[biofuels-biz] Re: RFI
Biodiesel causes natural rubber to rot and swell. Older diesel vehicles built for Europe and (probably all) built for US use have rubber parts in their fuel systems. This is OK with the sulphur containing diesel fuels, but isn't suitable for ultra low sulphur diesel fuels. I don't know specifically what it is in ULS which upsets rubber, but happily the necessary fuel system modifications allow the vehicles to use biodiesel. I think B20 is currently about the best blend. It gives enough biodiesel content to significantly clean-up emissions and it's far more friendly to non bio compatible vehicles. It has also been shown to have a slight positive effect on miles per gallon. B100 has about 10% less calorific value than petroleum diesel, but in use delivers only 5% less mpg. The more consistent fuel molecules and oxygen content improve combustion. Ideally we'd all be running B100 biodiesel, but as we can't currently (if ever) make enough to replace petroleum fuel we might as well let as many people as possible benefit from this clean fuel. Every tonne of petroleum displaced is a few tonnes less CO2 dumped into the sky (I believe every 1T of fossil diesel releases 3T of CO2). Regards Dave --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], steve spence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there is no sulfur in biodiesel. biodiesel blended with petrol diesel is no longer biodiesel. it's B20, B30, etc. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. -- - Original Message - From: frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:38 AM Subject: [biofuels-biz] RFI All. I live in California and am trying to spread the use of bio- diesel. I recently ran into an issue: The diesel fuel regulations that are curretnly in place and the new ones on the drawing board. As I undestand them, the big issue is sulfur. Current Ca. regs allow 150ppm..the new ones go down to 5ppm. Does anyone know the sulfur content of bio-diesel [b20]? Is it determined only by the petro-diesel componet of the bio- diesel? Tx, Frank Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] NIR
Hi Steve Good work! These are great links, I learnt a lot. Keith Here's a start to the aforementioned NIR research http://www.foss-nirsystems.com/ (full of different ways to apply the technique (incl continuous process monitoring, note the links link at the top) http://www.thermo.com Again, huge product line; one of many interesting ones is; http://www.thermo.com/eThermo/CDA/Products/Product_Listing/0,12299,127 57-1,00.html another huge product range here, and an interesting compact version; http://www.bruker.com/optics/pages/products/nir/matrix.htm Couldn't get through to this one. http://www.ltindustries.com/prod01.htm quite tantalising, but leaves you short with info (ie price!!) http://www.topac.com/spectrophotometer.html (finally a price. This appears to be an 'entry level' unit!) Cheap! I am awaiting quotes/reply email. Please let us know the result. When you've reached some conclusions I'd like to add themore to our site, if that's okay with you. Thanks again Best Keith Addison Regards Steve Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] More cowflops
F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: - commercial aviators experience exposure levels in excess of NRC standards; if they were under NRC jurisdiction they would all have to retire early, having exceeded allowable life doses that are based on precisely the arguments that you adduce. And your explanation of why pregnant stewardesses,passengers, and pilots are warned against flying by the FAA and other authorities. and even banned by major airlines is what? They specifically site the radiation danger. Try doing a google search on pregnant radiation airline. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] More cowflops
I don't worry about this radiation stuff at all. In fact, I sit in front of a radiation device for hours a day reading bandwidth-wasting discussions and arguments about off topic posts. Ed B. From: Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Maddog Press Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 10:00:27 -0500 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] More cowflops F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: - commercial aviators experience exposure levels in excess of NRC standards; if they were under NRC jurisdiction they would all have to retire early, having exceeded allowable life doses that are based on precisely the arguments that you adduce. And your explanation of why pregnant stewardesses,passengers, and pilots are warned against flying by the FAA and other authorities. and even banned by major airlines is what? They specifically site the radiation danger. Try doing a google search on pregnant radiation airline. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Would you like syrup on your cow pie sir? was Re: [biofuel] More cowflops
Young Master Piolenc, I am rather concerned with what you represent as fact(s) to the rest of the readers in this forum relative to low dose radiation. Would you be so kind as to point a person to the studies that refute what has become a universally accepted understanding of how cellular damage occurs as a result of ionized radiation exposure? It is a bit disappointing that you attempt to entirely dismiss the actual mechanics of cellular disrepair and mutation as a result of radiation exposure (all sorts and all levels) by leap-frogging past the mechanics to what you profess to be study results pertaining to an anomalous group that warrants complete dismissal of all concern relative to low-dose exposure. It is also a bit disappointing - and extremely misleading - that those who site the occupational hazard of airline pilots - an environment that provides less of an atmospheric shield than most other occupational environments only if you take away the airplane - not only fail to take into account the inordinate amount of armor that surrounds them when drawing comparison (aluminum, stainless, nickel, silver, copper, gold, almost ad infinitum), but also have conveniently failed to include in their extrapolations the balance of flight crews who are not as equally shielded as the cockpit crew. So called scientific studies comparing airline pilots to residents in proximity to nuclear facilities are not only incomplete, inaccurate and misleading at first glance, but throughout. Air, water, soil and direct contamination from incidental and accidental releases, their accumulation and cumulative impact, exact considerably different results upon living tissue than the armor clad environment subjected to natural radiation which you choose to use as substantiation of your claim. Thus, I must ask again that you considerately make these aberrational studies which you reference available to the list so that they may be reviewed by all. Anything less could be construed as evasive and malicious conduct - duplicit to what you have accused environmental proponents of in the past. As for your dodging the following inquiry. Further, perhaps you would care to explain what gives you or any others the right to subject human populations to the more devastating events posed by higher levels of radiation released via inevitable mechanical failures and human error? I'm not subjecting them to anything - aviators and mountaineers get dosed at higher rates than the NRC allows in the normal course of events. ... I suppose I should better qualify the question, as you apparently missed the implication of nuclear technolgy and its inevitable human error, supplanting it with an occupational choice to expose oneself to natural phenomena. Rather, the implication was and the rephrased question is What gives anyone the right to make decisions that subject ground based human populations to higher levels of radiation - a result of implementing failure prone nuclear processing and production technologies - than they would normally be exposed to in their natural life? As for the implication that you are personally responsible for the implementation of nuclear technology, while perhaps an accidentally broad and unintentional assertion, you remain on the hook for your dissemination of inaccurate and incomplete information, which may tend to sway others into making decisions based upon errant inputs. Also, relative to the following, would you please be so kind as to refrain from future attempts to obfuscate, side track or derail a point of discourse? The thesis and theme was - as you well know - not whether humanity should forego airline transport in favor of reduced radiation exposure to pedestrian or pedal traffic. Rather, the theme was the inherrant increase in radiation exposure as a result of the proliferation of nuclear industries. Increased exposure levels or opportunity for receiving increased exposure is not acceptable. You are of course welcome to decide what dose rates YOU are willing to accept, and to travel by surface conveyance and avoid visits to high places. As long as I remain free to choose otherwise, it ain't my business - only your loss. Funny that - not only the attempted derailing, but the fact that my choice of dose rate and the choice of hundreds of millions of others has been ignored by government and industry for more than half a century. .. Finally, would you please be so kind as to refrain from cut and paste methods in your replies? Several have noted that it is almost impossible for anyone stepping into the discussion to discern where the text from the initial composer stops and the respondent's words begin. From what I gather, you may be loathe to have anyone mistakenly exchange my understanding of fact for yours. Todd Swearingen Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Post Script: Lest you be too terribly concerned that I avail myself not of the beauty in high places, I tend to
Re: [biofuel] More cowflops
Come on Ed. First of all, the screens you choose to sit in front of or place between yourself and your monitor are a matter of personal choice, not inflicted upon you and your community by industry and government. Second of all, the dissemination of dis-, mis- and just plain erroneous information pertaining to energy issues - no matter nuclear or other - when the proliferation of these industries will detract from the furthering of biofuels in both volume and time frame, inevitably detracting from human health and environmental quality, is precisely on topic. My earlier apology at the onset of my initial response to Mr. Piolenc was more a matter of courtesy to those who might be offended by such overt expression of disbelief and the occasional soul who might not see the relevance between biofuels and the rest of the energy industry web. If one wishes to attain critical mass in the biofuels sector, one must also address how critical mass is obtained in other energy sectors and debunk the information on which their critical mass is obtained and maintained. Todd Swearingen Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't worry about this radiation stuff at all. In fact, I sit in front of a radiation device for hours a day reading bandwidth-wasting discussions and arguments about off topic posts. Ed B. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Making mountains out of cowflops, but no methane resulting...
Hi Todd: Yes, well, come on indeed. I will fight the urge to enter into a discussion of how much choice we all have about using computers, flying, (externalized costs, economic and labour force demands) etc. and just say that, if you recall, I was the first to respond to Pedro's post and point out such need as you outline re: nuclear. However, it is time to move on, and my post was meant as a bit of humour and a nudge to drop it and move on, or to continue the thrust and parry, quick wit and repartee of this particular debate via personal email, and report back to committee with succinct results of the outcome. Now step AWAY from the monitor...and relax! Oh, Look...here it is...the silly smiley thing that I forgot last time...just found it laying on my keyboard ;-) Ed B. - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] More cowflops Come on Ed. First of all, the screens you choose to sit in front of or place between yourself and your monitor are a matter of personal choice, not inflicted upon you and your community by industry and government. Second of all, the dissemination of dis-, mis- and just plain erroneous information pertaining to energy issues - no matter nuclear or other - when the proliferation of these industries will detract from the furthering of biofuels in both volume and time frame, inevitably detracting from human health and environmental quality, is precisely on topic. My earlier apology at the onset of my initial response to Mr. Piolenc was more a matter of courtesy to those who might be offended by such overt expression of disbelief and the occasional soul who might not see the relevance between biofuels and the rest of the energy industry web. If one wishes to attain critical mass in the biofuels sector, one must also address how critical mass is obtained in other energy sectors and debunk the information on which their critical mass is obtained and maintained. Todd Swearingen Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't worry about this radiation stuff at all. In fact, I sit in front of a radiation device for hours a day reading bandwidth-wasting discussions and arguments about off topic posts. Ed B. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Making mountains out of cowflops, but no methane resulting...
However, it is time to move on, and my post was meant as a bit of humour and a nudge to drop it and move on, or to continue the thrust and parry, quick wit and repartee of this particular debate via personal email, and report back to committee with succinct results of the outcome. Now step AWAY from the monitor...and relax! Ed, I can't say how much I appreciate everyone's concern for my health. First it was Master Piolenc with my blood pressure (which remains low). Now, you too are concerned with my anxiety levels. I'm humbled. Another forum for new clear thinking is lovely. But in real life, simply switching stations doesn't get rid of the odor from what the dog or cat dragged in. When a malodorous bit of dis-information is dragged into the biofuels house, it should be dealt with there and then, rather than to let it rot under the couch. A lot of folks won't be switching the channel to follow up on any radiant theologies or technologies. The biofuels list may be the one place they hear a scrap of disinformation which may sway them considerably for who knows how long. Responsibility dictates that at minimum mis-information be corrected and that accuracy be left in the public's grasp, rather than shifting sand. After that, most are perfectly willing to move on. However, some are not satisfied and continue to stir up the dairy's anaerobic digester simply for self satisfaction - not the disemination of truth, much less to improve methane production. So all there really is to say or do at the moment is wait and see who flips the switch without closing the hatch first - a lot of agitation but an absolute loss of production. Todd Swearingen Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Washing the biodiesel
Mike I have the same problem, I have been washing with vinegar first for about 3 hours and letting it settle for 8 hours before i drain off the vinegar and add the water, then I only use 1 gallon of water (room temp) to 40 gallons of biofuel. wash for 1 hour and let settle for 4 hoursdrain off any excess water and add 3 gallons of room temp water. wash for 8 hours and let settle for 8 hours, drain off any excess water and reheat fuel to 250 degrees F and hold until all steam bubbles are gone. Let it cool off and decant biodiesel, it shoul be fairly clear and when you run it through a filter it will clear up even more. Hope this helps. Eric - Original Message - From: Mike Brownstone To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 2:13 AM Subject: [biofuel] Washing the biodiesel I'm struggling with the washing of the biodiesel. I get a low return (50%) and a lot of creamy mayonnaise. During the processing I get a good glycerin drop (15%) using Foolproof on used veggie oil. Everything looks good until the wash when I add the vinegar and water to the biodiesel start the bubbling and watch the mayo form. There is very little water in the processing and my understanding is that any excess methanol or lye will wash out. Could the temperature of my washing water or composition ( tap or faucet water from municipality) be the cause? Stuck on the final stage!!! Mike [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Back to the Zeolite thang....
Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Following up on the old zeolite thread, I finally have something to report, namely, how BEAUTIFULLY zeolite (aka molecular sieve) works to suck the last bit of water out of distilled ethanol. I got a sample of Type 3A Molecular Sieve from a place in So. Calif. called Adcoa: http://www.thomasregister.com/olc/adcoa/molecula.htm I got a can of the 4-8 mesh -- little balls of rock about 1/8 dia. -- they absorb about 20% of their weight of water over the course of a few hours. Take a liter of 95% ethanol, throw in 250g of stuff, swirl occasionally, filter out the next day thru a strainer, and presto! Anhydrous ethanol. Not expensive either -- $2.05 a pound US in 10 lb quantities, and reusable indefinitely. You drive off the water under a broiler for an hour. Now all you need is the 95% ethanol! :-) . -K Great!!! Thankyou! Technique, quantities, results, source, price and all, gosh. So now we know, at last. 10 lb for $20.50 will do about 18 litres of 95%, enough to make about 24 gallons of ethyl esters biodiesel. That's very feasible. I guess you could rig it so the heat used for distillation could dry out the zeolite for re-use. Thanks very much for this Ken. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: Cars from coconuts
Hi Marc Neat! An old technology becomes new again. The article does get the shell confused with the surrounding fibrous husk or coir, but that is a common mistake. The thin, hard, dense shell makes excellent charcoal and is a good starting point for making activated carbon for industrial purposes. The coir has gone begging for years as upholsterers and packing-material users preferred non-perishable (mostly petroleum-based) materials. This is a smart reversal - using a proven natural material with minimal processing to displace petrochemical products. Hooray for Daimler-Benz Brazil! Maybe we'll see more of this. Of course the coir padding will likely need renewal sooner than polyester batting, but who cares? It's cheap and easily obtained! Marc de Piolenc Iligan, Philippines I'm sure we'll see more of this, it's a trend. A lot of industries are going for biomass rather than fossil fuel-derived plastics and materials. Dow and corn-based plastics come to mind, but there are many others. Here are two stories, but there are plenty more. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=10986 Farmers turn depressed farm commodities into gold http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=11067 New coffee research brewing up glass, cement Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Chuck - was Re: [biofuel] Why biofuels ???
jerry dycus wrote: Hi Keith and All, If Chuck is this rude again we should axe him. It's uncalled for. I disagree with Pedro too but would never be as disrespectful as Chuck. jerry dycus --- Chuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a con job. Are you always going to be stupid? - Original Message - From: Pedro M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Jerry He comes out once a month like some kind of werewolf, spews a rancid one-liner, and that's it. I've had enough of him, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I wrote to him immediately after this last message. I said so far all we've had from him is this sort of stuff, never a useful contribution, never even a polite one, always insulting and contemptuous, sometimes of particular list members, or simply in general. Asked to explain his views he doesn't bother to respond. So tell me what your interest is in biofuels and why I should put up with you. And make it snappy. That was five days ago. Chuck didn't bother to respond. Goodbye Chuck. Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuels list owner Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Cowflops
But I have to say without reservation that this piece of nuclear mis-and dis-information (see below) is pure, unadulterated, horse crap cow flop of the highest order. Whew! Watch that blood pressure, and try to stick to facts rather than invective. Junk science is junk science if it ignores contrary - and readily available - facts, no matter how many senile and guilt-ridden Nobel laureates endorse it. Nature doesn't recognize authority - only facts. 76 million Frenchmen CAN be wrong. Truth will out. Marc de Piolenc Hello Marc I do hope you're preparing a follow-up to this, because Todd posed some serious questions challenging your views, offered you clear data and references, and you haven't addressed them. This is a non-response - worse than that: it's just disinformation. I don't know who exactly you're trying to disinform, yourself I suspect, but discussion in a public forum requires a more fairhanded approach than this. - You pick out just one paragraph of Todd's mail which you can write off as invective, virtually ignoring the rest of his post. - You call on Todd to stick to the facts, while ignoring the rest of his rather factual post (or trying to pretend it doesn't exist?). - You dub it junk science, without any substantiation for that, and say it ignores what you call facts - while you ignore what he calls facts. - Instead of answering information countering your views from two scientists, you simply sling mud at them - they're just senile and guilt-ridden Nobel laureates even Nature doesn't recognise. Neither would Nature recognise these smears, discreditings and red herrings as facts. Neither do I. Truth will indeed out, all you're doing is trying to frustrate it. This is what you haven't addressed in Todd's letter - most of it: ... I'll let the record on acceptable exposure limits and the words of Dr. John W. Goffman speak for themselves. Dr. Goffman is a radiation scientist, co-discoverer of Uranium 233's fissionability and co-refiner of the first milligram of plutonium. He states: We have already accepted the policy of experimentation on involuntary human subjects. I am on record in 1957 as NOT being worried about the fallout and still being optimistic about the benefits of nuclear power. There is no way I can justify my failure to help sound an alarm over these activities many years sooner than I did. I feel that at least several hundred scientists trained in the biomedical aspect of atomic energy - myself definitely included - are candidates for Nuremburg-type trials for crimes against humanity through our gross negligence and irresponsibility. Now that we KNOW the hazard of low-dose radiation, the crime is not experimentation - it's murder. As for acceptable exposure limits? 1934 - 50 rems annually or 1/5th of a rem daily 1936 - 25 rems annually or 1/10th of a rem daily 1950 - 15 rems annually or 3/10ths of a rem weekly 1956 - 5 rems annually or 1/50th of a rem daily Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, who worked on the US nuclear program for 25 years and is known to most at the Father of Health Physics, believes that the acceptable exposure limit should be lowered even further - by a factor of 240. Dr. Morgan was responsible for the safe exposure limits established in the 1940's and 50's. His conclusions were derived in the mid 1980's, a revision which the nuclear industry continues to virulently refuse a need for. As for your question, Which plant? What area? When? relative to Kirk's comment, The plant that burned on the coast of England was graphite moderated. Permanently poisoned a large area. The answer is Britain's Windscale/Sellafield, considered by all accounts to be 1,000 times dirtier (radiologically speaking) than its closest competition, Cap de la Hugue, France. Four known disasters have occurred at this plant in 1956, 1957, 1981 and 1985. The 1957 disaster was a near meltdown and the world's worst nuclear plant disaster on record prior to Chernobyl. Oddly enough, only days after the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl disaster, Britain's Margaret Thatcher intentionally misrepresented Sellafield's and Britain's nuclear safety record, proclaiming that A Chernobyl accident would not happen here. The record of our own nuclear power industry is absolutely superb, she said Bull shit. Intentional, unadulterated, dis-informational and mis-informational bull shit. And you sir, are tracking the same type of crap into this forum, relative to your nuclear misrepresentations. Perhaps, were someone to invite you to Portsmouth, Ohio, where a gaseous diffusion plant has been in operation for decades, you could review firsthand exactly what type deception is perpetrated upon nuclear industry workers and the public at large, hundreds of times over, and over, and over again. It is an industry wide deception campaign that has gone on literally since 1913, and one that will continue as long as your brand of nuclear cow flop flows without rebut. Please answer the questions put
[biofuel] Re: Hemp Diesel
Hi Steve **This is a mailing from the Renewable Energy Online Newsletter** Hemp car to make record 10,000-mile trip It says who provides the hemp oil, but not who made it into biodiesel. Since he seems to be shy about it, let me say the biodiesel's provided by Todd at Appal Energy. snip Regards Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] [Distillers] New Distillers FAQ
New Distillers FAQ ** NEW DISTILLERS Frequently Asked Questions (July'01) Posted near the 1st of each month, to the NEW_DISTILLERS newsgroup at www.yahoogroups.com Please email any additions, corrections, clarifications required, etc regarding the FAQ to Tony Ackland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), however please direct any general questions to the newsgroup itself. *** 1) Is distilling hard to do ? 2) Is it legal ? 3) Will it make me blind ? 4) Whats the difference between a pot still, reflux still, and fractionating column ? 5) How do I get or make a still ? 6) How do I make a whisky / rum / vodka / gin ? 7) Should I use sugar or grains ? 8) Can I use fruit wine ? 9) How do I get rid of that off-taste ? 10) How do I measure the strength of it dilute it ? 11) How do I flavour/turn the vodka's into something else ? 12) What web resources are there ? 13) How do I contact the NEW DISTILLERS news group ? 14) Can I run my car on it ? 15) How do I convert between gallons and litres and 16) What is a Thumper ? 17) Can I use a reflux still to make rum or whisky ? ** 1) Is distilling hard to do ? Nope - if you can follow instructions enough to bake scones, then you can sucessfully distil. To distil well however, will require you to understand what you're doing, so read around and get a bit of information under your belt before you begin. 2) Is it legal ? Probably not. It is only legal in New Zealand, and some European countries turn a blind eye to it, but elsewhere it is illegal, with punishment ranging from fines to imprisonment or floggings. This action against it is usually the result of either religous beliefs (right or wrong), but more generally due to the great revenue base it provides Governements through excise taxes. So if you are going to distil, just be aware of the potential legal ramifications. 3) Will it make me blind ? Not if you're careful. This pervasive question is due to moonshine lore, which abounds with myths of blindness, but few actual documented cases. The concern is due to the presence of methanol (wood alcohol), an optic nerve poison, which can be present in small amounts when fermenting grains or fruits high in pectin. This methanol comes off first from the still, so it is easily segregated and discarded. A simple rule of thumb for this is to throw away the first 50 mL you collect (per 20 L mash used). Probably the greatest risk to your health during distilling is the risk of fire - collecting a flammable liquid near a heat source. So keep a fire extinguisher nearby. 4) Whats the difference between a pot still, reflux still, and fractionating column ? A pot still simply collects and condenses the alcohol vapours that come off the boiling mash. This will result in an alcohol at about 40-60% purity, with plenty of flavour in it. If this distillate were put through the pot still again, it would increase in purity to around 70-85% purity, and lose a bit of its flavour. A reflux still does these multiple distillations in one single go, by having some packing in a column between the condensor the pot, and allowing some of the vapour to condense and trickle back down through the packing. This reflux of liquid helps clean the rising vapour and increase the % purity. The taller the packed column, and the more reflux liquid, the purer the product will be. The advantage of doing this is that it will result in a clean vodka, with little flavour to it - ideal for mixing with flavours etc. A fractionating column is a pure form of the reflux still. It will condense all the vapour at the top of the packing, and return about 9/10 back down the column. The column will be quite tall - say 600-1200mm (2-4 foot), and packed with a material high in surface area, but which takes up little space (pot scrubbers are good for this). It will result in an alcohol 95%+ pure (the theoretical limit without using a vacuum is 96.48 %(by volume)), with no other tastes or impurities in it. 5) How do I get or make a still ? If you're after a pot still, these are generally home made using what-ever you have at hand - say copper tubing and old water heaters or pressure cookers. Reflux stills can be made from plans on the net, or bought from several manufacturers. For reflux stil plans see Stillmakers : http://stillmaker.dreamhost.com/ (free!) or Gert Strands : http://partyman.se/Engelsk/default.htm (US$5). See the list of web resources below for links to sites selling ready-made stills. A good book is Ian Smileys Making Pure Corn Whisky at http://www.magma.ca/~smiley/main.htm, with full design details. For fuel alcohol stills see the Mother Earth Alcohol Fuel manual at http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meToC.html, and the The Manual for the Home and Farm Production of Alcohol Fuel by S.W.
Re: [biofuel] Nuclear - Petr Beckman
Marc de Piolenc wrote: Keith wrote: So global warming's a plot, GMOs are good for you, and now nukes are cleaner than Kleenex? They just had a bad press? And as with the other two, no references, no citations, just opinion, unsupported, no visible foundation (same as bubbles, which soon burst). It's not a very effective way of persuading people. But I suppose those that want to believe it will. You could start where I did - Petr Beckman's The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear, which was more or less forced down my throat by a friend who was getting a little tired of my ill-informed anti-nuclear rants. It contains further references. I don't think it's in print, but there might be used copies available. I think I've given mine away. First, Marc, why don't you provide full refs when you want someone to refer to them? People are busy, you can't expect them to go searching around for the basis for your arguments. Anyway. Fortunately I don't have to start, but if I did that would not be a good place to do it. You refer me to an out-of-print book that you've lost, and you don't give the publication date. I did do a search for your ref, and found some other stuff with it. Here's your ref: The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear, Petr Beckman, The Golem Press, 1976. No wonder you don't give the date. And not surprising it's out of print. You really need more modern references for this, to work done since the end of the Cold War. As Todd said: Going back to 1991, results from long term (multi-year) studies on the effects of low dose radiation started to pop up left and right. Some were performed by private institutions. Others were funded by the US Department of Energy. The end conclusions were that decades old concerns were confirmed by the increased percentages of cancers and birth abnormalities found within the study areas. Etc. Beckman's book is still sometimes referred to by the pro-nuke establishment and its apologists but not it seems by anyone else, that I could see. Beckman worked at the University of Colorado. He used to produce a monthly newsletter there, Access to Energy, in which he kept ranting about the fascism of the left and that the planet could take care of itself and we'd do just fine if we got the government and environmentalists off our backs and built lots of nuclear reactors. He's also on record as trying to debunk Einstein's theory of relativity. His work is also sometimes used by other apologists, for example, by apologists for industrial pollution, in articles such as one called How clean is clean? 'Pollution' controls are an expensive neurosis, [note the quotes on pollution], which talks of an orchestrated propaganda campaign to convince the public the air's dirty. It's all a myth folks, that brown cloud's as fresh as daisies, the studies detailing the many thousands killed each year by pollution-related lung disease are all lies. I guess that means there's not much point to biodiesel. They're always the same style, these things, there's a common underlying shape to them. Driven by the same motors I suppose - all this denial stuff seems to emanate from the same rather narrow political spectrum, it's a political agenda that's calling the tune, not an objective, scientific one. That's conjectural, but I haven't seen any exceptions yet. Interesting that all these guys seem to share the assumption that people - the people - are innocent little lambs who can't fend for themselves, are so-o easily fooled, can't decide anything for themselves, have no discernment, and are generally incompetent and not to be trusted. Of course you can find evidence for this if you're looking for it (to prove what, and why?), but there's vastly more evidence to the contrary. I read it intending to refute it and set my friend straight, but it didn't quite work out that way. The key reference listed in Beckman, which I checked out, was a Department of Labor [?] study of the total casualty cost of the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to disposal, compared with other sources of energy. This was a very thorough actuarial study which included not only actual deaths and injuries per energy unit generated, but expected excess deaths from long-term effects of release of radioactive matierials, occupational and casual radiation exposure. Nuclear came out neck-and-neck for first [safest] place with natural gas. You don't date the study, again, and the only point worth noting here is that it would have been a pre-1990 study (pre-1976, actually). Sorry, Marc, you're agreeing with what agrees with you and calling the rest propaganda. Again. That forced me to look further, because there was no way to reconcile those well-documented (and publicly available) figures with the anti-nuclear crowd's propaganda - it wasn't simply a matter of opinion or interpretation. It didn't take me long to develop an extremely jaundiced view of the anti-nuclear crowd and their
Re: [biofuel] Re: Hemp Diesel
Kewl, WTG Todd! Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. -- - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 2:49 PM Subject: [biofuel] Re: Hemp Diesel Hi Steve **This is a mailing from the Renewable Energy Online Newsletter** Hemp car to make record 10,000-mile trip It says who provides the hemp oil, but not who made it into biodiesel. Since he seems to be shy about it, let me say the biodiesel's provided by Todd at Appal Energy. snip Regards Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: More cowflops
Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: - commercial aviators experience exposure levels in excess of NRC standards; if they were under NRC jurisdiction they would all have to retire early, having exceeded allowable life doses that are based on precisely the arguments that you adduce. And your explanation of why pregnant stewardesses,passengers, and pilots are warned against flying by the FAA and other authorities. and even banned by major airlines is what? They specifically site the radiation danger. Try doing a google search on pregnant radiation airline. Actually, the biggest danger to pregnant women who fly is not radiation, but pressure changes. Going from near sea level to 8000' cabin pressure altitude is quite stressful on the body in itself, but sitting there for an extended period of time and then going back down to near sea level are really very stressful. This pressure change has been known to cause miscarriages, particularly in pregnancies that were already considered to be high risk. Add to this the lowered oxygen content of air at 8000' and you have the recipe for a real potential problem. Pregnant women are really in much more danger from the pressure changes of altitude, and from the airplane itself than they are from the miniscule radiation dose they will be exposed to. The reason some airlines won't take pregnant women past their second trimester is more one of liability than anything else. They won't fly pregnant women who are that far along because they don't want to pay the extra money their insurance companies want in order to allow it in their liability policies. Also, in the event of an emergency evacuation heavily pregnant women might have trouble moving to the exits quickly or using the emergency equipment. Alan Petrillo -- Aviation is more than a hobby. It is more than a job. It is more than a career. Aviation is a way of life. A second language for the world: www.esperanto.org Processor cycles are a terrible thing to waste. www.distributed.net Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] RE: air car's indirect pollution vs EV's
Please respond to biofuel@yahoogroups.com To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com cc:(bcc: Joseph Martelle/US/GM/GMC) Subject: Re: [biofuel] RE: air car's indirect pollution vs EV's What a lot of Hooeeey --- I've seen several large (and full, or partially so) propane tanks that went thru a fire without any problem, and I mean a fire that took the buildings down to the ground. Batteries aren't so safe either -- all they need is a spark to set off the hyrogen gas, and they explode. snip Propane tanks are NOT high pressure. A BLEVE (boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion) from a propane tank in a fire is not a pretty sight. Several firemen in Arizona lost their lives in such an incident a few years ago. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: More cowflops
Alan S. Petrillo wrote: Actually, the biggest danger to pregnant women who fly is not radiation, but pressure changes. I'm not sure about the pressure, but the FAA warnings are about radiation. Each flight gives you about the same radiation as a chest xray. Flight crews have been declared radiation workers by the government. http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/Ac12052.html http://www.flyana.com/radiat.html http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-600/610/600radio.html http://www.wfaa.com/wfaa/articledisplay/1,1002,10500,00.html http://www.avweb.com/articles/radiation/ http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q742.html Here's an article about airlines even rerouting flights to avoid radiation danger: http://www.iht.com/articles/20826.htm -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
