Re: [biofuels-biz] waste oil burners bu rning glycerine, ffa'sÊ Re: [biofuel] Re: b iodiesel vs. propane for heating
I've got a couple years experience with burning glycerin. I had to do it, I've got such a large accumulation of the stuff. I've tried it in a couple of wood boilers and in a babington burner. The stuff does burn, but it takes special conditions to keep it going. Basically, without being exact about the fine details, it takes about 1000 degrees of temperature to keep the stuff going. Below that temperature and you'll mostly just burn off the methanol component, leaving a heavy vegetable based tar residue. It tried it in a babington, but it does not burn above about a 25% mix with oil. In a wood boiler it burns on top of coals well, but when the wood fire dies out it just accumulates the glycerin without much reduction. My current burner has a babington burner running on vegetable oil into a masonry stove with a separate drip of glycerin onto a hot steel plate. It burns very cleanly and VERY hot. Absolutely no emissions visible. Now I have to find out what to do with over 100 btu's per hour. Tom Leue In a message dated 1/11/03 3:59:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ÊÊ I looked up a few of those commercial oil burners for use with WVO. Sounds pretty interesting, though pricey... something to try and find secondhand, maybe? Then I got an email from a farmer nearby, someone who grows oil crops, asking about biodiesel production for on-farm use, and about ways to reduce waste in the process, all the usual questions people have. We were talking about 'glycerin' and ways to deal with it besides disposal... Does anyone on this list have experience burning their glycerin for shop heat or process heat, using some kind of waste oil burner, either one of these commercial units or one of the homebuilt ones off of Journeytoforever? I know that burning glycerine can produce some toxic gases if not done properly. What is 'properly' in this case? some particular temperature, some particular combustion environment?Ê how does one know, using a Babington or a waste oil burner to burn glycerine byproduct, that it is safe to do so? Also I do the 'ffa recovery' process sometimes- purifying 'glycerine' with an acid to break down the soaps into salt and ffa, and producing a cleaner glycerine for degreaser use. Like everyone I know whose tried this, I've got a bit of ffa byproduct sitting around in my 'odd chemicals' collection now (I believe Ken Provost experimented with using that same ffa in soapmaking?). Todd Swearingen said something once about ffa being a potential fuel source for a Babington Burner, and has said somewhere that he thinks it could be a fuel in other situations. Anyone experimented with this, or any of you engineers out there have any ideas on how well it'll combust and under what conditions? (I don't have anything to try burning it in at the moment). Thanks, Mark - Homestead Inc. www.yellowbiodiesel.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
[biofuels-biz] Biofuel Biz taxes and road blocks
I am ascking any one who knows. My quetion is are there any taxes or other ligalities on starting your own biofuel biz. I'm trying to set up a biz in sanoma county.I'm thinking along the lines of converting diesels to run on strait WVO. And suplying custumers wih filterd WVO.how should I go about this. I don't wont to run in to leegal problums like contracks, lawsuits and taxation. If any one knows I would apriesheate the respons. Thank you Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
[biofuels-biz] Re: waste oil burners burning glycerine, ffa's Re: [biofuel] Re: biodiesel vs. propane for heating
Hello Mark I looked up a few of those commercial oil burners for use with WVO. Sounds pretty interesting, though pricey... something to try and find secondhand, maybe? Then I got an email from a farmer nearby, someone who grows oil crops, asking about biodiesel production for on-farm use, and about ways to reduce waste in the process, all the usual questions people have. We were talking about 'glycerine' and ways to deal with it besides disposal... Does anyone on this list have experience burning their glycerine for shop heat or process heat, using some kind of waste oil burner, either one of these commercial units or one of the homebuilt ones off of Journeytoforever? I think Chuck Ranum's doing that: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor4.html Biodiesel processors I asked Michael Allen something about this recently: Would 11% glyc plus the FFAs be enough to power the process? Glycerol has a higher heating value of 13.6 kJ/kg (if my sums are correct) 100 litres of palm-oil weighs in at 91.06 kg. It produces about 8.55 kg of glycerol so we will get less than 13.6 x 8.55 kJ to heat palm oil (= 116.28 kJ). Now that 91.06 kg of palm oil has an estimated specific heat of about 2 kJ/kg K. So we can use the glycerol *at best* to heat the palm oil through 116.28/(91.06 x 2) = 0.6K ! So if you want to get the palm oil to 60C, it had better be 59.5C when you start. This tram-ticket calculation ignored FFA and also heat losses from the equipment. If the full heat of combustion of glycerol were available, you might get a 5 degree C rise. :-( I know that burning glycerine can produce some toxic gases if not done properly. Mainly acrolein. Biodieselers have occasionally talked about burning the alcohol/glycerin/FFA/catalyst mix in a traditional fuel oil furnace as a method of disposal. This would probably create an inadequate combustion scenario and is not recommended. That does not mean that it couldn't be done in an oxygen rich environment, such as a furnace specifically designed for waste motor oils. But even that would have to be tested. Acrolein boils at 53C (127F), so any acrolein actually in the glyc will be long gone if you removed the excess methanol. Acrolein forms when glycerine decomposes. Glycerine (pure) boils at 290¼C. The glyc-ffa-catalyst mixture will boil at a lower temp than that. http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/AC/acrolein.html Safety data for acrolein http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/a1538.htm Acrolein However: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/message/13799 - There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of acrolein. - There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of acrolein. - Acrolein is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3). (International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization) Carconigenic or not, it's certainly toxic. What is 'properly' in this case? some particular temperature, some particular combustion environment? how does one know, using a Babington or a waste oil burner to burn glycerine byproduct, that it is safe to do so? It strikes me that people burning SVO or WVO in waste oil heaters or whatever don't seem to share this concern, which only comes up when it's a question of burning the glycerine. But the glycerine comes from the VO after all, if at a lower concentration, so shouldn't they have the same concern? I don't want to minimise safety concerns, but maybe we make too much of it. A Babington burner should surely be hot enough, an MEN heater should be too, but anyway the exhaust goes outside - not proposing to pollute the outside, it probably wouldn't be any more than is released burning SVO in a car (some). Also I do the 'ffa recovery' process sometimes- purifying 'glycerine' with an acid to break down the soaps into salt and ffa, and producing a cleaner glycerine for degreaser use. Like everyone I know whose tried this, I've got a bit of ffa byproduct sitting around in my 'odd chemicals' collection now (I believe Ken Provost experimented with using that same ffa in soapmaking?). I've made other stuff out of it (release agent/Dubbin, for instance - good!), but haven't got round to making soap yet, coming next. I also don't have anything ideal for burning it in (also coming next), but it burnt about the same as SVO in a wick lamp - in other words it went out quite soon, but burnt okay up to then. The wick's the problem, not the burning. No glyc fumes. I tried to get the vegoil folks to experiment with it as a fuel, but the whole discussion got side-tracked (Paddy's weird doubts that it is FFA). I'll do that myself soon as I get the chance. I want to use WVO and glyc/ffa/catalyst and separated ffa for heating and process heat in the coming months, much appreciate any further input on this issue. Best Keith Todd Swearingen said something once about ffa being a potential fuel
Re: [biofuel] Marinated Salmon recipe
Bryan, I believe that it is decilitres (dL) which is1/10 of a liter or 100 cc's or 3.38 fl. oz. If you have problems converting to or from metric, try http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccvol.htm Ray Bryan Fullerton wrote: Ok this is cool but what is dl? its a measurement of some sort I gather, prob not used in the US much. what is its closest equivalent? thanks Bryan Fullerton White Knight Gifts www.youcandobusiness.com Gravad Lax. (Marinated Salmon) 1 2-3 kg Salmon 1 dl salt 1 dl sugar 4 tablespoons crushed black pepper 1 table spoon crushed Jamaica pepper (do not now if this is the right English name, but in Swedish it is Kryddpeppar and Spanish Piebre de Jamaica) 1 large bundle of Dill If the Salmon is 2 days old or deep freeze, it is only good. Does not effect the taste, but the texture will be a little bit better for making nice slices. Mix the salt, sugar and peppers. De-scale and file the Salmon or have it done in the shop. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] Doing it once is already hard Was: doo doo
About fabricating the WTC attacks ... I'm not gonna debate whether it was .. or not cause I have NO proof for what I'm about to say. I'm simply gonna comment that there is ONE strange thing that's always bothered me about the WTC incident. TWO separate planes driven by TWO sets of terrorists strike TWO entirely different buildings (towers). Yet EACH of these two physically separated incidences ... brought down BOTH building STRAIGHT DOWN. DEMOLITION PERFECT. Like those demolitions you see on the news sometime ... bringing down old buildings. Now remember ... those demolitions you see on the news they're done by explosives experts. The building is studied for weeks ... the charges precisely placed. CAREFULLY placed. DELIBERATELY placed. That's the kind of precision that (supposedly) it takes to make a building come straight down. To avoid damaging nearby buildings. So now a stolen aircraft hits a building at a random angle brings a building straight down?? And the a SECOND plane hits a SECOND building?? And ALSO brings it straight down?? The chances for a random (non deliberate charges placed just in certain places) plane hit making it fall straight down ... are already microscopic. Now a second (2nd tower) repeat performance?? The odd against THAT are UNBELIEVABLE!!! I'm NOT implying anything. But I WILL say that it sure makes my suspicious-o-meter needle shoot up. Curtis Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL - Original Message - From: Crabb, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] So tell me, whom are we bombing to rape their resources? Afghanistan? I suppose that is a flimsy excuse we facricated the WTC attacks so that we can waste our time and spend money there for nothing. If we were fabricating it.. it would have made more sense to fabricate it so that Saddam did it. If we were going to rip off all their oil.. why didnt we do it 12 years ago? Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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: RE:Ag subsidies
Motie wrote: --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Crabb, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would think that instead of having agricultural subsidies, or paying people NOT to grow things on their land, that we should instead get subsidize them to grow biofuel on their land. I disagree with subsidies in general. I thoroughly disagree with paying subsidies for producing massive quantities of a product that can't be marketted. It's usually that way. The real problem of agriculture is surplus. It's very complex, but those involved apparently don't want to solve the problem but rather to maintain it, for their own ends. As you say Motie: I can only imagine what a 'Power Trip' it must be to be able to buy power and influence, using someone else's money! They are unlikely to voluntarily and willingly go quietly into the night! 'Fraid so. Big bureaucracies on the one hand and big agribusiness on the other - Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, Cargill, along with all the Soy Boards etc that they control. (The farmers are just serfs.) Hence the world's biggest tank farm, with about 4 billion gallons of soy oil - which is the by-product, the feed-cake is the product, the other nightmare of industrialized livestock farming is intended to absorb the excess, allegedly adding value (plus massive externalizations, as at each corner of this stupid and destructive system). Same with corn (surplus corn is the cheapest thing for Americans to burn in their woodstoves - more than a billion bushels went unused in 2000), same with lots of things, and the same in all the industrialized countries. And then, too often, it gets dumped on 3rd World markets, putting their own farmers out of business and causing immense distortions all along the line, often ending up with starving people at the end of it - as in Southern Africa now, widely blamed on the drought, on people like Mugabe, and stuff like Zambia's refusing to accept GMO food aid, but it's not so. The IMF has at least as much to do with the hunger as the drought does, along with the rest of the thoroughly rigged free market (the rich nations are allowed their subsidies, the poor ones of course aren't, that's only fair, you see). http://www.wdm.org.uk/presrel/current/malawi_report_IMF.htm IMF blamed for Malawi famine, 29 October 2002 -- The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank forced policies onto the Government of Malawi that were responsible for turning a food shortage into a famine, concludes a report released today by the World Development Movement (WDM). Structural Damage - Executive summary (pdf) http://www.wdm.org.uk/cambriefs/Debt/Malawi%20ExecSum%20.pdf Structural Damage - Full report (pdf) http://www.wdm.org.uk/cambriefs/Debt/Malawi%20Final.pdf Then there's this: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/09/business/09CND_FOOD.html E.U. Ban on Genetically Modified Food Criticized, New York Times, Jan. 9 0 The Bush administration's top trade official announced today that he wanted to file a case against the European Union for its ban on genetically modified food, calling the European position Luddite and immoral for leading to starvation in the developing world. Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, said he lost his patience with the four-year-old feud about the safety of American biotechnology food last year when African nations with starving populations refused to accept American food aid because the grain was genetically modified. The European antiscientific policies are spreading to other corners of the world, Mr. Zoellick said at a meeting with reporters. It has been used by political leaders in Africa to not eat the food that you and I eat and rather let their people starve. I think that is a rather serious development Europeans have equally harsh views of the American position, which they believe are influenced as much by American agribusiness as by concerns about feeding the hungry of the world. British newspapers have called the crops Frankenfoods, reflecting the deep suspicion of crops like corn and soybeans that through genetic modification have provided larger harvests and have proved less vulnerable to disease and drought. [more] WRONG - GM soy and corn have NOT provided larger harvests, there is NO evidence that GMs increase yields, they have NOT proved less vulnerable to disease and drought, they have NOT even resulted in the use of less herbicide as promised - in fact they use MORE herbicides. They were constructed (NOT bred) for herbicide tolerance, not for higher yields or to feed the hungry - for higher agribiz profits, that's all. And multiple problems are emerging, despite all assurances - every single promise made so far about this ANTISCIENTIFIC junk has been broken. See Norfolk Genetic Information Network - excellent info on GMOs: http://www.ngin.org.uk Can GMO crops help to feed a hungry world? Here's some very rare honesty: If anyone tells you that
Re: [biofuel] Bio fuel stove
Hi I'm new to the group . I'm look for imforation about bio fuel stoves to heat a home,shop, greenhouse.Can I use bio fuel in a fuel oil furnuse. Hi, and welcome Short answer is yes. Biodiesel will replace fuel oil nicely in standard fuel oil gun type furnaces but Straight Veg Oil (SVO) causes a buildup (acrolein?) which quickly degrades efficiency. Waste oil burners apparently work well for SVO but are expensive. Not acrolein anyway, gums and tars and gunk. Do a search in the archives, it's been discussed quite a lot. Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Also see: MOTHER's Waste Oil Heater http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me4.html http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me5.html Babington Burner http://ww2.green-trust.org:8383/2000/biofuel/babington/default.htm Best Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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: waste oil burners burning glycerine, ffa's Re: [biofuel] Re: biodiesel vs. propane for heating
Hello Mark I looked up a few of those commercial oil burners for use with WVO. Sounds pretty interesting, though pricey... something to try and find secondhand, maybe? Then I got an email from a farmer nearby, someone who grows oil crops, asking about biodiesel production for on-farm use, and about ways to reduce waste in the process, all the usual questions people have. We were talking about 'glycerine' and ways to deal with it besides disposal... Does anyone on this list have experience burning their glycerine for shop heat or process heat, using some kind of waste oil burner, either one of these commercial units or one of the homebuilt ones off of Journeytoforever? I think Chuck Ranum's doing that: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor4.html Biodiesel processors I asked Michael Allen something about this recently: Would 11% glyc plus the FFAs be enough to power the process? Glycerol has a higher heating value of 13.6 kJ/kg (if my sums are correct) 100 litres of palm-oil weighs in at 91.06 kg. It produces about 8.55 kg of glycerol so we will get less than 13.6 x 8.55 kJ to heat palm oil (= 116.28 kJ). Now that 91.06 kg of palm oil has an estimated specific heat of about 2 kJ/kg K. So we can use the glycerol *at best* to heat the palm oil through 116.28/(91.06 x 2) = 0.6K ! So if you want to get the palm oil to 60C, it had better be 59.5C when you start. This tram-ticket calculation ignored FFA and also heat losses from the equipment. If the full heat of combustion of glycerol were available, you might get a 5 degree C rise. :-( I know that burning glycerine can produce some toxic gases if not done properly. Mainly acrolein. Biodieselers have occasionally talked about burning the alcohol/glycerin/FFA/catalyst mix in a traditional fuel oil furnace as a method of disposal. This would probably create an inadequate combustion scenario and is not recommended. That does not mean that it couldn't be done in an oxygen rich environment, such as a furnace specifically designed for waste motor oils. But even that would have to be tested. Acrolein boils at 53C (127F), so any acrolein actually in the glyc will be long gone if you removed the excess methanol. Acrolein forms when glycerine decomposes. Glycerine (pure) boils at 290¼C. The glyc-ffa-catalyst mixture will boil at a lower temp than that. http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/AC/acrolein.html Safety data for acrolein http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/a1538.htm Acrolein However: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/message/13799 - There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of acrolein. - There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of acrolein. - Acrolein is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3). (International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization) Carconigenic or not, it's certainly toxic. What is 'properly' in this case? some particular temperature, some particular combustion environment? how does one know, using a Babington or a waste oil burner to burn glycerine byproduct, that it is safe to do so? It strikes me that people burning SVO or WVO in waste oil heaters or whatever don't seem to share this concern, which only comes up when it's a question of burning the glycerine. But the glycerine comes from the VO after all, if at a lower concentration, so shouldn't they have the same concern? I don't want to minimise safety concerns, but maybe we make too much of it. A Babington burner should surely be hot enough, an MEN heater should be too, but anyway the exhaust goes outside - not proposing to pollute the outside, it probably wouldn't be any more than is released burning SVO in a car (some). Also I do the 'ffa recovery' process sometimes- purifying 'glycerine' with an acid to break down the soaps into salt and ffa, and producing a cleaner glycerine for degreaser use. Like everyone I know whose tried this, I've got a bit of ffa byproduct sitting around in my 'odd chemicals' collection now (I believe Ken Provost experimented with using that same ffa in soapmaking?). I've made other stuff out of it (release agent/Dubbin, for instance - good!), but haven't got round to making soap yet, coming next. I also don't have anything ideal for burning it in (also coming next), but it burnt about the same as SVO in a wick lamp - in other words it went out quite soon, but burnt okay up to then. The wick's the problem, not the burning. No glyc fumes. I tried to get the vegoil folks to experiment with it as a fuel, but the whole discussion got side-tracked (Paddy's weird doubts that it is FFA). I'll do that myself soon as I get the chance. I want to use WVO and glyc/ffa/catalyst and separated ffa for heating and process heat in the coming months, much appreciate any further input on this issue. Best Keith Todd Swearingen said something once about ffa being a potential fuel
Re: [biofuel] Doing it once is already hard Was: doo doo
I think you will find that any very tall building can be brought down just as these two were when you have a very intense petrochemical fire (Jet Fuel) burning for some time at least one third of the way down the building. It lets one or two floors collapse at the same time and the above floors act as a very large hammer and drive all the lower floors down until the lower floors are all flat then the velocity of the fall does the same to the remaining upper floors. Keep in mind that the WTC's were of an interesting design with much of the load taken by the outer side structures as compared to a more normal steel building with a steel frame throughout the interior. This permitted full open floors that allowed for maximum flexibility in floor plans to meet tenants needs. If you will look at the pictures of the disaster take from the air a few days later, and before the clean up was well under way I think you will see that it was a real mess, not at all like the controlled demolition of an older building and many of the other buildings in the area were severely damaged to the point that several may have to be demolished. Good thought but it is just not factual. Best regards, Vern csakima [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com net cc: Subject: [biofuel] Doing it once is already hardWas: doo 01/12/03 08:03 AM doo Please respond to biofuel About fabricating the WTC attacks ... I'm not gonna debate whether it was .. or not cause I have NO proof for what I'm about to say. I'm simply gonna comment that there is ONE strange thing that's always bothered me about the WTC incident.Ê TWO separate planes driven by TWO sets of terrorists strike TWO entirely different buildings (towers).ÊÊ Yet EACH of these two physically separated incidences ... brought down BOTH building STRAIGHT DOWN.ÊÊ DEMOLITION PERFECT.ÊÊ Like those demolitions you see on the news sometime ... bringing down old buildings. Now remember ... those demolitions you see on the news they're done by explosives experts.Ê The building is studied for weeks ... the charges precisely placed.Ê CAREFULLY placed.Ê DELIBERATELY placed.Ê That's the kind of precision that (supposedly) it takes to make a building come straight down.Ê To avoid damaging nearby buildings. So now a stolen aircraft hits a building at a random angle brings a building straight down??Ê And the a SECOND plane hits a SECOND building??Ê And ALSO brings it straight down??Ê The chances for a random (non deliberate charges placed just in certain places) plane hit making it fall straight down ... are already microscopic.ÊÊ Now a second (2nd tower) repeat performance?? The odd against THAT are UNBELIEVABLE!!! I'm NOT implying anything.Ê But I WILL say that it sure makes my suspicious-o-meter needle shoot up. Curtis Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL - Original Message - From: Crabb, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] So tell me, whom are we bombing to rape their resources? Afghanistan?Ê I suppose that is a flimsy excuse we facricated the WTC attacks so thatÊ we can waste our time and spend money there for nothing. If we were fabricating it.. it would have made more sense to fabricate it so that Saddam did it. If we were going to rip off all their oil.. why didnt we do it 12 years ago? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT [IMAGE]
[biofuel] Re: methanol vs ethanol
I have been watching the serious safety issues (great use of this list) per using methanol in the production of biodiesel. I understand ethanol works as well though I understand it is a bit more complicated a process. Pardon my ignorance; but, I have looked around and have not found the differences explained. Many find producing moonshine easy and getting an alcohol with many uses including organic and inorganic fuel burners. Seems this might be a simple way of getting a safe alcohol molecular chain for use in biodiesel production as for direct uses. There are plenty of sites explaining simple moonshine stills. Now will someone explain the methanol vs ethanol differences in processing please and keep this in line for the single car owner level of production? Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] Doing it once is already hard Was: doo doo
Key difference between professional demolition and Sept.11 planes and WTC buildings falling: the upper floor pancaked, leading to cascade pancake failures. Without a side-force, or a designed-in assymmetry to floor strength, even Newton would expect the WTC to have pancaked straight down. No need for pros to do the job. -Original Message- From: csakima [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 9:04 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuel] Doing it once is already hard Was: doo doo About fabricating the WTC attacks ... I'm not gonna debate whether it was .. or not cause I have NO proof for what I'm about to say. I'm simply gonna comment that there is ONE strange thing that's always bothered me about the WTC incident. TWO separate planes driven by TWO sets of terrorists strike TWO entirely different buildings (towers). Yet EACH of these two physically separated incidences ... brought down BOTH building STRAIGHT DOWN. DEMOLITION PERFECT. Like those demolitions you see on the news sometime ... bringing down old buildings. Now remember ... those demolitions you see on the news they're done by explosives experts. The building is studied for weeks ... the charges precisely placed. CAREFULLY placed. DELIBERATELY placed. That's the kind of precision that (supposedly) it takes to make a building come straight down. To avoid damaging nearby buildings. So now a stolen aircraft hits a building at a random angle brings a building straight down?? And the a SECOND plane hits a SECOND building?? And ALSO brings it straight down?? The chances for a random (non deliberate charges placed just in certain places) plane hit making it fall straight down ... are already microscopic. Now a second (2nd tower) repeat performance?? The odd against THAT are UNBELIEVABLE!!! I'm NOT implying anything. But I WILL say that it sure makes my suspicious-o-meter needle shoot up. Curtis Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL - Original Message - From: Crabb, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] So tell me, whom are we bombing to rape their resources? Afghanistan? I suppose that is a flimsy excuse we facricated the WTC attacks so that we can waste our time and spend money there for nothing. If we were fabricating it.. it would have made more sense to fabricate it so that Saddam did it. If we were going to rip off all their oil.. why didnt we do it 12 years ago? Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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 at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] Doing it once is already hard Was: doo doo
csakima wrote: I'm simply gonna comment that there is ONE strange thing that's always bothered me about the WTC incident. TWO separate planes driven by TWO sets of terrorists strike TWO entirely different buildings (towers). Yet EACH of these two physically separated incidences ... brought down BOTH building STRAIGHT DOWN. DEMOLITION PERFECT. Like those demolitions you see on the news sometime ... bringing down old buildings. But it wasn't the impact of the aircraft that brought those buildings down. Burning fuel heated the steel superstructure to the point where it could no longer support the building, and gravity did the rest. I'd seen something similar with the steel in my wood stove. Burning hardwood for a season almost always warped a steel baffle plate that directed secondary air into the stove. I was subsequently educated by someone familiar with wood stoves that steel becomes elastic at temperatures exceeding 1 000 F, so I had to install a pyrometer and adjust the air intake to avoid burning my fires too hot. (I HAD to get biofuels into this post, somehow!) I was in Baltimore that awful day, watching the whole episode on CNN. I remember telling my aunt that those buildings would come straight down if the fire wasn't extinguished. There was no mystery about it in my mind. I'm NOT implying anything. But I WILL say that it sure makes my suspicious-o-meter needle shoot up. So then, what ARE you saying? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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: methanol vs ethanol - Disregard (found site)
I just sent an email per: I have been watching the serious safety issues ... and I believe I have located the information I needed. Please disregard my prior Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] Marinated Salmon recipe
deciliter - Original Message - From: Ray Leach [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Marinated Salmon recipe Bryan, I believe that it is decilitres (dL) which is1/10 of a liter or 100 cc's or 3.38 fl. oz. If you have problems converting to or from metric, try http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccvol.htm Ray Bryan Fullerton wrote: Ok this is cool but what is dl? its a measurement of some sort I gather, prob not used in the US much. what is its closest equivalent? thanks Bryan Fullerton White Knight Gifts www.youcandobusiness.com Gravad Lax. (Marinated Salmon) 1 2-3 kg Salmon 1 dl salt 1 dl sugar 4 tablespoons crushed black pepper 1 table spoon crushed Jamaica pepper (do not now if this is the right English name, but in Swedish it is Kryddpeppar and Spanish Piebre de Jamaica) 1 large bundle of Dill If the Salmon is 2 days old or deep freeze, it is only good. Does not effect the taste, but the texture will be a little bit better for making nice slices. Mix the salt, sugar and peppers. De-scale and file the Salmon or have it done in the shop. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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 at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] It just the Odds Was: Doing it once is already hard
I'm just saying that to have two independant events both causing two separate building come down in the same (GENERALLY, I agree it wasn't exactly) demolition-perfect straight down ... sure was strange to me in a crap-shoot odds (what are the odds) sorta way. Gee, maybe we should build our commercial building like the WTC was built. Then, when it's time to demolish it all we gotta do is build a massive fire inside. No (expensive) professionals needed! :) Curtis Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL - Original Message - From: robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm NOT implying anything. But I WILL say that it sure makes my suspicious-o-meter needle shoot up. So then, what ARE you saying? Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] It just the Odds Was: Doing it once is already hard
- Original Message - From: csakima [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 16:01 Subject: [biofuel] It just the Odds Was: Doing it once is already hard I'm just saying that to have two independant events both causing two separate building come down in the same (GENERALLY, I agree it wasn't exactly) demolition-perfect straight down ... sure was strange to me in a crap-shoot odds (what are the odds) sorta way. Actualy the odds are very good that they would come down the same way. They were designed, built, hit, and the fires were about the same temp. About the only differance is were they were hit, and that is what accounted for the time differance it took for structure failure. Greg H. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] Marinated Salmon recipe
William Conrad wrote: deciliter Only if you're an American, otherwise decilitre, mostly, and also originally (French). Ray had it both ways though - Mid-Atlantic style Ray? g I also do it both ways (unless I'm being paid for it). It doesn't matter on international groups like this, as long as it's understood. Keith - Original Message - From: Ray Leach [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Marinated Salmon recipe Bryan, I believe that it is decilitres (dL) which is1/10 of a liter or 100 cc's or 3.38 fl. oz. If you have problems converting to or from metric, try http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccvol.htm Ray Bryan Fullerton wrote: Ok this is cool but what is dl? its a measurement of some sort I gather, prob not used in the US much. what is its closest equivalent? thanks Bryan Fullerton White Knight Gifts www.youcandobusiness.com Gravad Lax. (Marinated Salmon) 1 2-3 kg Salmon 1 dl salt 1 dl sugar 4 tablespoons crushed black pepper 1 table spoon crushed Jamaica pepper (do not now if this is the right English name, but in Swedish it is Kryddpeppar and Spanish Piebre de Jamaica) 1 large bundle of Dill If the Salmon is 2 days old or deep freeze, it is only good. Does not effect the taste, but the texture will be a little bit better for making nice slices. Mix the salt, sugar and peppers. De-scale and file the Salmon or have it done in the shop. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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: methanol vs ethanol - Disregard (found site)
NeilUSA wrote: I just sent an email per: I have been watching the serious safety issues ... and I believe I have located the information I needed. Please disregard my prior It's all right here, Neil, in the two urls at the bottom of every message you receive: Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Very much information on ethanol vs methanol! Right under your nose. Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] Detroit resurrects gas-thirsty sports cars
Keith Addison wrote: DETROIT - Brushing aside pleas for better fuel economy, Detroit's two largest automakers will add some excitement to their lineups this year by selling gas guzzler sports cars whose high fuel consumption requires buyers to pay federal taxes of up to $7,700. [snip] Further proof of the old adage that power and glamor sell, but boring things like safety and efficiency don't. AP -- 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.net Processor cycles are a terrible thing to waste: www.distributed.net Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
