[Vo]:Butanol development
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108171638.htm http://tinyurl.com/9pcw7r ... what yeast is to the process used to create ethanol, Clostridium beijerinckii is to the process that results in butanol. You can use distiller's grains, biomass, pretty much anything that can be deconstructed to sugars and can be fermented Apparently the capability has been around a while: When we did the original study 10 years ago that resulted in the mutant strain, we didn't do it in a nice, careful way using sophisticated molecular biology. However, commercialization is underway: Because the mutant strain produces higher concentrations of butanol, it's the basis for Tetravitae BioSciences, a local company that licensed the patented strain from the University of Illinois and is scaling up to use the over-productive strain on a large scale – the size of an ethanol plant. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Horace and Robin, The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius ... I think that an inverse fifth power will apply here, but backtracking to the original post- wasn't the whole point premised on the Mills' hypothesis of missing Coulomb force? BTW - Interesting thread along these lines from FrediFizzx et al: http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2006-11/msg00078.html In terms of a current loop - almost 400 amps! http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2006-11/msg00179.html
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
On Nov 16, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace and Robin, The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/ r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius ... I think that an inverse fifth power will apply here, Why? The dipole force is a 1/r^4 force. but backtracking to the original post- What original post? This one, or its preceeding ones? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On Nov 15, 2008, at 8:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hi Robin, How then is the electron bound to the proton at all? ..consider: given that a circular orbit, in QM terms, is an illusion, the lack of an apparent binding electrostatic attraction (even if one did not agree with Mills) does not necessarily prelude magnetic (or other) attraction. The magnetic field of an electron at the Bohr radius is a least a factor of 1000 times stronger than the electric field, no ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - wasn't the whole point premised on the Mills' hypothesis of missing Coulomb force? [snip] I don't know what that is all about. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] JB: I think that an inverse fifth power will apply here Why? The dipole force is a 1/r^4 force. Yes - It is at macro dimensions. ... but at nanoscale and below there are, first of all- numerous online references to a jump to the fifth power at the atomic scale. However, I cannot find a definitive citation for that. This situation is (or could be) similar to that of EM radiation. A classical calculation shows that the power radiated by a blackbody is proportional to the inverse fourth power of wavelength BUT... although this relationship does hold experimentally for wavelengths of light up into the ultraviolet, it fails for shorter wavelengths and was corrected by Max Planck. At shorter wavelength we find a jump to a fifth power law. I made a quick search to look for an authoritative reference to this connection in a more general sense - but nothing popped up quickly. It is important enough to dig deeper - if - someone does not come to my rescue here with the voice of authority. I would like to think (for obvious reasons) that it has some relevance to the Hartree energy and the scale of dimensions related to that. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:55:26 -0900: Hi, [snip] On Nov 16, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace and Robin, The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/ r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius ... I think that an inverse fifth power will apply here, Why? The dipole force is a 1/r^4 force. but backtracking to the original post- What original post? This one, or its preceeding ones? My original post to Jones was private email, to which he replied on list. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Hi Robin, How then is the electron bound to the proton at all? ..consider: given that a circular orbit, in QM terms, is an illusion, the lack of an apparent binding electrostatic attraction (even if one did not agree with Mills) does not necessarily prelude magnetic (or other) attraction. The magnetic field of an electron at the Bohr radius is a least a factor of 1000 times stronger than the electric field, no ?
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
On Nov 15, 2008, at 8:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hi Robin, How then is the electron bound to the proton at all? ..consider: given that a circular orbit, in QM terms, is an illusion, the lack of an apparent binding electrostatic attraction (even if one did not agree with Mills) does not necessarily prelude magnetic (or other) attraction. The magnetic field of an electron at the Bohr radius is a least a factor of 1000 times stronger than the electric field, no ? The electron waveform is co-centered with the proton so one way to look at it is there is on average no net Coulomb force or magnetic force on an orbital electron, though there is some degree of spin coupling between the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom. The question then becomes where do we actually observe the electron when we sample for it and what size is it there, what forces should it have on it there? These are questions having random variables in the answers. Looking at this from a Bohr point of view, i.e. the electron essentially being a point charge with a magnetic moment orbiting the proton at the Bohr radius, the Coulomb force is 5.149x10^-9 N and the magnetic force is 3.910x10^-17 N, so the Coulomb force is about 132 million times larger than the magnetic. The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius, but for high energy nucleus plunging electrons only. Somehow I missed the earlier posts in this thread, but that is to be expected I guess since I have over 1000 unread vortex messages, skipped due to lack of time or the hint of religion or politics somewhere in the associated threads. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
On Nov 15, 2008, at 8:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hi Robin, How then is the electron bound to the proton at all? ..consider: given that a circular orbit, in QM terms, is an illusion, the lack of an apparent binding electrostatic attraction (even if one did not agree with Mills) does not necessarily prelude magnetic (or other) attraction. The magnetic field of an electron at the Bohr radius is a least a factor of 1000 times stronger than the electric field, no ? The electron waveform is co-centered with the proton so one way to look at it is there is on average no net Coulomb force or magnetic force on an orbital electron, though there is some degree of spin coupling between the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom. The question then becomes where do we actually observe the electron when we sample for it and what size is it there, what forces should it have on it there? These are questions having random variables in the answers. Looking at this from a Bohr point of view, i.e. the electron essentially being a point charge with a magnetic moment orbiting the proton at the Bohr radius, the Coulomb force is 5.149x10^-9 N and the magnetic force is 3.910x10^-17 N, so the Coulomb force is about 132 million times larger than the magnetic. The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius, but for high energy nucleus plunging electrons only. The Lorentz force on the electron due to moving through the proton's magnetic field at the Bohr radius at orbital speed, is about 1.637x10^-16 N, which is roughly on the order of the attraction due to an assumed perfect coupling of the magnetic moments. As always, I'm a bit prone to computational errors, but the gist of what I'm saying above is right. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Let me try this again. On Nov 15, 2008, at 8:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hi Robin, How then is the electron bound to the proton at all? ..consider: given that a circular orbit, in QM terms, is an illusion, the lack of an apparent binding electrostatic attraction (even if one did not agree with Mills) does not necessarily prelude magnetic (or other) attraction. The magnetic field of an electron at the Bohr radius is a least a factor of 1000 times stronger than the electric field, no ? The electron waveform is co-centered with the proton so one way to look at it is there is on average no net Coulomb force or magnetic force on an orbital electron, though there is some degree of spin coupling between the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom. The question then becomes where do we actually observe the electron when we sample for it and what size is it there, what forces should it have on it there? These are questions having random variables in the answers. Looking at this from a Bohr point of view, i.e. the electron essentially being a point charge with a magnetic moment orbiting the proton at the Bohr radius, the Coulomb force is 8.239x10^-8 N and the magnetic force is 1.0010x10^-14 N, so the Coulomb force is about 2 million times larger than the magnetic. The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius, but for high energy nucleus plunging electrons only. The Lorentz force on the electron due to moving through the proton's magnetic field at the Bohr radius at orbital speed, is about 1.048x10^-14 N, which is roughly on the order of the attraction due to an assumed perfect coupling of the magnetic moments. As always, I'm a bit prone to computational errors, but the gist of what I'm saying above is right. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Butanol not a good idea?
One downside to butanol is it is both toxic and water soluble, a very bad combination. This is the problem with another gasoline additive, MTBE. Gasoline spills not having MTBE are much easier to clean up, and less likely to actually get to well intakes in large quantity because gasoline is not water soluble and migrates upward in water. MTBE dissolves in water and thus fully contaminates aquifers it manages to reach. Cleanup is nearly impossible. The same would be true for butanol. There has been a movement to ban MTBE from use in fuels. I would guess oil companies would love to see a movement exist to ban a bio-fuel after much is invested in it. It seems to me ethanol would be a much better fuel, especially pure ethanol that is not denatured. That will of course never be available because it would be consumed and ruin the liquor business and liquor tax revenues. If the last depression is any indication, there is a high demand for ethanol in a depression. Alcohol is not banned now, but the taxes are high enough now that a de facto ban would exist in a depression. Are we headed back to the days of speakeasys, rum runners, white lightning, and back country stills? Will the product be drunk, or used as fuel? Only the future can tell for sure. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Butanol not a good idea?
Interesting point... have not given this much thought, but... One possible solution (pun intended) is a fuel gel. The idea is that if you cut down on the leakage in the first place, and the leakage is not a huge problem to begin with but is there - then the by reducing leakage by what ? order of magnitude ? maybe, then the downside of butanol is less objectionable - in a risk vs rewards way. It could still be pumped at a station, but the pump would need to be modified. If spilled there would be a window of time when most of it could be sopped up. Most of us who have camped ... and that includes 'camped out in a buffet line' g are familiar with 'canned heat' aka 'sterno' http://zenstoves.net/Sterno.htm A gel for transport fuel would need to be injected - as the volatility has been removed; but actually that could become a 'feature' of this fuel - since direct injection, as with diesels, is much more efficient that a carb. It is even possible that by adding some 'structure' to the fuel with the gel, some 'extra' energy is available (the 'ordering' energy) ... after all, these sterno cans seem to last forever, while giving off the equivalent of what? 100 watts(th) per hour for 5-6 hours, mas o menos? try that with a battery. ... not to mention the calcium or other thixotropic agent might be 'active' ... Whataya think? - Original Message From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] One downside to butanol is it is both toxic and water soluble, a very bad combination. This is the problem with another gasoline additive, MTBE. Gasoline spills not having MTBE are much easier to clean up, and less likely to actually get to well intakes in large quantity because gasoline is not water soluble and migrates upward in water. MTBE dissolves in water and thus fully contaminates aquifers it manages to reach. Cleanup is nearly impossible. The same would be true for butanol. There has been a movement to ban MTBE from use in fuels. I would guess oil companies would love to see a movement exist to ban a bio-fuel after much is invested in it. It seems to me ethanol would be a much better fuel, especially pure ethanol that is not denatured. That will of course never be available because it would be consumed and ruin the liquor business and liquor tax revenues. If the last depression is any indication, there is a high demand for ethanol in a depression. Alcohol is not banned now, but the taxes are high enough now that a de facto ban would exist in a depression. Are we headed back to the days of speakeasys, rum runners, white lightning, and back country stills? Will the product be drunk, or used as fuel? Only the future can tell for sure. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
- Original Message From: Remi Cornwall Yes it a Maxwell Demon but it can be done if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments. This is not to detract from you argument, which I like -- ... but would want to see more detail (like are you using the penduli in the same way as the 'tuning fork' analogy?) ... yet I find it most amusing that you can readily accept a Maxwell Demon - for which there is zero proof, and at the same time be so vocal in rejecting the Mills theory of 'redundant ground states' of hydrogen; for which there is ample proof from him, from cosmology; and even quasi-independent University replication, where a megajoule of excess is documented, and with little other way to explain it (non chemical at least). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Butanol not a good idea?
Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One downside to butanol is it is both toxic and water soluble, a very bad combination. This is the problem with another gasoline additive, MTBE. Gasoline spills not having MTBE are much easier to clean up, and less likely to actually get to well intakes in large quantity because gasoline is not water soluble and migrates upward in water. MTBE dissolves in water and thus fully contaminates aquifers it manages to reach. Cleanup is nearly impossible. The same would be true for butanol. There has been a movement to ban MTBE from use in fuels. I would guess oil companies would love to see a movement exist to ban a bio-fuel after much is invested in it. But butanol is readily biodegradable, unlike MTBE, so it is not going accumulate in aquifers. While I haven't much sympathy for oil companies, I'm surprised gasoline is as cheap as it is, given all the nonsense they have had to put up with, such as MTBE, a cure that was worse than the disease. M.
RE: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Sorry Jones, You know nothing. You aren't doing research at top universities, you don't have supervisors/mentors at the highest level, have to be subject to due-diligence, show real data, approach a problem from many directions and get it to tie up, get peer reviewed. That is the mark of real science. It's honesty, openness, plasticity of thought (the desire to move arguments on with more SOUND arguments and DATA), has a receptive ear. Mills doesn't appeal to REAL data nor appeal to the body of knowledge that has come before. Get over it. Remi. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 October 2008 18:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels - Original Message From: Remi Cornwall Yes it a Maxwell Demon but it can be done if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments. This is not to detract from you argument, which I like -- ... but would want to see more detail (like are you using the penduli in the same way as the 'tuning fork' analogy?) ... yet I find it most amusing that you can readily accept a Maxwell Demon - for which there is zero proof, and at the same time be so vocal in rejecting the Mills theory of 'redundant ground states' of hydrogen; for which there is ample proof from him, from cosmology; and even quasi-independent University replication, where a megajoule of excess is documented, and with little other way to explain it (non chemical at least). Jones
[Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Vo, All these things are just the energy vector. At the moment we are constrained to the wheel running on road. (It's been like for millennia until someone comes up with non-aerofoil levitation). The most graceful solution to mobility of apelike-bipeds is the electric motor 80% efficient. The whole business of heat and reciprocating engines will seems quaint in ten years. I am of the opinion that I can make a heat battery say CaO + water (or how about CaC + H2O - ethylene for you ICE fans). Useless low grade heat at the moment but with the ferrofluid temporary remenance cycle I do at uni. heat will just routinely become another form of energy you can transform too at 100% efficiency. I mean a pendulum (in vacuo) cycles KE to PE and we see no mystery. Take a coupled ensemble of those pendulums and the nice motion you've set up at the start becomes randomised - you have trouble getting it back and we call that entropy increase. However the individual pendulums are still, perfectly inter-converting KE and PE. Put something on the scale of these little atomic pendulums (moving on in the argument) and you can tap and cohere this motion. Yes it a Maxwell Demon but it can be done if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments. Basically you must have a discriminant function to decide what's fast and slow (a gate etc.). The arguments come down to that your function gets randomised because it is getting knocked about too (its small, on the scale, right?) or that it is blinded by the isotropy of the radiation, or that it must have a little computer running it and this inevitably rejects more heat into the environment than the d.f. is trying to reduce. All the old arguments are bogus if you use phase changes and think out of the square. This can be argued macroscopically (thermodynamics T-S diagrams, meso-scopically considering the chemical potential and nano-scopically by molecular dynamics simulations. That's what I'm up to and I feel a renewed vigour after all the years of boredom. It is an interesting subject.
RE: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments Demon Problem in a nutshell: Basically you must have a **discriminant function** to decide what's fast and slow (a gate etc.). The arguments come down to that your #1 function gets randomised because it is getting knocked about too (its small, on the scale, right?) or #2 that it is blinded by the isotropy of the radiation, or #3 that it must have a little computer running it and this inevitably rejects more heat into the environment than the d.f. is trying to reduce. Here's the way out: All the old arguments are bogus if you use phase changes and think out of the square. This can be argued macroscopically (thermodynamics T-S diagrams, meso-scopically considering the chemical potential and nano-scopically by molecular dynamics simulations. That's what I'm up to and I feel a renewed vigour after all the years of boredom. It is an interesting subject. I need to type this up clearly in the thesis from all the early papers. It's based on logic and fact. I'm not jerking myself off denying reality. I don't see the point in jerking science because like God, it just stares back at one, unchanging, because it just IS regardless of ONE. If you want to play God with the laws of nature become a science fiction writer. One day that kind of person will have their own Holo-deck or Fantasy Island and they can make the rules, be rich, be loved but it will be an imaginary world. I am finding it fascinating and interesting again and that solely motivates me, not the pursuit of money and shiny offices. Love the problem and solving the problem for its sake and forget the trappings of office. After I've done my projects I'll run off with some of my girlfriends into nice exotic countries and happily live the life of a farmer, then disappear into the background, job done. I've got no ego trip merely a personal journey and to have fun for the mind. Go cross-correlate that with sociopath crank messiah inventor types and compare them to real scientists. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 October 2008 18:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels - Original Message From: Remi Cornwall Yes it a Maxwell Demon but it can be done if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments. This is not to detract from you argument, which I like -- ... but would want to see more detail (like are you using the penduli in the same way as the 'tuning fork' analogy?) ... yet I find it most amusing that you can readily accept a Maxwell Demon - for which there is zero proof, and at the same time be so vocal in rejecting the Mills theory of 'redundant ground states' of hydrogen; for which there is ample proof from him, from cosmology; and even quasi-independent University replication, where a megajoule of excess is documented, and with little other way to explain it (non chemical at least). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
- Original Message From: Remi Cornwall RC: You know nothing. You aren't doing research at top universities, you don't have supervisors/mentors at the highest level, have to be subject to due-diligence, show real data, approach a problem from many directions and get it to tie up, get peer reviewed. ... and while that can be a disadvantage to publishing more-and-mode rehashed mediocrity, it can be a distinct advantage in finding the occasional hidden truth - the big breakthrough - i.e. in some pursuits (a few) where the mainstream is wrong. There are admittedly not many where areas where the mainstream is wrong, thankfully, but there are more than most close-minded pedants can easily grasp. RC: That is the mark of real science. It's honesty, openness, plasticity of thought ... ... you are joking, right? Or do you not understand our shared language very well? There is very little plasticity of thought in the mainstream, almost by definition! especially when real data comes in to challenge accepted belief structures. It generally renders pedants very uncomfortable- causing them to spout out rather silly-sounding non-sequiturs in defense of what they think they know. The easy thing to do is simply to do the DISHONEST thing - which is what you are practicing today it seems, and call the real data wrong, simply because it does not fit well with you flawed understanding, and especially when you have failed to do the work necessary to see for yourself. Your incorrect notions on this will change, probably sooner than you desire - and in the mean-time, you can sign-off from the list once again to pursue something which apparently does seems to have merit, perhaps even a spark of genius -- but which you seem reluctant to explain well-enough for meaningful criticism. Why waste our time with this absurd level of negativism on issues where you are misinformed, and yet remain secretive on issues where you do have expertise ? Jones
RE: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
I have a lot of work to do and haven't touched this area for over two years simply because I didn't want to push it in front of very conventional supervisors. The struggle has been to get into the mindsets of establishment scientists and present the thesis. It's been difficult, breaking down a few times, disappearing for months, popping up again, conceding (both ways), toning stuff down, taking advice. The MD stuff I'd never talk to my supervisors about at this stage. One was trained as a theoretical physicist at Cambridge so no point arguing at this stage. Wait for the data. No-one sticks their neck out until the bandwagon is rolling. More than anything I've learnt about research is that it is more like politics. People are not necessarily wanting to solve problems but change their positions when it becomes unsustainable. You go there all young and giddy and have to tone it down. http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/PartOutline.pdf I think eqn. 33 page 16 is really neat and economical and I don't really need to do the MD simulations but I will. I want to tidy up this: http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/NonCarnot.pdf Came to me in a flash a few years ago and was written down quickly. This one is very old (2002) and I am embarrassed by it. More prose than maths (around page 5) http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/PTSP2ndLaw.pdf REMEMBER THIS STUFF NEEDS TIDYING UP. When I have an idea I sketch it down quickly not necessarily complete then I come back to it. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 October 2008 18:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels - Original Message From: Remi Cornwall Yes it a Maxwell Demon but it can be done if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments. This is not to detract from you argument, which I like -- ... but would want to see more detail (like are you using the penduli in the same way as the 'tuning fork' analogy?) ... yet I find it most amusing that you can readily accept a Maxwell Demon - for which there is zero proof, and at the same time be so vocal in rejecting the Mills theory of 'redundant ground states' of hydrogen; for which there is ample proof from him, from cosmology; and even quasi-independent University replication, where a megajoule of excess is documented, and with little other way to explain it (non chemical at least). Jones
RE: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Very easy to email and be snappy. Sorry Jones, I just don't believe you can drop below ground state and not see it in nature. Where is the spectrographic data? Turn a 'scope at a hot nebula and Mills should get lines he predicts. Preferentially hydrogen (and all the other stuff) should have dropped to the ground state long ago. So why are we all excited? (if you excuse the pun) Why isn't everything collapsing so that atoms are about 10pm in size? What's kicking us up from his sub-levels and why doesn't it then kick us higher? Why aren't things routinely ionized? It's nothing personal but this is getting my goat. Come on, simple answers. Get to the point.
Re: [Vo]:Wind-Switching.: Making butanol for a dollar a gallon
While it might be true that we need new engines for most of the new fuels, butanol can be used in gasoline engines with little or no modification, making Jones' idea doubly useful. --- R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) In this admosphere and culture, don't expect results. Expect more of what we are getting.. No progress in the US energy sector.Look overseas for emerging technology in new energy because the US has abrogated it's mandate. I made a suggestion to our local economic development groups. My comment was that if we had a source of new energy fuel, we woud not have the engine for the fuel. We know what many of the new fuels are.. we don't have an engine for their use. The present design of engines are actually technology used to build steam engines way back when. I suggested the design approach to a new engine would be by designing a transmission with an engine inside rather than an engine with a transmission inside.That ridiculus remark almost got me kicked outa the Dime Box Saloon technology society. Richard Jones wrote, In a year of political infighting and 'grasping at straws' for one-upsmanship on the energy-front, this partial solution to an enormous problem could be a good 'talking point,' and should be worth presenting to a candidate. Too bad the geographical areas which would benefit the most have so few voters. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [Vo]:Wind-Switching.: Making butanol for a dollar a gallon
Jones, far be it from me to knock any idea to expand the use of wind power but wouldn't it be simpler to use a pyrolysing/gasification process to turn the cellulose into syngas? This has the added benefit that part of the biomass feedstock could be turned into bio-char which is being researched at Cornell Uni because it acts as an amazing soil conditioner inasmuch as it stabilises soil, reduces the need for so much fertiliser, harbours useful bacteria and fungi, reduces irrigation etc. It also acts to (virtually) permanently sequester large amounts of carbon in the soil - carbon negative energy! Woody material is better at increasing fertility than grasses. Try googling Terra preta. It was investigating the black soil of the Amazon that brought these properties to the fore - a surprisingly fertile (that should have been poor) soil caused mostly by repeated burning off of vegetation. Nick
Re: [Vo]:Wind-Switching.: Making butanol for a dollar a gallon
In reply to R.C.Macaulay's message of Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:57:49 -0600: Hi, [snip] I suggested the design approach to a new engine would be by designing a transmission with an engine inside rather than an engine with a transmission inside.That ridiculus remark almost got me kicked outa the Dime Box Saloon technology society. Sounds like an electric motor in each wheel. ;) Richard [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Wind-Switching.: Making butanol for a dollar a gallon
--- Michael : While it might be true that we need new engines for most of the new fuels, butanol can be used in gasoline engines with little or no modification, making Jones' idea doubly useful. Indeed. It even gives us slightly better mileage and less toxic emissions in older gasoline engines with no modification. Check out: http://www.butanol.com/
Re: [Vo]:Wind-Switching.: Making butanol for a dollar a gallon
- Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Sounds like an electric motor in each wheel. ;) MC: A Japanese group has built an all electric car with stunning performance, using eight in-wheel motors and lithium -ion-cost-no-object batteries. There is a limit to the power of an in-wheel motor, so they used eight to get the acceleration needed. It will out-accelerate a top of the line P orche.and go at high spped. Crusing range 300 kM per charge. GM is reported to use the in-wheel motor in an advanced electric car. Makes sense in that mechanical tremission losses are avoided. Mike Carrell Richard [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Wind-Switching.: Making butanol for a dollar a gallon
--- Nick but wouldn't it be simpler to use a pyrolysing/gasification process to turn the cellulose into syngas? Simpler yes, and it would be a lower initial investment... perhaps it is a good way to start-out, but significant CO2 is produced; whereas with the aqua-gen type of conversion, almost none. CO2 at that stage also reduces the energy content available for sale as a liquid fuel. I don't know which way would result in the most cost effective solution, or best ROI - probably the pyrolysis since it is simpler and relatively cheap, but it would be significantly less green (ecologically desirable). If a good basic windmill design could ever be standardized (perhaps world-wide) and then mass-produced to achieve rock-bottom cost, then it would make a stronger case for many situations. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Wind-Switching.: Making butanol for a dollar a gallon
Jones Beene wrote: One further thought on a partial, practical and simple but innovative solution - to the over-use of fossil fuels in the USA: Putting wind to work on switchgrass farms. Indian Reservations, which need the jobs and investment. Too bad the geographical areas which would benefit the most have so few voters There are Indian tribes who are looking for just such a thing, and they have money to invest too. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]: Bio.... BUTANOL?
Very interesting article. http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/06/20/ethanol-fuel-biobutanol-cz_kad_0620ethanol.html SAN FRANCISCO - DuPont and BP, riding the global wave of enthusiasm for bio-based fuels, announced today that the two companies have developed a new biofuel called biobutanol that they say has 30% more energy density than ethanol ... One distinct advantage of biobutanol: Cars can use close to 100% of the fuel without making any vehicle modifications, DuPont says. To use that high a concentration of ethanol, car engines have to be modified into something known as a flex fuel vehicle. wow. The whole, usable with no modifications, bit, is staggering. This is potentially very very good. -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: Butanol
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol "In this process, biomass feedstock is first fed to the bacteria Clostridium tyrobutyricum, where a large percentage is converted into butyric acid and hydrogen. In the second process, the butyric acid is fed to the bacteria Clostridium acetobutylicum, where it is converted into butanol. Ramey has claimed a 42% butanol yield from this process." Cows make Butyric Acid in their rumens, but it's hard to pipe it out. http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/dlc-me/zoo/zacmain.html "The rumen stinks. This is because microbes in the rumen produce stinky organic acids. The billions of microbes in the rumen quickly use up all the oxygen. Because there is no oxygen, the rumen is anaerobic. When oxygen is lacking, microbes must get their energy from anaerobic respiration or from fermentation. In anaerobic respiration, microbes breathe compounds other than oxygen for energy. Fermentation is the breaking down of organic molecules into smaller molecules such as organic acids like butyric acid and valeric acid that stink." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid "Butyric acid, IUPAC name n-Butanoic acid, or normal butyric acid, is a carboxylic acid with structural formula CH3CH2CH2-COOH. It is notably found in rancid butter, parmesan cheese, and vomit, and has an unpleasant odor and acrid taste, with a sweetish aftertaste (similar to ether)."
Re: Butanol
I think Liposuction or microwaving fat from overfed hogs to get Stearic Acid, then cracking it to Decanol-Biodiesel would be more cost effective. FDA approved methodology, of course. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/liposuction/what.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stearic_acid "Stearic acid, also called octadecanoic acid, is one of the useful types of saturated fatty acids that comes from many animal and vegetable fats and oils. It is a waxy solid, and its chemical formula is CH3(CH2)16COOH. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-decanol "1-Decanol is a straight chain fatty alcohol with ten carbon atoms and the molecular formula CH3(CH2)9OH. It is a colorless viscous liquid that is insoluble " - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l Sent: 5/18/2006 3:31:16 AM Subject: Re: Butanol http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol "In this process, biomass feedstock is first fed to the bacteria Clostridium tyrobutyricum, where a large percentage is converted into butyric acid and hydrogen. In the second process, the butyric acid is fed to the bacteria Clostridium acetobutylicum, where it is converted into butanol. Ramey has claimed a 42% butanol yield from this process." Cows make Butyric Acid in their rumens, but it's hard to pipe it out. http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/dlc-me/zoo/zacmain.html "The rumen stinks. This is because microbes in the rumen produce stinky organic acids. The billions of microbes in the rumen quickly use up all the oxygen. Because there is no oxygen, the rumen is anaerobic. When oxygen is lacking, microbes must get their energy from anaerobic respiration or from fermentation. In anaerobic respiration, microbes breathe compounds other than oxygen for energy. Fermentation is the breaking down of organic molecules into smaller molecules such as organic acids like butyric acid and valeric acid that stink." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid "Butyric acid, IUPAC name n-Butanoic acid, or normal butyric acid, is a carboxylic acid with structural formula CH3CH2CH2-COOH. It is notably found in rancid butter, parmesan cheese, and vomit, and has an unpleasant odor and acrid taste, with a sweetish aftertaste (similar to ether)."
Re: Butanol
In reply to Zell, Chris's message of Wed, 17 May 2006 16:34:36 -0500: Hi, [snip] I must confess I've never heard of this. It sounds somewhat astonishing. http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol A gasoline substitute that's cheap and fully equal in BTU energy However it may be too toxic to use as a gasoline substitute. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Butanol
I must confess I've never heard of this. It sounds somewhat astonishing. http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol A gasoline substitute that's cheap and fully equal in BTU energy
Re: Butanol
At 04:34 pm 17/05/2006 -0500, you wrote: I must confess I've never heard of this. It sounds somewhat astonishing. http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol A gasoline substitute that's cheap and fully equal in BTU energy Sounds good to me. One learns something everyday on Vortex. 8-) Frank
