurl.com/ody5 [Biofuel] Interesting Read What did I say about that... It's just that he [Lester Brown] doesn't get it on a few counts. He doesn't seem to see that there are alternatives. He's been doing good work for a long time, though I always felt his thinking was a bit corporate - not pro-corporate, just that he sees things in the same mould, as if there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the system, it just needs a bit of tinkering. I've never been impressed with his views on energy. Read that whole thread if you want to know why I said that (I was defending him). Thanks again. Keith ___ 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] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lyingabout 9/11
Tom, I am not taking a position one way or the other on the BYU professor's accusations, but here are just a few thoughts regarding the comments below on the maximum temperature of the fire, and steel strength or melting steel: I was recently reading about some new infrared camera fire safety equipment fire fighters can use now that somehow sense when a flashback is about occur. OK, so what is a flashback? ( I didn't know until I read the article) First off, combustible materials, for instance wood, cloth, plastics, etc., from doors, furniture, flooring, etc., as they get heated up and before they actually catch on fire, slowly decompose in what is called thermal decomposition. They also do this while burning. The thermal decomposition produces a mixture of volatile hydrocarbon gases. These combustible gasses build up in confined areas until they reach their LEL, (Lower Explosive Limit). When they reach the LEL it causes a flashback explosion like effect. These flashbacks are reportedly one of the two most dangerous things firefighters face. The second is BLEVEs, Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor explosions. I guess in a fire a large amount of plastic would easily melt into a liquid and then become the source of a BLEVE. Also I seem to recall that the British found out the hard way during the Faulkan Islands incident that Aluminum will catch on fire and burn (a single missile caught one of the British battleships on fire and it sank in record time, as I recall, because there was no way to stop the aluminum from burning once it started). The plane being aluminum. Not sure about the twin towers but today's commercial buildings use aluminum extrusions for the window frames and external superstructure. I think aluminum burns pretty hot once ignited. Perhaps someone else has access to that data? The NFPA (National Fire Protection Agency, which is a non-government standards organization involved in setting protection standards and running real fire tests) would have the data in their publications, but their publications are not free nor are they online. They would be in a major public library if anyone is curious enough to look it up in the references section. Since I am not a fire or combustion expert I am not sure what temperatures these other materials could reach, but they could have been a factor. I do know that the strength of steel varies with temperature, and at the temperatures in a fire the strength of the steel, even temperature hardened rivets, is severely compromised. I doubt the engineers designed the building to sustain both the physical damage of the impact of the airliner followed by the damage and structural strength losses to the structural steel, bolts and rivets caused by the fire. Once the structural integrity was lost on one of the lower floors (below the roof that is) and that floor collapsed, gravity and inertia did the rest as the upper part of the building fell on the lower part. Anyway this does not disprove the professors theory or his claim that explosives were also used. Mike McGinness Tom Irwin wrote: Hi Bob and all, I think it's in a lot of water supplies. But I have a couple of questions for you that have bothered me for sometime.. How does an oxygen starved kerosene fire melt structural steel? Could such a fire really cause temperature hardened rivits to fail? and so many simultaneously. Tom - From: bob allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:15:03 -0300 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11 Is there something in the water in Utah? Didn't Jones collaborate with Fleischmann and Pons in the cold fusion fiasco? D. Mindock wrote: See: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/ 0...5179751,00.html http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of pre-positioned explosives. Now, along with a group that calls itself Scholars for 9/11 Truth, he's upping the ante. We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11, the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad. Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others. They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S
Re: [Biofuel] Global warming, oceans warming up, earth's core climate changes
Tom, Good question. I decided to find out for sure. Here is a link which says: Science is a weekly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes significant original scientific research, plus reviews and analyses of current research and science policy. Our offices in Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, U.K., welcome submissions from all fields of science and from any source. Competition for space in Science is keen, and many papers are returned without in-depth review. Priority is given to papers that reveal novel concepts of broad interest. We are committed to the prompt evaluation and publication of submitted papers. For the quickest and most efficient processing of your manuscript, please follow the guidelines and procedures laid out in this author help site: http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/ He also sites papers published in Nature which is considered by many to be the premier peer-reveiwed journal on original new research work, but I do not have a suscription and I have not been able to get to the actual article text that he cited as it is not free online. Mike McGinness Tom Irwin wrote: Hello Martin and All, I have a simple question. Where is the author´s substantial evidence? Science mag.org may not be a peer reviewed journal. Tom - ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Humates
Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings, While learning about market gardening etc, I have come across some real good information that I have reason to believe is good. Humate Booklet By Dr. Boris Levinsky http://www.teravita.com/Humates/HumateIntro.htm There is just one thing missing: How do I get my powdered humates into a liquid form? This is very interesting stuff (Humic acid). Assuming the powder you mention is Humic acid powder, then I think the web site you listed above indirectly has the answer. Basically if you mix it with a strong base such as potassium carbonate and water solution you will get it into a water soluble liquid form. Sodium carbonate will work too, put potassium would probably be better for the soil. Use just enough to dissolve the humic acid powder, and try to keep the pH from going over 9.0 on the finished solution. The Humic acid powder is converted to water soluble Humate when the strong base (carbonate) neutralizes the acid in the Humic acid. I believe there are some companies (Medina?) that make humic acids using a fermentation process from the decay of natural matter, but that is all I know right now. Composting does produce some humic acid as you noted with your question about composted tea but I am not sure how to optimize the composting process for humic acid production. I knew it existed in coal deposits but I did not realize that it could be extracted from coal (lignite) deposits and used, which is where they seem to be getting it although they do not go into the actual process details. I also remember my mother using coal with her potting soil! Now I know why. The Humates are also useful in wastewater treatment. Here is a site I found today with some interesting history and facts on humic acid and humates: http://www.livearth.com/articles/art2.htm Mike McGinness ___ 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] Global warming, oceans warming up, earth's core climate changes
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 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel Lines for a VW
Thomas, PTFE will work as far as chemical resistance goes but it is very rigid and depending on the wall thickness requires a large bending radius to keep it from collapsing (sharp bends). The thicker wall PTFE will take tighter radiuses without collapsing. It is also about the most expensive plastic tubing you can select. Finally the fittings / clamps can be a bit tricky with PTFE. Viton in the thin wall will collapse very easily under suction. Viton is very flexible. If you use viton I would try and find a reinforced viton hose designed for suction / pressure service. There are a variety of other tubing materials you might also consider. One is Kynar. It is about half the cost of PTFE and should be just as good for BD. Un-reinforced Kynar and PTFE can handle substantial suction and pressure service where as unreinforced Viton can not. Lab supply retailers like Cole-Parmer, although expensive, have a wide variety of tubing materials and sizes to select from. I would also suggest looking for industrial HOSE suppliers in the local phone directory or online. They probably have a special, low cost (compared to Viton and PTFE) BD fuel hose in stock. Has anyone tried standard low pressure paint hose for BD? It is available from paint equipment dealers. It has a solvent resistant white nylon tube on the inside and a solvent resistant black elastomer like cover (looks like black tire rubber) on the outside. It is suitable for highly aggressive solvents so it should work great with BD. It is great for suction or pressure use, usually up to 125 PSIG, as it has internal reinforcing between the inner (Nylon) and out tube materials. Mike McGinness Thomas Kelly wrote: Hello to All, A friend started using BD100 in his VW pickup. It is now oozing fuel through the fuel lines. He has been unable to find a source for viton fuel lines, but has located a supplier of PTFE (a flouropolymer). The marine supplies dealer says PTFE is virtually inert to all chemicals ... organic solvents do not attack PTFE. Can these PTFE fuel lines be used w. BD? If not, does anyone know a source for viton fuel lines? Thanks,Tom ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] automating titration
Jason Katie, If you are titrating to a specific pH (say 8.4) and want to automate it then a standard waste water pH controller operating a small flow rate pump designed to handle the titrant (the titrant would be liquid caustic, yes? If so I recommend a teflon pump) should do the trick. You would also need a mixer, stirrer. Another option might be an automatic pH controller operated valve with the titrant being feed by gravity to the titration vessel thus eliminating the pump. You would also need some way of measuring the total amount of titrant feed, but this could be done manually. Just subtract the final volume from the initial volume of titrant used. You could use a weight scale to measure the amount of titrant feed (the difference, initial weight minus final weight) and use an electronic weight scale for PC data acquisition or use a calibrated flow meter, but flow meters are very costly and overkill. Hope this helps, Mike McGinness Jason Katie wrote: i cant help but be aggravated, i have been searching for almost a week and a half for a formula that would result in a pH of 8.4-8.6, but of the hundreds of pages i have read, all the formulas are strictly neutralizing, and i dont have the math skills/intelligence to modify them, and noone posts chemistry help at a high school level- only graduate studies. i am totally lost on this one. does anyone know how to modify, or at least explain pH/pOH formulas to be unbalanced like that? i am trying to write a program that will help me automate the process, but im hung up on the titration stage. Anything would be helpful right now- anything at all. ___ 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] Methoxide Questions
Logan, The reaction forms water (H2O) and Sodium Methoxide (CH3ONa) from the methanol (CH3OH) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH). I think part of the answer to your second question is it will make more soaps (not good) if you adjust the pH first. Mike McGinness Logan Vilas wrote: I've searched the archives so please forgive me if I didn't find this question. What is the chemical reaction when making methoxide? Why do we not correct the ph of the oil then add methoxide, made with a standard grams per a liter? Logan Vilas ___ 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] automating titration
Jason Katie, The problem is that pH alone does not tell the complete story. The amount of base required to reach a pH of 8.4 to 8.6 will vary with each batch and depends on the concentration and reactivity of each chemical compound in the oil and the purity of the base. This is why we do a titration on a sample of the oil for each batch in order to determine the volume of base required. However, if you had a consistent quality of oil, you could skip the titration by using an automatic pH controller on the full batch itself. In other words the pH controller would do an automatic titration on the actual batch to the 8.4 to 8.6 pH end point and you would be done. Please keep in mind that one of the reasons for doing a titration and other tests on a small sample first is to determine ahead of time if the oil is suitable for use or not. The second reason is to determine how much base is needed in the large batch. Hope this helps clarify things. Mike McGinness Jason Katie wrote: Mr. McGinness i thank you for the advice on the pumps/ flow controls, i hadnt considered ready-made equipment (i usually build my own rig) ill have to look into that, but my problem does not lie within the realm of mechanics. i need a mathematical equation that i can manipulate to find the volume of base needed to bring the acid to a pH of 8.4. the knowns will be: pH of the base (by reference measurement) pH of the Oil (by measurement) volume of the oil (by external input) the variable will be: volume of base needed to reach a pH of 8.4 i have the outline of what i need, i just dont know how to put it together and make it work and pH isnt some simple (A+B)/C= your number here equation, which is confusing me beyond anything ive ever tried before (im horrible at math). ___ 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] What the: outlawing chemical sales to the public
Jeromie, Thanks for the post on this topic! I followed the link you supplied below and found this: Specifically, the CPSC is focusing on certain chemicals and metals at this time. The current CPSC injunction would require: Not sell, give away or otherwise distribute any of the following Metals for which the particle size is finer than 100 mesh (or particles less than 150 microns in size) to any recipient who does not possess a valid manufacturing license for explosives issued by the ATF: Aluminum and Aluminum alloys Magnalium metal Magnesium metal Magnesium/Aluminum alloys Titanium and Titanium alloys Zinc metal Zirconium metal Not sell, give away or otherwise distribute any of the following chemicals to any recipient who does not possess a valid manufacturing license for explosives issued by the ATF: Antimony and antimony compounds Benzoate compounds Nitrate compounds Permanganate compounds Chlorate compounds Perchlorate compounds Salicylate compounds Sulfur or any other chemical or metal listed at 16 C.F.R. § 1507.2 to any recipient who does not possess a valid manufacturing license for explosives issued by the ATF From what I read I guess companies like Sherwin Williams, International Paint, and others like them will need to start manufacturing explosives in order to get a license to buy these raw materials just to manufacturer their paint and coating products. I am sure they would love that. It sounds like the CPSC has no idea what all these chemicals are regularly used for. A good case of tunnel vision, by probably well meaning folks. They mention criminal legal action and an injunction on their web site but there is no mention of actual legislation, nor any proposed or final rules or regulations that would apply to anyone beyond the one company, that I see. Is this correct? If not, can you get us any more details on the actual proposed rules or regulations of the CPSC that we could bring to the attention of those who could put a stop to this action? I ran into a similar problem 15 years ago when a well meaning Texas state senator slipped a last minute bill through that outlawed selling even one 50 ml glass lab beaker to anyone without a state DEA license to posses lab ware in Texas. The state DEA people were upset because no one had consulted them. They used to quietly inquire to lab eq. suppliers about suspicious characters buying lab glass wear as a way to find illegal meth lab operations. All the state registration license did (The license was readily available public information) was tell the illegal drug makers where to break in at night to steal the glass wear they needed. The major labs at the chemical companies like Dow and Dupont were furious when they got saddled with the extra paper work it caused and it did nothing to slow or stop the illegal drug traffic and manufacturing here. Lastly, this sort of thing would not stop someone from buying 200 mesh metals and grinding them up in a ball mill to make the finer mesh, so it is pointless to outlaw just the fine mesh grades. If you can get me some details on this (proposed legislation or regulations) I have contacts here that I can alert to help put a stop to this. Mike McGinness Jeromie Reeves wrote: http://www.unitednuclear.com/ WARNING! - The Government is actively attempting to eliminate all chemical sales to the public. This action has been initiated by the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission). Ourselves (and other chemical suppliers) are now faced with legal action against us. If we lose this court battle, it will be illegal to even own a chemistry set. Click Here for more info. While this does not effect bio fuel production directly it comes from we do not like what you CAN do with these so we are taking them away. How long before they feel the same about things that do go into biofules? no buying more then 1/2 gallon a month of methonal or some other item that is not needed by the general public but is very dear to the hobbyist. Jeromie ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel
Re: [Biofuel] So called magnetic fuel conditioners and magneticwater treatment
Greetings everyone, Here is one fairly recent conference paper that is available online via the link below that I think is worth reading for those on both sides of this debate. http://services.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003context=eci/heatexchanger The list of references in their paper is also an excellent source for finding more papers to read on this topic including some interesting history on the topic. The authors of this paper referred to these devices as PWT (Physical Water Treatment) devices. I know that many of you are more interested in fuel treatment using these devices than water treatment and I will endeavor to find a similar article like this one that covers the fuel treatment topic as well as this one covers water treatment. Also please keep in mind that prevention of scale formation on heat exchanger surfaces in water cooled heat exchangers, and home water heaters for instance is an energy saving issue. Enjoy, Mike McGinness Keith Addison wrote: Hello Greg Until you take the human influence ( conscious or subconscious ) and other variables from the results, there is no way to do any conclusive scientific test.Without any conclusive scientific testing, there is no proof. Just because there are cars on the road that use magnets, and they appear to work, is no teat or proof that they work.The owners could very easily be subconscious be easier on the throttle, which in turn make it appear that the magnets are indeed working.One can just as easily say that Mutually Assured Destruction worked, so it is a good thing to have nuclear weapons. NOT. 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 *** 'Fraid so. Or 200mpg carburettors, as Bob said. Same as before. But hope springs eternal. Maybe we could power an over-unity device on eternally springing hope. Oh, sorry, that IS how they're powered, isn't it. Anyway I agree, the pro-magnet crowd should put up verifiable testing or cut the yacking. All best Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner Greg H. - Original Message - From: Andres Secco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 6:28 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] So called magnetic fuel conditionersandmagnetic watertreatment Greg, My experience is totally different and disagree with your concepts of no real proofs. There are thousands of cars, cooling towers and boilers running with magnets with very good results. Better fosil fuel yield no fouling are the reported results. Of course if someone wants to pasteurize or sterilize water is unlikely to do it with magnets. Magnets do not make miracles but say that there is a waste of time to use them is too much. - Original Message - From: Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] So called magnetic fuel conditionersandmagnetic water treatment Mike, You have made a statement that really stands out as to how unreliable the science of magnetism really is. Ozone is now a proven technology for many things, including purification of water, while 30 years ago it was in the realm of junk science. Yet, after 30 years, magnets are still in the realm of junk science ( sounds good - maybe even possible, but no real proof ). One would think that thirty years would be plenty of time to establish the how and why it works and be accepted by the mainstream science community. Yet, magnets are still have not been proven by scientific trials. You mention trials by putting them on fuel pipelines, and watching the differences in the amount of wax build up, but, there is no proof in that. The amount of wax in fuel varies with the time of the year, and the particular fuel flowing through the pipeline.The same pipeline will handle ( in order of decreasing wax content ) heating oil ( Diesel #4 ), vehicle diesel in the summer( Diesel #2 ), vehicle Diesel in the winter ( Diesel #1 or a blend of #1 and #2 depending on how cold the area get's, that the fuel is going to ) and possibly kerosene depending on the area. A build up of wax that occurred when heating oil is being pumped through the pipeline, will dissolve when diesel #1 or kerosene is being pumped through the pipeline. Wax buildup is also more likely to occur during the late winter / early spring
Re: [Biofuel] KOH carbonated
Thomas, Thanks for the corection, I plead temporary insanity (actually I was distracted when I rushed out that email). You are correct there is no O2 produced. Mike Tomas Juknevicius wrote: Mike McGinness wrote: The KOH reacts with CO2 in the air producing K2CO3 + O2 + H20. The K2CO3 is still considered a strong base and may still work for suponification for your purposes, but it is not as reactive as KOH. Also only one of the two K's from the K2CO3 is a strong base so only half of it will act as a strong base. Therefore if ten percent is K2CO3 only 5% will act as a strong base like KOH. Hi, I have a little nit to pick here :P KOH reacts with CO2 in the air producing K2CO3 and H2O only. No O2 is produced. The complete reaction is: 2 KOH + CO2 - K2CO3 + H2O -- Tomas Juknevicius ___ 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] KOH carbonated
The KOH reacts with CO2 in the air producing K2CO3 + O2 + H20. The K2CO3 is still considered a strong base and may still work for suponification for your purposes, but it is not as reactive as KOH. Also only one of the two K's from the K2CO3 is a strong base so only half of it will act as a strong base. Therefore if ten percent is K2CO3 only 5% will act as a strong base like KOH. Lab supply firms like HACH and Hanna Instruments make test kits for testing for M and P alkalinity. The P alkalinity yields 100% of the OH alkalinity plus 50% of the carbonate alkalinity. I am not sure of the top of my head but I think the P alkalinity test (known as phenolphthalein) is the direct comparison you want since it measures 50% of the K2CO3 content. Therefore, it should give you the equivalent reactivity of the two batches you have of KOH. A local pet store may have the P alkalinity test in the fish section of the store for under $20.00. Mike McGinness JJJN wrote: Hello everyone, I just got 50 #s of KOH for next to nothing. It is in flake form but it is carbonated to some extent (unkown). I have some lab grade KOH that is near absolute also. Can anyone give me a complete procedure to make a comparison (Strength %) of one to the other? I want to know because if the one is 10% weaker than the other then I should be able to increase the weaker by 10% to achieve similar results. I understand that from this point I must still tweek some one way or the other. Perhaps my thinking is flawed in assuming the relationship is proportional and I should just use better KOH? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jim ___ 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] Cross Posted: Mercury Levels Rising: Report Release
Sorry if I sound like I am knocking Greenpeace. I am not. I live in a city (Houston, Texas) where we can't even trust the local police crime lab reports! Recently investigations here have turned up falsified data that sent people to DEATH ROW based on lies from the police department lab personnel (faked DNA test results for instance along with extremely poor QA/QC lab policies and procedures) combined with perjury by the officers in the case simply to close a case or because they were sure they had the guilty person, so they made up the evidence. As Eddie Murphy says so eloquently in some of his movies (Beverly Hills Cop) TRUST ME. I see bad lab data and lab procedures regularly in environmental test labs. Therefore, I question all facts given to me as lab test data and so called FACTS and I will for the rest of my life, unless it is run by 3 independent labs with double blinds, including sample matrix tests for interferences such as sample spikes and sample dilutions to verify the accuracy of the tests with a paper trail to ASTM standards, proper sample chain of custody paper work by reputable, unbiased and knowledgeable lab personnel (this includes sampling by unbiased personnel) and with proper sample preservation between the sample point and the lab test. Even then a drug test can show positive for a non drug user if some slips a drug into their drink. In the case of the original post on this topic I have seen zero data, no numbers, so far to back up any of the original poster's claims. Furthermore there was no attempt to prove the link between the individuals with mercury in their hair who were tested and the purported source mercury emissions from burning coal. Both are large geographical issues in nature and no attempt was made to connect the two geographically. I was trying to point out that there are other huge sources of mercury in our environment including the customary practice of throwing fluorescent light bulbs (and breaking them) with huge amounts of mercury into leaky trash containers!!! And that 50% of the metal alloy in all US dental fillings is still mercury!!! perhaps the mercury in the hair samples is from leaching dental filings!! By the way has anyone bothered to check mercury emissions (air, ground water and storm water runoff) from the local grave yards to see if the dental filings there aren't making their way back into the environment!? I am not disputing the toxicity or danger of mercury!! It is real and well documented. I am just trying to widen the focus as to possible sources and to force others to question so called facts and insist on real hard data with details about the reliability of the data. And thanks for the links in your posting, they have lot of information I did not yet have in my archive on the topic of mercury toxicity. Mike McGinness Michael Redler wrote: Mike McGinness wrote: Second I would not put a lot of faith in such a sampling procedure 'we've been gathering hair samples from Greenpeace supporters across the country'. I can't speak for anyone else in the group but, in order to consider your position, I need you to back this statement with something, anything - even if it's because I don't like 'em. If your questioning the test, that's fine - just say so. However, It looks as though you feel that having Greenpeace activists in you sample can skew the results. Even if you have overzealous activists dipping their hair in mercury (assuming that even works), the data would show outliers, probably have a high standard deviation and would get the attention of critics. Since there is an abundance of data that supports how damaging mercury is to all life, research to find reliable test methods is certainly worth while. There is a growing consensus that hair has potential as a viable test material and that the biggest concern has less to do with the hair and more to do with standardization in the laboratory and whether your looking for long or short term exposure. I say this with indifference to the EPA's participation. I'm more interested in consensus in the scientific community - especially with the recent scandals that have put the EPA's reliability into question. http://www.traceelements.com/writtenresponse.html http://www.thorne.com/pdf/journal/6-5/trace_element_analysis.pdf http://www.intox.org/databank/documents/supplem/supp/ehc223.htm That said, I would agree that mercury in coal is a problem, but it is one that can be solved, by removing it before it is burned or exhausted. Mercury in coal is not the problem. Mercury in coal is one of the many reasons why coal is the problem. Collecting mercury before you burn the coal doesn't change the fact that it's there. It only changes the destination and the variables related to how one should get rid of it. Re: noise - Thank you. YES, I want to make noise about all the mercury that finds it's way into consumer, commercial, industrial
Re: [Biofuel] Cross Posted: Mercury Levels Rising: Report Release
The mercury in vaccines and flu shots has been reduced 99.9% from what it was a few years ago (I researched this a few months ago for a recent booster shot) if you get the right supplier!! BUT, Ask to see the paper work first for the actual vial being used!! I found that out while dealing with the local County Health Clinic dispensing the Vaccines recently. Of course that begs the next question of what toxin they replaced the mercury with to keep the vaccine and flu shots sterile and presumably safe! Mike McGinness Margo wrote: Mercury seems to be in the vaccines as well, including flu shots. I don't know what the answer is, but there must be a better answer than some of the things we humans have come up with so far. I still think the natural food industry has a lot to contribute in this area. Young Living has some very interesting information in some of their latest studies. - Original Message - From: Mike McGinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cross Posted: Mercury Levels Rising: Report Release In regards to mercury emissions from burning coal and my prior comments: I almost forgot the really big, big BIG issue. All silver colored dental fillings are currently still made from mercury amalgam metal alloy (50% raw mercury!!!) according to my local dentist Therefore, We are probably the single largest unregulated source of mercury emissions in the environment! Thanks to the FDA! Mike McGinness Michael Redler wrote: Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:26:10 -0500 Subject: [renewable-energy] Mercury Levels Rising: Report Release Fellow enviros, For almost two years, we've been gathering hair samples from Greenpeace supporters across the country. On February 8, we released the results of our nationwide mercury study, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/mercury-report and the results are alarming. Over *one in five* women of childbearing age tested above the limit the Environmental Protection Agency set as safe. The even more chilling news is that earlier this year in his State of the Union speech http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=80ref_source=listsmercury to Congress, President Bush called for more energy investment in dirty fossil fuels, including coal, the largest source of mercury pollution in the country. Tell Congress that America doesn't need more coal and mercury http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=80ref_source=listsmercury to be spewed into our environment, our waterways and our bodies. A healthy, sustainable energy futures begins with increased investments in clean, renewable energy, not dirty fossil fuels. Best, Nick Greenpeace www.greenpeaceusa.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] == THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY LIST. -- . Please feel free to send your input to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Join the list by sending a blank e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. To view previous messages from the list, subscribe to a daily digest of the list, or stop receiving the list by e-mail (and read it on the Web), go to http://www.yahoogroups.com/list/renewable-energy . . This e-mail discussion list is managed by the American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org -- Association: http://www.awea.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
Re: [Biofuel] So called magnetic fuel conditioners andmagnetic water treatment
bob allen wrote: Howdy Mike, Mike McGinness wrote: I studied this topic extensively for 30 years now and I am a chemical engineer. It is not all a con, though some of it has a lot of pseudo science why it works theories printed in the marketing literature as fact (which it is not). Thomas Register (in 1990) listed over 50 US manufacturers of these devices, some had been in business with over $10,000,000 in sales since the early 1970's, so there is something to them! this doesn't address whether these devices work, just that there are many who believe they do. My point is that companies that manufacture and sell only one device, if that device does not work, do not build up large companies that are 30 years old having sales in excess of 10,000 million dollars per year if that one device does not work, and certainly not over 50 companies. Bink's manufacturing, and later Devillbuss was selling them (electrostatic versions) for water wash paint booths to kill collected paint overspray, and to keep it from scaling up the walls, etc. of water wash paint booths back in the late 1970's. Ingersol Rand introduced them later for cooling water scale control on air compressor water cooled aftercoolers. we were talking about fuel and energy, please one thing at a time. From a chemical engineering standpoint there is a similarity to fuels and a similarity between the various devices and how they affect the fluids they are treating. Also, one of my points was that these devices are used successfully in many different applications. And they are ALL used to save energy! I do know it works in some situations, and not in others and it is not well understood yet in the scientific community what the parameters are for making it work all the time (controls). It is more of an empirical trial and error technology so far with most of the application data as to where and when it does and does not work locked up the field trial data of the manufacturers and retailers. that doesn't sound like very credible evidence to me It was not meant to be offered as evidence, only a summary of my 30 years of trying to figure out what is really going on with these various devices and why they work in one place and then not in another. Most of my experience with them has been with water treatment heat exchanger scale prevention to save energy These units can work in one cooling tower and not the next. Unfortunately there are many variables that are not controlled or measured in cooling water and it is one or a combination of those differnces that makes it work in one tower and then not in the next. For this reason the magnetic water treatment manufactures (the large reputable ones) usually offer money back Try it gaurantees. Even hydrocarbon fuel has some polar molecules. There are also short lived free radicals in the fuel that are affected. Also look into paramagnetic (calcium, Ca+2, O2 for some interesting insights). I have seen electromagnetic units, 24 diameter and larger selling for $100,000 used in oil pipelines to stop paraffin wax (polymerization) scale from forming in the pipelines. but have you seen two pipelines side by side, one with and one without, and compared the waxing of the two? No. Typical demos have been done by repeatedly adding and removing the magnets on the same pipeline since two pipelines side by side may be significally different in some way. The scale (or wax in this case) forms with out the magnets and disapears with the magnets reproducibly. The source of power for the permanent magnetic units is not the magnet. It is the pump motor driving the pump which is pushing the fluid through the magnetic field, or the case of the newer catalytic units it is the turbulence of the fluid flowing past dissimilar metals at the surface in an alloy causing an electrochemical effect. The velocity of the fluid going through the magnetic field (or catalytic units) has a critical velocity window (turbulence and friction are involved). It is the flow of the fluid through the magnetic field and the resulting attempt at alignment by the polar molecules (or their electrons) in the fluid that causes the physical chemical changes in the fluid. Colloidal particles are disturbed, broken up and rearranged. to me it would make more sense if the polarization of the molecules caused an alignment and therefore larger particles... Simply placing the fluid (static) in the presence of the magnet does not work. When the fluid flows through the magnetic field the electrons in molecules respond to the applied field and they try to reorient themselves. This causes collodial (small groups of molecules, more on that later) electromagnetic molecular forces to be disturbed and the collodial particles are rearanged. The rearangment apparently favors better combustion in the fuel case
Re: [Biofuel] KOH carbonated
Titrate to what end point? Mike McGinness bob allen wrote: make two solutions of the same concentration with the good and questionable KOH. titrate against any standard acid and compare. JJJN wrote: Hello everyone, I just got 50 #s of KOH for next to nothing. It is in flake form but it is carbonated to some extent (unkown). I have some lab grade KOH that is near absolute also. Can anyone give me a complete procedure to make a comparison (Strength %) of one to the other? I want to know because if the one is 10% weaker than the other then I should be able to increase the weaker by 10% to achieve similar results. I understand that from this point I must still tweek some one way or the other. Perhaps my thinking is flawed in assuming the relationship is proportional and I should just use better KOH? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jim ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves - Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ 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
Yes indeed, it sounds exactly like snake oil reading the marketing claims below. Mike McGinness David Miller wrote: 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/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel
Re: [Biofuel] So called magnetic fuel conditioners
Check out surface tension effects! It affects atomization. Mike McGinness David Miller wrote: 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 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 and magnetic water treatment
I studied this topic extensively for 30 years now and I am a chemical engineer. It is not all a con, though some of it has a lot of pseudo science why it works theories printed in the marketing literature as fact (which it is not). Thomas Register (in 1990) listed over 50 US manufacturers of these devices, some had been in business with over $10,000,000 in sales since the early 1970's, so there is something to them! Bink's manufacturing, and later Devillbuss was selling them (electrostatic versions) for water wash paint booths to kill collected paint overspray, and to keep it from scaling up the walls, etc. of water wash paint booths back in the late 1970's. Ingersol Rand introduced them later for cooling water scale control on air compressor water cooled aftercoolers. I do know it works in some situations, and not in others and it is not well understood yet in the scientific community what the parameters are for making it work all the time (controls). It is more of an empirical trial and error technology so far with most of the application data as to where and when it does and does not work locked up the field trial data of the manufacturers and retailers. Even hydrocarbon fuel has some polar molecules. There are also short lived free radicals in the fuel that are affected. Also look into paramagnetic (calcium, Ca+2, O2 for some interesting insights). I have seen electromagnetic units, 24 diameter and larger selling for $100,000 used in oil pipelines to stop paraffin wax (polymerization) scale from forming in the pipelines. The source of power for the permanent magnetic units is not the magnet. It is the pump motor driving the pump which is pushing the fluid through the magnetic field, or the case of the newer catalytic units it is the turbulence of the fluid flowing past dissimilar metals at the surface in an alloy causing an electrochemical effect. The velocity of the fluid going through the magnetic field (or catalytic units) has a critical velocity window (turbulence and friction are involved). It is the flow of the fluid through the magnetic field and the resulting attempt at alignment by the polar molecules (or their electrons) in the fluid that causes the physical chemical changes in the fluid. Colloidal particles are disturbed, broken up and rearranged. This is an area that should be seriously researched at the university chemical engineering level someday. Unfortunately the Russians did most of the magnetic water and fuel treatment R D in this area when it was the Soviet Union during the cold war. During that time the US chemical industry paid (via so called R D Grants) US universities to prove it did not work (on water for controlling calcium scale for instance, the tests were rigged to fail, to prove they did not work) in order to insure continuing chemical sales for water treatment chemicals of cooling towers, boilers, etc. They did the same thing to the ozone industry until NASA (a NACE society published paper covered this about 15 years ago) proved that Ozone could eliminate calcium scaling and bacteria with out additional chemicals in cooling towers as well as allow the increase of the number of cycles of concentration. I have personally run a controlled test using a magnetic device and witnessed the existing hard calcium pipe scale disappear and turn into sludge in a closed system in an aqueous environment. It also turns out that depending on the orientation of the magnetic field lines around the fluid flow one can encourage or discourage biological growth in the fluid For instance if oriented properly it can inhibit bio fouling of diesel fuel when it is flowing though the device (does not work on fuel sitting in the tank). UTMB hospital demonstrated years ago the use of an electromagnetic field coil to speed the healing of broken leg bones (paramagnetic calcium!!!) in a patient who's leg had repeatedly failed to heal and was rebroken repeatedly as a result. A few weeks of the magnetic treatment and the leg permanently healed in just a few weeks, in what usually takes 3 months! It was the flow of blood through the magnetic field (in my opinion that affecting the paramagnetic calcium in the blood, and / or possibly the iron-hemoglobin) that speed up the healing process. The point is it worked. Harbour Tools currently sells a fuel magnetic device for less than $20.00 retail for use on the fuel lines in automobiles. Home Depot was recently selling magnetic / catalytic water treatment devices for calcium scale control on home water heaters I would find it most interesting to see test results of using these devices ( including magnetic, RF, electrostatic, and catalytic units ) on the air itself (instead of the fuel) since the O2, oxygen, is a di-radical with two unpaired electrons! Mike McGinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nmfrc.org/ateww.cfm http://www.ecoshieldenv.com Andres Secco wrote: All will depend on how
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
Funny when you think that the internet all started with DARPA Mike McGinness Evergreen Solutions wrote: I just wanted to chime in very quickly about the hacker mentality and ethic. In theory, hackers hack to make things better. Security, speed, effeciency, clock cycles, whatever. I just heard a story on NPR tonight about prius hackers who have doubled the effeciency of their Prius's by adding additional batteries and a plug-in. I'm digressing.. Red boxes, blue boxes, tron boxes...home cable descramblers...it's a rocky path. I used to use a red box while I was away at college to call my friends, still have about 6 of them, haha. When radio shack stopped selling tone dialers I bought all their remaining stock. I did it because I was poor, and stealing from the man seemed legitimate. The man had lots of money, and was so automated he couldn't tell the difference between a quarter and the tone I generated. We experimented with one of the boxes that prevents the line voltage from dropping when you pick up a call too, although our use was to prevent telemarketers from being able to hang up. I've recently done a lot of thinking about how FEW people do the thinking for SO MANY. From law makers to engineers, whatever. However, with people like the EFF (electronic frontier foundation) floating around, I don't believe that we're in true danger of losing our internet, per se. If anything, I see it becoming LESS centralized, and LESS controlled. The MPAA/RIAA are fighting a losing battle against a community that's consistently outpacing them in terms of privacy and anonymity. To a google search on Tor, I use it personally. The main point for me I guess is that the fattest pipes out there are NOT on american soil, and the technology is NOT american. I don't doubt anyone's desire to inflict greater control or profit margin on American internet access, I just don't see it happening any time soon. True privacy on the internet is a fallacy anyway, but not even Google will listen to the government telling it not to put satellite imagery of bases, etc, up free on googleearth. Pakistan and India are suingbut...who? It takes about 6 months for a pharmacy lab to learn to copy someone else's drug. It took 72 hours to break the DRM on iTunes. It took 24 hours to break the ultimately encrypted dvd encryption. It took 12 hours to break Arista's new CD protection scheme. It took 6 hours to break sony's illegal DRM. Fear not fellow subverts, the underground will keep us safe. Sort of. ___ 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] U.S. panel to open patent probe on Toyota hybrids - Feb. 10, 2006
The last I heard of this, Ford, GM and Chrysler's hybrids were less
energy efficient than their gas only US versions and they were forced
to use the Toyota hybrid algorithm that was the key to making the
hybrids more energy efficient than the gas only versions (along with
paying patent royalties).
I wonder if the Big 3 are behind today's news below
Mike
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/10/news/international/toyota_patent.reut/index.htm
Title: U.S. panel to open patent probe on Toyota hybrids - Feb. 10, 2006
cnnad_renderAd("http://ads.cnn.com/js.ng/site=cnn_money_money_position=728x90_top_money_rollup=business_news_money_section=world_biz");
The Internet home of:
chooseMag();
SYMBOLLOOK-UP
Entire Site
Fortune
Money
Business 2.0
Fortune Small Business
Web
/***
* AnyLink CSS Menu script- © Dynamic Drive DHTML code library (www.dynamicdrive.com)
* This notice MUST stay intact for legal use
* Visit Dynamic Drive at http://www.dynamicdrive.com/ for full source code
***/
HOME
NEWS
MARKETS
TECHNOLOGY
JOBS ECONOMY
PERSONALFINANCE
AUTOS
REAL ESTATE
SMALL BUSINESS
LISTS
Main
Companies
Economy
World Business
Newsmakers
Fun Money
Corrections
Main
Portfolio
News
Indexes
Pre-Market
After-Hours
Bonds
Commodities
Currencies
Actives
Gainers
Losers
Earnings
Hot Stocks
Sivy on Stocks
Investor Research Center
Main
Personal Tech
Sectors Stocks
Fortune 500 Tech
Top Tech Companies
B2Day Blog
Game Over
Main
Economic Calendar
Fed Focus
Your Job 2006
Employment Rates
Cost of Living Tool
Find a Job
Main
Retirement
Mutual Funds
ETF Center
Five Tips
Sivy on Stocks
College
Insurance
Taxes
Portfolio
Money 101
10 Resolutions
Main
New Cars
Used Cars
Financing
Reviews
Tips Advice
Main
Best Places to Live
Calculators
Latest home prices
Money 101
Mortgage Rates
Real Estate Tips
Main
Hot Startups
Best Bosses
Garage Inventors Guidebook
Fastest-Growing Companies
Main
Fortune 500
Global 500
Best places to live
Best companies to work for
Boom towns
Sivy's 70 Top Stocks
MONEY's Ultimate Funds
Best Places to Retire
Fastest-Growing Companies
10 Resolutions
7 Star Funds
101 Dumbest Moments
U.S. to probe Toyota hybrid patents
Trade body to investigate whether automaker infringed on patent held by Solomon Technologies.
February 10, 2006: 10:28 AM EST
TOKYO (Reuters) -
A U.S. trade body is to investigate a complaint that Toyota Motor Corp.'s popular Prius and Highlander hybrid models infringed a patent, according to the body's Web site.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) will look at a claim that the patent is owned by Florida-based Solomon Technologies Inc., it said.
Toyota's Highlander hybrid
Toyota (up $0.78 to $103.29, Research) shares edged higher in morning trading in New York.
Solomon Technologies filed a complaint with the panel last month saying the hybrid transmission in the two popular vehicles infringed its patent related to motor and transmission systems.
If the ITC agrees with Solomon, Japan's top auto maker could be banned from importing the systems and the Prius and Highlander hybrid models that they power. The ITC said opening a case does not mean it has made any decision on the merits.
A Toyota spokesman said it cannot comment on ongoing cases.
In September, Solomon applied to a Florida federal district court for an injunction against Toyota barring infringement and damages for unauthorized use of its patented technologies.
Toyota sold 110,000 Prius models and 18,800 Highlander hybrid SUVs in North America last year.
-
Click here to read about more patent disputes.
SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT |
More World Biz
Volkswagen to lay off 20,000
Yuan sets another high vs. dollar
Sony BMG chairman, CEO swap posts
The Hot List
Five stocks we love
Real estate forecast 2006
5 careers: Big demand, big pay
Top StoriesFive stocks we loveIs marriage cost effective?Check out the hottest toys for 2006High-octane Land RoverStocks manage gains
cnnad_renderAd("http://ads.cnn.com/js.ng/site=cnn_money_money_position=336x600_rgt_money_rollup=business_news_money_section=world_biz");
if(cnnEnableCL){if(location.hostname.indexOf('.cnn.com')==-1){cnnAddCSI('contextualLinks','/.element/ssi/contextual/story-wide.html','origin=money=cnn_monbiz_dyn_ctxt=moneyworldbiz=""
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics
Re: [Biofuel] Cross Posted: Mercury Levels Rising: Report Release
Counter comments. (but these are not neccessarily all the views of the author) First, I am not aware of an EPA limit for mercury in Human hair. If there is one, what is it and where is it? Second I would not put a lot of faith in such a sampling procedure we've been gathering hair samples from Greenpeace supporters across the country. That said, I would agree that mercury in coal is a problem, but it is one that can be solved, by removing it before it is burned or exhausted. The problem is getting the law passed and enforced to get it removed, not in outlawing its (coal's) use. Finally, if you want to make noise about mercury look at its use in pharmaceutical vaccines for instance to kill pathogens and to make the Vaccines SAFE and the blind eye the FDA puts on the high mercury content in medicine and sea foods, and its continued presence in many home products like thermostats, trunk light switches on automobiles not to mention energy efficient light bulbs we are all switching to!!! Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury!!... Check out the links on this google search for more details. http://www.greenfacts.org/mercury/l-3/mercury-4.htm http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=ie=ISO-8859-1q=mercury+current+uses+products+containingbtnG=Search Finally, an associate of mine once claimed that we were soon going to need to declare all human grave yards to be hazardous waste dumps needing superfund cleanup funds due to all the toxins in our bodies, especially toxic cancer pharmaceutical medicines from the cancer patients Your mercury study may be further proof he was right! Mike McGinness Michael Redler wrote: Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:26:10 -0500 Subject: [renewable-energy] Mercury Levels Rising: Report Release Fellow enviros, For almost two years, we've been gathering hair samples from Greenpeace supporters across the country. On February 8, we released the results of our nationwide mercury study, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/mercury-report and the results are alarming. Over *one in five* women of childbearing age tested above the limit the Environmental Protection Agency set as safe. The even more chilling news is that earlier this year in his State of the Union speech http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=80ref_source=listsmercury to Congress, President Bush called for more energy investment in dirty fossil fuels, including coal, the largest source of mercury pollution in the country. Tell Congress that America doesn't need more coal and mercury http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=80ref_source=listsmercury to be spewed into our environment, our waterways and our bodies. A healthy, sustainable energy futures begins with increased investments in clean, renewable energy, not dirty fossil fuels. Best, Nick Greenpeace www.greenpeaceusa.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] == THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY LIST. -- . Please feel free to send your input to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Join the list by sending a blank e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. To view previous messages from the list, subscribe to a daily digest of the list, or stop receiving the list by e-mail (and read it on the Web), go to http://www.yahoogroups.com/list/renewable-energy . . This e-mail discussion list is managed by the American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org -- Association: http://www.awea.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] Cross Posted: Mercury Levels Rising: Report Release
In regards to mercury emissions from burning coal and my prior comments: I almost forgot the really big, big BIG issue. All silver colored dental fillings are currently still made from mercury amalgam metal alloy (50% raw mercury!!!) according to my local dentist Therefore, We are probably the single largest unregulated source of mercury emissions in the environment! Thanks to the FDA! Mike McGinness Michael Redler wrote: Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:26:10 -0500 Subject: [renewable-energy] Mercury Levels Rising: Report Release Fellow enviros, For almost two years, we've been gathering hair samples from Greenpeace supporters across the country. On February 8, we released the results of our nationwide mercury study, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/mercury-report and the results are alarming. Over *one in five* women of childbearing age tested above the limit the Environmental Protection Agency set as safe. The even more chilling news is that earlier this year in his State of the Union speech http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=80ref_source=listsmercury to Congress, President Bush called for more energy investment in dirty fossil fuels, including coal, the largest source of mercury pollution in the country. Tell Congress that America doesn't need more coal and mercury http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=80ref_source=listsmercury to be spewed into our environment, our waterways and our bodies. A healthy, sustainable energy futures begins with increased investments in clean, renewable energy, not dirty fossil fuels. Best, Nick Greenpeace www.greenpeaceusa.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] == THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY LIST. -- . Please feel free to send your input to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Join the list by sending a blank e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. To view previous messages from the list, subscribe to a daily digest of the list, or stop receiving the list by e-mail (and read it on the Web), go to http://www.yahoogroups.com/list/renewable-energy . . This e-mail discussion list is managed by the American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org -- Association: http://www.awea.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] U.S. panel to open patent probe on Toyota hybrids - Feb. 10, 2006
Andy, Thanks for the details, it looks and sounds interesting. Mike ama-iplaw wrote: Hi MIke !!! Here is Solomon's web-site: http://www.solomontechnologies.com/index2.html . Their corprate filings are also available in Edgar via their web-site. The patent involved is US 5,067,932. If successful against Toyota, then the Big 3 may follow. Since they offer, make and sell products, they do not appear to be a so-called patent troll. ... ANDY ... - Original Message - From:Mike McGinness Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:01 PM Subject: U.S. panel to open patent probe on Toyota hybrids - Feb. 10, 2006 The last I heard of this, Ford, GM and Chrysler's hybrids were less energy efficient than their gas only US versions and they were forced to use the Toyota hybrid algorithm that was the key to making the hybrids more energy efficient than the gas only versions (along with paying patent royalties). I wonder if the Big 3 are behind today's news below 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/
