[Biofuel] Fwd: Did vaccines kill?
like that and shake. I was so angry and scared that my baby might not be okay. Luckily, she is, but I wish I had known the most important thing: I had a choice. I didn't have to have her go through that. The 'authorities' make parents think it is mandatory and the law that your kids have to have shots. I hope that every parent that saw your series will realize that they do have a choice, a personal choice that does not have to be defended to anyone. I wish the slogan would be 'Shots: Your child, Your choice.' Great job and thank you! Kalae Chock's ninth blog on Vaccination Debate states that the original purpose for the Vaccination Debate report was to share Shelly Walker's story and to explain the government's compensation program for vaccine related deaths and injuries. It is clear from her comments that she had no idea how controversial the vaccine topic had become. In the meantime, Shelly Walker is one mom on a mission - sharing her story as a means of alerting other moms to the real dangers inherent in all vaccines. She has made several copies of an article by Dr. Tedd Koren, Crib Death or Vaccine Death? in which he cites that SIDS is the second most common cause of infant death with 10,000 deaths annually. On top of the article she has links to the FDA warning on the intravenous use of vitamin K injections for newborns followed by a link to Vaccination Liberation's Model Birth Plan letter. Following this article she presents information on the national Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Her cover sheet has a picture of Vance followed by a quote from Scripture (Ephesians 3:17-19) and a short summary of her story. Shelly writes, I hope and pray that this tragedy never occurs in your family. With the knowledge I have acquired since his death I can firmly say that I will never vaccinate a child under the age of 24 months again, if at all. I lacked knowledge to make the best choice. I hope this empowers you to combat the darkness and seek the knowledge necessary to make the best decision. We second Shelly's sentiments and pray that people will investigate before they vaccinate since the only informed choice is complete avoidance and refusal. We are extremely grateful for Shelly Walker for taking the tragic loss of her only child and sharing what she has learned with others, passionately and publicly. VIC (Vaccine Injuried Children) Autism is 1 in 150 children today and it's impossible to have a genetic epidemic! Please learn from our mistake and educate BEFORE you vaccinate! For more information visit www.vacinfo.org or call 800-939-8227 - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080319/f2093f5b/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] A Pigeon Solves the Classic Box-and-Banana Problem
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=mDntbGRPeEU ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Confessions of an 'ex' Peak Oil believer
Hi Erik and all Hi Keith, and everyone else, Sorry Chandan, I'm baffled by the EROEI arithmetic. I just wanted to point out one thing about the arithmetic. No, I don't really understand it either, but I didn't really try. One thing that doesn't seem to have been said is that it might not matter as much, depending on where they're getting their energy to extract the oil. Well, that didn't come out quite right - of course it does matter, and the less energy they can use to get the oil the better. What I mean is more that the liquid fuel that you end up with is a VERY convenient and portable energy source. Until we figure out higher power density batteries or super capacitors or some other form of power storage that is better. But for now liquid fuel is hard to beat. Of course it could be biofuel rather than petroleum products, but the end result for the driver is about the same. A high energy source that is easy to take along with you and very convenient. Thankyou for pointing that out. I did some digging... This is from Offgrid-Online, April 5, 2000 (talking about alcohol EROEI), posted to the list seven years ago: Will we get out more energy than we put in? Does it matter? Generally a scheme that did not create more energy than it consumed would be useless, but in this case we might have a different view. Since we are after a portable fuel, we might be willing to spend more energy to get it, so long as we used a non-portable fuel to do so. For example, suppose we use wood-fired heat to make alcohol. Wood is a poor fuel as far as portability in general is concerned and is nearly useless for internal combustion engines. So what if we have to spend 2 BTUs of wood heat for each BTU of alcohol fuel produced? That might still be a good deal if we had lots of wood and gasoline was (that is, continues to be) highly priced. http://www.homesteadtechnology.com/newsletters/2405.txt So if you can use electrical power to extract the oil and crack it down to usable fuel then, even if you've used more power than you can then get out of the fuel, you could be ahead. Not all energy is equal as far as usability. Sacrificing some energy for the convenience of diesel and gas could be a good trade off. Again, the less sacrificed the better, down to none or positive energy gain, but even if it's not possible it doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. Using electrical power to extract oil could mean using coal-power, with hundreds of years of reserves to play with (?), or biomass, with no real finite limit, and in either case the EROEI figure of the oil itself wouldn't matter. And in each case there are other problems to consider which are at least as important as the EROEI of oil. (If there is such a thing.) All that said, of course our lifestyles and use of the liquid fuel need to change, drastically. Dead right - our use of all energy has to change drastically, not just of liquid fuel. But just because some energy is lost doesn't mean that the whole process is unusable and needs to be shut down. Quite so. Thanks! - all best Keith Erik ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu is one of the more prominent dissenting voices on the subject of an anthropogenic cause for global warming. Is there any support for his position or has he ignored the evidence? I'm curious if anyone here can help me out as his name and research has been used in conversations I've had about global warming and I am trying to assess the validity of his position. Eric Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Treating WVO w. Glycerine Cocktail
Hello All, Some time back Chris Tan presented an interesting idea: Use the glycerin mix from BD processing to lower FFAs and decrease water in WVO. I've begun testing the idea. Results are preliminary at best, but I have a few observations that I'd appreciate comment on. Process: I titrated and then loaded 90 L WVO along with 9 L glycerin mix into the processor. The mix was pump agitated and warmed to about 75 F (25 C). I left the pump on for about 45 minutes. As soon as I stopped the pump i removed a sample of the mix so I could see when it had settled. I also titrated this daily to see when the titration stabilized (2 - 3 days). I let the mix settle for 5 days and then drained the glycerin from the bottom. I then removed and titrated a sample of the WVO. I prepped appropriate methoxide (20% vol/vol), and processed the oil based on the second titration (treated WVO). Results: - Original WVO titrated 2.7 (I use 0.1% KOH titration solution; made from 90% KOH) - Treated WVO titrated 1.8 (Same for oil from the reactor and from the sample removed earlier) - BD passed Warnvist Quality Test. Observations: - I noticed a distinct creamy layer between the settled WVO (top) and the glycerine (bottom). I presume that this is tallow as it clarified upon heating and clouded up again upon cooling. I hadn't noticed any tallow in the WVO I loaded into the processor. - I did not notice any difference in the amount of soap produced in the wash test. (Less water and FFAs in the WVO should result in less soap.) This is probably because I used good oil (2.7 using my KOH titration solution is the equivalent of about 1.7 using .1% NaOH). - I did notice some things different about the glycerin after treatment. a. It was less offensive in terms of odor. (Less methanol?) b. Although by no means was it clear, it did appear less opaque . swirled within a clear glass jar it appeared cleaner than the untreated glycerine. c. I was unable to determine whether or not pH was significantly affected, but the treated glycerin produced noticeably better, and more persistent bubbles when shaken with water than the untreated glyc. I was able to approximate the effect by adding a very small amount (a few drops) of phosphoric acid (not enough to crack the mix) to untreated glycerine. Comments and Questions: I use the primitive, but effective single stage base method for making BD. The WVO I typically get is of very good quality. If the oil I get titrated above 3.5 or 4 (using KOH), I would probably go to the 2 stage acid/base process. This idea of treating WVO with the caustic glycerine co-product interests me because it may make the glycerine more compostable. A couple of years ago I used glycerin (pH = ~5.5) split from the mix, on my compost piles and found that it not only composted well, it seemed to increase temp and the rate of decomposition. I've been composting unsplit glycerine (pH = ~ 9) without problem, but am concerned about the pH of the glyc cocktail. I also have the impression (only the impression) that soaps in unsplit glyc. resist breakdown. The split glycerine dissolved well in water and did not clog my sprayer. The unsplit formed a goo (insoluble soaps??) that did clog the sprayer. Treating the WVO with glycerine might also be viewed as treating the glycerine with FFAs. If the glycerine contains less water-insoluble soaps, and is of lower pH, the process might be doubly beneficial i.e. lowering water and FFAs in WVO and improving the composting properties of the glycerine cocktail. Questions: (Take your pick) - FFAs are very weak acids. Is this why the WVO titration did not drop to zero? Would longer treatment or more glyc. cocktail be needed to further lower FFAs? - A while back it was suggested that I add a small amount of phosphoric acid to my first wash to help remove water insoluble soaps. Does decreasing pH increase the solubility of otherwise water insoluble soaps? - I didn't notice tallow in the WVO I loaded into the processor, but it was clearly evident in the settled mix after treatment; same temp as the original WVO was. Any explanation? (Could be I just didn't see it) - The odor of the glycerine was distinctly less offensive after treatment. I suspect there was less methanol present. The temp of the mix never even reached 80F (27C). I can't imagine that it was used to form methyl esters. Is the presumed missing methanol now dissolved in the WVO (90 L WVO vs 9 L of glycerine). Any other reason for the change in odor? My this has become quite wordy. Sorry 'bout that Tom -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080319/8ca1819b/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing
Re: [Biofuel] Treating WVO w. Glycerine Cocktail
On Mar 19, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Thomas Kelly wrote: Some time back Chris Tan presented an interesting idea: Use the glycerin mix from BD processing to lower FFAs and decrease water in WVO. I've begun testing the idea. Results are preliminary at best, but I have a few observations that I'd appreciate comment on. Process: I titrated and then loaded 90 L WVO along with 9 L glycerin mix into the processor. Questions: (Take your pick) FFAs are very weak acids. Is this why the WVO titration did not drop to zero? 90L oil and 9L glycerine phase is not a lot of glycerine. There's been a lot of work on this very issue on the infopop site, and good results are had with maybe equal parts oil and glyc phase. Remember, all you're doing here is a traditional caustic refining of the oil, using the leftover alkali in the glyc phase to neutralize FFAs, with the added benefit of the glycerine to raise the specific gravity of the aqueous phase (thereby discouraging emulsion), and the presence of the methanol which helps dissolve a little of the FFA and theoretically could produce a little biodiesel at the same time. A while back it was suggested that I add a small amount of phosphoric acid to my first wash to help remove water insoluble soaps. Does decreasing pH increase the solubility of otherwise water insoluble soaps? The problem with any acid in there is that it encourages soaps to break down into FFA's -- exactly what you don't want. I avoid acid washes for that reason. The odor of the glycerine was distinctly less offensive after treatment. I suspect there was less methanol present. The temp of the mix never even reached 80F (27C). I can't imagine that it was used to form methyl esters. Is the presumed missing methanol now dissolved in the WVO (90 L WVO vs 9 L of glycerine). Unlike ethanol, methanol has very little odor -- I don't think that's what you're noticing. When I've done this procedure (which brought 7.5 titr oil down to 6, hardy worth it), I did get A LOT of methanol in the oil, which had to be washed out to have known parameters for the subsequent base reaction. All in all, I didn't find this technique very helpful, but I was using a low glyc- to-oil ratio, so that may be why. Check out infopop -- lots on this subject there -Ken Provost ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Confessions of an 'ex' Peak Oil believer
This is pretty much what I meant by energy packaged for relatively non-local distribution and consumption by humans which, it might be argued, is a market commodity, not a right (such as air and water) given by nature to any living being. Negative EROEI is definitely acceptable (specially to energy businesses) for producing this kind of energy. It generally seems to be is also acceptable to most people. It becomes even easier to accept if you take an anthropocentric view of the universe in which the only species that matters is homo sapiens sapiens. That's what we have been doing as a species for the last several centuries which brought the world to where it is today. Daniel Quinn's (the Ishmael guy) book Beyond Civilization is a nice semi-fictional account of this story. Chandan Keith Addison wrote: Hi Erik and all Hi Keith, and everyone else, Sorry Chandan, I'm baffled by the EROEI arithmetic. I just wanted to point out one thing about the arithmetic. No, I don't really understand it either, but I didn't really try. One thing that doesn't seem to have been said is that it might not matter as much, depending on where they're getting their energy to extract the oil. Well, that didn't come out quite right - of course it does matter, and the less energy they can use to get the oil the better. What I mean is more that the liquid fuel that you end up with is a VERY convenient and portable energy source. Until we figure out higher power density batteries or super capacitors or some other form of power storage that is better. But for now liquid fuel is hard to beat. Of course it could be biofuel rather than petroleum products, but the end result for the driver is about the same. A high energy source that is easy to take along with you and very convenient. Thankyou for pointing that out. I did some digging... This is from Offgrid-Online, April 5, 2000 (talking about alcohol EROEI), posted to the list seven years ago: Will we get out more energy than we put in? Does it matter? Generally a scheme that did not create more energy than it consumed would be useless, but in this case we might have a different view. Since we are after a portable fuel, we might be willing to spend more energy to get it, so long as we used a non-portable fuel to do so. For example, suppose we use wood-fired heat to make alcohol. Wood is a poor fuel as far as portability in general is concerned and is nearly useless for internal combustion engines. So what if we have to spend 2 BTUs of wood heat for each BTU of alcohol fuel produced? That might still be a good deal if we had lots of wood and gasoline was (that is, continues to be) highly priced. http://www.homesteadtechnology.com/newsletters/2405.txt So if you can use electrical power to extract the oil and crack it down to usable fuel then, even if you've used more power than you can then get out of the fuel, you could be ahead. Not all energy is equal as far as usability. Sacrificing some energy for the convenience of diesel and gas could be a good trade off. Again, the less sacrificed the better, down to none or positive energy gain, but even if it's not possible it doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. Using electrical power to extract oil could mean using coal-power, with hundreds of years of reserves to play with (?), or biomass, with no real finite limit, and in either case the EROEI figure of the oil itself wouldn't matter. And in each case there are other problems to consider which are at least as important as the EROEI of oil. (If there is such a thing.) All that said, of course our lifestyles and use of the liquid fuel need to change, drastically. Dead right - our use of all energy has to change drastically, not just of liquid fuel. But just because some energy is lost doesn't mean that the whole process is unusable and needs to be shut down. Quite so. Thanks! - all best Keith Erik ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
