[biofuel] Re: fuel tanks

[girl_mark_fire]

hi Lisa, I'm assuming you're talking about straight vegetable oil 
conversion, if you are talking about biodiesel then there's no 
conversion necessary.

SVO:
two people I know just destroyed their 7.3 Fords' injection pumps 
running straight vegetable oil in these vehicles. I own this kind of 
F-250 (mine is a 6.9 but it's similar) and love it, although it takes 
a lot of fuel (but boy does it carry a lot of stuff).

Anyway doing a little looking and a lot of asking, a few things came 
up about the seizures in my two friends' two Ford pumps- including 
the fact that the Stanadyne pumps in these(what year is yours?) may 
require more care to be taken than on more robust pumps if you do a 
straight vegetable oil conversion- the Stanadyne is listed on 
Biocar's website (www.biocar.de I think)  as a non-recommended 
conversion I believe (or is it Elsbett's website? sorry if I 
misremember). On the other hand it's the most common diesel truck 
you;ll find in the US and therefore many, many people are running 
them successfully on straight vegetable oil. They're probably a 
pretty common conversion here- and the two tanks are really crying 
for a simple conversion. 


I'm still considering doing an SVO conversion on my Ford as I've 
found some parts for it really cheap (used), and I think it'll 
increase my options in really cold weather to be able to start up on 
dinodiesel (yech), at least until someone invents better cold-
weather additives designed for biodiesel specifically.  But if I do 
this  conversion I'm going to be very careful that it's done right 
and that the oil gets up to a high enough temperature, I'll be 
careful about what quality of oil I use, that it;s water-free, 
properly pre-filtered, and low in acidity, and that I flush all of it 
completely out of the system (all common SVO requirements, but I see 
a number of people not do all of this completely). It's a really 
heavy-duty truck, with apparently a less-than-heavy-duty injection 
pump.

My roommate found a replacement pump for about $300 rebuilt with 
little guarantee via some online source. Usually they cost a decent 
amount more (with a correspondingly better looking guarantee). 
If you're using biodiesel instead of straight vegetable oil there's a 
lot less to stress the injection pump- the fuel is much less viscous 
(and on our trucks there's a built-in 12V fuel heater that might thin 
it out even more)- so I personally am not worrying about it as i 
drive it all over the place on biodiesel. And many many people are 
doing just that with no problems. Of course I also use water-free, 
properly filtered, washed biodiesel.

Ed Beggs (who makes a fine SVO kit, his technology is what I'm 
thinking about putting into my truck) suggested also that my friends' 
failures have something to do with preexisting damage to the pumps 
due to both vehicles being from California and the fact that they've 
thus run on low-sulfur diesel longer than comperable vehicles in 
other states (and suffered more damage from this fuel). I personally 
dont' think they "just happened to" fail when an owner put an SVO 
conversion onto them... though prior damage if there was any surely 
helped. One of our local ace mechanics insisted he doesnt' see seized 
pumps due to just old age and ordinary wear, and his co-worker 
insisted the opposite, so I don't know what to think on that one.

mark


--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Lisa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking at a truck with dual tanks.  Is there any advantage (or 
disadvantage, for that matter) to buying a vehicle with a pre-
existing 2-tank setup?  Is there anything I should watch out for or 
ask the seller about?
> 
> It's a Ford F-250 -- anybody had any experience with that model, 
good or bad?  The only references I found in the archives were "just-
done" or "hope-to-do-soon" conversions, so not much info on how it 
worked out.
> 
> Thanks! 
> 
> 
> ~
> ~Lisa~
> ~
> 
> "Do not let either the medical authorities or the politicians 
mislead you. Find out what the facts are, and make your own decisions 
about how to live a happy life and how to work for a better world." 
> ~ Linus Pauling ~
> 
> "Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change 
the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." 
> ~ Margaret Mead ~
> in memory of Rachel Corrie, 1979-2003
> http://www.palsolidarity.org/
> 
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or 
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only 
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American 
public."
> ~ (Republican!) President Theodore Roosevelt ~
> 
> Annoy a politician today -- THINK!!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
--

Re: [biofuel] mixing biodisel with gasoline

[Doug Foskey]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:31, you wrote:
> You would probably ruin the bearings in a two stroke, using bio-fuel,
> because the oil mixed with the fuel is there for lubrication of the
> bearings..
>
> Ed

Biodiesel is an oil. Some have used it for 2 stroke lube.
Doug

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] mixing biodisel with gasoline

[Doug Foskey]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:01, you wrote:
> From my experience, you have to use a "use specific" 2 stroke oil in a two
> stroke.  I have ruined one lawn mower by using the wrong oil, a descision
> based on bad advice.
>
> Chain saws are supposed to be even more pickey about what oil they get. 
> Use the wrong oil and the crank bearings go.
>
> I will let someone else do the experimenting with bio-diesel as 2 stroke
> fuel, and I would really like to see some long term use reports.
>
> EdB

The reason you had a problem is that you probably used a heavier oil, or too 
much. This weakens the mixture as the oil is replacing the combustible fuel. 
If the bearings suffered, it was probably the opposite (ie too little oil) 
  It can be done but care must be used.
Doug

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Re: fuel tanks

[Steve Spence]

The greasel system we sell has been installed and working for many thousands
of miles in ford 250 and 350 turbo diesels. Because we heat the oil to a
higher temperature, we find that it stresses the injector pump less and they
are able to reliably handle varying types of WVO, in a wide range of
climates, with little chance of damage.

http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/yohn



Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:37 AM
Subject: [biofuel] Re: fuel tanks


> hi Lisa, I'm assuming you're talking about straight vegetable oil
> conversion, if you are talking about biodiesel then there's no
> conversion necessary.
>
> SVO:
> two people I know just destroyed their 7.3 Fords' injection pumps
> running straight vegetable oil in these vehicles. I own this kind of
> F-250 (mine is a 6.9 but it's similar) and love it, although it takes
> a lot of fuel (but boy does it carry a lot of stuff).
>
> Anyway doing a little looking and a lot of asking, a few things came
> up about the seizures in my two friends' two Ford pumps- including
> the fact that the Stanadyne pumps in these(what year is yours?) may
> require more care to be taken than on more robust pumps if you do a
> straight vegetable oil conversion- the Stanadyne is listed on
> Biocar's website (www.biocar.de I think)  as a non-recommended
> conversion I believe (or is it Elsbett's website? sorry if I
> misremember). On the other hand it's the most common diesel truck
> you;ll find in the US and therefore many, many people are running
> them successfully on straight vegetable oil. They're probably a
> pretty common conversion here- and the two tanks are really crying
> for a simple conversion.
>
>
> I'm still considering doing an SVO conversion on my Ford as I've
> found some parts for it really cheap (used), and I think it'll
> increase my options in really cold weather to be able to start up on
> dinodiesel (yech), at least until someone invents better cold-
> weather additives designed for biodiesel specifically.  But if I do
> this  conversion I'm going to be very careful that it's done right
> and that the oil gets up to a high enough temperature, I'll be
> careful about what quality of oil I use, that it;s water-free,
> properly pre-filtered, and low in acidity, and that I flush all of it
> completely out of the system (all common SVO requirements, but I see
> a number of people not do all of this completely). It's a really
> heavy-duty truck, with apparently a less-than-heavy-duty injection
> pump.
>
> My roommate found a replacement pump for about $300 rebuilt with
> little guarantee via some online source. Usually they cost a decent
> amount more (with a correspondingly better looking guarantee).
> If you're using biodiesel instead of straight vegetable oil there's a
> lot less to stress the injection pump- the fuel is much less viscous
> (and on our trucks there's a built-in 12V fuel heater that might thin
> it out even more)- so I personally am not worrying about it as i
> drive it all over the place on biodiesel. And many many people are
> doing just that with no problems. Of course I also use water-free,
> properly filtered, washed biodiesel.
>
> Ed Beggs (who makes a fine SVO kit, his technology is what I'm
> thinking about putting into my truck) suggested also that my friends'
> failures have something to do with preexisting damage to the pumps
> due to both vehicles being from California and the fact that they've
> thus run on low-sulfur diesel longer than comperable vehicles in
> other states (and suffered more damage from this fuel). I personally
> dont' think they "just happened to" fail when an owner put an SVO
> conversion onto them... though prior damage if there was any surely
> helped. One of our local ace mechanics insisted he doesnt' see seized
> pumps due to just old age and ordinary wear, and his co-worker
> insisted the opposite, so I don't know what to think on that one.
>
> mark
>
>
> --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Lisa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm looking at a truck with dual tanks.  Is there any advantage (or
> disadvantage, for that matter) to buying a vehicle with a pre-
> existing 2-tank setup?  Is there anything I should watch out for or
> ask the seller about?
> >
> > It's a Ford F-250 -- anybody had any experience with that model,
> good or bad?  The only references I found in the archives were "just-
> done" or "hope-to-do-soon" conversions, so not much info on how it
> worked out.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> > ~
> > ~Lisa~
> > ~
> >
> > "Do not let either the medical authorities or the politicians
> mislead you. Find out what the facts are, and make your own decisions
> about how to live a happy life and how to work for a better world."
> > ~ Linus Pauling ~
> >
> > "N

[biofuel] EERE Network News -- 04/02/03

[EERE]

==
EERE NETWORK NEWS -- April 2, 2003
A weekly newsletter from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).

==

Featuring:
*News and Events
   Iowa Utility to Build a 310-Megawatt Wind Power Plant
   Rosebud Sioux Tribe Installs a 750-Kilowatt Wind Turbine
   Solar Power Installations Continue Apace in California
   European Wave and Tidal Energy Projects Face Setbacks
   University of Idaho Sweeps SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge

*Site News
   Energy Trust of Oregon

*About this Newsletter


--
NEWS AND EVENTS
--
Iowa Utility to Build a 310-Megawatt Wind Power Plant

MidAmerican Energy Company, Iowa's largest utility, announced last
week its intention to construct a 310-megawatt wind power facility in
northwest or north-central Iowa. The project will consist of up to
200 wind turbines and will rival in capacity the largest existing
U.S. wind power plant: the 300-megawatt Stateline Wind Energy Center,
located along the border of Oregon and Washington. Although
MidAmerican expects the first turbines to come online in 2004, and the
entire project to be complete by 2006, the company has not yet
selected a location for the project. See the MidAmerican press release
at:



Rosebud Sioux Tribe Installs a 750-Kilowatt Wind Turbine

The Rosebud Sioux Indian Tribe installed a 750-kilowatt wind turbine
on its reservation last week, completing a project that began eight
years ago with wind resource monitoring. With half of the project
funded by a DOE Cooperative Grant, the Rosebud Tribe financed the
remainder of the project by obtaining the first-ever loan for a tribal
wind energy project from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural
Utility Service. The project will supply power to the reservation and
will also sell power to the Basin Electric Power Cooperative. "Green
tags" from the project are also being sold through NativeEnergy, LLC.

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is located in south-central South Dakota. DOE
estimates that the 24 reservations in the northern Great Plains have a
wind energy potential greater than 300 gigawatts. See the announcement
on DOE's Tribal Energy Program Web site at:
.

Clif Bar Inc., a maker of all-natural energy and nutrition foods, is
the latest buyer of green tags from NativeEnergy. Clif Bar is buying
enough green tags to displace about 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide
emissions. See the press release on the NativeEnergy Web site at:
.


Solar Power Installations Continue Apace in California

California continues to maintain a rapid pace for solar power
installations, judging by recent announcements from Shell Solar and
PowerLight Corporation. In March, the two companies announced a total
of nearly 800 kilowatts of new solar energy installations.

PowerLight Corporation dedicated two solar electric systems in
Vallejo: a 108-kilowatt system on Vallejo City Hall and a 224-kilowatt
system on the John F. Kennedy Public Library. The company also
dedicated a 231-kilowatt system installed on the roof of OK Produce's
distribution facility in Fresno. See the news by selecting the
2003 press releases on the PowerLight Corporation Web site at:
.

The Shell Solar announcements include a 150-kilowatt system at Salina
Valley Memorial Hospital in Monterey County, a 73-kilowatt system in
Los Angeles, and a 1.76-kilowatt system that will help monitor the
California Condor at the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge in
Southern California. See the Shell Solar press releases at:
.


European Wave and Tidal Energy Projects Face Setbacks

Two European projects to demonstrate wave and tidal energy production
-- one in Denmark and one in Norway -- have recently encountered
setbacks and delays.

In Denmark, a wave energy system called the Wave Dragon was damaged
during its deployment over the weekend, when high winds caused the
installation team to stop work, apparently before the mooring system
was fully installed. The ensuing storm caused damage to the prototype,
but it remains afloat. See the press release from Wave Dragon ApS at:
.

The Wave Dragon is an offshore floating device that captures ocean
waves in an elevated reservoir, then converts that reservoir's stored
energy into electricity by running the water through a hydroelectric
turbine as it is returned to the ocean. See the Wave Dragon Web 

Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing

[Keith Addison]

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DUuse+hazard.html
Depleted Uranium: Uses and Hazards, by Doug Rokke, 2001
Doug Rokke, Ph.D.
(This paper is an updated version of the paper presented in the 
British House of Commons; London, England; on December 16, 1999)

http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$61
The San Francisco Times
Dr. Doug Rokke's address on Depleted Uranium
The following is a copy of the Address given by Dr. Doug Rokke, 
former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project, at the 
National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition 17th Annual 
Leadership Breakfast, at the U.S. Senate Caucus Room on November 10, 
2000. Adrian Cronauer was Master of Ceremonies.


http://www.sundayherald.com/32522
Sunday Herald

US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal'

By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor

BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) 
shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United 
Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons 
of mass destruction.

DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the 
soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, 
leading to birth defects in children.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium 
project -- a former professor of environmental science at 
Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by 
the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted 
uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.

Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was 
about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we 
are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such 
double-standards are repellent.'

The latest use of DU in the current conflict came on Friday when an 
American A10 tankbuster plane fired a DU shell, killing one British 
soldier and injuring three others in a 'friendly fire' incident.

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which 
are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the 
Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva 
Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and 
the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid 
employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or 
materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these 
laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in 
armed conflicts.

DU has been blamed for the effects of Gulf war syndrome -- typified 
by chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue and memory loss -- among 
200,000 US soldiers after the 1991 conflict.

It is also cited as the most likely cause of the 'increased number of 
birth deformities and cancer in Iraq' following the first Gulf war.

'Cancer appears to have increased between seven and 10 times and 
deformities between four and six times,' according to the UN 
subcommission.

The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on the 
battlefield after the first Gulf war, although Russian military 
experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure.

In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU 
tipped bombs. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some 
500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to 
radioactive debris left in the desert.

The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of Allied 
veterans and is believed to be the cause of the 'worrying number of 
anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq. Only one in 
50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital 
had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been 
exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991. There have also been 
cases of Iraqi babies born without the crowns of their skulls, a 
deformity also linked to DU shelling.

A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with severe 
illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and 
fused fingers.

Rokke told the Sunday Herald: 'A nation's military personnel cannot 
wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause harm to persons and the 
environment and then ignore the consequences of their actions.

'To do so is a crime against humanity.

'We must do what is right for the citizens of the world -- ban DU.'

He called on the US and UK to 'recognise the immoral consequences of 
their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and thorough 
environmental remediation'.

He added: 'We can't just use munitions which leave a toxic wasteland 
behind them and kill indiscriminately.

'It is equivalent to a war crime.'

Rokke said that coalition troops were currently fighting in the Gulf 
without adequate respiratory protection against DU contamination.

The Sunday Herald has pre

Re: [biofuel] Re: more coverage of Iraq

[Keith Addison]

>Andrew,
>
>I made no slur on "the so called 'usual suspects' of 'Lefties', 'pinkos',
>'Arab-lovers', 'pro-Castro'." I only sent along for the group to review
>an article that had some interesting information in it. If the opposition
>is
>as wide and deep as you indicate that it is then we would see much larger
>demonstrations and more than just a little rhetoric from a relatively few
>countries
>at the UN and in the press.

Hard to imagine quite what direction you're looking in Vern to get 
such a view. This is what everyone else is seeing in the US - in most 
other countries "opposition to the war was closer to unanimity than 
to a mere majority".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58849-2003Mar31.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030401/80/dwp9s.html

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20331/story.htm

Tuesday, April 1, 2003 by Reuters
U.S. Anti-War Movement Breaks Ranks with the '60s
by Greg Frost

BOSTON - Peace vigils and rallies against war in Iraq are taking 
place out in U.S. towns and cities, drawing hundreds of thousands of 
participants.

Student strikes are disrupting college campuses, where old protest 
anthems like "We Shall Overcome" mix with the tinny sound of speeches 
belted out over load hailers.

Jimmy Garden, 11, of Brookline, Mass., carries a peace sign during a 
demonstration in Boston, Saturday, March 29, 2003, where some 25,000 
people gathered and marched in protest of the war with Iraq. (AP 
Photo/Angela Rowlings)
The scene may resemble the Vietnam-era U.S. student movement. But 
scratch the surface and it soon becomes clear that this peace push is 
strikingly different from that of the 1960s when it was a movement of 
the young, of university students and of those on the political left.

Participants in current anti-war protests cut across the spectrum of 
ages, races and backgrounds and include many who would consider 
themselves mainstream Americans. They are joining more predictable 
crowds of college students, environmentalists, socialists, anarchists 
and other activists.

John Llewellyn, a 45-year-old computer industry worker from 
Knoxville, Tennessee, is among the tens of thousands of people who 
turned up at a recent anti-war protest in Boston -- the city's 
biggest demonstration in at least 30 years.

A former "long-time Republican," Llewellyn said he had never 
protested against anything in his life and admitted he did not fit 
the mould of an anti-war activist, but said President George W. 
Bush's policies had gone too far.

"It's gotten to the point that it's scary," said Llewellyn, who was 
visiting Boston with his family.

NOT THE 'USUAL SUSPECTS'

Although turnout at anti-war rallies has been strong, polls show that 
most Americans support the war in Iraq.

Still, many of Llewellyn's fellow protesters said the war has stirred 
something within them that had lain dormant for decades and, in some 
cases, their entire lives.

"This is the first time I have ever done something like this," said 
66-year-old Jung Ming Wu of Acton, Massachusetts, as he gathered with 
thousands of other protesters gathered in a park in Boston. "It's 
very emotional."

Victoria Carter a 46-year-old actuary, said her appearance at the 
Boston rally was her first since taking part in an anti-apartheid 
protest decades ago.

"I usually trust the government, but this time it's different," said 
Carter, who lives in the Boston area.

Eli Pariser, the international campaigns director of MoveOn.org 
(http://moveon.org), an online political network that claims more 
than 1.3 million U.S. members and another 700,000 around the world, 
said many of those involved are not "the usual suspects."

"They're ordinary folks who often have never been politically 
involved before and consider themselves patriots," said Pariser, who 
is based in New York. "But they feel so alarmed by the direction the 
country is going and possible consequences of war that they feel like 
they have to get involved."

The participation of many middle of the road Americans is no 
accident. Some anti-war groups have consciously reached out to the 
mainstream by avoiding some of the more strident rhetoric and 
confrontational tactics of recent left-wing campaigns such as the 
anti-globalisation protests at the Seattle World Trade Organisation 
talks four years ago.

Some anti-war strategists have strived to cast their cause as a 
patriotic one that loyal Americans can embrace as part of the 
country's moral conscience.

TECHNOLOGICAL BOOST

Technology also aids their cause.

Armed with e-mails and the power of the Internet, anti-war activists 
organise protests in hours, not the days or weeks it took their 
predecessors. One of their tactics before the war began involved 
bombarding the White House and Congress with electronic mail and 
faxes in a bid to block telephone lines.

Joseph Gerson, a 56-year-old Boston-based pacifist, marvels at the 
speed at which rallies are put together, and he envies th

[biofuel] opec-- who gets what

[kirk]

  
 
 http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/WhoGetsWhat/2001.pdf

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Dirty Bombing

[kirk]

The DU does not vaporize due to kinetic energy any more than rifle bullets
vaporize from ke and I have a rifle that puts them downrange at over 4000
fps.
Some aspects of metallurgy are not common knowledge, in fact some are very
classified, because of their applications interest.
DU obsoletes steel armor.

Kirk

-Original Message-
From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:17 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


The Aluminum just does not resist and has a hole punched through it, with
little energy transfer to the armor or the DU.   Iron may resist the blow
long enough for the motion energy of the kinetic penetrator to change to
heat energy to the point of vaporizing or infighting both Iron and DU, much
like a asteroid impact would leave a big hole and vaporize a chunk of the
earth should it hit.   Aluminum armor has a real big problem  though when it
comes to shaped warheads, the blast jet is hot enough to cause Aluminum to
start burning on it's own.

Greg H.


- Original Message -
From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 16:57
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


>
> no, but they are pyrophoric... DU ignites on impact and burns feircely.
> apparently especially when impacting iron. not sure why iron per say, but
> apparently impacting Al does not have the same effect - much less likely
to
> burn...
>




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/


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Re: more coverage of Iraq

[vern_hendershott]

Hi Keith,

Just to use the material you provided as an example of what I see it
indicates that hundreds of thousands of people are demonstrating. For this
I will except that but I have not seen that on CNN or Fox news the only USA
news services we get here in Riyadh. So hundreds of thousands could be as
much as 500,000 and if we then take the people in the USA which is
something over 250,000,000 we find that it is something less than 1%. When
I learned math that was not unanimity or even a majority. From the
information provided on CNN from the Gallop polls it would seem that over
70% of the USA still are firmly supporting the war.

Have a good day.

Best regards,
Vern





 >Andrew,
>
>I made no slur on "the so called 'usual suspects' of 'Lefties', 'pinkos',
>'Arab-lovers', 'pro-Castro'." I only sent along for the group to review
>an article that had some interesting information in it. If the opposition
>is
>as wide and deep as you indicate that it is then we would see much larger
>demonstrations and more than just a little rhetoric from a relatively few
>countries
>at the UN and in the press.

Hard to imagine quite what direction you're looking in Vern to get
such a view. This is what everyone else is seeing in the US - in most
other countries "opposition to the war was closer to unanimity than
to a mere majority".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58849-2003Mar31.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030401/80/dwp9s.html

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20331/story.htm

Tuesday, April 1, 2003 by Reuters
U.S. Anti-War Movement Breaks Ranks with the '60s
by Greg Frost

BOSTON - Peace vigils and rallies against war in Iraq are taking
place out in U.S. towns and cities, drawing hundreds of thousands of
participants.

Student strikes are disrupting college campuses, where old protest
anthems like "We Shall Overcome" mix with the tinny sound of speeches
belted out over load hailers.

Jimmy Garden, 11, of Brookline, Mass., carries a peace sign during a
demonstration in Boston, Saturday, March 29, 2003, where some 25,000
people gathered and marched in protest of the war with Iraq. (AP
Photo/Angela Rowlings)
The scene may resemble the Vietnam-era U.S. student movement. But
scratch the surface and it soon becomes clear that this peace push is
strikingly different from that of the 1960s when it was a movement of
the young, of university students and of those on the political left.

Participants in current anti-war protests cut across the spectrum of
ages, races and backgrounds and include many who would consider
themselves mainstream Americans. They are joining more predictable
crowds of college students, environmentalists, socialists, anarchists
and other activists.

John Llewellyn, a 45-year-old computer industry worker from
Knoxville, Tennessee, is among the tens of thousands of people who
turned up at a recent anti-war protest in Boston -- the city's
biggest demonstration in at least 30 years.

A former "long-time Republican," Llewellyn said he had never
protested against anything in his life and admitted he did not fit
the mould of an anti-war activist, but said President George W.
Bush's policies had gone too far.

"It's gotten to the point that it's scary," said Llewellyn, who was
visiting Boston with his family.

NOT THE 'USUAL SUSPECTS'

Although turnout at anti-war rallies has been strong, polls show that
most Americans support the war in Iraq.

Still, many of Llewellyn's fellow protesters said the war has stirred
something within them that had lain dormant for decades and, in some
cases, their entire lives.

"This is the first time I have ever done something like this," said
66-year-old Jung Ming Wu of Acton, Massachusetts, as he gathered with
thousands of other protesters gathered in a park in Boston. "It's
very emotional."

Victoria Carter a 46-year-old actuary, said her appearance at the
Boston rally was her first since taking part in an anti-apartheid
protest decades ago.

"I usually trust the government, but this time it's different," said
Carter, who lives in the Boston area.

Eli Pariser, the international campaigns director of MoveOn.org
(http://moveon.org), an online political network that claims more
than 1.3 million U.S. members and another 700,000 around the world,
said many of those involved are not "the usual suspects."

"They're ordinary folks who often have never been politically
involved before and consider themselves patriots," said Pariser, who
is based in New York. "But they feel so alarmed by the direction the
country is going and possible consequences of war that they feel like
they have to get involved."

The participation of many middle of the road Americans is no
accident. Some anti-war groups have consciously reached out to the
mainstream by avoiding some of the more strident rhetoric and
confrontational tactics of recent left-wing campaigns such as the
anti-globalisation protests at the Seattle World Trade Organisation
talks four years ago.

Som

Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing

[bratt]

How DU reacts on impact:

On impact the kinetic energy is partially transformed into thermal energy, 
which causes the uranium - which is pyrophoric, which means that it easily 
reacts with the oxygen from air - to ignite. Uranium is therefore (partially) 
oxidized to uranium oxide, which deposits as an extremely fine powder. 

EdB
  - Original Message - 
  From: kirk 
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:22 AM
  Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


  The DU does not vaporize due to kinetic energy any more than rifle bullets
  vaporize from ke and I have a rifle that puts them downrange at over 4000
  fps.
  Some aspects of metallurgy are not common knowledge, in fact some are very
  classified, because of their applications interest.
  DU obsoletes steel armor.

  Kirk

  -Original Message-
  From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:17 PM
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


  The Aluminum just does not resist and has a hole punched through it, with
  little energy transfer to the armor or the DU.   Iron may resist the blow
  long enough for the motion energy of the kinetic penetrator to change to
  heat energy to the point of vaporizing or infighting both Iron and DU, much
  like a asteroid impact would leave a big hole and vaporize a chunk of the
  earth should it hit.   Aluminum armor has a real big problem  though when it
  comes to shaped warheads, the blast jet is hot enough to cause Aluminum to
  start burning on it's own.

  Greg H.


  - Original Message -
  From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 16:57
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


  >
  > no, but they are pyrophoric... DU ignites on impact and burns feircely.
  > apparently especially when impacting iron. not sure why iron per say, but
  > apparently impacting Al does not have the same effect - much less likely
  to
  > burn...
  >




  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/


  ---
  Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
  Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
  ADVERTISEMENT
 
   
   

  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]


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Fwd: PACIFIC: Water and Power from the Ocean

[Neoteric Biofuels Inc]

Sounds like fuel cells!


I guess what I am thinking is that all the Island nations that are  
getting all excited about this should stick to wind and SVO gensets and  
hybrids of the two. PV panels, fuel cells, OTEC, etc...not of true  
benefit at this time.

Regards,

Ed

On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 12:49 PM, kirk wrote:

> Don't get your hopes up.
> TRW had an OTEC demo in Hawaii 25 -- 30 years ago.
> The originator was a Frenchman I do believe.
> Turn of century stuff.
>
> Kirk
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:25 AM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [biofuel] Fwd: PACIFIC: Water and Power from the Ocean
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Water and Power from the Ocean
>>
>>
>>
>> Fossil fuel usage in electrical services in the Pacific Region may be
>> a thing of the past if plans to use the power of the Pacific Ocean to
>> transform sea water into electric energy as well as fresh water.
>>
>>
>>
>> This idea was included in topics discussed during the third world
>> water forum which was held in Japan last month.
>>
>>
>>
>> The method is called Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion or OTECH and it
>> has been developed by a Japanese university.
>>
>>
>>
>> The cold, deep seawater used in the OTEC process is also rich in
>> nutrients, and it can also be used to grow both marine organisms and
>> plant life near the shore or on land.
>>
>>
>>
>> To listen:
>>
>> http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacbeat/focus/m572871.asx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Presenter/Interviewer: Caroline Tiriman
>>
>> 1/4/2003
>>
>>
>>
>> SOURCE: Pacific Beat, Radio Australia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> List Name: SIDSnet energy-newswire
>> Posting address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To unsubscribe, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message:
>> unsubscribe energy-newswire
>> To subscribe, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message:
>> subscribe energy-newswire
>> No subjects required for either cases.
>>
>> Brought to you by
>> the Small Island Developing States Network: http://www.sidsnet.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003
>
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> -~-->
> FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
> - 
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Om Festival

[mark manchester]

Thanks for your mail and for the tip about Canada Clean Fuels in Etobicoke.
We'll check them out and report!
Happy Spring,
Jesse





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] mixing biodisel with gasoline

[Neoteric Biofuels Inc]

Don't be too sure, about that Shirley (sorry, I was watching Airplane  
last night...)

Ever noticed how many gasoline engines have failures of in-tank fuel  
pumps and dirty/worn injectors on low sulphur gasoline?

Diesels and gasoline engines are coming closer together all the time.

I think there may be a very real benefit to the use of 1% CME (canola  
methyl ester) or even less, as little as 0.1%...lubricity benefit. Such  
minor proportions have shown very dramatic effects in terms of  
lubricity and engine wear reduction in diesel engines - could be  
similar in gasoline engines.

One company in the US already sells an SME (soy methyl ester) gasoline  
additive.

As for two strokes - yes. We see more and more talk and use of  
ethanol/methyl ester as fuel/lube mix .

Also good things happening with things like HOSO (high oleic sunflower  
oil) and esters as lubricating oil for gasoline engines and diesels.

As to lubricating oil, what happens if you have a very good Canola, or  
soy, or sunflower oil/ester crankcase oil for the millions of gasoline  
engines out there? Even if you can't quite get it to spec needed enough  
for diesel engine use?

Extend the drain interval on the gasoline engines, reduce wear (and  
emissions), ...and then drain the oiland use again as clean  
-burning fuel for diesels.

Here is another question:

Why does diesel lube oil have to be so good? Largely it is to counter  
the effects of contamination from the FUEL being used. If wear rates  
and contamination are different from the use of biodiesel and SVO,  
perhaps the oil does not have to be quite so capable? I which case, you  
could use some of these vegoil "gasoline" lube oils as diesel lube  
oils? Perhaps especially if you do NOT extend the drain interval,  
combine with by-pass filtration, etc. - and use a second time as fuel?

Ed



On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 12:47 PM, Steve Spence wrote:

> although 1% might not hurt anything, it surely wouldn't benefit. wrong
> characteristics for spark ignited engines. high cetane, low octane.
>
> Steve Spence
> Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
> http://www.green-trust.org
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Original Message -
> From: "buffaloman16362" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 1:30 PM
> Subject: [biofuel] mixing biodisel with gasoline
>
>
>> hello,
>>>
>>> can biodisel be mixed with gasoline, and used in a gasoline engine?
>>>
>>> would a  1% to 20 % work?
>>>
>>> would this mix work in 2 cycle engines?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> -~-->
> FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
> - 
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] mixing biodisel with gasoline

[Neoteric Biofuels Inc]

RME/CME and, to a lesser extent, soy methyl ester (SME) and 
other-feedstock biodiesel provides outstanding lubrication. Also some 
very excellent lubricants are already being formulated and sold that 
are based on vegetable oils, without conversion to esters. Blends of 
the two (oils and esters) also are being used.
>


Regards,

Edward Beggs BES MSc
  Neoteric Biofuels Inc.
http://www.biofuels.ca




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Dirty Bombing

[kirk]

You can't get oxygen to it that fast. It is through the hull in
milliseconds.
Realize I have described a new concept for you to grasp. It is not one you
normally encounter.
The exothermic reaction doesn't involve oxygen. That is a side reaction and
later.
There are some metallurgy reactions that make this look mundane, odd as it
is.

Kirk

-Original Message-
From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:59 AM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


How DU reacts on impact:

On impact the kinetic energy is partially transformed into thermal energy,
which causes the uranium - which is pyrophoric, which means that it easily
reacts with the oxygen from air - to ignite. Uranium is therefore
(partially) oxidized to uranium oxide, which deposits as an extremely fine
powder.

EdB
  - Original Message -
  From: kirk
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:22 AM
  Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


  The DU does not vaporize due to kinetic energy any more than rifle bullets
  vaporize from ke and I have a rifle that puts them downrange at over 4000
  fps.
  Some aspects of metallurgy are not common knowledge, in fact some are very
  classified, because of their applications interest.
  DU obsoletes steel armor.

  Kirk

  -Original Message-
  From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:17 PM
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


  The Aluminum just does not resist and has a hole punched through it, with
  little energy transfer to the armor or the DU.   Iron may resist the blow
  long enough for the motion energy of the kinetic penetrator to change to
  heat energy to the point of vaporizing or infighting both Iron and DU,
much
  like a asteroid impact would leave a big hole and vaporize a chunk of the
  earth should it hit.   Aluminum armor has a real big problem  though when
it
  comes to shaped warheads, the blast jet is hot enough to cause Aluminum to
  start burning on it's own.

  Greg H.


  - Original Message -
  From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 16:57
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


  >
  > no, but they are pyrophoric... DU ignites on impact and burns feircely.
  > apparently especially when impacting iron. not sure why iron per say,
but
  > apparently impacting Al does not have the same effect - much less likely
  to
  > burn...
  >




  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/


  ---
  Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
  Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  ADVERTISEMENT




  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/


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Re: fuel tanks

[Neoteric Biofuels Inc]

Mark -
A worn pump is a weakened pump...if it fails, it fails. It was on its  
way out prematurely anyway. Then replace with a good rebuilt, not too  
terrible an exchange price for the Fords. Then no more problems.

Ed


Sulfur and  Diesel Fuel Lubricity åö The Continuing Saga Ê

July 24, 2000

by

Maurice E. LePera

LePera and Associates Ê
Ê

ÊÊ In  October 1993, EPA limited sulfur in diesel fuel for  
åãon-roadåä vehicles  to a maximum of 0.05% or 500 parts per million  
(PPM).Ê This created  many fuel related problems that resulted from the  
poor lubricating quality  of the low sulfur diesel fuel.Ê Since the  
maximum limit for sulfur in diesel fuel prior to October 1993 had been  
0.50% or 5000 PPM, the  refinery processing not only lowered the sulfur  
content but also removed  trace amounts of certain polar impurities.Ê  
Both organo- sulfur compounds and these polar impurities were the  
ingredients that gave  diesel fuel its needed natural lubricating  
qualities. Ê

ÊÊ From  this new low sulfur limit for all åãon-roadåä vehicles,  
several laboratory  testing procedures were developed in the mid  
1990åâs that measured the  lubricity of diesel fuel.Ê Chevronåâs  
Technical Review of Diesel  Fuels publication defines lubricity as  
åãthe ability to reduce friction  between solid surfaces in relative  
motion, the lubrication mechanism  being a combination of hydrodynamic  
lubrication and boundary lubrication.åäÊ  More simply stated, lubricity  
is that quality that prevents wear when  two moving metal parts come in  
contact with each other.Ê Three  methods were developed which are now  
available for measuring fuel lubricity;  namely, the Scuffing Load Ball  
on Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator (SLBOCLE),  the High Frequency  
Reciprocating Wear Rig (HFRR), and the Ball on Three  Seats Method  
(BOTS). Ê

ÊÊ EPA  proposed new regulations in May of this year that will  
further reduce sulfur for åãon-roadåä diesel fuel to a maximum of  
0.0015% or 15 PPM.Ê  The proposed regulation is to go into effect June  
1, 2006.Ê This  reduction in sulfur is fully supported by engine  
manufactures who contend  their new exhaust catalyst systems needed to  
meet the enacted emission  standards will not work if sulfur exceed 15  
PPM.Ê However, the  proposed legislation is not supported by the  
refining industries and  oil companies who are recommending the limit  
be set at 0.0050% or 50  PPM.Ê They explain that attempting to meet the  
anticipated demand  for diesel fuel having sulfur at 15 PPM or less  
will be extremely difficult  and very costly for consumers. Ê

ÊÊ We  first have to understand why lubricity is important for  
diesel fuel.Ê  There are several types of diesel fuel injection systems  
being used  by engine manufactures which depend on fuel lubricity in  
varying degrees.Ê  Of all systems being used, the rotary distributor  
injection pump is  the one most dependent on lubricity because the fuel  
provides 100% lubrication  to the internal parts of the injection  
pump.Ê As the rotary distributor  injection pump is highly susceptible  
to boundary lubrication wear (i.e.,  when heavy metal-to-metal contact  
occurs with the fuel providing little  or no lubrication), this  
potential wear becomes more severe with increasing  ambient temperature  
and increasing loading on the engine.Ê Any  significant wear will lead  
to under run and/or stalling annoyances,  and eventually premature pump  
failure .Ê The remaining other types  of fuel injection systems are not  
as highly dependent on the fuel for  lubrication and therefore, are not  
as sensitive to low lubricity diesel  fuel, sometimes referred to as  
åãdry diesel fuel.åä Ê

ÊÊÊ These  rotary di stributor injection  pumps, typically found on  
small to medium size engines, are widely used,  and are manufactured by  
Stanadyne Automotive Corporation,, DENSO Corporation,  Robert Bosch  
GmbH, and Delphi Diesel Systems.Ê These types of fuel  injection pumps  
are typically found in most US and foreign manufactured  light duty  
vehicles and a wide variety of equipment systems. Ê

ÊÊ Since  the introduction of low sulfur diesel fuel in 1993, there  
has been a  considerable amount of effort by the automotive industry,  
users, and  the petroleum industry to incorporate a åãlubricity  
requirementåä in commercial  diesel fuel; namely, ASTM D975.Ê  
Unfortunately, this has not yet  happened due to a combination of  
politics and other factors.Ê However,  there had been in Europe a  
greater awareness and acceptance for specifying  a lubricity  
requirement.Ê The European Union åÎs Diesel Fuel Standard  EN590 now  
requires all low sulfur diesel fuel sold in Europe to meet  a lubricity  
standard that uses the HFRR procedure. Ê

ÊÊ In  the United States, the Engine Manufacturers Association  
(EMA) published  their åãRecommended Guideline on Premium Diesel Fuelåä  
in 1997.Ê  This document, identified as EMA FQP-1A, d

Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing

[bratt]

So then, if the exotheric reaction doesn't involve oxygen,  there must be
some strange mysterious process by which uranium oxide powder appears on the
scene.

Back to Bombs:
DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS

America's big dirty secret

Le Monde diplomatique, March 2002


The United States loudly and proudly boasted this month of its new bomb
currently being used against al-Qaida hold-outs in Afghanistan; it sucks the
air from underground installations, suffocating those within. The US has
also admitted that it has used depleted uranium weaponry over the last
decade against bunkers in Iraq, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan.

by ROBERT JAMES PARSONS *

"The immediate concern for medical professionals and employees of aid
organisations remains the threat of extensive depleted uranium (DU)
contamination in Afghanistan." This is one of the conclusions of a 130-page
report, Mystery Metal Nightmare in Afghanistan? (1), by Dai Williams, an
independent researcher and occupational psychologist. It is the result of
more than a year of research into DU and its effects on those exposed to it.
Using internet sites of both NGOs (2) and arms manufacturers, Williams has
come up with information that he has cross-checked and compared with weapons
that the Pentagon has reported — indeed boasted about — using during the
war. What emerges is a startling and frightening vision of war, both in
Afghanistan and in the future.

Since 1997 the United States has been modifying and upgrading its missiles
and guided (smart) bombs. Prototypes of these bombs were tested in the
Kosovo mountains in 1999, but a far greater range has been tested in
Afghanistan. The upgrade involves replacing a conventional warhead by a
heavy, dense metal one (3). Calculating the volume and the weight of this
mystery metal leads to two possible conclusions: it is either tungsten or
depleted uranium.

Tungsten poses problems. Its melting point (3,422°C) makes it very hard to
work; it is expensive; it is produced mostly by China; and it does not burn.
DU is pyrophoric, burning on impact or if it is ignited, with a melting
point of 1,132°C; it is much easier to process; and as nuclear waste, it is
available free to arms manufacturers. Further, using it in a range of
weapons significantly reduces the US nuclear waste storage problem.

This type of weapon can penetrate many metres of reinforced concrete or rock
in seconds. It is equipped with a detonator controlled by a computer that
measures the density of the material passed through and, when the warhead
reaches the targeted void or a set depth, detonates the warhead, which then
has an explosive and incendiary effect. The DU burns fiercely and rapidly,
carbonising everything in the void, while the DU itself is transformed into
a fine uranium oxide powder. Although only 30% of the DU of a 30mm
penetrator round is oxidised, the DU charge of a missile oxidises 100%. Most
of the dust particles produced measure less than 1.5 microns, small enough
to be breathed in.

For a few researchers in this area, the controversy over the use of DU
weapons during the Kosovo war got side-tracked. Instead of asking what
weapons might have been used against most of the targets (underground
mountain bunkers) acknowledged by Nato, discussion focused on 30mm anti-tank
penetrator rounds, which Nato had admitted using but which would have been
ineffective against superhardened underground installations.

However, as long as the questions focused on such anti-tank penetrators,
they dealt with rounds whose maximum weight was five kilos for a 120mm
round. The DU explosive charges in the guided bomb systems used in
Afghanistan can weigh as much as one and a half metric tons (as in
Raytheon's Bunker Buster — GBU-28) (4). Who cares?

In Geneva, where most of the aid agencies active in Afghanistan are based,
Williams's report has caused varied reactions. The United Nations Office of
the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Office for the Co-ordination of
Humanitarian Affairs have circulated it. But it does not seem to have
worried agency and programme directors much. Only Médecins sans Frontiéres
and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) say they fear an environmental and
health catastrophe.

In March and April 2001, UNEP and the World Health Organisation (WHO)
published reports on DU, reports that are frequently cited by those claiming
DU is innocuous. The Pentagon emphasises that the organisations are
independent and neutral. But the UNEP study is, at best, compromised. The
WHO study is unreliable.

The Kosovo assessment mission that provided the basis for the UNEP analysis
was organised using maps supplied by Nato; Nato troops accompanied the
researchers to protect them from unexploded munitions, including cluster
bomb sub-munitions. These sub-munitions, as Williams discovered, were
probably equipped with DU shaped-charges. Nato troops prevented researchers
from any contact with DU sub-munitions, even from discovering their
existence. During the

RE: [biofuel] Fwd: PACIFIC: Water and Power from the Ocean

[kirk]

Solar thermal. Works great. Looks like it is inexpensive too if thought out
and done as a system.
Everyone wants centralized power -- at least they are taught that is what
they want.
I believe nothing could be further from the truth.

For individual power forget Stirling -- regenerator needs to be long and
thin and short and fat. Can't solve that problem.
It is inherent to the concept.

Anyone have some idea re a cheap phase change storage around 250F besides
paraffin wax?

Kirk


-Original Message-
From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:32 AM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fwd: PACIFIC: Water and Power from the Ocean


Sounds like fuel cells!


I guess what I am thinking is that all the Island nations that are
getting all excited about this should stick to wind and SVO gensets and
hybrids of the two. PV panels, fuel cells, OTEC, etc...not of true
benefit at this time.

Regards,

Ed

On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 12:49 PM, kirk wrote:

> Don't get your hopes up.
> TRW had an OTEC demo in Hawaii 25 -- 30 years ago.
> The originator was a Frenchman I do believe.
> Turn of century stuff.
>
> Kirk
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:25 AM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [biofuel] Fwd: PACIFIC: Water and Power from the Ocean
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Water and Power from the Ocean
>>
>>
>>
>> Fossil fuel usage in electrical services in the Pacific Region may be
>> a thing of the past if plans to use the power of the Pacific Ocean to
>> transform sea water into electric energy as well as fresh water.
>>
>>
>>
>> This idea was included in topics discussed during the third world
>> water forum which was held in Japan last month.
>>
>>
>>
>> The method is called Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion or OTECH and it
>> has been developed by a Japanese university.
>>
>>
>>
>> The cold, deep seawater used in the OTEC process is also rich in
>> nutrients, and it can also be used to grow both marine organisms and
>> plant life near the shore or on land.
>>
>>
>>
>> To listen:
>>
>> http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacbeat/focus/m572871.asx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Presenter/Interviewer: Caroline Tiriman
>>
>> 1/4/2003
>>
>>
>>
>> SOURCE: Pacific Beat, Radio Australia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> List Name: SIDSnet energy-newswire
>> Posting address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To unsubscribe, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message:
>> unsubscribe energy-newswire
>> To subscribe, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message:
>> subscribe energy-newswire
>> No subjects required for either cases.
>>
>> Brought to you by
>> the Small Island Developing States Network: http://www.sidsnet.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003
>
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> -~-->
> FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
> -
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>


[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/


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Re: [biofuel] Fwd: PACIFIC: Water and Power from the Ocean

[Neoteric Biofuels Inc]

Solar thermal - yes great for heating water, but not for making  
electricity. Solar thermal, wind, SVO genset. Good setup for many areas.

I agree with you about Stirling and centralized power. Neither are very  
good ideas.

Edward Beggs
http://www.biofuels.ca




On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 10:36 AM, kirk wrote:

> Solar thermal. Works great. Looks like it is inexpensive too if  
> thought out
> and done as a system.
> Everyone wants centralized power -- at least they are taught that is  
> what
> they want.
> I believe nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> For individual power forget Stirling -- regenerator needs to be long  
> and
> thin and short and fat. Can't solve that problem.
> It is inherent to the concept.
>
> Anyone have some idea re a cheap phase change storage around 250F  
> besides
> paraffin wax?
>
> Kirk
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:32 AM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fwd: PACIFIC: Water and Power from the Ocean
>
>
> Sounds like fuel cells!
>
>
> I guess what I am thinking is that all the Island nations that are
> getting all excited about this should stick to wind and SVO gensets and
> hybrids of the two. PV panels, fuel cells, OTEC, etc...not of true
> benefit at this time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed
>
> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 12:49 PM, kirk wrote:
>
>> Don't get your hopes up.
>> TRW had an OTEC demo in Hawaii 25 -- 30 years ago.
>> The originator was a Frenchman I do believe.
>> Turn of century stuff.
>>
>> Kirk
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:25 AM
>> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [biofuel] Fwd: PACIFIC: Water and Power from the Ocean
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Water and Power from the Ocean
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fossil fuel usage in electrical services in the Pacific Region may be
>>> a thing of the past if plans to use the power of the Pacific Ocean to
>>> transform sea water into electric energy as well as fresh water.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This idea was included in topics discussed during the third world
>>> water forum which was held in Japan last month.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The method is called Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion or OTECH and it
>>> has been developed by a Japanese university.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The cold, deep seawater used in the OTEC process is also rich in
>>> nutrients, and it can also be used to grow both marine organisms and
>>> plant life near the shore or on land.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To listen:
>>>
>>> http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacbeat/focus/m572871.asx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Presenter/Interviewer: Caroline Tiriman
>>>
>>> 1/4/2003
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> SOURCE: Pacific Beat, Radio Australia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> List Name: SIDSnet energy-newswire
>>> Posting address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> To unsubscribe, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message:
>>> unsubscribe energy-newswire
>>> To subscribe, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message:
>>> subscribe energy-newswire
>>> No subjects required for either cases.
>>>
>>> Brought to you by
>>> the Small Island Developing States Network: http://www.sidsnet.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003
>>
>>
>>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>> -~-->
>> FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
>> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
>> -
>> ~->
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>
>
> [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/
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.465 / Vir

[biofuel] US flounders in a psychological minefield

[Keith Addison]

Propaganda war already lost
While the U.S. will most likely win on the battlefield, the 
much-vaunted psychological war has already been lost. Most experts 
believe that the Pentagon was too wrapped up in its own ideological 
assumptions to wage an offensive that took into consideration the 
fears, prejudices, and perceptions of the Iraqis. Stephen Fidler 
writes in the Financial Times, "Central Command, say other observers, 
has shown a lack of flexibility and sensitivity in dealing with some 
key propaganda issues. With Arabs outraged over what many saw as an 
American missile attack on civilians in a market, the Centcom 
briefing started with displays of U.S. precision weaponry."


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullS 
tory&c=StoryFT&cid=1048313373258&p=1012571727162

US flounders in a psychological minefield
By Stephen Fidler (pictured)
Published: April 1 2003 21:01 | Last Updated: April 1 2003 21:01

Depending on whether you believe Peter Arnett or Donald Rumsfeld, the 
US-led military campaign may be going to plan or not. But the signs 
are that in one area at least - psychological operations - it has 
been disappointing.

Part of this stems from the expectation that a quick war would bring 
its own propaganda victory. The longer the war, the greater the 
challenges.

"Psy-ops" cover everything from press releases to black operations. 
According to my colleague Mark Nicholson with Central Command in 
Qatar, senior US officers recognise their psy-ops programme has not 
been a great success. "There is the information/psychology front that 
we try to push. But we are probably not as sophisticated about it as 
we want to be," said a US officer.

"There is a big cultural difference between the US and the Arab world 
that makes it hard . . . We Americans are not very good at judging 
what a totalitarian regime is like, looks like and acts like."

One reason the US military may have underperformed is that psy-ops 
has been a Cinderella service in the US military. Run mainly by the 
Army out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, it has not been the path for 
rapid promotion for any ambitious officer.

"It's long been observed that the US military doesn't put its best 
people into psy-ops," says one defence specialist.

There is another criticism. Andrew Garfield, a former UK defence 
intelligence officer now at Kings College, London, says there is "an 
overemphasis on the technology".

Mr Garfield says he has detected a concern that the psy-ops campaign 
"is not dealing with the many prejudices, fears, perceptions and 
misperceptions of the Iraqi population". Neither does there seem to 
have been adequate recognition that Iraqi nationalism would play a 
part in the reaction to the invasion.

He says psy-ops should explicitly address Iraqi paramilitaries, such 
as those of the Fedayeen Saddam. "These people need to be offered a 
way out, however unpalatable it may be." Iraqis should also be 
offered rewards and personal inducements to support the allies.

There is also a need for what he calls a counter psy-ops capability. 
"Saddam has been able to play up the emotional drivers: that these 
are the infidel invaders trying to destroy Islamic Iraq."

Central Command, say other observers, has shown a lack of flexibility 
and sensitivity in dealing with some key propaganda issues. With 
Arabs outraged over what many saw as an American missile attack on 
civilians in a market, the Centcom briefing started with displays of 
US precision weaponry.

"I must admit I had great hopes at the beginning," remarks William 
Nash, a retired major-general and a Gulf War commander. His verdict 
now is that "it is not a successful campaign".

Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 
says it is too early to say how effective the campaign has been. In 
the Gulf War, 98 per cent of Iraqi troops who surrendered had read 
leaflets or heard a coalition broadcast. "We didn't know that until 
after the event. And we won't know how good this psy-ops operation is 
until after the event."

Defence specialists say psy-ops is an area that takes brainpower and 
not much equipment. It is an operation where allies - for example in 
eastern Europe - could help. Iraqi exiles say there should have been 
more of an attempt to involve them in psy-ops.

Experts on both sides of the Atlantic concede that the British may do 
this better than the Americans. UK forces already have a radio 
station broadcasting into Basra, replicating a successful operation 
in Bosnia.

British experience, however, has come with a lack of money, says Mr 
Garfield. "If they had the money, I'm sure some of the US obsession 
with technology would rub off on the British."



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~

[biofuel] Offensive Interference

[Keith Addison]

The other wartime disaster
While all attention is focused on Iraq, the Bush White House is 
trying to hustle its outrageous budget through Congress. Robert 
Kuttner examines the series of spending cuts required to balance 
Bush's shameful tax-cut in the American Prospect. The biggest 
travesty: "All told, the House budget cuts an amazing $14.6 billion 
in vets' programs, including money for disabilities caused by war 
wounds, rehabilitation and health care, pensions for low income 
veterans, education and housing benefits, and even -- nice touch -- 
burial benefits."

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/webfeatures/2003/03/kuttner-r-03-27.html

Offensive Interference

How war distracts from outlandish Bush policies

Robert Kuttner

The war in Iraq might not be going quite as smoothly as the Bush 
administration hoped, but the war at home is going just swimmingly. 
War is silencing debate not just on the wisdom of Bush's foreign 
policy but on a host of other issues that would normally be 
front-page news.

You might have missed it, but this is budget season. Thanks to the 
distractions of war, bizarre budget resolutions are swiftly moving 
through Congress and will be law by mid-April. For the first time 
ever in the United States, we are rushing through an immense tax cut 
in the midst of a war that the president admits will cost at least 
$74.7 billion just in its first phase. The consequence of this, not 
surprisingly, is massive cuts in popular outlays.

The budget enacted by the Republican House on a straight-line party 
vote (with just 12 GOP dissenters) is astonishing. It not only gives 
Bush his entire tax cut but proposes to balance the budget within six 
years. The casualties of that process would be monumentally unpopular 
if the public were not distracted by war.

For starters, the House Republicans are cutting, of all things, 
veterans benefits. The message, evidently, is God bless our troops 
when they are dodging bullets but God help them when they come home.

Once, a grateful nation offered vets free medical care. Now, the 
Republicans want to charge premiums to "well-to-do" vets -- with 
well-to-do defined as earning $26,000 a year. All told, the House 
budget cuts an amazing $14.6 billion in vets' programs, including 
money for disabilities caused by war wounds, rehabilitation and 
health care, pensions for low income veterans, education and housing 
benefits, and even -- nice touch -- burial benefits.

After World War II, we welcomed back vets with a huge program of 
education, health and housing -- the justly celebrated GI Bill of 
Rights. This time, returning military personnel will not only face 
cuts in their own benefits as veterans; their kids will face cuts in 
education and health aid as well.

One of Bush's signature programs was "No Child Left Behind." The 
House Republican budget cuts education funding by 10.2 percent below 
the reduced level proposed by President Bush, which had proposed to 
cut several billion previously approved by Congress.

The Bush administration claims that the war is being fought to make 
sure weapons of mass destruction will not rain down on Americans. 
Incredibly, the Republicans are shortchanging the Nunn-Lugar program, 
the bipartisan effort to dismantle the nuclear arsenal of the former 
Soviet Union. Which is the bigger threat: Russia's thousands of loose 
nukes or Saddam's hypothetical ones?

There's more: $93 billion in Medicaid cuts; a skimpy prescription 
drug program financed by other massive cuts in Medicare; huge 
environmental cuts.

As astonishing as the slap to veterans is a slight cut in real 
outlays for homeland security -- at a time when threats will 
increase. There is no new money for port security. Even the 
administration's "first-responder" initiative comes from cuts in 
other law enforcement aid.

Though the war serves as a handy distraction, these budget assaults 
are not mainly the result of war. Mainly they go to pay for the cost 
of tax cuts. The final cost of the war, occupation and rebuilding may 
reach $200 billion. The cost of the two Bush tax cuts is over $3 
trillion. (In a preliminary vote, the Senate voted yesterday to trim 
Bush's latest tax cut by $350 billion, but this still would have to 
be reconciled with the House.)

This administration's slogan might as well be, "Sacrifice is for 
suckers." While young men and women risk their lives in a war whose 
rationale remains to be proven, the larger Bush program diverts money 
from services to ordinary Americans, even our homeland security -- to 
give tax breaks to multimillionaires.

Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, 
stands to make a pile of money as a military contractor in Iraq, 
while Richard Perle, one of the architects of the Iraq war, is to 
receive $725,000 as a consultant to a telecom company seeking 
regulatory approval from the Pentagon.

War is never good for democratic deliberation. That's why it's so 
good for th

Re: [biofuel] Offensive Interference

[Steve Spence]

It's not your budget, why do you care? ;-)

Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:37 PM
Subject: [biofuel] Offensive Interference


> The other wartime disaster
> While all attention is focused on Iraq, the Bush White House is
> trying to hustle its outrageous budget through Congress. Robert
> Kuttner examines the series of spending cuts required to balance
> Bush's shameful tax-cut in the American Prospect. The biggest
> travesty: "All told, the House budget cuts an amazing $14.6 billion
> in vets' programs, including money for disabilities caused by war
> wounds, rehabilitation and health care, pensions for low income
> veterans, education and housing benefits, and even -- nice touch --
> burial benefits."
>
>
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/webfeatures/2003/03/kuttner-r-03-27.h
tml



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Rent DVDs Online-No late fees! Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/YKLNcC/oEZFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Dirty Bombing

[kirk]

>That is a side reaction and
> later.

Pays to read the whole email.

Kirk


-Original Message-
From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:18 AM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


So then, if the exotheric reaction doesn't involve oxygen,  there must be
some strange mysterious process by which uranium oxide powder appears on the
scene.

Back to Bombs:
DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS

America's big dirty secret

Le Monde diplomatique, March 2002


The United States loudly and proudly boasted this month of its new bomb
currently being used against al-Qaida hold-outs in Afghanistan; it sucks the
air from underground installations, suffocating those within. The US has
also admitted that it has used depleted uranium weaponry over the last
decade against bunkers in Iraq, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan.

by RO


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
DVD Rentals with No Late Fees - Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ZKLNcC/pEZFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] EVs, Range, Timing

[Darryl McMahon]

Would whoever sent the e-mail with the critique of my article please resend it 
to 
me?

Sorry, I skimmed it, but when I went back later to read it in detail, I managed 
to 
delete it somehow.

Darryl McMahon


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Dirty Bombing

[John E Hayes III]

bratt wrote:

>The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" 
>industries. 1.  Nuclear medicine  2.  Irradiated food.  3.  Weapons grade 
>Uranium  4. DU weapons of war.
>
>Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of 
>which gets more deadly than the use before.
>

I'm a little lost here. Nuclear medicine and irradiated food are both 
*good* things.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] FYI, North America about to get a 25MPG V-10 Diesel from VW

[Ryan Morgan, Aerials Express]

http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=43013

VW commits V-10 diesel to U.S.


By Dorothee Ostle
Automotive News / March 24, 2003

WOLFSBURG, Germany -- Volkswagen AG will introduce its V-10 TDI
direct-injection diesel engine in the United States, VW Chairman Bernd
Pischetsrieder says.

The engine will debut in the VW Touareg SUV in the spring of 2004 and later
will be available in the Phaeton luxury sedan.

Pischetsrieder says it has not been decided whether the V-8 TDI diesel
engine Audi uses in its flagship A8 would be made available in the United
States.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] fuel tanks

[Lisa]

> Message: 7
>Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 09:37:45 -
>From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: fuel tanks
>
> hi Lisa, I'm assuming you're talking about straight vegetable oil
> conversion, if you are talking about biodiesel then there's no
> conversion necessary.

I thought there has to be at least a heater or something that is not
normally there?



> SVO:
> two people I know just destroyed their 7.3 Fords' injection pumps
> running straight vegetable oil in these vehicles. I own this kind of
> F-250 (mine is a 6.9 but it's similar) and love it,

running the VIN thru a decoder revealed the following about the
engine:
7.3L V8 445cid Diesel FI OHV 16V Vin M


although it takes
> a lot of fuel (but boy does it carry a lot of stuff).

offlist, I'm hearing a figure of 18mpg on vegoil... does that seem
realistic to you?

(and I'm looking forward to the ability to carry "stuff"!)



> Anyway doing a little looking and a lot of asking, a few things came
> up about the seizures in my two friends' two Ford pumps- including
> the fact that the Stanadyne pumps in these(what year is yours?)

it's not mine YET ;^)
1988



and the two tanks are really crying
> for a simple conversion.

I thought as much, but wasn't sure if the setup was suitable... you
know, sometimes stuff that sounds too good to be true, is! lol

I don't know much about "factory" two-tank systems... I don't suppose
I'd be lucky enough for one to be considerably larger than the other?



> (and on our trucks there's a built-in 12V fuel heater that might
thin
> it out even more)-

is that more or less standard on that model, or an upgrade?  (i.e.,
aftermarket)



> Ed Beggs (who makes a fine SVO kit, his technology is what I'm
> thinking about putting into my truck) suggested also that my
friends'
> failures have something to do with preexisting damage to the pumps
> due to both vehicles being from California and the fact that they've
> thus run on low-sulfur diesel longer than comperable vehicles in
> other states (and suffered more damage from this fuel).

AFAIK, this truck has been an east-coaster all its life, so don't have
to worry about that too much.  (now, salt damage is another story...)


Thanks!

Lisa



> --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Lisa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm looking at a truck with dual tanks.  Is there any advantage
(or
> disadvantage, for that matter) to buying a vehicle with a pre-
> existing 2-tank setup?  Is there anything I should watch out for or
> ask the seller about?
> >
> > It's a Ford F-250 -- anybody had any experience with that model,
> good or bad?  The only references I found in the archives were
"just-
> done" or "hope-to-do-soon" conversions, so not much info on how it
> worked out.
> >



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
DVD Rentals with No Late Fees - Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ZKLNcC/pEZFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] fuel tanks

[Steve Spence]

no heater for biodiesel. heaters are only for vegetable oil. see
http://webconx.green-trust.org/making_biodiesel.htm

whatever mpg you get on diesel, you'll get about the same on biodiesel.

if you want to go vegetable oil, see
http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/yohn


Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Lisa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "bio1" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] fuel tanks


> > Message: 7
> >Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 09:37:45 -
> >From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: fuel tanks
> >
> > hi Lisa, I'm assuming you're talking about straight vegetable oil
> > conversion, if you are talking about biodiesel then there's no
> > conversion necessary.
>
> I thought there has to be at least a heater or something that is not
> normally there?
>
>
>
> > SVO:
> > two people I know just destroyed their 7.3 Fords' injection pumps
> > running straight vegetable oil in these vehicles. I own this kind of
> > F-250 (mine is a 6.9 but it's similar) and love it,
>
> running the VIN thru a decoder revealed the following about the
> engine:
> 7.3L V8 445cid Diesel FI OHV 16V Vin M
>
>
> although it takes
> > a lot of fuel (but boy does it carry a lot of stuff).
>
> offlist, I'm hearing a figure of 18mpg on vegoil... does that seem
> realistic to you?
>
> (and I'm looking forward to the ability to carry "stuff"!)
>
>
>
> > Anyway doing a little looking and a lot of asking, a few things came
> > up about the seizures in my two friends' two Ford pumps- including
> > the fact that the Stanadyne pumps in these(what year is yours?)
>
> it's not mine YET ;^)
> 1988
>
>
>
> and the two tanks are really crying
> > for a simple conversion.
>
> I thought as much, but wasn't sure if the setup was suitable... you
> know, sometimes stuff that sounds too good to be true, is! lol
>
> I don't know much about "factory" two-tank systems... I don't suppose
> I'd be lucky enough for one to be considerably larger than the other?
>
>
>
> > (and on our trucks there's a built-in 12V fuel heater that might
> thin
> > it out even more)-
>
> is that more or less standard on that model, or an upgrade?  (i.e.,
> aftermarket)
>
>
>
> > Ed Beggs (who makes a fine SVO kit, his technology is what I'm
> > thinking about putting into my truck) suggested also that my
> friends'
> > failures have something to do with preexisting damage to the pumps
> > due to both vehicles being from California and the fact that they've
> > thus run on low-sulfur diesel longer than comperable vehicles in
> > other states (and suffered more damage from this fuel).
>
> AFAIK, this truck has been an east-coaster all its life, so don't have
> to worry about that too much.  (now, salt damage is another story...)
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> > --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Lisa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm looking at a truck with dual tanks.  Is there any advantage
> (or
> > disadvantage, for that matter) to buying a vehicle with a pre-
> > existing 2-tank setup?  Is there anything I should watch out for or
> > ask the seller about?
> > >
> > > It's a Ford F-250 -- anybody had any experience with that model,
> > good or bad?  The only references I found in the archives were
> "just-
> > done" or "hope-to-do-soon" conversions, so not much info on how it
> > worked out.
> > >
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Dirty Bombing

[paul van den bergen]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 03:25 am, kirk wrote:
> You can't get oxygen to it that fast. It is through the hull in
> milliseconds.
> Realize I have described a new concept for you to grasp. It is not one you
> normally encounter.
> The exothermic reaction doesn't involve oxygen. That is a side reaction and
> later.
> There are some metallurgy reactions that make this look mundane, odd as it
> is.
>
> Kirk

that was the impression I got from the paper I read... that there was some 
reaction that U underwent that was pyrophoric, that it involved iron and that 
it produced U oxide powder. the specifics were vague... so I left it at 
pyrophoric and neglected to mention oxygen...

I did get the distinct impression that the pyrophoric effect was definitely an 
after impact (e.g. ignites feirce fire after penetration) as opposed to an 
explosive effect... infact explosive force was not mentioned.

reading between teh lines I got the impression that there was a reaction 
between the Fe and the U, where I thought it more likely that the Fe had a 
catalytic effect on oxidation or similar.  this is because I could not see a 
thermodynamics case for a strongly exothermic reaction between U and Fe... 
but that's just idle speculation on my part.


-- 
Dr Paul van den Bergen
Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures
caia.swin.edu.au
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IM:bulwynkl2002
It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] opec-- who gets what

[paul van den bergen]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 01:22 am, kirk wrote:
>  http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/WhoGetsWhat/2001.pdf

Not surprised... although a bit propaganderish, it is something well know...

on the other hand, what are those taxes used for?  that is the real issue, not 
that govt. gets huge revenue from oil (well maybe that is the issue in the 
sense that it ties the govt to oil as a revenue source), but what is done 
with the tax revenue. does it go into roads and transprot improvements? 
public transport (just think what 270,000 million UD$ could do to public 
transport systems). renuable energy research? no, i didn't think so...


-- 
Dr Paul van den Bergen
Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures
caia.swin.edu.au
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IM:bulwynkl2002
It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Dirty Bombing

[Greg and April]

I didn't get much out of  "DU use in munitions", but, got more info. with
"DU Munitions".

Some of what I found is:

"One of the Army's first uses of DU was as a ballistic weight in the
spotting round for the Davy Crockett mortar warhead." ( It is unclear on if
it is still in use.)

"DU is currently used in kinetic cartridges for the Army's 25mm BUSHMASTER
cannon (M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle), the 105mm cannon (M1 and M60 series
tanks) and the 120mm cannon (M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams Tank). The M1A1 (HA), the
Heavy Armor variant of the M1A1, also employs layered DU for increased armor
protection. The Marines use DU tank rounds in their own M1-series tanks and
a 25mm DU round in the GAU-12 Gatling gun on Marine AV-8 Harriers."

"The Army has tested limited quantities of small caliber DU ammunition
(5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50 caliber). However, the Army produced these rounds in
limited quantities for developmental testing only and evaluation and never
type-classified them for standard use."

"The 50-caliber sniper rifle did fire an API (armor piercing incendiary)
round, but the round did not contain DU. There have been similar claims that
cruise missiles fired during the Gulf War contained DU. DU is used to
simulate the weight of a nuclear warhead in the developmental testing and
evaluation of the nuclear version of certain cruise missiles, but no cruise
missiles fired during the Gulf War contained DU."

"The US Navy designed its Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) as a
last-ditch defense against sea-skimming missiles. The Navy evaluated a wide
range of materials before deciding on DU alloyed with 2 percent molybdenum
(DU-2Mo).[203] Phalanx production started in 1978, with orders for 23
systems for the US Navy and 14 systems for foreign militaries. However, in
1989, the Navy decided to change the CIWS 20mm round from DU to tungsten,
based on live fire tests showing that tungsten met their performance
requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and
environmental impact."

Russia claims to have a shaped charge warhead using DU as the liner, but the
US, is still investigating ( I suspect that the pyrophoric properties of DU
and the cost effectiveness of copper or copper / nickel would make it
questionable for it's use in this role, unless it has significantly superior
effects).

The Army also uses trace amounts as an epoxy catalyst.  DU is also used as
armor, on the M1-A1 and M1-A2, in which case a sheet of DU is sandwiched in
between conventional sheets of armor and the entire thing sealed with welds.
In cases were tanks ( with DU armor ) burned, no DU or DU Oxide escaped,
unless the armor was breached first,  I have not yet found any evidence that
this has happened, it has been one or the other.

Approximately 340 tons of DU ( not counting the pre-positioned Marine
supplies on ships, it is estimated that this portion comes out to less than
30 tons ), most of which was used by the Air Force with the 30 mm cannon on
the A-10 ( the total amount hear is unclear due to the fact that the DU
rounds were mixed with HEI rounds at a rate that varied between 6 DU - 1 HEI
and 4 DU - 1 HEI depending on the mission ).  Other nations in the coalition
forces, used DU, but less than the US.  It has been found that DU of the
smaller calibers ( 30 mm and less ) a lower percentage of DU Oxide is formed
upon hits, and in most cases the penetrator stayed in the armor if it hit
but did not punch through, and this limits the amount of DU Oxide.

The amount of DU Oxide produced is in direct correlation to the total amount
of Kinetic Energy expended on the target, a softer target has less energy
expended on it than a harder target, so less of the DU penetrator turned to
DU Oxide.  In many cases, if the DU penetrator hit a soft APC, only trace
amounts of DU Oxide were found, unless it hit a engine ( or other
significantly hard item ) in which case the amount's of DU Oxide were
higher.


DU is also used in numerous commercial applications:

ballast and counterweights;
balancing control devices on aircraft (civilian and military);
balancing and vibration damping on aircraft (civilian and military);
machinery ballast and counterweights;
gyrorotors and other electromechanical counterweights;
neutron detectors;
radiation detection and shielding for medicine and industry;
shipping container shielding for radiopharmaceuticals, radioisotopes, and
spent nuclear fuel rods;
chemical catalyst;
pigments;
x-ray tubes.

It seems that as long as it remains sealed, DU has broad and accepted range
of usage that is bound to grow as time grows by, and most people are not
going to worry about it.

With this in mind, I have to ask the question, are we going to see the day
when we are using DU battery packs?

Greg H.

- Original Message -
From: "bratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 00:01
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


> From a search on Google:  DU use in munitions
>




> You will get about 30

Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing

[bratt]

I read the whole theory, and it does not stand up, because "after" there is
no energy to cause any "side reaction".  DU is pyrophoric, and ignites in
whole or in part upon impact.  The powder left is uranium oxide.  An oxide
is a binary compound of oxygen.

 Experts say:
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/special/index2.html
DU is approximately 2.5 times denser than iron and 1.7 times denser than
lead. This high specific gravity means that, as a projectile fired from a
tank or aircraft, it carries enough kinetic energy to blast through the
tough armor of a tank. Furthermore, the impact of this penetration generates
extreme heat. DU is pyrophoric, meaning that it burns on impact and can set
the target on fire

http://mapage.noos.fr/radiation/DU/InfoDU.html

(Depleted) Uranium is used in munition because of its extremely high density
and therefore its penetrating power. It is used in metallic form. On impact
the kinetic energy is partially transformed into thermal energy, which
causes the uranium - which is anyway pyrophoric, which means that it easily
reacts with the oxygen from air - to ignite. Uranium is therefore
(partially) oxidized to uranium oxide, which deposits as an extremely fine
powder. Uranium oxide(s) are not soluble in water. When such small particles
are inhaled after resuspension, they can deposit in the lung. The lung
fluids may dissolve extremely slowly the uranium oxide particles and uranium
is carried away in the body fluids. Part of it will be excreted, part of it
will be deposited in different organs of the body, the critical organ being
the kidney, as it is for other heavy metals. The health impact of uranium in
this case will be only related to its chemical toxicity which is by far
higher than the radiotoxicity. In case that such particles would be ingested
and not inhaled, the particles will pass the body without being dissolved
and without having any impact on health.

EdB


- Original Message -
From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


> >That is a side reaction and
> > later.
>
> Pays to read the whole email.
>
> Kirk
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:18 AM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
>
>
> So then, if the exotheric reaction doesn't involve oxygen,  there must be
> some strange mysterious process by which uranium oxide powder appears on
the
> scene.
>
> Back to Bombs:
> DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS
>
> America's big dirty secret
>
> Le Monde diplomatique, March 2002
>
>
> The United States loudly and proudly boasted this month of its new bomb
> currently being used against al-Qaida hold-outs in Afghanistan; it sucks
the
> air from underground installations, suffocating those within. The US has
> also admitted that it has used depleted uranium weaponry over the last
> decade against bunkers in Iraq, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan.
>
> by RO
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Armour - was Dirty Bombing

[paul van den bergen]

now we are getting waaay off topic... but I just can't help myself...

the armour used in tanks etc. to defeat projectile weapons... I would have 
thought that it would be a multi-layered composite - like extra heavy duty 
kevlar... with layers including MMC (metal matrix composites)... there are 
plenty of materials with both toughness and strength and high temperature 
properties that are cheap enough for an advaned army... Tantalum wire wrapped 
ceramic composites for instance would have excellent toughness and 
strength... and resist temoperatures in excess of 2000 oC


-- 
Dr Paul van den Bergen
Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures
caia.swin.edu.au
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IM:bulwynkl2002
It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Dirty Bombing

[bratt]

Did you read this one:  

http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Quotes/DU_Quotes.htm
  - Original Message - 
  From: Greg and April 
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 6:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


  I didn't get much out of  "DU use in munitions", but, got more info. with
  "DU Munitions".

  Some of what I found is:

  "One of the Army's first uses of DU was as a ballistic weight in the
  spotting round for the Davy Crockett mortar warhead." ( It is unclear on if
  it is still in use.)

  "DU is currently used in kinetic cartridges for the Army's 25mm BUSHMASTER
  cannon (M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle), the 105mm cannon (M1 and M60 series
  tanks) and the 120mm cannon (M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams Tank). The M1A1 (HA), the
  Heavy Armor variant of the M1A1, also employs layered DU for increased armor
  protection. The Marines use DU tank rounds in their own M1-series tanks and
  a 25mm DU round in the GAU-12 Gatling gun on Marine AV-8 Harriers."

  "The Army has tested limited quantities of small caliber DU ammunition
  (5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50 caliber). However, the Army produced these rounds in
  limited quantities for developmental testing only and evaluation and never
  type-classified them for standard use."

  "The 50-caliber sniper rifle did fire an API (armor piercing incendiary)
  round, but the round did not contain DU. There have been similar claims that
  cruise missiles fired during the Gulf War contained DU. DU is used to
  simulate the weight of a nuclear warhead in the developmental testing and
  evaluation of the nuclear version of certain cruise missiles, but no cruise
  missiles fired during the Gulf War contained DU."

  "The US Navy designed its Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) as a
  last-ditch defense against sea-skimming missiles. The Navy evaluated a wide
  range of materials before deciding on DU alloyed with 2 percent molybdenum
  (DU-2Mo).[203] Phalanx production started in 1978, with orders for 23
  systems for the US Navy and 14 systems for foreign militaries. However, in
  1989, the Navy decided to change the CIWS 20mm round from DU to tungsten,
  based on live fire tests showing that tungsten met their performance
  requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and
  environmental impact."

  Russia claims to have a shaped charge warhead using DU as the liner, but the
  US, is still investigating ( I suspect that the pyrophoric properties of DU
  and the cost effectiveness of copper or copper / nickel would make it
  questionable for it's use in this role, unless it has significantly superior
  effects).

  The Army also uses trace amounts as an epoxy catalyst.  DU is also used as
  armor, on the M1-A1 and M1-A2, in which case a sheet of DU is sandwiched in
  between conventional sheets of armor and the entire thing sealed with welds.
  In cases were tanks ( with DU armor ) burned, no DU or DU Oxide escaped,
  unless the armor was breached first,  I have not yet found any evidence that
  this has happened, it has been one or the other.

  Approximately 340 tons of DU ( not counting the pre-positioned Marine
  supplies on ships, it is estimated that this portion comes out to less than
  30 tons ), most of which was used by the Air Force with the 30 mm cannon on
  the A-10 ( the total amount hear is unclear due to the fact that the DU
  rounds were mixed with HEI rounds at a rate that varied between 6 DU - 1 HEI
  and 4 DU - 1 HEI depending on the mission ).  Other nations in the coalition
  forces, used DU, but less than the US.  It has been found that DU of the
  smaller calibers ( 30 mm and less ) a lower percentage of DU Oxide is formed
  upon hits, and in most cases the penetrator stayed in the armor if it hit
  but did not punch through, and this limits the amount of DU Oxide.

  The amount of DU Oxide produced is in direct correlation to the total amount
  of Kinetic Energy expended on the target, a softer target has less energy
  expended on it than a harder target, so less of the DU penetrator turned to
  DU Oxide.  In many cases, if the DU penetrator hit a soft APC, only trace
  amounts of DU Oxide were found, unless it hit a engine ( or other
  significantly hard item ) in which case the amount's of DU Oxide were
  higher.


  DU is also used in numerous commercial applications:

  ballast and counterweights;
  balancing control devices on aircraft (civilian and military);
  balancing and vibration damping on aircraft (civilian and military);
  machinery ballast and counterweights;
  gyrorotors and other electromechanical counterweights;
  neutron detectors;
  radiation detection and shielding for medicine and industry;
  shipping container shielding for radiopharmaceuticals, radioisotopes, and
  spent nuclear fuel rods;
  chemical catalyst;
  pigments;
  x-ray tubes.

  It seems that as long as it remains sealed, DU has broad and accepted range
  of usage that is bound to grow as time grows 

Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing

[Greg and April]

I have seen parts of it elseware.

Greg H.

- Original Message -
From: "bratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 17:46
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


> Did you read this one:
>
> http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Quotes/DU_Quotes.htm
>   - Original Message -
>   From: Greg and April
>   To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 6:05 PM
>   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
>
>
>   I didn't get much out of  "DU use in munitions", but, got more info.
with
>   "DU Munitions".
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Fwd: The bumpy road to fuel efficiency...

[Keith Addison]

>Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 11:49:59 -0800 (PST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "Environmental Defense" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: The bumpy road to fuel efficiency...
>
> The Bush administration is announcing modest improvements to the 
>fuel economy standards for SUVs and minivans, which unfortunately 
>will do little to curb the country's dependence on oil or cut 
>greenhouse gas emissions. In an audio Webcast debuting Tuesday, 
>April 1, John DeCicco, an automotive expert with Environmental 
>Defense, tells how technology exists today that could more than 
>double that increase, cutting our nation's oil use and protecting 
>our environment.
>
>To listen to our Webcast, visit our Emergency Campaign on Global 
>Warming page http://www.environmentaldefense.org/go/globalwarming
>
>http://www.realplayer.com Real Player required.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Offensive Interference

[Keith Addison]

>It's not your budget, why do you care? ;-)

You mean me?

It's my world too. Since when were domestic issues in the US only 
domestic issues in the US? One world, only one. We all depend on each 
other.

Best

Keith


>Steve Spence
>Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
>& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
>http://www.green-trust.org
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>- Original Message -
>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:37 PM
>Subject: [biofuel] Offensive Interference
>
>
> > The other wartime disaster
> > While all attention is focused on Iraq, the Bush White House is
> > trying to hustle its outrageous budget through Congress. Robert
> > Kuttner examines the series of spending cuts required to balance
> > Bush's shameful tax-cut in the American Prospect. The biggest
> > travesty: "All told, the House budget cuts an amazing $14.6 billion
> > in vets' programs, including money for disabilities caused by war
> > wounds, rehabilitation and health care, pensions for low income
> > veterans, education and housing benefits, and even -- nice touch --
> > burial benefits."
> >
> >
>http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/webfeatures/2003/03/kuttner-r-03-27.h
>tml


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Dirty Bombing

[bratt]

 
http://www.iaea.or.at/icgfi/documents/cyclobutanones.htm
What's New 


Cyclobutanones in irradiated foods




 US consumer advocacy groups called Public Citizen and Center for Food 
Safety recently alleged that cyclobutanones, a group of compounds which occurs 
in minute quantities in irradiated fat containing food, "cause genetic damage 
in rats, and genetic and cellular damage in human and rat cells" in its "Hidden 
Harm" story. The French-German research collaborative group (Eric Marchioni, 
Dominique Burnouf, Henry Delincee, Andrea Hartwig, Michel Miesch, Francis Raul 
and Dalal Werner) in frame of an EU Interreg programme recently investigated 
the potential toxicity of 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-DCB) in vivo. This work was 
supported by the European Union through the Upper Rhine Interreg II Programme, 
and by Ae'rial (Strasbourg), Federal Institute for Nutrition, Karlsruhe, CNRS, 
Karlsruhe University, and University' Louis Pasteur. They used pure compounds 
of 2-DCB at a concentration hundreds of time of that which could be created in 
irradiated food in their toxicological studies. The summary of their results is 
provided below: 
a.. Summary of the latest Toxicological Testing (Dec. 2001) 
 




  - Original Message - 
  From: John E Hayes III 
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


  bratt wrote:

  >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" 
industries. 1.  Nuclear medicine  2.  Irradiated food.  3.  Weapons grade 
Uranium  4. DU weapons of war.
  >
  >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of 
which gets more deadly than the use before.
  >

  I'm a little lost here. Nuclear medicine and irradiated food are both 
  *good* things.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
  ADVERTISEMENT
 
   
   

  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]


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Re: more coverage of Iraq

[Keith Addison]

Hi Vern

It's well known that CNN and Fox news will give you a slanted, 
incomplete and unbalanced picture, very much toeing the (war)party 
line. Studies showing that have been posted here, I guess you didn't 
read them. The same applies to US mainstream media in general - 
again, much info on that posted here. Since Sept 11 vast numbers of 
Americans have been going elsewhere for their news, or at least for 
balance, and even more so now.

So you can't get anything else in Riyadh? On the other hand, here you 
are on the Internet, so what exactly can't you get? You seem to have 
no difficulty finding stuff like the John Leo piece you posted, and 
other such, but you're blind to the truly massive, worldwide, ongoing 
and growing anti-war demonstrations - one of the biggest stories 
around, widely reported everywhere EXCEPT in the media you access?

Hm... So what's the difference between your TV/computer and Nelson's telescope?

Best

Keith



>Hi Keith,
>
>Just to use the material you provided as an example of what I see it
>indicates that hundreds of thousands of people are demonstrating. For this
>I will except that but I have not seen that on CNN or Fox news the only USA
>news services we get here in Riyadh. So hundreds of thousands could be as
>much as 500,000 and if we then take the people in the USA which is
>something over 250,000,000 we find that it is something less than 1%. When
>I learned math that was not unanimity or even a majority. From the
>information provided on CNN from the Gallop polls it would seem that over
>70% of the USA still are firmly supporting the war.
>
>Have a good day.
>
>Best regards,
>Vern
>
>
>
>
>
> >Andrew,
> >
> >I made no slur on "the so called 'usual suspects' of 'Lefties', 'pinkos',
> >'Arab-lovers', 'pro-Castro'." I only sent along for the group to review
> >an article that had some interesting information in it. If the opposition
> >is
> >as wide and deep as you indicate that it is then we would see much larger
> >demonstrations and more than just a little rhetoric from a relatively few
> >countries
> >at the UN and in the press.
>
>Hard to imagine quite what direction you're looking in Vern to get
>such a view. This is what everyone else is seeing in the US - in most
>other countries "opposition to the war was closer to unanimity than
>to a mere majority".
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58849-2003Mar31.html
>
>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030401/80/dwp9s.html
>
>http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20331/story.htm
>
>Tuesday, April 1, 2003 by Reuters
>U.S. Anti-War Movement Breaks Ranks with the '60s
>by Greg Frost
>
>BOSTON - Peace vigils and rallies against war in Iraq are taking
>place out in U.S. towns and cities, drawing hundreds of thousands of
>participants.
>
>Student strikes are disrupting college campuses, where old protest
>anthems like "We Shall Overcome" mix with the tinny sound of speeches
>belted out over load hailers.
>
>Jimmy Garden, 11, of Brookline, Mass., carries a peace sign during a
>demonstration in Boston, Saturday, March 29, 2003, where some 25,000
>people gathered and marched in protest of the war with Iraq. (AP
>Photo/Angela Rowlings)
>The scene may resemble the Vietnam-era U.S. student movement. But
>scratch the surface and it soon becomes clear that this peace push is
>strikingly different from that of the 1960s when it was a movement of
>the young, of university students and of those on the political left.
>
>Participants in current anti-war protests cut across the spectrum of
>ages, races and backgrounds and include many who would consider
>themselves mainstream Americans. They are joining more predictable
>crowds of college students, environmentalists, socialists, anarchists
>and other activists.
>
>John Llewellyn, a 45-year-old computer industry worker from
>Knoxville, Tennessee, is among the tens of thousands of people who
>turned up at a recent anti-war protest in Boston -- the city's
>biggest demonstration in at least 30 years.
>
>A former "long-time Republican," Llewellyn said he had never
>protested against anything in his life and admitted he did not fit
>the mould of an anti-war activist, but said President George W.
>Bush's policies had gone too far.
>
>"It's gotten to the point that it's scary," said Llewellyn, who was
>visiting Boston with his family.
>
>NOT THE 'USUAL SUSPECTS'
>
>Although turnout at anti-war rallies has been strong, polls show that
>most Americans support the war in Iraq.
>
>Still, many of Llewellyn's fellow protesters said the war has stirred
>something within them that had lain dormant for decades and, in some
>cases, their entire lives.
>
>"This is the first time I have ever done something like this," said
>66-year-old Jung Ming Wu of Acton, Massachusetts, as he gathered with
>thousands of other protesters gathered in a park in Boston. "It's
>very emotional."
>
>Victoria Carter a 46-year-old actuary, said her appearance at the
>Boston rally was her first since taking pa

Re: [biofuel] Offensive Interference

[bratt]

There's a Native American story about a grandfather talking to his
young grandson.  He tells the boy he's got two wolves inside him
struggling with each other.  One is the wolf of love, kindness, and
peace.  The other is the wolf of hatred, anger, and war.

"Which one will win grandfather?" asked the boy.

"Whichever one I feed," the grandfather replied.


EdB
  - Original Message - 
  From: Keith Addison 
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Offensive Interference


  >It's not your budget, why do you care? ;-)

  You mean me?

  It's my world too. Since when were domestic issues in the US only 
  domestic issues in the US? One world, only one. We all depend on each 
  other.

  Best

  Keith


  >Steve Spence
  >Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
  >& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
  >http://www.green-trust.org
  >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  >- Original Message -
  >From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  >To: 
  >Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:37 PM
  >Subject: [biofuel] Offensive Interference
  >
  >
  > > The other wartime disaster
  > > While all attention is focused on Iraq, the Bush White House is
  > > trying to hustle its outrageous budget through Congress. Robert
  > > Kuttner examines the series of spending cuts required to balance
  > > Bush's shameful tax-cut in the American Prospect. The biggest
  > > travesty: "All told, the House budget cuts an amazing $14.6 billion
  > > in vets' programs, including money for disabilities caused by war
  > > wounds, rehabilitation and health care, pensions for low income
  > > veterans, education and housing benefits, and even -- nice touch --
  > > burial benefits."
  > >
  > >
  >http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/webfeatures/2003/03/kuttner-r-03-27.h
  >tml


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
  ADVERTISEMENT
 
   
   

  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]


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Dirty Bombing

[kirk]

Your struggle with denying the concept there may be something more than
oxidation and kinetic energy occuring is something to behold.

When penetrating iron oxidation occurs later because even if the atmosphere
was 100% oxygen, which it isn't, how much O2 can you get there in under a
millisecond? Thats all the time there is, penetration is a done deal by
then. Note -- the more iron there is the more uranium oxide there is. Could
it be? Is it possible -- that residual heat promotes the oxidation. Does it
seem reasonable that the energy is just kinetic? Have you penciled it? Do
you know how to pencil it? What is the specific heat of iron, of uranium --
how much mass is involved? What is the velocity?

When you say it does not stand up you better be ready to show us the
numbers. I spent my working life in aerospace. I happen to have a great deal
of actual experience with what you call theory.
Now you want to teach me freshman chemistry?

>because "after" there is no energy to cause any "side reaction".

Ok, just how much energy is left in less than 1/1000 of a second of cooling?
And just how much oxygen did you get to the uranium in less than 1/1000 of a
second? Enough to melt armor? Sure Sparky. I believe that. You couldn't get
that much oxygen to the site of the reaction even if it were a liquid.


>Experts say:

The real trick is knowing who knows what they are talking about. Anyone can
put up a webpage.
When all else fails try logic.

Kirk







-Original Message-
From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:11 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


I read the whole theory, and it does not stand up, because "after" there is
no energy to cause any "side reaction".  DU is pyrophoric, and ignites in
whole or in part upon impact.  The powder left is uranium oxide.  An oxide
is a binary compound of oxygen.

 Experts say:
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/special/index2.html
DU is approximately 2.5 times denser than iron and 1.7 times denser than
lead. This high specific gravity means that, as a projectile fired from a
tank or aircraft, it carries enough kinetic energy to blast through the
tough armor of a tank. Furthermore, the impact of this penetration generates
extreme heat. DU is pyrophoric, meaning that it burns on impact and can set
the target on fire

http://mapage.noos.fr/radiation/DU/InfoDU.html

(Depleted) Uranium is used in munition because of its extremely high density
and therefore its penetrating power. It is used in metallic form. On impact
the kinetic energy is partially transformed into thermal energy, which
causes the uranium - which is anyway pyrophoric, which means that it easily
reacts with the oxygen from air - to ignite. Uranium is therefore
(partially) oxidized to uranium oxide, which deposits as an extremely fine
powder. Uranium oxide(s) are not soluble in water. When such small particles
are inhaled after resuspension, they can deposit in the lung. The lung
fluids may dissolve extremely slowly the uranium oxide particles and uranium
is carried away in the body fluids. Part of it will be excreted, part of it
will be deposited in different organs of the body, the critical organ being
the kidney, as it is for other heavy metals. The health impact of uranium in
this case will be only related to its chemical toxicity which is by far
higher than the radiotoxicity. In case that such particles would be ingested
and not inhaled, the particles will pass the body without being dissolved
and without having any impact on health.

EdB


- Original Message -
From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


> >That is a side reaction and
> > later.
>
> Pays to read the whole email.
>
> Kirk
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:18 AM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing
>
>
> So then, if the exotheric reaction doesn't involve oxygen,  there must be
> some strange mysterious process by which uranium oxide powder appears on
the
> scene.
>
> Back to Bombs:
> DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BOMBS
>
> America's big dirty secret
>
> Le Monde diplomatique, March 2002
>
>
> The United States loudly and proudly boasted this month of its new bomb
> currently being used against al-Qaida hold-outs in Afghanistan; it sucks
the
> air from underground installations, suffocating those within. The US has
> also admitted that it has used depleted uranium weaponry over the last
> decade against bunkers in Iraq, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan.
>
> by RO
>
>
>
> 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/t

Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing

[Appal Energy]

Food Irradiation is a good thing?

I wonder how the world survived for so many millions of years prior to its
"availability?"

"Oh waiter!!! I'd like a side order of week old shell fish that just came in
from the Vindicator plant. And could I get an extra serving of sauce?"

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: "John E Hayes III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing


> bratt wrote:
>
> >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several
"new" industries. 1.  Nuclear medicine  2.  Irradiated food.  3.
Weapons grade Uranium  4. DU weapons of war.
> >
> >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each
of which gets more deadly than the use before.
> >
>
> I'm a little lost here. Nuclear medicine and irradiated food are both
> *good* things.
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] FYI, North America about to get a 25MPG V-10 Diesel from VW

[Mark Foltarz]

Wow! This definately gives me a chubby!
Wonder if they will bolt up to vw bus bellhousings?!


--- "Ryan Morgan, Aerials Express" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=43013
> 
> VW commits V-10 diesel to U.S.
> 
> 
> By Dorothee Ostle
> Automotive News / March 24, 2003
> 
> WOLFSBURG, Germany -- Volkswagen AG will introduce its V-10 TDI
> direct-injection diesel engine in the United States, VW Chairman Bernd
> Pischetsrieder says.
> 
> The engine will debut in the VW Touareg SUV in the spring of 2004 and later
> will be available in the Phaeton luxury sedan.
> 
> Pischetsrieder says it has not been decided whether the V-8 TDI diesel
> engine Audi uses in its flagship A8 would be made available in the United
> States.
> 
> 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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] Armour - was Dirty Bombing

[Greg and April]

The best is.  DU can be a part of the multi layer, the M1-A1, and M1-A2
Abrams, incorporate as one of the layers.  The problem with ceramics, is
that while they resist shaped charges well, kinetic energy penetrators will
break them up, the more shots they take, the less effective they are.

Kevlar is good for spall blankets, but, ( for all practical purposes ) be
ignored by sabots, and burned by shaped charges.

Chombram armor (or a type variant) was a main stay of NATO armor before DU
was used.  I don't know all the details, because it is still classified, but
it is basically 3 - 5 layers of heavy plate separated by layers of rods ( I
don't know of what material ) at right angles and layers of ceramic.

The reason for the rods was to deal with rod type kinetic energy penetrators
( that basically turn them selves inside out while digging through the
armor ), and it was to make the penetrator change direction suddenly, by
using the path of least resistance technique. If you could get the
penetrator, to suddenly change direction, you would over stress it causing
it to break, and the loss of mass from it breaking, prevented the rod from
continuing through the armor.

The ceramic dealt with the burning jet from shaped charges.

Another way to deal with shaped charged would be standoff protection or
explosive plates that disrupted the jet.

Armor and Anti-Armor,  is true evolution in progress, and so it continues.
First one will get the upper hand then the other. I find the race between
Armor and Anti-Armor the be fascinating, and still study it when I have a
chance.

Greg H.

- Original Message -
From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 17:23
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Armour - was Dirty Bombing


> now we are getting waaay off topic... but I just can't help myself...
>
> the armour used in tanks etc. to defeat projectile weapons... I would have
> thought that it would be a multi-layered composite - like extra heavy duty
> kevlar... with layers including MMC (metal matrix composites)... there are
> plenty of materials with both toughness and strength and high temperature
> properties that are cheap enough for an advaned army... Tantalum wire
wrapped
> ceramic composites for instance would have excellent toughness and
> strength... and resist temoperatures in excess of 2000 oC
>
>
> --
> Dr Paul van den Bergen
> Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures
> caia.swin.edu.au
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> IM:bulwynkl2002
> It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Rent DVDs Online-No late fees! Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/YKLNcC/oEZFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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: [biofuels-biz] Re: MIT study skeptical about fuel cell vehicles

[Steve Spence]

where would the energy come from to decompose the water?

They make a major mistake in the article, by claiming ""Hydrogen can be
produced by electrolysis, but the high voltage requirements are a commercial
barrier." It only takes a bit under 2 volts dc to electrolyze water. lots of
amps, but not volts.

This also from Arun Bose "The GT product line intends to develop hydrogen
separation technologies to produce industrial quantities of hydrogen at less
than $4 per MMBtu. A long-term DOE goal is transitioning into hydrogen
economy using domestically-abundant, low-cost fossil feedstocks."

btw, the link was bad, it's
http://www.netl.doe.gov/newsroom/briefs/rb-0012.html

Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Randy Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: MIT study skeptical about fuel cell vehicles


> Hello Everyone,
>
> I have been laying dormant, just reading all the information everyone has
> put out. This latest reading has gotten me to the point that I would
request
> the following information. Given that there is no infrastructure for
> hydrogen storage or distribution. Has anyone given any thought to onboard
> hydrogen generation. Some researchers at DOE National Energy Technology
Labs
> and Argonne National Lab have patented a "Method of generating hydrogen by
> catalytic decomposition of water" i.e. without electrolysis. (
> http://www.netl.doe.gov/newsroom/ briefs/rb-0012.html )
>
> U.S. Patent # 6,468,499
>
> Of course this may diminish the thought of using biofuels to power fuel
> cell. But theorize, what would be the efficiency rating of onboard
hydrogen
> generation through a design of this type.
>
> I may still be an optimist but I thoroughly believe that one day, solar,
> wind, biofuel, and other renewable sources will replace the fossil fuels
of
> today. The question is how much governmental red tape will we have to
> endure.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com
> >To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: MIT study skeptical about fuel cell
> >vehicles
> >Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:03:30 -0500
> >
> >"groundhogsteve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > My overall view is that there is no one "energy solution".  It is a
> > > series of small incremental solutions that cover specific
> > > situations.
> >
> >Agreed.
> >
> > > I see fuel cells using hydrolysis from renewables as one part.
> >
> >For some reality on fuel cell potential in transport sector, see:
> >http://www.econogics.com/ev/fcevreal.htm
> >
> > > I see conservation as a big part still
> >
> >Absolutely.
> >
> >
> > > The first "beta" version of fuel cell cars are in the customer's
> > > hands in California and Japan.  The first 30 busses are being
> > > demonstrated in Europe.  All the fuel cell companies are being really
> > > secretive about where they are on platinum loading reduction and the
> > > overall cost curve.  Ballard is actually out selling real fuel cells,
> >not
> > > demonstration ones.  So I think they will be coming into the
mainstream
> > > within 5 years.
> >
> >Don't hold your breath.  Government-funded buses and automakers PR cars
do
> >not
> >constitute a solution.
> >
> >Darryl McMahon
> >
>
>
> _
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
DVD Rentals with No Late Fees - Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ZKLNcC/pEZFAA/i5gGAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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] EERE Network News -- 04/02/03

[EERE]

==
EERE NETWORK NEWS -- April 2, 2003
A weekly newsletter from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).

==

Featuring:
*News and Events
   Iowa Utility to Build a 310-Megawatt Wind Power Plant
   Rosebud Sioux Tribe Installs a 750-Kilowatt Wind Turbine
   Solar Power Installations Continue Apace in California
   European Wave and Tidal Energy Projects Face Setbacks
   University of Idaho Sweeps SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge

*Site News
   Energy Trust of Oregon

*About this Newsletter


--
NEWS AND EVENTS
--
Iowa Utility to Build a 310-Megawatt Wind Power Plant

MidAmerican Energy Company, Iowa's largest utility, announced last
week its intention to construct a 310-megawatt wind power facility in
northwest or north-central Iowa. The project will consist of up to
200 wind turbines and will rival in capacity the largest existing
U.S. wind power plant: the 300-megawatt Stateline Wind Energy Center,
located along the border of Oregon and Washington. Although
MidAmerican expects the first turbines to come online in 2004, and the
entire project to be complete by 2006, the company has not yet
selected a location for the project. See the MidAmerican press release
at:



Rosebud Sioux Tribe Installs a 750-Kilowatt Wind Turbine

The Rosebud Sioux Indian Tribe installed a 750-kilowatt wind turbine
on its reservation last week, completing a project that began eight
years ago with wind resource monitoring. With half of the project
funded by a DOE Cooperative Grant, the Rosebud Tribe financed the
remainder of the project by obtaining the first-ever loan for a tribal
wind energy project from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural
Utility Service. The project will supply power to the reservation and
will also sell power to the Basin Electric Power Cooperative. "Green
tags" from the project are also being sold through NativeEnergy, LLC.

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is located in south-central South Dakota. DOE
estimates that the 24 reservations in the northern Great Plains have a
wind energy potential greater than 300 gigawatts. See the announcement
on DOE's Tribal Energy Program Web site at:
.

Clif Bar Inc., a maker of all-natural energy and nutrition foods, is
the latest buyer of green tags from NativeEnergy. Clif Bar is buying
enough green tags to displace about 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide
emissions. See the press release on the NativeEnergy Web site at:
.


Solar Power Installations Continue Apace in California

California continues to maintain a rapid pace for solar power
installations, judging by recent announcements from Shell Solar and
PowerLight Corporation. In March, the two companies announced a total
of nearly 800 kilowatts of new solar energy installations.

PowerLight Corporation dedicated two solar electric systems in
Vallejo: a 108-kilowatt system on Vallejo City Hall and a 224-kilowatt
system on the John F. Kennedy Public Library. The company also
dedicated a 231-kilowatt system installed on the roof of OK Produce's
distribution facility in Fresno. See the news by selecting the
2003 press releases on the PowerLight Corporation Web site at:
.

The Shell Solar announcements include a 150-kilowatt system at Salina
Valley Memorial Hospital in Monterey County, a 73-kilowatt system in
Los Angeles, and a 1.76-kilowatt system that will help monitor the
California Condor at the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge in
Southern California. See the Shell Solar press releases at:
.


European Wave and Tidal Energy Projects Face Setbacks

Two European projects to demonstrate wave and tidal energy production
-- one in Denmark and one in Norway -- have recently encountered
setbacks and delays.

In Denmark, a wave energy system called the Wave Dragon was damaged
during its deployment over the weekend, when high winds caused the
installation team to stop work, apparently before the mooring system
was fully installed. The ensuing storm caused damage to the prototype,
but it remains afloat. See the press release from Wave Dragon ApS at:
.

The Wave Dragon is an offshore floating device that captures ocean
waves in an elevated reservoir, then converts that reservoir's stored
energy into electricity by running the water through a hydroelectric
turbine as it is returned to the ocean. See the Wave Dragon Web 

Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: Argentine no-catalyst process

[Martin Brook]

We look forwardto hearing from you in the near future, Martin Brook (uk)
- Original Message -
From: "mauro_knudsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 12:54 PM
Subject: [biofuels-biz] Re: Argentine no-catalyst process


Hello all,

Yes, we are working in supercritical conditios. This is, very strong
conditios for the oil and methanol. There is no space for "kitchen"
experimentation. We have change ALL the design for this kind of
reactors, in one way that, they are very safety. One of this reactors
can be broken near from someone, and nothing will happen. I will give
you an example. The pressure and temperature, inside of a diesel
engine combustion chamber, it«s higher than the pressure and
temperature, inside of our reactor. However the diesel engines are
very safety because they are designed to run on this conditions (if
not, maybe this engines can gone be very dangerous). I can give you
thousand examples, like planes, cars, etc., we just have to do well
designed machines. For me, the safety is FIRST, because I will
operate my own pilot plant in some months.
I«m sorry I can«t give you more details.
Best wishes,

Mauro Knudsen.



--- In biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >See the following publication for supercritical reaction
conditions.
> >
> >"Biodiesel fuels from veg.oils via catalytic and non-catalytic
supercritical
> >alcohol transesterifications and other methods: a survey."
> >ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT   44 (2003)  2093-2109
(Published by
> >ELSEVIER. www.elsevier.com)
> >Author: AYHAN DEMIRBAS
> >
> >levent yuceer
>
> Please check this link for supercritical reaction reservations:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=17922&list=BIOFUEL
>
> Best
>
> Keith
>
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "biofuels-biz" 
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:38 PM
> >Subject: [biofuels-biz] Argentine no-catalyst process
> >
> >
> > > I think I speak for others on the list when I say WE would like
to hear
> > > more about this! I confess I have no idea how it's
done...unless you are
> > > carrying out the reactions under supercritical conditions.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Marc
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > - The process can consume any crude vegetable oil or grease
(without
> > > neutralize).
> > > - In every feedstock we obtain a minimum of 99% of biodiesel
yield
> > > with not
> > > less than 97% conversion.
> > > - The process don«t make any soap.
> > > - The process don«t wash the biodiesel (because don«t have any
soap
> > > and
> > > catalist trazes).
> > > - The procesing time is 6 minutes vs 1 to 6 hours in the
convetional
> > > way.
> > > - The entire process use 4 time less energy than the others.
> > > - For the same capacity the plant is little (and cheaper).
> > > - The process is fully continuos.
> > > - The biodiesel obtained always have good quality.
> > > - The glicerine obtained have higher concentrations and less
> > > contaminants
> > > than in the other process.
> > > - The process don«t need operators.
> > > - The cost for procesing its cheaper.
> > > - And the most important, the process is very eficient at any
scale!!
>
>
>
> >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 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/




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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] Fwd: The bumpy road to fuel efficiency...

[Keith Addison]

>Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 11:49:59 -0800 (PST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "Environmental Defense" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: The bumpy road to fuel efficiency...
>
> The Bush administration is announcing modest improvements to the 
>fuel economy standards for SUVs and minivans, which unfortunately 
>will do little to curb the country's dependence on oil or cut 
>greenhouse gas emissions. In an audio Webcast debuting Tuesday, 
>April 1, John DeCicco, an automotive expert with Environmental 
>Defense, tells how technology exists today that could more than 
>double that increase, cutting our nation's oil use and protecting 
>our environment.
>
>To listen to our Webcast, visit our Emergency Campaign on Global 
>Warming page http://www.environmentaldefense.org/go/globalwarming
>
>http://www.realplayer.com Real Player required.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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/