date:20050922

Hello Jeromie

>I have heard that
>bd tends to carbonize in the injectors.

I wonder where you heard that. It's not true, as many research 
reports and many millions of miles of on-road use have shown. There's 
more than 20 years of experience with biodiesel, major car 
manufacturers warranty their cars for biodiesel use.

Using straight vegetable oil (SVO) as diesel fuel direct without 
processing it into biodiesel can result in injector coking if the 
engine hasn't been converted for SVO use.

See:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html
Straight vegetable oil as diesel fuel

Best wishes

Keith




>John Hayes wrote:
>
> >Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> >
> >>What do you drive that gets 45mpg? Are you running a 2 to 1 mix of
> >>BD/Petro, was that for starting, or both?
> >
> >I drive a stock 2003 Jetta TDI 5-sp. I typically put in B100 homebrew
> >and then top off at with commercial petrodiesel, either immediately or
> >sometimes a couple of days later. The Jetta's recirculating pump takes
> >care of any mixing right in the main fuel tank. No preblanding required.
> >
> >Here's my last 10 fills:
> >
> >BD   Petro
> >
> >7.5  11.533
> >6.0  11.367
> >016.003
> >6.0  10.462
> >10.5 5.864
> >015.280
> >5.0  9.554
> >4.9  10.087
> >014.200
> >9.9  7.290
> >
> >You can clearly see that the ratio is not at all consistent. In reality,
> >it is even more variable than that because I may not dilute the B100
> >with petrodiesel until a couple of days later, meaning the engine may be
> >running on a very high or very low BD blend at any given moment.
> >
> >jh
> >
> >
>It seams that there are a fair number of Jetta drivers on the list. Wish
>I could afford to buy one.  My Escort
>get 29~35mpg on gasoline. For now I am looking to get a diesel pickup or
>wagon and setup a processor.
>This is what my intrest in the processor that was mentioned in the news
>story is about (and yes ignoring the
>fantasic mpg claims). It looks like you run on average more petro then
>bd. Any reason for this? How many
>miles have you put on the car, how many with a bd mix? I have heard that
>bd tends to carbonize in the injectors.
>
>Jeromie


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

>Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?
>
>I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still

It does work, sort of, but it doesn't do what its promoters claim for 
it. They claim 5-7 gallons per hour of 180-190-proof ethanol, but 
it'll only do about 3 gallons per hour of 160-proof, if you're lucky.

That's if you ever manage to build the thing, the plans and 
instructions are very confused. Parts lists don't match either the 
plans or the instructions (which don't match the plans) and so on.

The main point of it seems to have been to make money out of selling 
the automatic temperature control valve the whole thing's said to 
depend on (though the original builders regarded it as a helpful 
add-on), with the sole source of the valve kept a secret (but it's in 
the list archives and at the Journey to Forever website). The price 
of both the plans and especially the valve went up and up, to double 
what you could buy the valve for direct, about $200. People sent 
cheques and never received their plans, and so on and on. It all 
happened here, years ago, the whole thing was a real PITA.

It turned out the design wasn't original anyway, it was filched from 
the Tallgrass Institute (which recently came back into operation). 
Maybe you might have more luck with the Tallgrass Institute.

But, people did manage to build "Charles 803" stills, though it took 
professional plumbing or engineering skills to figure out the plans 
properly. They weren't impressed with the performance and, in one 
case, ended up bastardising parts of the still to make a better 
still. You can find some details of that here:

http://homedistiller.org/designs.htm#plate
Home Distillation of Alcohol (Homemade Alcohol to Drink)

If the anchor doesn't work scroll down to "Plates instead of Packing".

>and I have no
>access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still
>without accurate plans.

There are two complete free full-text online manuals here:

Mother Earth Alcohol Fuel
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html#ME

The Manual for the Home and Farm Production of Alcohol Fuel
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html#alcmanual

The Mother Earth Alcohol Fuel manual includes Six-Inch Column Still 
Plans, Three-Inch Column Still Plans, and Two Low-cost Backyard 
Stills.

There are more resources here:

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_link.html
Ethanol resources on the Web

See also:

Brewing equipment
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_supply.html#brew

>I could possibly pay someone to build one
>if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.
>
>I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
>with no one that operates a successful fuel still.

I think you didn't search very well.

Best wishes

Keith


>Thanks
>Bob


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Hello everybody,
If my knowledge of ethanol-water fractionation data serves me correctly, you cannot get 190proof alcohol by fractional distillation of alcohol-water mixture. Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get 100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve any water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with toluene in which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.
ManickhBob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?
I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no
access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still
without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one
if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.
I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
with no one that operates a successful fuel still.
Thanks
Bob

Do you Yahoo!?The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database.___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of global warming

so I'm a skeptic.  you can believe in the boogie man if you wish.  And a 
comment for future 
reference. I find it mildly disconcerting the you plant my name in the subject 
line. I know that I 
am trying to talk about chemtrails and your trying to talk about me, but let's 
please keep the 
discourse civil and at the very least keep the personalities out of the subject 
line. I get enough 
spam as it is thank you.

Appal Energy wrote:
> Nice song and dance Bob,
> 
>

-- 
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

"Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Does anyone distill ethanol here?

2005-09-22 Thread Brian Rodgers

I can only speak as one person in a group of thousands of alternate
fuelers, I came to this list earlier this Summer thinking ethanol and
stills but listening to the difficulties in that process compared to
biodiesel processing made me change everything I was planning.
Although I am a rusty mechanic who worked exclusively with gas powered
VWs I never really worked with diesel engines. The people in this
group are an incredible inspiration. I have modified everything
mechanical that I own, never satisfied with 'off the shelf' products.
I have a still in the back of my head and intend to do it someday but
it is actually the beer (mash) brewing that has me leery, not the
distillation. JTF has info and links to every type of still ever
conceived. The continuous feed still used in the whisky industry is
state of the art. However the dry process still used in the mid-west
U.S. takes corn and turns it into 190 proof ethanol with record
efficiency. Wait until you see how complex and expensive not to
mention dangerous ethanol is compared to bio-diesel. Just Google any
of these terms like 'ethanol' or 'dry mill process'  There is a reason
that just about any alternate fuel search query brings up a reference
to Journeytoforever web pages, these people 'have it going on.' Yeah,
not to be discouraged about ethanol, I'm not. It is overwhelmingly
encouraging how much more suited to the back yard shop the bio-diesel
process is. So much so that I believe it is frugal to switch my
vehicles to diesel and learn all there is to learn about this
technology while it's hot. Want to see a totally amazing gas engine
mod? Take a look at Robert's Hydrogen supercharged gas Ranger. 
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
Doing the flip flop... again!
Keep an open mind if you can
Brian Rodgers

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise





Better yet just install a large magnet on the front bumper.  I've heard
magnets are amazing.

John Donahue wrote:

  Its much easier to just install 6" taller tires on the rear axel, that
way you will be going down hill all the time.

You'll get like 800mpg that way

Jeromie Reeves wrote:

  
  
My wife came home from work today talking about Channel 7 news out of 
Boise. It seams
they had a segment with a person who installed a WVO processor in there 
pick-up (at a
cost of 3000$ USD) and got 300 MPG. They still needed to start the 
vehicle on dino. Can
anyone shed some light on this as a Google search came back with less 
then nothing. I find it
very hard to believe this is true (tho that never stopped the news before).

Jeromie

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

 


  
  
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of global warming

Michael Redler wrote:

  Right-on Todd.

  There have been REAL discussions on the disposal radioactive
waste in any number of consumer products, in trace amounts.

The most recent example of this I have heard about is a proposal to add
nuclear waste in small amounts to the smelters during metal
fabrication.  In this way it was proposed that the nuclear material can
be diluted and spread around.  The proponent's argue that it can be
diluted to the point that radiation levels are in the background
noise.  I remember reading this in an article in Scientific American
about a year or two ago but couldn't say which exact issue. The article
said imagine that this means that waste from a nuclear reactor could
one day end up in the braces in your daughter's teeth!

  The most "convenient" method of disposal so far has been in the
production of depleted uranium munitions which are both horribly
destructive on the battlefield AND allows one to leave it in the
country with which they were fighting, with little possibility of
recovery.

Yes DU weapons are a crime.  One day I hope the criminals will be
brought to justice. But who will do it?

  Those who are too quick to accuse someone of being paranoid are
watched carefully by those who are thinking of doing the seemingly
unthinkable.

I am no conspiracy theorist but this is not to say that those in the
positions of power and wealth definitely like the fact (and probably do
work to maintain) that the public is willing to dismiss much as the
ravings of a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists.  Besides it is
hard to really call it a conspiracy when the entire organizational
system of our society works to support and serve the interests of those
at the top of the food chain.  It is more like a self fulfilling
prophesy than a diabolical plan of a few spoiled rich greedy
megalomaniacs.  The system works so well that they (at the top) don't
really have to do a lot except make a few tweaks now and again.

Joe  

  Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  U.,
let's see Bob,

Paranoia is it?

You seem to forget at minimum thirty years of using thousand of US 
citizens as human guinea pigs for radioactive materials testing. That 
nasty little "paranoid" conspiracy theory unraveled in the early 90's.
http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V1N1McCally.html

You seem to forget the thousands of US military personel exposed during

Operation Crossroads as well as thousands more intentionally positioned

to observe atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons at the Nevada
test 
sites, not to mention the forty years of denial and deceit that
followed.

Let's forget the decades that literally millions of US citizens were 
exposed to fad, over-the-counter drugs containing radium, such as 
Dentarium, Ointarium, Kaparium, Linarium and just plain Arium, or the 
water "elixir" labeled "Radithor." They were all being deemed perfectly

safe and denials were issued by all private and government entities 
fifteen years after people started dropping like flies and up to the 
very days that each was separately pulled from the market..

You seem to forget that for thirty-eight years, between 1932 and 1970, 
the US Public Health Service and the Tuskegee Institute conducted 
studies on 399 black men diagnosed with syphilis. They intentionally 
withheld treatment and diagnostic information from these men for 
decades, treating them with "placebos" and setting up elaborate "free 
medical" schemes to keep their "study group" from venturing out of
their 
purview so that they could maintain the "integrity" of their data.

And even with such a dispersed yet long-lived historical track record 
and monumental data sets, you continually poo-poo and dismiss all 
reports or concerns of all other deceit and debilitating chicanery as
if 
claims of such are the ravings of lunatics.

Nonsense.

One of us is either really gullible or really stupid Bob. You if you 
don't believe precisely what cold and calculated depths concerted
public 
and private interests are capable of stooping to, and me if I accept 
your overly eager dismissals of anything and everything as being
nothing 
more than "paranoia."

Todd Swearingen

**

bob allen wrote:

>woo-woo alert!
>
>
>Charles Tounah wrote:
> 
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>As far as the grey layer of crud that's built up in
>>the atmosphere, there have been airplanes whose sole
>>apparent purpose has been to lay that grey layer down
>>in the atmosphere. 
>> 
>>
>
>oh really?
>
>
>
>
> I have personally observed them in
> 
>
>>many different cities, even in different countries,
>>for about the last five years. The phenomenon is
>>called chemtrails,
>> 
>>
>
>other than usual exhaust emissions- water vapor, CO2, and trace 
>combustion products such as NOX, what is there?
>
>
> and you can find a whole education
> 
>
>>on the internet regarding it. www.carnicom.com
>> 
>>
>

Re: [Biofuel] new subject line was personal name, thank you

no comments here just want out of the limelight so to speak

Joe Street wrote:
> 
> 
> Michael Redler wrote:
> 
>> Right-on Todd.
>>  
>> There have been REAL discussions on the disposal radioactive waste in 
>> any number of consumer products, in trace amounts.
> 
> 
> The most recent example of this I have heard about is a proposal to add 
> nuclear waste in small amounts to the smelters during metal 
> fabrication.  In this way it was proposed that the nuclear material can 
> be diluted and spread around.  The proponent's argue that it can be 
> diluted to the point that radiation levels are in the background noise.  
> I remember reading this in an article in Scientific American about a 
> year or two ago but couldn't say which exact issue. The article said 
> imagine that this means that waste from a nuclear reactor could one day 
> end up in the braces in your daughter's teeth!
> 
>>  
>> The most "convenient" method of disposal so far has been in the 
>> production of depleted uranium munitions which are both horribly 
>> destructive on the battlefield AND allows one to leave it in the 
>> country with which they were fighting, with little possibility of 
>> recovery.
> 
> Yes DU weapons are a crime.  One day I hope the criminals will be 
> brought to justice. But who will do it?
> 
>>  
>> Those who are too quick to accuse someone of being paranoid are 
>> watched carefully by those who are thinking of doing the seemingly 
>> unthinkable.
> 
> I am no conspiracy theorist but this is not to say that those in the 
> positions of power and wealth definitely like the fact (and probably do 
> work to maintain) that the public is willing to dismiss much as the 
> ravings of a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists.  Besides it is hard 
> to really call it a conspiracy when the entire organizational system of 
> our society works to support and serve the interests of those at the top 
> of the food chain.  It is more like a self fulfilling prophesy than a 
> diabolical plan of a few spoiled rich greedy megalomaniacs.  The system 
> works so well that they (at the top) don't really have to do a lot 
> except make a few tweaks now and again.
> 
> 
> Joe  
> 
>>
>> */Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
>>
>> U., let's see Bob,
>>
>> Paranoia is it?
>>
>> You seem to forget at minimum thirty years of using thousand of US
>> citizens as human guinea pigs for radioactive materials testing. That
>> nasty little "paranoid" conspiracy theory unraveled in the early 90's.
>> http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V1N1McCally.html
>>
>> You seem to forget the thousands of US military personel exposed
>> during
>> Operation Crossroads as well as thousands more intentionally
>> positioned
>> to observe atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons at the
>> Nevada test
>> sites, not to mention the forty years of denial and deceit that
>> followed.
>>
>> Let's forget the decades that literally millions of US citizens were
>> exposed to fad, over-the-counter drugs containing radium, such as
>> Dentarium, Ointarium, Kaparium, Linarium and just plain Arium, or the
>> water "elixir" labeled "Radithor." They were all being deemed
>> perfectly
>> safe and denials were issued by all private and government entities
>> fifteen years after people started dropping like flies and up to the
>> very days that each was separately pulled from the market..
>>
>> You seem to forget that for thirty-eight years, between 1932 and
>> 1970,
>> the US Public Health Service and the Tuskegee Institute conducted
>> studies on 399 black men diagnosed with syphilis. They intentionally
>> withheld treatment and diagnostic information from these men for
>> decades, treating them with "placebos" and setting up elaborate "free
>> medical" schemes to keep their "study group" from venturing out of
>> their
>> purview so that they could maintain the "integrity" of their data.
>>
>> And even with such a dispersed yet long-lived historical track record
>> and monumental data sets, you continually poo-poo and dismiss all
>> reports or concerns of all other deceit and debilitating chicanery
>> as if
>> claims of such are the ravings of lunatics.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> One of us is either really gullible or really stupid Bob. You if you
>> don't believe precisely what cold and calculated depths concerted
>> public
>> and private interests are capable of stooping to, and me if I accept
>> your overly eager dismissals of anything and everything as being
>> nothing
>> more than "paranoia."
>>
>> Todd Swearingen
>>
>> **
>>
>> bob allen wrote:
>>
>> >woo-woo alert!
>> >
>> >
>> >Charles Tounah wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Hello,
>> >>
>> >>As far as the grey layer of crud that's built up in
>> >>the atmosphere, there have been airplanes whose sole
>>

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of global warming

Even if it were true the chances of it being very slim, you have to
consider how it could be accomplished.  One would have to have access
to jet fuel supplies which are controlled and regularly tested. Not
easy.  But supposing that as a given, now you have to add your
chemicals at some point downstream of the fuel production and testing
point.  Probably the easiest would be close to the point of use but
this would be less adantageous for global distribution of 'the
chemical' and would require operatives on site at each location. 
That's a lot of mouths to keep shut.  And now the kicker.  Your
chemical, carefully formulated to cause it's desired effect, whatever
that may be, must also survive a high pressure high temperature
incinerator (the turbine engine) in order to make it into the conn
trail.  Ahhh  that's a wee bit of a problem.

But as you say we should never close our minds completely to the
possibility that strange things can happen I guess.

Joe

Appal Energy wrote:

  Actually Bob,

We both know that what was written was far from irrelevant in light of 
your heavily "nuanced" statement that those who tend to think of the 
possible (or at least the "chemtrail" possibility) are essentially paranoid.

What I pointed out was the fact that on numerous occassions what was 
previously deemed to be unthinkable has been revealed to be actual fact, 
replete with wanton collusion, fraud and wreckless disregard for human 
life. And even when found out, the rationale is what? That those who 
object aren't looking at the "bigger picture?"

Enter Josef Mengele..., all for the greater good, right?

So one would think that knowing what you know and in light of the 
historical record of deviant human behaviors, you might be a little less 
half-cocked and not so flip with your dismissals. Something as simple as 
aerial dispersal of unknown materials upon an unaware public is 
completely within the realm of reason, and in fact, it's already been 
accomplished on a number of occassions. Google search "Green Run" and 
then follow up on the numerous other intentional releases for "research."

And as you well know, absence of proof is not proof of absence, as all 
the examples provided in my post unerrantly point out.

But you'd rather declare the thoughts of those who perceive such as 
being paranoid. This game of "plausible denial," or just flat out 
denial, that you play is devious, destructive, distracting and 
fraudulently manipulative, no matter whether it is intentional or not. 
And we both can be pretty sure that it's not exactly unintentional.

As for

 > If I use your logic, I have to construe that you accept every claim
 > regardless of source, or physical possibility, rational or not, as valid.

Not at all McDuff. You don't have to construe any such thing. In fact, 
if you do, you're playing a little fast and loose with the rules of 
logic, much less how I would and do apply them.

To deny, disregard and vaguely denegrate as flippantly as you do is 
foolhardy, deceptive, distracting and even illogical, especially in 
light of what has transpired in nearly inumerable instances and is no 
doubt occurring somewhere, in some venue or another, several times over 
as this is being typed. The same can also be said about those who openly 
accept every claim as being irrefutable fact.

While you may take the route of glib dismissal, I'd rather keep one eye 
open and half a wit aware should ever a confirming slip of proof (paper 
trail or other) be stumbled across, as all things are possible, 
plausible, and all too often probable when dealing with the aberrance of 
the human mind.

Todd Swearingen

Todd, other than everything you wrote was irrelevant to my writing, I 
agree with you whole-heartedly. My comments were directed at fears of 
"chemtrails" , which I stand by as paranoia until I see a lot more 
proof.  Show me some evidence that the observed chemtrails are something 
other than the usual vapor trails emitted from jets.  Show me a rational 
as to why someone or some entity would be doing such a thing.  For 
profit? meanness? world domination?  I just do not see much motive, do you?

more below

Appal Energy wrote:

  U., let's see Bob,

Paranoia is it?

You seem to forget at minimum thirty years of using thousand of US 
citizens as human guinea pigs for radioactive materials testing. That 
nasty little "paranoid" conspiracy theory unraveled in the early 90's.
http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V1N1McCally.html

You're preaching to the choir, here as I agree.

  You seem to forget the thousands of US military personel exposed during 
Operation Crossroads as well as thousands more intentionally positioned 
to observe atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons at the Nevada test 
sites, not to mention the forty years of denial and deceit that followed.

agreed

  Let's forget the decades that literally million

[Biofuel] Australia isn't the only place it happens... It is also in the UK

2005-09-22 Thread Jerry Eyers

http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Greetings Manickh

>Hello everybody,
>If my knowledge of ethanol-water fractionation data serves me 
>correctly, you cannot get 190proof alcohol by fractional 
>distillation of alcohol-water mixture. 

Maximum 96% by distillation, 192-proof, then it stops because of 
azeotropism. The boiling temperature of 96% ethanol is lower than 
that of pure ethanol. Quite a lot of home distillers do get 
190-proof, but not with a "Charles 803" still.

Best wishes

Keith

PS: Sorry I got waylaid Manickh, I haven't forgotten you, I'll get 
back to what we were discussing as soon as I can. All best meanwhile, 
K.


>Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get 
>100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor 
>followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve any 
>water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try 
>azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with  toluene in 
>which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water 
>leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first 
>check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.
>Manickh
>
>Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?
>
>I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no
>access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still
>without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one
>if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.
>
>I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
>with no one that operates a successful fuel still.
>
>Thanks
>Bob
>


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 'Nuff Said, was Dear --- ----- was Re: There's no proof of global warming

There you go again Bob,

 > you can believe in the boogie man if you wish.

It's not a matter of believing in "the boogie man" or not. It's a matter 
of not turning a blind eye to what members of my species are perfectly 
capable of doing, have repeatedly done and far too often are willing to do.

But you trivialize that truth and degrade the exercise of prudent 
caution and/or discernment when you issue such statements.

Again, that is the entire point of my responses to your remarks, which, 
by the way, is also relevant to your name appearing "in lights." Your 
sweeping and quippy remarks are so destructive, especially when you 
present yourself as being someone of learned mind, that it serves well 
to not let them get lost in a flurry of posts on a completely different 
matter.

One thing is for absolute certain. It didn't escape your attention.

And no, you're not limiting your viewpoint  to just chem-trails. You've 
broadened it into the psychiatry of those minds who think that the 
unthinkable is possible while at the same time downplaying as absurd 
essentially any and/or all reasons why other minds might implement such 
folly.

Frankly Bob, few people have knowledge of the depths and breadths to 
which sectors of mankind have already stooped in the name of 
"protecting" or "serving" the public good. And any effort that attempts 
to downplay those possibilities, especially when they are unfolding 
around us every day, doesn't serve the public's best interests.

It's one thing to say that "we don't know." It's all together another to 
sweepingly declare something as "paranoic speculation."

Todd Swearingen

bob allen wrote:

>so I'm a skeptic.  you can believe in the boogie man if you wish.  And a 
>comment for future 
>reference. I find it mildly disconcerting the you plant my name in the subject 
>line. I know that I 
>am trying to talk about chemtrails and your trying to talk about me, but let's 
>please keep the 
>discourse civil and at the very least keep the personalities out of the 
>subject line. I get enough 
>spam as it is thank you.
>
>
>Appal Energy wrote:
>  
>
>>Nice song and dance Bob,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>  
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] noproof of global warming

I guess interpreting the evidence is up to the individual.  I, for one, 
have chosen or have been convinced that there is indeed global warming. 
OTOH, I don't believe drinking cow's milk will keep you from getting 
osteoporosis.  I have looked at the evidence and come to a different
conclusion than 90% or so of Americans.

bob allen wrote:

>so I'm a skeptic.  you can believe in the boogie man if you wish.  And a 
>comment for future 
>reference. I find it mildly disconcerting the you plant my name in the subject 
>line. I know that I 
>am trying to talk about chemtrails and your trying to talk about me, but let's 
>please keep the 
>discourse civil and at the very least keep the personalities out of the 
>subject line. I get enough 
>spam as it is thank you.
>
>
>Appal Energy wrote:
>  
>
>>Nice song and dance Bob,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>  
>


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 2 questions about BD production

>  Honestly I don't know, I'm just going by the "biodiesel used in a
> non-native environment will remove engine buildup that can clog fuel filters
> easily statement." With any luck at all, I'll have some really good
> emissions testing to share w/i a few months.
>
>  Correct me if I'm wrong, basing this off information about tax info, (which
> doesn't even LIST d1), D2 is the commercially available diesel.

I can vouch for biodiesel removing deposits of stuff and clogging up
filters when used in a vehicle that was previously used with
petro-diesel.

As for #1 diesel, I have seen it at truck refueling places, where you
can sometimes get #1, #2, or a 50/50 blend of them, but never at the
local gas station.  And even the #2 diesel at truck stops seems to run
better than the diesel from in town gas stations.  I suspect that
these places don't sell enough diesel to people who care to bother
getting high quality stuff.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill

So I guess it's crazy to think of moving to OZ? Nuts. I guess it's 
Canada, then.

Darryl West wrote:

> I couldn’t have put it better myself
>
> 
>
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Aragorn
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:19 PM
> *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill
>
> Thats because our prime minister is Bush's main lap dog and butt licker.
>
> Sorry for the language, but howard is a disgusting traiterous dog who
>
> doesn't even deserve a capital letter for his name.
>
> Any policy of Bush and Blair, he immediately immitates down here.
>
> He doesn't serve our country, he serves Bush.
>
> The only reason he is the leader here is because the general population
>
> is too stupid to do first grade math and is easily distracted by the 
> words:
>
> "interest rates"
>
> The gall of trying to charge someone you jail and deport for their 
> jailtime
>
> and deportation costs is just disgraceful.
>
> Bob
>
>
> */Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
>
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baffled-peace-activist-gets-11700-bill/2005/09/16/1126750099540.html
>
> "In the talks I gave I wasn't even openly critical of Australia,"
> Parkin said.
>
> "I was being openly critical of the US occupation (of Iraq) and I
> was being openly critical of Halliburton."
>
> 
>
> Yahoo! for Good
> Click here to donate  to
> the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends 
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>  
>


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] noproof of global warming

True, there is no proof of global warming.  But my roommate said it
well last night while we were watching the scare coverage of Rita on
Fox news.  He said that he was willing to admit that it was possible
that it could be just cyclical variations in hurricane patterns and
not global warming, if "they" were willing to admit that it might be
global warming...  Its the whole "if you're not with us, you're
against us" thing, and if there is no choice to be in the middle
somewhere, I for one will chose the latter.

On 9/22/05, Mike Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess interpreting the evidence is up to the individual.  I, for one,
> have chosen or have been convinced that there is indeed global warming.
> OTOH, I don't believe drinking cow's milk will keep you from getting
> osteoporosis.  I have looked at the evidence and come to a different
> conclusion than 90% or so of Americans.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Uh, Keith, hate to step in here but it works by "binary fusion" not "fission."  
You're going to give
people the wrong idea.

Also, where's my link?

It works by "'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising 
> combustion efficiency". Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit, 
> where's my wallet?



Darryl McMahon wrote:

>Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance 
>improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-board splitting of 
>water based on zero-point energy.  I like the "binary fission" angle though.  
>Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when I finish my 
>research 
>on "trinary fission" (based on tritium, don't you know).
>
>Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?
>
>Facetiously yours,
>
>Darryl McMahon
>
>Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hello all
>>
>>
>>
>>>Jerry Eyers wrote:
>>>  
>>>
Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented
cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.


>>> Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under
>>>what test conditions?
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor 


>>>only carb (like a
>>>  
>>>
propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the
vapor.


>>> I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and
>>>NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as
>>>propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
>>>injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,
>>>hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the
>>>difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
>>>fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not
>>>as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall
>>>energy available for combustion.
>>>
>>> To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel
>>>economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that
>>>liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
>>>burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast
>>>majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is
>>>unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!
>>>  
>>>
>>But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've just 
>>been instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the 
>>biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's not 
>>called Brand X):
>>
>>"Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science 
>>and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuel 
>>reserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization of 
>>electrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons 
>>in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for all 
>>diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. Brand 
>>X reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion 
>>technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible and 
>>Brand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternative 
>>energy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel 
>>internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with all 
>>kinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel or 
>>biofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is 
>>inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly."
>>
>>It works by "'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising 
>>combustion efficiency". Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit, 
>>where's my wallet?
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>Keith
>>
>>
>>
>>
That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,
only straight gas.


>>> A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of higher
>>>compression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
>>>reduces pumping losses.  In addition, diesel fuel contains more energy
>>>than gasoline.
>>>
>>>robert luis rabello
>>>"The Edge of Justice"
>>>Adventure for Your Mind
>>>http://www.newadventure.ca
>>>
>>>Ranger Supercharger Project Page
>>>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
>>>  
>>>
>>___
>>Biofuel mailing list
>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>>
>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>>
>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>  
>


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablel

Re: [Biofuel] noproof of global warming

lest we're confused here, I am not skeptical about the reality of global 
warming.  I became entangled in this thread via "chemtrails" The globe 
is certainly warming and to deny anthropogenic influences is difficult 
at best.

Mike Weaver wrote:
> I guess interpreting the evidence is up to the individual.  I, for one, 
> have chosen or have been convinced that there is indeed global warming. 
> OTOH, I don't believe drinking cow's milk will keep you from getting 
> osteoporosis.  I have looked at the evidence and come to a different
> conclusion than 90% or so of Americans.
> 
> bob allen wrote:
> 
> 
>>so I'm a skeptic.  you can believe in the boogie man if you wish.  And a 
>>comment for future 
>>reference. I find it mildly disconcerting the you plant my name in the 
>>subject line. I know that I 
>>am trying to talk about chemtrails and your trying to talk about me, but 
>>let's please keep the 
>>discourse civil and at the very least keep the personalities out of the 
>>subject line. I get enough 
>>spam as it is thank you.
>>
>>
>>Appal Energy wrote:
>> 
>>
>>
>>>Nice song and dance Bob,
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

"Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves" — Richard Feynman

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] There's no proof of global warming

2005-09-22 Thread des

I'm still trying to get to the sites listed in this post.  is everyone 
else able to get to them?  Just trying to go to http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/
times out.

doug swanson



Jerry Eyers wrote:
>  > What did the photos show?
>  
> In the late 1960's, it was a beautiful blue sphere,
> clear atmoshpere, very nice.
>  
> Now, there is a smokey white smudge over everything.
> There is no nice, clean, blue ball anymore, just
> a smokey, murkey haze all the time.
>  
> Compare this picture (apollo 7 docking with satellite):
> http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=true&selections=AS7&browsepage=Go&hitsperpage=20&pageno=1&photoId=AS07-03-1531
>  
> 
>  
> With this picture (space shuttle docking with satellite):
> http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=true&selections=STS77&browsepage=Go&hitsperpage=10&pageno=3&photoId=s77e5069
>  
> 
>  
> And look at the earth in the background.
>  
> Jerry
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 

-- 
All generalizations are false.  Including this one.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software.
No Microsoft databits have been incorporated herein.
All existing databits have been constructed from recycled databits.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] turbocharged vs supercharged diesels

2005-09-22 Thread Trevon Kollars


I was being sarcastic here.  Sorry.  I was referring to the fact there isn't very many supercharged diesels out there.  The only difference (efficiency wise) between a turbo and a supercharger is the psi and speed at which it will produce it.  Superchargers are usually slower at speed then the turbos which can range in the 100,000 rpms.  Believe it or not but they tend to heat the air more than turbos even though turbos use the hot exhaust to turn.  Superchargers use the crankshaft belt and can be turned on when you need it.
I guess my post has caused a lot of commotion.  Sorry, Robert, if I have insulted your intelligence in some way.  Smokey Yunick is almost a god in the engine world.  I was talking about his attempt to get more out of his engine by experimenting with vapor carbs and engine efficiency and I guess I made you mad over it.  I too have done some experimenting with the 350 and even 1.9L VW engines.  There are so many things you can do to an engine to get it to perform well, it is almost unbelievable.  Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>to make the diesel even better... turbo the hell out of it but do notput a supercharger on it.This was in another thread going off another direction. But myquestion is, why not supercharge a diesel engine. There must be somereason, because you don't seem them too often (we have a supercharged2 cycle 2 cylinder direction injection diesel engine in a 1953bulldozer, but aside from that I haven't seen one). Is it just thatit is higher efficiency to use the heat of exhaust gases that would bewasted anyway, vs taking HP off the crankshaft to run a compressor? But there is a big advantage in materials to a supercharger in that itdoesn't have to withstand the heat of the exhaust and go throughcooldown after working hard to avoid seizing the bearings, and I wouldthink engine manufacturers would sieze on any cheaper way to get
 morepower out of a diesel (since everyone in the US thinks they areslow...).I have no problem with turbodiesels, just wondering why that designwon out over supercharging.___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
		Yahoo! for Good 
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] "Corporations are ready to act on global warming but..."

The architects Atelier Ten had designed a cooling system based on the 
galleries of a termite mound. By installing a concrete labyrinth in 
the foundations, they could keep even a large building in a hot place 
- such as the arts center that they had built in Melbourne - at a 
constant temperature without air conditioning. The only power they 
needed was to drive the fans pushing the cold air upwards, using 10% 
of the electricity required for normal cooling systems...

---

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0920-23.htm
Published on Monday, September 20, 2005 by the Guardian/UK

It Would Seem That I Was Wrong About Big Business
Corporations are ready to act on global warming but are thwarted by 
ministers who resist regulation in the name of the market

by George Monbiot

Climate-change denial has gone through four stages. First the 
fossil-fuel lobbyists told us that global warming was a myth. Then 
they agreed that it was happening, but insisted that it was a good 
thing: we could grow wine in the Pennines and take Mediterranean 
holidays in Skegness. Then they admitted that the bad effects 
outweighed the good ones, but claimed that climate change would cost 
more to tackle than to tolerate. Now they have reached stage four. 
They concede that climate change would be cheaper to address than to 
neglect, but maintain that it's now too late. This is their most 
persuasive argument.

Today the climatologists at the Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado 
will publish the results of the latest satellite survey of Arctic sea 
ice. It looks as if this month's coverage will be the lowest ever 
recorded. The Arctic, they warn, could already have reached tipping 
point - the moment beyond which the warming becomes irreversible. As 
ice disappears, the surface of the sea becomes darker, absorbing more 
heat. Less ice forms, so the sea becomes darker still, and so it goes 
on.

Last month, New Scientist reported that something similar is 
happening in Siberia. For the first time on record, the permafrost of 
western Siberia is melting. As it does so, it releases the methane 
stored in the peat. Methane has 20 times the greenhouse warming 
effect of carbon dioxide. The more gas the peat releases, the warmer 
the world becomes, and the more the permafrost melts.

Two weeks ago, scientists at Cranfield University discovered that the 
soils in the UK have been losing the carbon they contain; as 
temperatures rise, the decomposition of organic matter accelerates, 
which causes more warming, which causes more decomposition. Already 
the soil in this country has released enough carbon dioxide to 
counteract the emissions cuts we have made since 1990.

These are examples of positive feedback: self-reinforcing effects 
that, once started, are hard to stop. They are kicking in long before 
they were supposed to. The intergovernmental panel on climate change, 
which predicts how far the world's temperature is likely to rise, 
hasn't yet had time to include them in its calculations. The current 
forecast - of 1.4C to 5.8C this century - is almost certainly too low.

A week ago, I would have said that if it is too late, then one factor 
above all others is to blame: the chokehold that big business has on 
economic policy. By forbidding governments to intervene effectively 
in the market, the corporations oblige us to do nothing but stand by 
and watch as the planet cooks. But last Wednesday I discovered that 
it isn't quite that simple. At a conference organized by the Building 
Research Establishment, I witnessed an extraordinary thing: companies 
demanding tougher regulations - and the government refusing to grant 
them.

Environmental managers from BT and John Lewis (which owns Waitrose) 
complained that, without tighter standards that everyone has to 
conform to, their companies put themselves at a disadvantage if they 
try to go green. "All that counts," the man from John Lewis said, "is 
cost, cost and cost." If he's buying ecofriendly lighting and his 
competitors aren't, he loses. As a result, he said, "I welcome the 
EU's energy performance of buildings directive, as it will force 
retailers to take these issues seriously". Yes, I heard the cry of 
the unicorn: a corporate executive welcoming a European directive.

And from the government? Nothing. Elliot Morley, the minister for 
climate change, proposed to do as little as he could get away with. 
The officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, to a 
collective groan from the men in suits, insisted that the measures 
some of the companies wanted would be "an unwarranted intervention in 
the market".

It was unspeakably frustrating. The suits had come to unveil 
technologies of the kind that really could save the planet. The 
architects Atelier Ten had designed a cooling system based on the 
galleries of a termite mound. By installing a concrete labyrinth in 
the foundations, they could keep even a large building in a hot place 
- such as the arts center that

[Biofuel] More Blood, Less Oil

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050921/more_blood_less_oil.php

More Blood, Less Oil

Michael T. Klare

September 21, 2005

Michael T. Klare is the professor of Peace and World Security Studies 
at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of Blood and Oil: 
The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on 
Imported Petroleum (Owl Books) as well as Resource Wars, The New 
Landscape of Global Conflict. This article first appeared 
on TomDispatch and is reprinted with permission.

It has long been an article of faith among America's senior 
policymakers-Democrats and Republicans alike-that military force is 
an effective tool for ensuring control over foreign sources of oil. 
Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first president to embrace this view, 
in February 1945, when he promised King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia 
that the United States would establish a military protectorate over 
his country in return for privileged access to Saudi oil -a promise 
that continues to govern U.S. policy today. Every president since 
Roosevelt has endorsed this basic proposition, and has contributed in 
one way or another to the buildup of American military power in the 
greater Persian Gulf region.

American presidents have never hesitated to use this power when 
deemed necessary to protect U.S. oil interests in the Gulf. When, 
following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the first President Bush sent 
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in August 1990, 
he did so with absolute confidence that the application of American 
military power would eventually result in the safe delivery of 
ever-increasing quantities of Middle Eastern oil to the United 
States. This presumption was clearly a critical factor in the younger 
Bush's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Now, more than two years after that invasion, the growing Iraqi 
quagmire has demonstrated that the application of military force can 
have the very opposite effect: It can diminish-rather than 
enhance-America's access to foreign oil.

Floating On A Sea of Oil

Oil was certainly not the only concern that prompted the American 
invasion of Iraq, but it weighed in heavily with many senior 
administration officials. This was especially true of Vice President 
Dick Cheney who, in an August 2002 speech to the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, highlighted the need to retain control over Persian Gulf oil 
supplies when listing various reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein. 
Nor is there any doubt that Cheney's former colleagues in the oil 
industry viewed Iraq's oilfields with covetous eyes. "For any oil 
company," one oil executive told The New York Times in February 2003, 
"being in Iraq is like being a kid in F.A.O. Schwarz." Likewise oil 
was a factor in the pre-war thinking of many key neoconservatives who 
argued that Iraqi oilfields-once under U.S. control-would cripple 
OPEC and thereby weaken the Arab states facing Israel.

Still, for some U.S. policymakers, other factors were preeminent, 
especially the urge to demonstrate the efficacy of the Bush Doctrine, 
the precept that preventive war is a practical and legitimate 
response to possible weapons-of-mass-destruction ambitions on the 
part of potential adversaries. Whatever the primacy of their ultimate 
objectives, these leaders shared one basic assumption: that, when 
occupied by American forces, Iraq would pump ever-increasing amounts 
of petroleum from its vast and prolific reserves.

This sense of optimism about Iraq's future oil output was palpable in 
Washington in the months leading up to the invasion. In its periodic 
reports on Iraqi petroleum, the Department of Energy (DoE), for 
example, confidently reported in late 2002 that, with sufficient 
outside investment, Iraq could quickly double its production from the 
then-daily level of 2.5 million barrels to 5 million barrels or more. 
At the State Department, the Future of Iraq Project set up a Working 
Group on Oil and Energy to plan the privatization of Iraqi oil assets 
and the rapid introduction of Western capital and expertise into the 
local industry. Meanwhile, Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi-then the 
Pentagon's favored candidate to replace Saddam Hussein as suzerain of 
Iraq (and now Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister in charge of energy 
infrastructure)-met with top executives of the major U.S. oil 
companies and promised them a significant role in developing Iraq's 
vast petroleum reserves. "American companies will have a big shot at 
Iraqi oil," he insisted in September 2002.

Aside from the purely pecuniary benefits of seizing Iraqi oil, 
administration officials of all persuasions saw another key 
attraction: once Iraqi fields were pumping oil again, the resulting 
revenues would essentially pay for the war and the costs of 
occupation. "We can afford it," White House economic adviser Larry 
Lindsey said of the planned U.S. invasion, because rising Iraqi oil 
output would invigorate the U.S. economy. "When there is regime 
ch

[Biofuel] Sun Rising Over New Orleans

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050920/sun_rising_over_new_orleans.php

Sun Rising Over New Orleans

John F. Wasik

September 20, 2005

John F. Wasik writes for Bloomberg News and is the author of the 
upcoming book, Merchant of Power: Samuel Insull, Thomas Edison and 
the Creation of the Modern Metropolis (Palgrave-Macmillan).

As hundreds of thousands of souls return to the birthplace of jazz, 
one of the most critical questions facing the Big Easy is how to 
rebuild the estimated 200,000 homes that were damaged by Hurricane 
Katrina.

Let's take some of the estimated $100 billion or more it will take to 
fix the city and create the nation's largest, most sustainable solar 
city.

The logic for creating a solar city is powerful: Not only would 
innovative, energy-producing housing save thousands of dollars on 
operating costs for financially strapped homeowners-many of whom 
weren't covered by flood insurance-but it would jump-start a new 
industry, build a badly needed alternative energy infrastructure, and 
reduce the emissions that cause global warming.

There are now only about 20,000 people working in the solar equipment 
industry, which is growing at a 20-percent annual rate. At least that 
many again would be required to provide the equipment to outfit New 
Orleans as a solar-powered city, adding up the manufacturing, 
installation and utility-support jobs. Why not give a boost to an 
industry that benefits our entire country?

Already there is a lot of discussion about how to rebuild New Orleans 
to ensure that the insecurity and injustice uncovered by Katrina do 
not return. Yet however that larger land-use debate plays out, many 
homes will have to be completely demolished. Ideally, the wood, stone 
and metal from the houses being razed could be recycled and re-used 
for building materials or levees. That leaves a lot of empty lots and 
the critical question of home design. If we are to leverage the 
reconstruction of New Orleans to launch the American solar power 
industry, this is where we must begin.

The first thing to do is have architects compete to design 
attractive, sustainable, low-cost panelized homes that could be 
manufactured in factories and quickly assembled on site. The homes 
would range from updated yet spacious "shotgun" shacks to antebellum 
deluxe models.

These new homes would be graced by solar collectors to heat water and 
photovoltaic panels to provide electricity. Passive-solar designs 
would capture winter heat and high-efficiency heat pumps would keep 
them cool in summer.

If all this sounds excessively idealistic, it's not. The 
technologies, designs and products exist. The recently passed federal 
energy bill already has a number of tax incentives for installing 
solar and energy-efficient appliances. The bill didn't go far enough, 
though. For the alternative energy industry to thrive, it needs even 
more government funding and tax breaks and large scale use. Enter New 
Orleans.

At present, tax incentives for building solar homes in Louisiana are 
practically non-existent. While the state grants you a minor break 
from property tax valuation if you have a solar appliance installed 
on your home, there are no state tax credits offered. Contrast that 
with the state of Oregon, which, through a non-profit and state 
partnership, offers up to $10,000 in incentives to homeowners and up 
to $35,000 to businesses. Even the new 1,700-page federal energy law 
gives some carrots to homeowners for installing solar equipment. If 
you install a solar hot water heater, for example, you may receive a 
tax credit of up to $3,000. The more generous tax breaks, however, 
don't go into effect until 2006.

To make solar energy economically competitive with conventional forms 
of power, the cost of producing it needs to drop by a factor of 
three. Only mass production of solar appliances and homes can make 
that possible. That's why New Orleans is the perfect place to start, 
requiring only that far-sighted state and local politicians adopt 
solar-friendly rebuilding codes. That's because the challenge in 
front of solar power is not technological. We already have the 
technology and brainpower on the shelf, courtesy of the U.S. 
Department of Energy's many national laboratories, including the 
National Renewable Energy Lab. What solar power needs is widespread 
commercialization.

New Orleans has already given birth to innovative food, music and 
culture, leaving an indelible mark on the American character. Up 
until Katrina, she's always had a sunny disposition. Now it's time to 
bring that back and share it with the rest of the country.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-arch

Re: [Biofuel] global warming "tipping point"

>I was serious though, the list could start an initiative here, 
>members willing, but it'll have to be specific or nothing will 
>happen.

Everyone seems to be bandwagoning New Orleans, including Haliburton 
et al, and on the other hand there've been quite a few biofuelers 
involved in various worthy relief efforts.

What of the future of the city?

Are you going to let Haliburton reconstruct New Orleans, like they're 
supposedly reconstructing Iraq?

It seems kind of obvious that New New Orleans should incorporate 
everything possible to make it a sustainable city, not just 
environmentally but economically too (much the same thing, often, 
when it comes down to it). This surely means a rational energy and 
transport infrastructure, for one thing. I think list members here 
have examined most of the ground that covers.

Then there's this, for instance:

http://www.alternet.org/katrina/25745/
AlterNet: Hurricane Katrina:
Defining a New 'New Deal'
By William Greider, The Nation. Posted September 21, 2005.
Must the country continue to give precedence to private financial 
gain over human lives and public values? Or shall we now undertake a 
radical restoration on behalf of society and people?

Also the piece I just posted, "Sun Rising Over New Orleans".

This from another piece, "Corporations are ready to act on global 
warming but...":

"The architects Atelier Ten had designed a cooling system based on 
the galleries of a termite mound. By installing a concrete labyrinth 
in the foundations, they could keep even a large building in a hot 
place - such as the arts center that they had built in Melbourne - at 
a constant temperature without air conditioning. The only power they 
needed was to drive the fans pushing the cold air upwards, using 10% 
of the electricity required for normal cooling systems..."

A subject close to Hakan's heart perhaps, among others.

Why not take an entire city virtually off the GHG map? The Biofuel 
list is a real think-tank, IMHO, it shouldn't be too much to ask.

Best wishes

Keith


>Hi Terry
>
>>Hi Keith,
>>
>>I must compliment you on the great effort you are giving the world to reduce
>>green house gases.
>
>Thankyou. Actually we'd no intention of trying to have any direct 
>effect on GHGs with Journey to Forever but it seems to have happened 
>anyway.
>
>>The work you are doing should be highly praised.  Right now though there
>>seems to be a resistance to moving quicker; there doesn't seem to be a sense
>>of urgency considering that we are so close to the tipping point.  Maybe
>>some sort of legislation needs to be enacted such as restricting large
>>trucks from using regular deisel instead of bio deisel.
>
>Biodiesel and biofuels are hardly even considered as energy issues 
>in the US, they're still agriculture commodities, nice things for 
>Big Soy and Big Corn and all the usual suspects.
>
>A needed sense of urgency has been lacking for rather a long time. 
>While Rome burnt. Well, at least Rome didn't emit fossil-fuel GHGs 
>when it burnt.
>
>I was serious though, the list could start an initiative here, 
>members willing, but it'll have to be specific or nothing will 
>happen.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Keith
>
>
>>Terry Dyck
>>
>>
>> >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> >To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] global warming "tipping point"
>> >Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:55:54 +0900
>> >
>> >Hello Terry, tallex and all
>> >
>> > > >Hello,
>> > > >Why not discuss the story and implications right here.
>> > > >This list is full of individuals that can help make a difference.
>> >
>> >Can and have helped, are helping. Biofuel list members save lots of
>> >carbon. It's been said the list has helped save more carbon than most
>> >governments, or was it more than any government? Who knows.
>> >
>> >It's one of the things I like about the biofuels movement that nobody
>> >has any real idea how much biodiesel and ethanol and heating oil and
>> >stuff people are making or re-using or whatever or how much fossil
>> >fuel they're not using, but it's easy to figure that it's in the
>> >millions of gallons a year and up in the US alone, and it's worldwide.
>> >
>> >Anyway, I think the carbon saved is not just by making and using
>> >biofuels, people take it in all kinds of directions with their own
>> >projects and campaigns. I keep hearing of spin-offs I had no idea
>> >existed, there must be many more of them.
>> >
>> > >I am one of those individuals that would like to make a difference.  Were
>> >is
>> > >the starting gate?  Lets get started.
>> >
>> >Well I think we did get started already, long ago some of us. What
>> >would you or anyone suggest we should do that we're not doing already?
>> >
>> >If other members could say what they're doing and how they see it
>> >that might be a start, and it would encourage others to do the same.
>> >
>> >Best wishes
>> >
>> >Keith
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Terry Dyck
>> > > >Beli

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

2005-09-22 Thread John Short




I have built this still for producing spirits but it can be use to distill 
about anything, I have not tryed yet but should work well for methonal 
recovery.
http://www.moonshine-still.com

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bob 
  To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:11 
  AM
  Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [Biofuel] 
  Purchasing a still for ethanol
  
  Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 
  proof)?
   
  I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no
  access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still 
  without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one
  if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.
   
  I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
  with no one that operates a successful fuel still.
   
  Thanks
  Bob
   
  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?The 
  New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full 
  Actor Database.
  
  

  ___Biofuel mailing 
  listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 
  at Journey to 
  Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the 
  combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
  messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Annan has paid his dues

"The UN declaration of a right to protect people from their 
governments is a millennial change."

And from their corporations? Not that the corporations are "theirs" 
any more than "their governments" are "theirs". - K



http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1573765,00.html
Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment |
Comment

Annan has paid his dues

The UN declaration of a right to protect people from their 
governments is a millennial change

Ian Williams
Tuesday September 20, 2005
The Guardian

By the time John Bolton had hacked large parts out of the UN's 60th 
anniversary draft declaration, and then had to agree to much of it 
going back in after Condoleezza Rice told him to be nice to US 
allies, it was no surprise that some observers saw the result as a 
smack in the face for Kofi Annan.

In fact, Annan scored a major triumph, a positive answer to the 
question he posed at the millennium summit five years ago: "If 
humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on 
sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica - to 
gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every 
precept of our common humanity?"

In the final declaration last week 191 countries, including Sudan and 
North Korea, went along with a restatement of international law: that 
the world community has the right to take military action in the case 
of "national authorities manifestly failing to protect their 
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes 
against humanity". It comes too late to help Darfur, not to mention 
Rwanda and Cambodia, but it is a millennial change.

Tony Blair, whose speech did not mention the crucial millennium 
development goals in case it upset his friend President Bush, 
welcomed the new development: "For the first time at this summit we 
are agreed that states do not have the right to do what they will 
within their own borders."

This is quite true, but one suspects he has forgotten the corollary: 
nor do they have the right to "do what they will" outside their own 
borders. His retrospective - and spurious - invocation of the 
principle of humanitarian intervention to justify the invasion of 
Iraq has done much to inflame the suspicions of other member states 
about this seductive but dangerous principle.

Humanitarian intervention was invoked to cover allied action to 
support the Kurds after the Gulf war. At the time UN lawyers admitted 
privately that the clearest precedent was Adolf Hitler's invocation 
of it to justify invading Czechoslovakia because of alleged 
maltreatment of the Sudeten Germans. No wonder some leaders, such as 
Hugo Chàvez - whose assassination was recently prayed for by Pat 
Robertson, George Bush's favourite pastor - are worried about this 
development.

However, the egg of "national sovereignty", beloved of American 
conservatives and Korean communists alike, is now thoroughly 
shattered and cannot be put together again. The only question left is 
what kind of omelette it makes. Instead of trying to confront the 
change, states such as Cuba and Venezuela should welcome the 
principle - and push hard for the details.

Because there is a sound recipe. When a Canadian-convened 
international commission examined the concept in answer to Annan's 
question, they set out "precautionary principles" to prevent 
expedient invocation of humanitarianism to justify military 
aggression. They suggested that it should have the "right intention", 
so that the primary purpose should be to halt or avert human 
suffering; that it should only be the "last resort", when every 
non-military option has been explored; that there should be 
"proportional means", so that the scale, duration and intensity of 
the intervention should be the least necessary; that there should be 
"reasonable prospects" of halting or averting the sufferings and that 
the action does not make things worse.

The report also invoked "right authority" - authorisation by the UN. 
It is clear that the Anglo-American attack on Iraq met none of these 
criteria. And while Cuba's ways with dissidents may leave much to be 
desired, there is no licence for an intervention there.

So what will this mean in Darfur? Very little immediately, but if 
Khartoum continues to facilitate mass killing, next time the issue 
comes before the security council, the Sudanese regime's friends will 
not be able to invoke legal arguments about sovereignty to cover 
them, although they will raise others. But in the long run Annan, 
self-indicted as a UN bureaucrat for inaction over Srebrenica and 
Rwanda, has paid his dues to humanity with this declaration.

· Ian Williams is the author of UN for Beginners. His latest book is 
Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776
· [EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Jerry Eyers wrote:
> Sorry about being inacurate enough to get the engine size wrong, I was 
> writing from memory,  I was actually quoting from a book that 
> collected 27 of the 50+ mechanic and newspaper reviews done on this 
> guy's engine mod.

I forgive you.  You'll find a LOT of very sharp people who contribute 
to this forum; people who don't broker nonsense.  If you report 
something as fact, you'd better be prepared to back it up.


> Don't shoot the messenger, if you don't like his engine mod, talk to the 
> mechanics that reviewed it, not me.

You sir, were the person who posted the message.

> He was granted a patent on it, but 
> died about the same time, which is probably why we haven't seen an 
> commercial development of it.

A familiar story . . .

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] reprocessing biodiesel

2005-09-22 Thread Todd Hershberger

I tested some biodiesel after processing it by treating it as new  
virgin oil and some additional glycerine dropped out.  My questions are-

Do I use 10% methanol and 3.5 g NaOH/liter per JTF to reprocess?

Won't that cause washing problems because of the additional NaOH  
causing an emulsification?

Thanks for helping a newbie,
Todd

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Does anyone distill ethanol here?

Brian Rodgers wrote:


> Want to see a totally amazing gas engine
> mod? Take a look at Robert's Hydrogen supercharged gas Ranger. 
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/

Woah, Brian!  As much as I'd LOVE to take credit for that, the 
hydrogen modifications were done by the Xerox company, not me!  My 
truck still burns gasoline, but that's going to change . . .


robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] turbocharged vs supercharged diesels

Trevon Kollars wrote:

> I was being sarcastic here.  Sorry.  I was referring to the fact there 
> isn't very many supercharged diesels out there.  The only difference 
> (efficiency wise) between a turbo and a supercharger is the psi and 
> speed at which it will produce it. 

My supercharger is about 15% LESS efficient than a turbo.  Most of 
that inefficiency is expressed as heat.

>  Sorry, Robert, if I have 
> insulted your intelligence in some way.

No sir, you're not insulting me.


> Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.

I think you're misunderstanding.  Calling you into accountability for 
accuracy does NOT imply hatred or discontent.  Please be careful with 
your facts in the future!

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Methanol handling tips needed





Try www.omega.com for stainless heater elements.

Joe

Zeke Yewdall wrote:

  How about standard water heater elements?  You might be able to get
stainless steel ones for the higher quality tanks, or if not, the
cheap ones are only about $10, so replace them every 10 batches or
something.  I know, throwing away stuff is not what we are going for
here, but it's an idea to get it started till you can find something
better.

Zeke

On 9/21/05, Darryl West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  
Hi Guys,

I am at the same point as you John trying to get a 5 Gallon processor going.
I have found getting a submersible heating element a hassle.  Can anyone
suggest a place to get an old (or maybe new) element as I have looked around
and haven't come across anything!  (I am most likely looking in the wrong
places)

Cheers
Darryl

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Keith Addison
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:33 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Methanol handling tips needed

Hello John



  Greetings,

I'm finally finding the time to make a processor, but find myself
hanging on a couple of points.  First off I'm just going with
something that resembles the 5gal processor listed on JTF to start.
The problem is that I'm not grasping the process in handling the
methanol and lye properly.  The idea of forcing air into the methoxide
tank thus forcing methoxide out other tube into processor makes sence.
I just dont see where/how the methanol and lye are measured and
placed into mixing container to begin with.
  

Use translucent HDPE containers for mixing methanol and mark them at
the required volume. Use the air pump to pump methanol out of the
container it comes in into the mixing container to the required
volume. Weight out the lye (or KOH), we measure it out into plastic
bags on the scales (adjusted for the weight of the bag) so that
there's minimal exposure to the air and moisture in the air. Then add
it to the methanol mixing container. Opening the lid for this purpose
won't expose you to fumes as the methanol is at room temperature and
it's not being agitated. We use a funnel made from the top of a
2-litre PET bottle (the kind you buy water in) to pour the KOH in
from its plastic bag. Mix it this way: Methoxide the easy way
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_aleksnew.html#easymeth

Then pump it into the processor with the air-pump.



  So, I'm looking for
pointers on how others measure and handle these to get them into mix
tank.  Additonally, I'm not sure what to use for heating element
(electric at this point) so would appreciate any insight on this as
well.
  

With the 5-gal processor type you're more or less confined to
electric heating, those cans don't last very long with an open flame
under them. You can only use an open heat source for pre-heating the
oil anyway - no more open flames as soon as there's any methanol
involved. Maybe a heat exchanger would do, but that would probably be
a bit of a hassle in only a 5-gal can. Get a submersion heating
element, stainless steel, about 1.5 kw should do or maybe less. Try
to get one that fits (unlike ours!).

Best wishes

Keith




  Thanks,
John
  


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



  
  
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof ofglobalwarming

2005-09-22 Thread


So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
it in perspective.  

Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 

Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 

Mark


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
ofglobalwarming


Just seen this on our BBC TV channel " every 800 miles travelled by a
jumbo 
jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."  Chris


Wessex Ferret Club
www.wessexferretclub.co.uk



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

2005-09-22 Thread Thomas Kelly




 I've recently acquired a 
1982 Mercedes 300SD. It is clean, rust-free, and very well maintained, but has 
never run on BD.
 Could someone familiar 
with Mercedes of this vintage comment on my checklist of things to 
do:
 -Remove in-tank fuel 
screen  (Car already has a prefilter and a fuel filter accessible from 
above).
 -Set timing back 2 -3 
degrees.
 -Keep a couple of 
prefilters and in-line filters in the trunk.
 -The hoses and seals 
appear to be in very good condition. I don't plan on replacing 
them.
 I have diesel mechanics in the family who are 
willing to do whatever is necessary, but their area of expertise is buses, 
so any info. would be appreciated.
 
    
Tom
 
 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 2 questions about BD production

2005-09-22 Thread Evergreen Solutions

Ok, so that's a pretty good answer on the cetane question, anyone know
anything about the "diesel additive" method of avoiding diesel taxes?

~Thanks~
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Does anyone distill ethanol here?

2005-09-22 Thread Brian Rodgers

Still very cool mods there Robert. I know that it takes so much time
to do the type of thing you are working on with your Ranger and then
on top of that documenting the whole process, wow. Great job.
I was a bit confused about the supercharger and reference to hydrogen,
sorry about that.
Do you foresee injecting hydrogen into gas engines in the future as feasible?
Respectfully,
Brian Rodgers

On 9/22/05, robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Rodgers wrote:
>
>
> > Want to see a totally amazing gas engine
> > mod? Take a look at Robert's Hydrogen supercharged gas Ranger.
> > http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
>
> Woah, Brian!  As much as I'd LOVE to take credit for that, the
> hydrogen modifications were done by the Xerox company, not me!  My
> truck still burns gasoline, but that's going to change . . .
>
>
> robert luis rabello
> "The Edge of Justice"
> Adventure for Your Mind
> http://www.newadventure.ca
>
> Ranger Supercharger Project Page
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
>
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

hope everyone understands

Thompson, Mark L. (PNB R&D) wrote:
> So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
> it in perspective.  
> 
> Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
>   Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
>   300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
>   That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
>   Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 
> 
>   Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
>   
> Mark
>   
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
> To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
> ofglobalwarming
> 
> 
> Just seen this on our BBC TV channel " every 800 miles travelled by a
> jumbo 
> jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."  Chris
> 
> 
> Wessex Ferret Club
> www.wessexferretclub.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
> g
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

"Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves" — Richard Feynman

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 2 questions about BD production

Aren't there tax credits for biodiesel fuel (in the US at least) that
would negate the effects of having to pay taxes?

On 9/22/05, Evergreen Solutions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so that's a pretty good answer on the cetane question, anyone know
> anything about the "diesel additive" method of avoiding diesel taxes?
>
>  ~Thanks~
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

2005-09-22 Thread Jan Warnqvist

Hello Tom,
it seems that you have done
everything right, maybe with the exeption that you should have proper tools in
the trunk for changing filters if necesarry. But I doubt that you will need them
though, assuming that your BD is of high quality.
Best of luck to you !
Jan

- Original Message -
From:
Thomas
Kelly
To: biofuel
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:35
PM
Subject: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo
Diesel

I've recently acquired a
1982 Mercedes 300SD. It is clean, rust-free, and very well maintained, but has
never run on BD.
Could someone familiar
with Mercedes of this vintage comment on my checklist of things to
do:
-Remove in-tank fuel
screen (Car already has a prefilter and a fuel filter accessible
from above).
-Set timing back 2 -3
degrees.
-Keep a couple of
prefilters and in-line filters in the trunk.
-The hoses and seals
appear to be in very good condition. I don't plan on replacing
them.
I have diesel mechanics in the family who are
willing to do whatever is necessary, but their area of expertise is
buses, so any info. would be appreciated.
Tom

___Biofuel mailing
listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel
at Journey to
Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the
combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

I just started using B100 in a 1984 Mitsubishi diesel.   Similar
vintage, although different design.

Why remove the in-tank fuel screen?  I think the gunk that biodiesel
dissolves is usually much smaller particles than will clog this screen
(someone else correct me if I'm wrong), and you loose protection from
getting large particles farther along the fuel system.

I would replace all the fuel filters after a while, even if you don't
think you need it.  I replaced mine after 2,000 miles on biodiesel,
and found a noticeable increase in power, although I hadn't noticed
any real problems before.  Little tiny rust and dirt particles in the
filter.  Plus its easier to do as a planned replacement, than an
emergency one on the side of the road, even if you do have extras in
the trunk.

What is the consensus on retiming the injection pump?  I advanced mine
about 3 degrees, but that was also because I went to higher elevation,
not because of switching to biodiesel.

I am keeping an eye on the hoses and seals, but have not replaced any.

On 9/22/05, Thomas Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  I've recently acquired a 1982 Mercedes 300SD. It is clean, rust-free,
> and very well maintained, but has never run on BD.
>  Could someone familiar with Mercedes of this vintage comment on my
> checklist of things to do:
>  -Remove in-tank fuel screen  (Car already has a prefilter and a fuel
> filter accessible from above).
>  -Set timing back 2 -3 degrees.
>  -Keep a couple of prefilters and in-line filters in the trunk.
>  -The hoses and seals appear to be in very good condition. I don't plan
> on replacing them.
>  I have diesel mechanics in the family who are willing to do
> whatever is necessary, but their area of expertise is buses, so any info.
> would be appreciated.
>
> Tom
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...





Well that's probably what the chemicals that they are dispersing are
supposed to achieve ;-) 

bob allen wrote:

  hope everyone understands

Thompson, Mark L. (PNB R&D) wrote:
  
  
So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
it in perspective.  

Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
	Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
	300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
	That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
	Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 

	Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
	
Mark
	

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
ofglobalwarming


Just seen this on our BBC TV channel " every 800 miles travelled by a
jumbo 
jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."  Chris


Wessex Ferret Club
www.wessexferretclub.co.uk



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
g

Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





  
  

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof ofglobalwarming

2005-09-22 Thread John Hayes

Mark.

I *completely* agree with your overall point. However, the pedant in me 
needs to point out that the 777 is engineered with fuel consumption in mind.

What do the numbers look like for an older 737 or MD-80?

jh


Thompson, Mark L. (PNB R&D) wrote:
> So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
> it in perspective.  
> 
> Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
>   Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
>   300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
>   That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
>   Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 
> 
>   Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
>   
> Mark
>   
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
> To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
> ofglobalwarming
> 
> 
> Just seen this on our BBC TV channel " every 800 miles travelled by a
> jumbo 
> jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."  Chris
> 
> 
> Wessex Ferret Club
> www.wessexferretclub.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
> g
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 


-- 
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] There's no proof of global warming

2005-09-22 Thread Jerry Eyers







Hmm... I can't reach them today either.  Just go to any nasa sight, and search for apollo pictures of the earth, then search for space shuttle pictures of the earth.
 
 
Jerry
 
---Original Message---
 

From: des
Date: 09/22/05 10:51:36
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] There's no proof of global warming
 
I'm still trying to get to the sites listed in this post.  is everyone
else able to get to them?  Just trying to go to http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/
times out.
 
doug swanson
 
 
 
Jerry Eyers wrote:
>  > What did the photos show?
>
> In the late 1960's, it was a beautiful blue sphere,
> clear atmoshpere, very nice.
>
> Now, there is a smokey white smudge over everything.
> There is no nice, clean, blue ball anymore, just
> a smokey, murkey haze all the time.
>
> Compare this picture (apollo 7 docking with satellite):
> http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=true&selections=AS7&browsepage=Go&hitsperpage=20&pageno=1&photoId=AS07-03-1531
> 
>
> With this picture (space shuttle docking with satellite):
> http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=true&selections=STS77&browsepage=Go&hitsperpage=10&pageno=3&photoId=s77e5069
> 
>
> And look at the earth in the background.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> 
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
 
--
All generalizations are false.  Including this one.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software.
No Microsoft databits have been incorporated herein.
All existing databits have been constructed from recycled databits.
 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 9/19/2005
 
.







___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] turbocharged vs supercharged diesels

2005-09-22 Thread Trevon Kollars

Here is a clip for Smokey if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick
A little bit on the carburetor for the lamen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carburetor
Even though he liked to "cheat", I like him because of his vision and application, which is why I said "I hope this inspired someone".  I find that knowledge is not gained to its full extent unless you do the research yourself and have to dig to find it.  The drive!  The willing to learn!  I guess I spent too much time as an instructor/facilitator.  No need to be careful just to inspire.robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trevon Kollars wrote:> I was being sarcastic here. Sorry. I was referring to the fact there > isn't very many supercharged diesels out there. The only difference > (efficiency wise) between a turbo and a supercharger is the psi and > speed at which it will produce it. My supercharger is about 15% LESS efficient than a turbo. Most of that inefficiency is expressed as heat.> Sorry, Robert, if I have > insulted your intelligence in some way.No sir, you're not insulting me.> Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.I think you're misunderstanding. Calling you into accountability for accuracy does NOT imply hatred or discontent. Please be careful with your facts in the future!robert luis rabello"The Edge of Justice"Adventure for Your
 Mindhttp://www.newadventure.caRanger Supercharger Project Pagehttp://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
		Yahoo! for Good 
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Using E10 in the new car

2005-09-22 Thread mkmiller

Patrick.

I live in Wisconsin and have been using E10 for almost two decades in all of my 
gasoline powered vehicles.

I worked at a Ford and Chrysler dealership in the service department during the 
'80's and earliy '90's. Both vehicle manufacturers modified their products' 
fuel systems to accomodate alcohol back in the late '80's.

If anything, your new car is more compatible with E10 than your older car. It 
may even be E85 compliant. Check your owners manual.

I too have found my vehicles start better on E10 throughout the year. I suspect 
this is due to the characteristic of alcohol to remove water from the fuel 
system. I do not need to add any fuel treatment during the winter because the 
fuel has alcohol in it already.

I did try E85 in both my '94 Ford Crown Victoria and my '96 Ford E150 van. Both 
vehicles operated normally with the exception of the amber Check Engine light 
coming on. When I filled up again with E10, the light went out. 

I had a friend scan the vehicles for emmission codes. Both vehicles indicated a 
lean operating condition, but no other malfunctions. I suspect the lean 
condition was due to the additional oxygen present in alcohol.

I hope this helps.

Michael


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] turbocharged vs supercharged diesels

>> > Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.
>>
>>I think you're misunderstanding. Calling you into accountability for
>>accuracy does NOT imply hatred or discontent. Please be careful with
>>your facts in the future!
>
>snip>
>No need to be careful just to inspire.

Yes there is. It takes both otherwise you'll mislead. Or you've come 
to the wrong place.

Keith Addison



>Here is a clip for Smokey if you're interested: 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wi 
>ki/Smokey_Yunick
>A little bit on the carburetor for the lamen: 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
>Carburetor
>Even though he liked to "cheat", I like him because of his vision 
>and application, which is why I said "I hope this inspired someone". 
>I find that knowledge is not gained to its full extent unless you do 
>the research yourself and have to dig to find it.  The drive!  The 
>willing to learn!  I guess I spent too much time as an 
>instructor/facilitator.  No need to be careful just to inspire.
>
>robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Trevon Kollars wrote:
>
> > I was being sarcastic here. Sorry. I was referring to the fact there
> > isn't very many supercharged diesels out there. The only difference
> > (efficiency wise) between a turbo and a supercharger is the psi and
> > speed at which it will produce it.
>
>My supercharger is about 15% LESS efficient than a turbo. Most of
>that inefficiency is expressed as heat.
>
> > Sorry, Robert, if I have
> > insulted your intelligence in some way.
>
>No sir, you're not insulting me.
>
>
> > Anyway, I am sorry if I have cause hate and discontent.
>
>I think you're misunderstanding. Calling you into accountability for
>accuracy does NOT imply hatred or discontent. Please be careful with
>your facts in the future!
>
>robert luis rabello
>"The Edge of Justice"
>Adventure for Your Mind
>http://www.newadventure.ca
>
>Ranger Supercharger Project Page
>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Hi Mike

>Uh, Keith, hate to step in here but it works by "binary fusion" not 
>"fission."

Oh. That sounds rude to me, are you sure that isn't rude? This is a 
family list you know.

>You're going to give
>people the wrong idea.

But isn't that the plan?

>Also, where's my link?

:-) I'll forward your request to the gentleman concerned. I refuse to 
be dragged into this row over which is the *real* Brand X, you can 
fight it out between you, this list just isn't big enough for two 
Brand X's.

All best

Keith


>It works by "'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
> > combustion efficiency". Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
> > where's my wallet?
>
>
>
>Darryl McMahon wrote:
>
> >Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance
> >improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-board 
>splitting of
> >water based on zero-point energy.
> >
>I like the "binary fission" angle though.
> >Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when I 
>finish my research
> >on "trinary fission" (based on tritium, don't you know).
> >
> >Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?
> >
> >Facetiously yours,
> >
> >Darryl McMahon
> >
> >Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hello all
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Jerry Eyers wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
> although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented
> cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.
> 
> 
> >>>   Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under
> >>>what test conditions?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor
> 
> 
> >>>only carb (like a
> >>>
> >>>
> propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the
> vapor.
> 
> 
> >>>   I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and
> >>>NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as
> >>>propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
> >>>injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,
> >>>hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the
> >>>difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
> >>>fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not
> >>>as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall
> >>>energy available for combustion.
> >>>
> >>>   To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel
> >>>economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that
> >>>liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
> >>>burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast
> >>>majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is
> >>>unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've just
> >>been instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the
> >>biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's not
> >>called Brand X):
> >>
> >>"Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science
> >>and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuel
> >>reserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization of
> >>electrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons
> >>in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for all
> >>diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. Brand
> >>X reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion
> >>technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible and
> >>Brand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternative
> >>energy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel
> >>internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with all
> >>kinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel or
> >>biofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is
> >>inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly."
> >>
> >>It works by "'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
> >>combustion efficiency". Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
> >>where's my wallet?
> >>
> >>Best wishes
> >>
> >>Keith
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,
> only straight gas.
> 
> 
> >>>   A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of higher
> >>>compression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
> >>>reduces pumping losses.  In addition, diesel fuel contains more energy
> >>>than gasoline.
> >>>
> >>>robert luis rabello
> >>>"The Edge of Justice"
> >>>Adventure for Your Mind
> >>>http://www.newadventure.ca
> >>>
> >>>Ranger Supercharger Project Page
> >>>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


___

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Hi Darryl

>Darryl McMahon wrote:
>
> >Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance
> >improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-board 
>splitting of
> >water based on zero-point energy.

They laughed at Einstein too. (But they laughed at the Marx Brothers 
even more.)

>I like the "binary fission" angle though.

Yes! New in the annals of energy scams.

> >Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when I 
>finish my research
> >on "trinary fission" (based on tritium, don't you know).

Everyone's gone fission.

> >Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?

Naah, these guys are way ahead, they're working with molecular 
elements and elementary molecules.

> >Facetiously yours,

:-) Likewise,

Regards

Keith


> >Darryl McMahon
> >
> >Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hello all
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Jerry Eyers wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
> although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented
> cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.
> 
> 
> >>>   Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under
> >>>what test conditions?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor
> 
> 
> >>>only carb (like a
> >>>
> >>>
> propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the
> vapor.
> 
> 
> >>>   I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and
> >>>NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as
> >>>propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
> >>>injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,
> >>>hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the
> >>>difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
> >>>fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not
> >>>as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall
> >>>energy available for combustion.
> >>>
> >>>   To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel
> >>>economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that
> >>>liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
> >>>burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast
> >>>majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is
> >>>unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've just
> >>been instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the
> >>biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's not
> >>called Brand X):
> >>
> >>"Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science
> >>and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuel
> >>reserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization of
> >>electrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons
> >>in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for all
> >>diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. Brand
> >>X reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion
> >>technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible and
> >>Brand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternative
> >>energy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel
> >>internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with all
> >>kinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel or
> >>biofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is
> >>inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly."
> >>
> >>It works by "'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
> >>combustion efficiency". Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
> >>where's my wallet?
> >>
> >>Best wishes
> >>
> >>Keith
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,
> only straight gas.
> 
> 
> >>>   A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of higher
> >>>compression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
> >>>reduces pumping losses.  In addition, diesel fuel contains more energy
> >>>than gasoline.
> >>>
> >>>robert luis rabello
> >>>"The Edge of Justice"
> >>>Adventure for Your Mind
> >>>http://www.newadventure.ca
> >>>
> >>>Ranger Supercharger Project Page
> >>>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

>I just started using B100 in a 1984 Mitsubishi diesel.   Similar
>vintage, although different design.
>
>Why remove the in-tank fuel screen?  I think the gunk that biodiesel
>dissolves is usually much smaller particles than will clog this screen
>(someone else correct me if I'm wrong), and you loose protection from
>getting large particles farther along the fuel system.

Petro-diesel often has water in it and tanks on older cars can get 
rusty, especially if they're left standing for awhile before you buy 
them. A couple of cases have been discussed here before. The 
biodiesel loosens the rust and it gunges up the in-tank fuel screen, 
which you then wish wasn't inside the tank but outside it. It can 
stop you if you're not ready for it. It happened to us too. We 
installed a fine mesh screen outside the tank, which we had to clean 
a few times and had to change a filter element in the meantime too, 
but later when we checked the inside of the tank we found it's clean, 
the problem solved itself.

Otherwise, it all sounds good.

Best

Keith


>I would replace all the fuel filters after a while, even if you don't
>think you need it.  I replaced mine after 2,000 miles on biodiesel,
>and found a noticeable increase in power, although I hadn't noticed
>any real problems before.  Little tiny rust and dirt particles in the
>filter.  Plus its easier to do as a planned replacement, than an
>emergency one on the side of the road, even if you do have extras in
>the trunk.
>
>What is the consensus on retiming the injection pump?  I advanced mine
>about 3 degrees, but that was also because I went to higher elevation,
>not because of switching to biodiesel.
>
>I am keeping an eye on the hoses and seals, but have not replaced any.
>
>On 9/22/05, Thomas Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  I've recently acquired a 1982 Mercedes 300SD. It is clean, rust-free,
> > and very well maintained, but has never run on BD.
> >  Could someone familiar with Mercedes of this vintage comment on my
> > checklist of things to do:
> >  -Remove in-tank fuel screen  (Car already has a prefilter and a fuel
> > filter accessible from above).
> >  -Set timing back 2 -3 degrees.
> >  -Keep a couple of prefilters and in-line filters in the trunk.
> >  -The hoses and seals appear to be in very good condition. I don't plan
> > on replacing them.
> >  I have diesel mechanics in the family who are willing to do
> > whatever is necessary, but their area of expertise is buses, so any info.
> > would be appreciated.
> >
> > Tom


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] They laughed at the Marx Brothers

"trinary fission"

Stop!  I have a patent on this!



Keith Addison wrote:

>Hi Darryl
>
>  
>
>>Darryl McMahon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance
>>>improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-board 
>>>  
>>>
>>splitting of
>>
>>
>>>water based on zero-point energy.
>>>  
>>>
>
>They laughed at Einstein too. (But they laughed at the Marx Brothers 
>even more.)
>
>  
>
>>I like the "binary fission" angle though.
>>
>>
>
>Yes! New in the annals of energy scams.
>
>  
>
>>>Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when I 
>>>  
>>>
>>finish my research
>>
>>
>>>on "trinary fission" (based on tritium, don't you know).
>>>  
>>>
>
>Everyone's gone fission.
>
>  
>
>>>Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?
>>>  
>>>
>
>Naah, these guys are way ahead, they're working with molecular 
>elements and elementary molecules.
>
>  
>
>>>Facetiously yours,
>>>  
>>>
>
>:-) Likewise,
>
>Regards
>
>Keith
>
>
>  
>
>>>Darryl McMahon
>>>
>>>Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
Hello all





>Jerry Eyers wrote:
>
>
>  
>
>>Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
>>although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented
>>cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>   Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under
>what test conditions?
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>only carb (like a
>
>
>  
>
>>propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the
>>vapor.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>   I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and
>NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as
>propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
>injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,
>hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the
>difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
>fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not
>as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall
>energy available for combustion.
>
>   To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel
>economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that
>liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
>burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast
>majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is
>unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!
>
>
>  
>
But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've just
been instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the
biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's not
called Brand X):

"Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science
and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuel
reserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization of
electrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons
in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for all
diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. Brand
X reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion
technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible and
Brand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternative
energy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel
internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with all
kinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel or
biofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is
inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly."

It works by "'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
combustion efficiency". Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
where's my wallet?

Best wishes

Keith






>>That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,
>>only straight gas.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>   A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of higher
>compression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
>reduces pumping losses.  In addition, diesel fuel contains more energy
>than gasoline.
>
>robert luis rabello
>"The Edge of Justice"
>Adventure for Your Mind
>http://www.newadventure.ca
>
>R

Re: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

Aha. I stand corrected.  Thinking about it more, I've actually had the
rust problem with a WVO setup on a schoolbus because we got a used
tank that was really rusty inside. We thought we had really dirty oil
because the canister filters were only lasting about 100 miles, but
after the tank was clean, they last several hundred miles now.

> Petro-diesel often has water in it and tanks on older cars can get
> rusty, especially if they're left standing for awhile before you buy
> them. A couple of cases have been discussed here before. The
> biodiesel loosens the rust and it gunges up the in-tank fuel screen,
> which you then wish wasn't inside the tank but outside it. It can
> stop you if you're not ready for it. It happened to us too. We
> installed a fine mesh screen outside the tank, which we had to clean
> a few times and had to change a filter element in the meantime too,
> but later when we checked the inside of the tank we found it's clean,
> the problem solved itself.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

Jeepers, as long as it is not that other Mike!

Binary fusion is a lot of fun, BTW.  I don't know about the rest of you 
but I don't let my kid read this list.  Don't want her getting a bunch 
of crazy ideas!

Keith Addison wrote:

>Hi Mike
>
>  
>
>>Uh, Keith, hate to step in here but it works by "binary fusion" not 
>>"fission."
>>
>>
>
>Oh. That sounds rude to me, are you sure that isn't rude? This is a 
>family list you know.
>
>  
>
>>You're going to give
>>people the wrong idea.
>>
>>
>
>But isn't that the plan?
>
>  
>
>>Also, where's my link?
>>
>>
>
>:-) I'll forward your request to the gentleman concerned. I refuse to 
>be dragged into this row over which is the *real* Brand X, you can 
>fight it out between you, this list just isn't big enough for two 
>Brand X's.
>
>All best
>
>Keith
>
>
>  
>
>>It works by "'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
>>
>>
>>>combustion efficiency". Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
>>>where's my wallet?
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>Darryl McMahon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance
>>>improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-board 
>>>  
>>>
>>splitting of
>>
>>
>>>water based on zero-point energy.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>I like the "binary fission" angle though.
>>
>>
>>>Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when I 
>>>  
>>>
>>finish my research
>>
>>
>>>on "trinary fission" (based on tritium, don't you know).
>>>
>>>Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?
>>>
>>>Facetiously yours,
>>>
>>>Darryl McMahon
>>>
>>>Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
Hello all





>Jerry Eyers wrote:
>
>
>  
>
>>Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
>>although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented
>>cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>   Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under
>what test conditions?
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>only carb (like a
>
>
>  
>
>>propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the
>>vapor.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>   I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and
>NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as
>propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
>injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,
>hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the
>difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
>fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not
>as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall
>energy available for combustion.
>
>   To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel
>economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that
>liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
>burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast
>majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is
>unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!
>
>
>  
>
But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've just
been instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the
biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's not
called Brand X):

"Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science
and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuel
reserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization of
electrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons
in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for all
diesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. Brand
X reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion
technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible and
Brand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternative
energy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel
internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with all
kinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel or
biofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is
inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly."

It works by "'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximising
combustion efficiency". Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
where's my wallet?

Best wishes

Keit

Re: [Biofuel] reprocessing biodiesel

2005-09-22 Thread Thomas Kelly

Todd,
  I reprocessed a 95L batch using 10% methanol and 3.5 g NaOH/liter as 
per JTF.
 I recall having the same question you pose re: the lye.
I simply followed the instructions given at JtF and slightly more than a 
gallon of additional glycerine mix separated out. The reprocessed BD washed 
beautifully w/o emulsion and after three washings and a few days drying in 
the sun was crystal clear and ready to use.

You asked:
 "Won't that cause washing problems because of the additional NaOH 
causing an emulsification?"

 I wondered about that myself, so before reprocessing the entire batch I 
first washed the 1L BD produced by the quality test. It went well so I 
proceeded to wash the remaining 95L. (stir washing as per JtF)
  As I understand it, soap and/or unreacted glycerides are the cause of 
emulsions. Perhaps lye itself, in the absence of water, does not cause 
emulsions.

  Though a newbie myself, I thought that I would pass along my 
experience w. reprocessing. Maybe someone more knowledgable about the 
reaction can fill us in on the mystery of the excess lye.

 Follow the directions at JtF and proceed with confidence.
 Tom

- Original Message - 
From: "Todd Hershberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] reprocessing biodiesel


>I tested some biodiesel after processing it by treating it as new
> virgin oil and some additional glycerine dropped out.  My questions are-
>
> Do I use 10% methanol and 3.5 g NaOH/liter per JTF to reprocess?
>
> Won't that cause washing problems because of the additional NaOH
> causing an emulsification?
>
> Thanks for helping a newbie,
> Todd
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
> 



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] They laughed at the Marx Brothers

2005-09-22 Thread Fred Finch

Mike, 

Coffee through the nose is not pleasent.

Also, I may have to charge you for a new keyboard.  Mine is wet from the coffee.

fredOn 9/22/05, Mike Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"trinary fission"Stop!  I have a patent on this!Keith Addison wrote:>Hi Darryl>Darryl McMahon wrote:>Oh, come on Keith!  Everyone knows you can't get that kind of performance
>>>improvement without magnets and hydrogen injection using on-boardsplitting of>>>water based on zero-point energy.>>>
>They laughed at Einstein too. (But they laughed at the Marx Brothers>even more.)>I like the "binary fission" angle though.>>
Yes! New in the annals of energy scams.>>Imagine the kinds of performance improvements we'll get when Ifinish my research
>>>on "trinary fission" (based on tritium, don't you know).Everyone's gone fission.>>Isn't fission elemental science, rather than molecular science?
Naah, these guys are way ahead, they're working with molecular>elements and elementary molecules.>>Facetiously yours,>>>
>:-) Likewise,>>Regards>>Keith>>>Darryl McMahon>>Keith Addison <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>Hello all
>Jerry Eyers wrote:>>Not to knock everyone who has responded so far, but such items do exist,
>>although I don't believe 300 has been achieved, but there are documented>>cases of big block 350's getting over 200mpg.
>   Documented by whom?  (By the way, a 350 is a small block.)  Under>what test conditions?>
>>>The process involves replacing the standard carb with a vapor>>
>>>only carb (like a
>>propane one) then pre-heating your fuel to a vapor, and feeding the>>vapor.
>   I have a lot of experience running gaseous fuels in engines, and>NEVER have I seen any evidence that a fully vaporized fuel (such as>propane or methane) can attain higher efficiencies than a fuel
>injected liquid fueled engine.  (Though it is true that certain gases,>hydrogen for example, can run leaner than gasoline.  However, the>difference in economy is incremental.)  The calorific value of gaseous
>fuels is generally LESS than that of liquid fuels because they are not>as dense, yet the fuel economy remains proportional to the overall>energy available for combustion.
>>   To put it simply, vaporizing gasoline will not magically enhance fuel>economy.  Among some people, there remains a persistent myth that>liquid fueled internal combustion engines are incapable of fully
>burning a fuel load.  People who believe this insist that the vast>majority of the air / fuel mixture leaving a combustion chamber is>unburned, yet this is simply NOT true!
But it's such a good line Robert. What d'you think of this? I've justbeen instructed by the would-be purveyors to add their link to the
biodiesel section of my website so they can promote it (it's notcalled Brand X):"Brand X, the new KING of Global green energy by molecular science
and has the potential to add 30% more to the Global known fossil fuelreserves. Brand X works on the concept of deionization ofelectrically charged particle formed by gaining or losing electrons
in a solution. Brand X gives more kilometres to every litre, for alldiesel and gasoline internal combustion engines, respectively. BrandX reduces GHG emission, substantially by enhancing a total combustion
technology with higher efficiency. As fossil fuel is exhaustible andBrand X can help to consume less fuel, until economical alternativeenergy is found. It eliminates smog-forming pollutants in all diesel
internal combustion engine exhaust. Brand X is compatible with allkinds of internal combustion engines fuel by gasoline, diesel orbiofuel, including fuel from biomass. Green Brand X availability is
inexhaustible on Earth and eco-friendly."It works by "'binary fission' with additional vigour, by maximisingcombustion efficiency". Sounds great, think I'll buy some. Dammit,
where's my wallet?Best wishesKeith
>>That said, I don't know of ANY that have worked with diesel engines,>>only straight gas.
>   A diesel engine will outperform a gasoline engine by virtue of higher>compression pressure and the lack of a throttle, which considerably
>reduces pumping losses.  In addition, diesel fuel contains more energy>than gasoline.>>robert luis rabello>"The Edge of Justice"
>Adventure for Your Mind>http://www.newadventure.ca>>Ranger Supercharger Project Page
>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/>___
>Biofuel mailing list>B

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

Mark,

Your conclusion below is inaccurate.

It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel 
economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.

Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.

A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel 
economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG). 
(62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm , 
premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A fuel.)

In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an 
equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.

More so, the BBC did not do as claimed, "present[ing] information for 
shock value, without putting it into perspective." Were they to have 
conducted the rest of the exercise and presented it in its entire 
perspective, the facts would have proven shockingly more in disfavor of 
air travel.

That said, even the rudimentary "apples to apples" comparison above 
can't be deemed "virtually" accurate. Passenger mile fuel economy would 
be even lower on maximum range trips if the Boeing model with optional 
tanks were used, as it takes fuel to transport fuel. And, of course, it 
takes fuel to transport fuel to refueling stations on the ground as 
well. Including this type of cradle-to-grave energy variable would make 
the Jetta's passenger mile fuel economy less as well.

Transportation fuel economy is best, first by rail, second by bus, third 
by fuel efficient sedan and fourth by air. Motocyclettas fit in there 
somewhere.

But I'll let those with well paraffined slide rules calculate the 
"minutia" on this one.

Todd Swearingen

>hope everyone understands
>
>Thompson, Mark L. (PNB R&D) wrote:
>  
>
>>So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
>>it in perspective.  
>>
>>Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
>>  Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
>>  300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
>>  That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
>>  Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 
>>
>>  Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
>>  
>>Mark
>>  
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
>>Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
>>To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
>>ofglobalwarming
>>
>>
>>Just seen this on our BBC TV channel " every 800 miles travelled by a
>>jumbo 
>>jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."  Chris
>>
>>
>>Wessex Ferret Club
>>www.wessexferretclub.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>___
>>Biofuel mailing list
>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
>>g
>>
>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>>
>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
>>messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>>
>>
>>___
>>Biofuel mailing list
>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>>
>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>>
>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>  
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

I think it's actually more accurate to compare each vehical in it's
most commonly filled state.  At least the airplane usually has more
than one person in it... whereas most the cars I see here have one
person in them most of the time.  All the people who I see driving to
work each morning, alone, in their suburbans, are getting about 14
PMPG.  woo hoo.  I figure I get about 210 PMPG when I take the
bus.

On 9/22/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Your conclusion below is inaccurate.
>
> It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel
> economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.
>
> Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.
>
> A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel
> economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG).
> (62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm ,
> premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A fuel.)
>
> In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an
> equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

2005-09-22 Thread dwoodard

I've known Bruce McBurney, the fellow who runs himacresearch, for about 14
years now. He lives in Niagara Falls, Ontario, about 12-15 miles from me.
I regard him as a total flake. I suspect that the others whose exploits he
talks about, and whose literature he sells, are much the same.

Bruce told me that he had built a "supercarburetor" (from purchased
plans) and had installed it in his van. It involved heating gasoline and
steam, using the engine's coolant and exhaust heat, in the presence of
steel wool whch presumably served as an iron catalyst. He ran the system
for a while and then removed it. I asked him about driveability problems;
he indicated that there were some but refused to discuss details. He
claimed high mileage; I think he said 60 miles per gallon. He also said
that the device only worked for a short time due to poisoning of the
iron catalyst by additives in the gasoline, which sounded plausible to me.

Bruce claimed that the device worked because it transformed the fuel into
uniform small molecules. He also showed me a report of an analysis of the
product of his device by a Dr. Cherniak, a professor of chemistry at
Brock University in St. Catharines. It showed ethane and other
hydrocarbons including several alcohols (i.e. the analysis made nonsense
of Bruce's "theory" which didn't appear to register with him). Dr.
Cherniak was not able to test for hydrogen, but I expect there was some.
I don't recall whether the report said anything about carbon monoxide;
again I would expect there was some produced.

Hydrogen and some of the hydrocarbons will ignite at extremely lean
mixtures and will enable other fuels which will ordinarily not ignite at
very lean mixtures to do so. I surmise that this lean mixture operation
would produce an improvement in fuel economy. However the heating of the
fuel/air mixture in the device would drastically lower the misture density
and the power produced. That and the changes in mixture ratio, chemical
composition and density of the mixture during warmup would be likely to
produce serious performance and driveability problems, which seems to
have been the case from the limited information I was able to extract
from Bruce.

There is a likely efficiency improvement from another source besides the
lean mixture; see if you can guess it what it is.

Bruce claimed to me that the inventors of "supercarburetors" had been
routinely assassinated by big oil companies, also that the companies were
responsible for the rewriting of textbooks of chemistry and physics to
conceal the possibility of such devices from the public. It seemed that
nothing was too complicated or expensive for the companies to do to
suppress the inventions. Bruce appeared to believe that he had re-invented
true chemistry and physics although he was unable to produce any coherent
account of what he claimed to have done.

I talked to Dr. Cherniak by phone (he died shortly after); he told me
among other things that Bruce "didn't want to learn" which accords with my
experience.

I have had some experience with flakes in other lines, one a prophet of
monetary "reform" as the solution to all our economic ills. I've concluded
that ordinary sensible people have no conception of the number of wackos
there are walking around, who are able to function in daily life and earn
their livings, but who have only the weakest connection with reality in
any context which doesn't bring that reality home to them in their daily
lives. These experiences have made my reading of religious and political
history and its high content of madness much more understandable. The
stuff I have encountered about "zero-point energy" has sounded quite
familiar.

I also put just as much stock in written testimony as it seems to deserve
from its context. Think about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Think
about  ...hmmm... I'd better let you fill in the blanks or I'm liable to
be assassinated myself.

To return to Mr. Ogle and Secret 5, I read in the 1970s that
Siemens in Germany had experimented with the heating of gasoline to get
complete vapourization to enable operation on slightly lean mixtures with
resultant improvements in efficiency (nothing like a fivefold increase in
mileage though). I gathered that the efficiency improvement was useful, but
aparently the system never went into production. I guess the problems of
volumetric efficiency, weight and bulk, plus driveability were too much.

I think myself that treatments involving raising the temperature of the
fuel can be useful but that we will have to develop methods of injecting
the fuel into the cylinder not far from top dead centre in the cycle;
certainly after the intake valves close.

When evaluating reports of engine efficiency improvements
it's important to remember that for about 70 years we have been able to
build gasoline engines running on knock-resistant fuels which have turned
about 33% of the heat energy in the fuel into shaft horsepower, when
operated at cruise at high B

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

> I think it's actually more accurate to compare
> each vehical in it's most commonly filled state.

Perhaps, to achieve "real world" passenger mile fuel economy averages, 
presuming an average occupancy rate per vehicle could be achieved. No doubt 
someone has done that somewhere. At least you can bank on the fact that the 
airlines have.

Still, even if 50% occupancy was considered the average, that particular 
airliner would only net a 31-34 PMPG, whereas the Jetta would net 100 PMPG. 
Seventy percent occupancy versus thirty-three percent? That would be 
approximately 43-47 PMPG vs 66 PMPG for the Jetta.

Almost no matter how you slice it, air transportation at the industrial scale 
remains the least fuel efficient method.

Todd Swearingen


>I think it's actually more accurate to compare each vehical in it's
>most commonly filled state.  At least the airplane usually has more
>than one person in it... whereas most the cars I see here have one
>person in them most of the time.  All the people who I see driving to
>work each morning, alone, in their suburbans, are getting about 14
>PMPG.  woo hoo.  I figure I get about 210 PMPG when I take the
>bus.
>
>On 9/22/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Mark,
>>
>>Your conclusion below is inaccurate.
>>
>>It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel
>>economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.
>>
>>Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.
>>
>>A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel
>>economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG).
>>(62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm ,
>>premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A fuel.)
>>
>>In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an
>>equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.
>>
>>
>>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>
>
>  
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

Okay, in this case I take your point that with average occupancy rate
the jetta is more efficient.  But it is also roughtly twice the mpg as
the average car in the US.  So, I still think that 30 PMPG is more
realistic an average for car travel  about the same as the
efficient airplane.

On 9/22/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think it's actually more accurate to compare
> > each vehical in it's most commonly filled state.
>
> Perhaps, to achieve "real world" passenger mile fuel economy averages, 
> presuming an average occupancy rate per vehicle could be achieved. No doubt 
> someone has done that somewhere. At least you can bank on the fact that the 
> airlines have.
>
> Still, even if 50% occupancy was considered the average, that particular 
> airliner would only net a 31-34 PMPG, whereas the Jetta would net 100 PMPG. 
> Seventy percent occupancy versus thirty-three percent? That would be 
> approximately 43-47 PMPG vs 66 PMPG for the Jetta.
>
> Almost no matter how you slice it, air transportation at the industrial scale 
> remains the least fuel efficient method.
>
> Todd Swearingen
>
>
> >I think it's actually more accurate to compare each vehical in it's
> >most commonly filled state.  At least the airplane usually has more
> >than one person in it... whereas most the cars I see here have one
> >person in them most of the time.  All the people who I see driving to
> >work each morning, alone, in their suburbans, are getting about 14
> >PMPG.  woo hoo.  I figure I get about 210 PMPG when I take the
> >bus.
> >
> >On 9/22/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mark,
> >>
> >>Your conclusion below is inaccurate.
> >>
> >>It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel
> >>economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.
> >>
> >>Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.
> >>
> >>A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel
> >>economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG).
> >>(62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm ,
> >>premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A fuel.)
> >>
> >>In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an
> >>equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >___
> >Biofuel mailing list
> >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> >
> >Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

Not yet Zeke.

If the airline wants to tout it's highest fuel economy vehicle, so can 
the ground transportation sector.

Using you're method you'd be giving an unfair leg up to the airline by 
accepting their high fuel efficiency model but handicapping ground 
transport by introducing an "average" efficiency value. Best to best. 
Average to average. Worst to worst.

At least they're getting off the hook by not being scrutinized under an 
emissions regimen (which is actually where this thread started, come to 
think of it), where the Jetta would would cash in nicely with B-100 as 
nearly carbon neutral, compared to their 100% carbon negative.

Todd Swearingen

 Zeke Yewdall wrote:

>Okay, in this case I take your point that with average occupancy rate
>the jetta is more efficient.  But it is also roughtly twice the mpg as
>the average car in the US.  So, I still think that 30 PMPG is more
>realistic an average for car travel  about the same as the
>efficient airplane.
>
>On 9/22/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>>I think it's actually more accurate to compare
>>>each vehical in it's most commonly filled state.
>>>  
>>>
>>Perhaps, to achieve "real world" passenger mile fuel economy averages, 
>>presuming an average occupancy rate per vehicle could be achieved. No doubt 
>>someone has done that somewhere. At least you can bank on the fact that the 
>>airlines have.
>>
>>Still, even if 50% occupancy was considered the average, that particular 
>>airliner would only net a 31-34 PMPG, whereas the Jetta would net 100 PMPG. 
>>Seventy percent occupancy versus thirty-three percent? That would be 
>>approximately 43-47 PMPG vs 66 PMPG for the Jetta.
>>
>>Almost no matter how you slice it, air transportation at the industrial scale 
>>remains the least fuel efficient method.
>>
>>Todd Swearingen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think it's actually more accurate to compare each vehical in it's
>>>most commonly filled state.  At least the airplane usually has more
>>>than one person in it... whereas most the cars I see here have one
>>>person in them most of the time.  All the people who I see driving to
>>>work each morning, alone, in their suburbans, are getting about 14
>>>PMPG.  woo hoo.  I figure I get about 210 PMPG when I take the
>>>bus.
>>>
>>>On 9/22/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
Mark,

Your conclusion below is inaccurate.

It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel
economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.

Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.

A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel
economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG).
(62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm ,
premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A fuel.)

In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an
equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.





>>>___
>>>Biofuel mailing list
>>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>>>
>>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>>>
>>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>>>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>___
>>Biofuel mailing list
>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>>
>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>>
>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>
>
>  
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof ofglobalwarming

2005-09-22 Thread S. Chapin

Thompson, Mark L. (PNB R&D) wrote:

>So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
>it in perspective.  
>
>Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
>   Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
>   300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
>   That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
>   Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 
>
>   Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
>   
>Mark
>   
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
>Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
>To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
>ofglobalwarming
>
>
>Just seen this on our BBC TV channel " every 800 miles travelled by a
>jumbo 
>jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."  Chris
>
>
>Wessex Ferret Club
>www.wessexferretclub.co.uk
>
>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
>g
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
>messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>  
>
And a Greyhound bus? Amtrak? anyone out there with #s?
I am guessing both would make 68mpg look gluttonous, but I could be wrong.
S.Chapin

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof ofglobalwarming

I have heard that trail transport of freight is only 20% the energy as
highway transport of freight, but can't remember the source right now.
   Does anyone else remember seeing this?

On 9/22/05, S. Chapin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thompson, Mark L. (PNB R&D) wrote:
>
> >So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
> >it in perspective.
> >
> >Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
> >   Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel
> >   300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
> >   That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
> >   Or 68 mile/gallon/seat.
> >
> >   Compare that to your average car you don't even get close.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
> >Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
> >To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
> >ofglobalwarming
> >
> >
> >Just seen this on our BBC TV channel " every 800 miles travelled by a
> >jumbo
> >jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."  Chris
> >
> >
> >Wessex Ferret Club
> >www.wessexferretclub.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >___
> >Biofuel mailing list
> >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
> >g
> >
> >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> >messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> >
> >
> >___
> >Biofuel mailing list
> >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> >
> >Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> And a Greyhound bus? Amtrak? anyone out there with #s?
> I am guessing both would make 68mpg look gluttonous, but I could be wrong.
> S.Chapin
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Does anyone distill ethanol here?

Brian Rodgers wrote:

> Still very cool mods there Robert. I know that it takes so much time
> to do the type of thing you are working on with your Ranger and then
> on top of that documenting the whole process, wow. Great job.

Thank you!  It's been a long road, and I'm not finished yet.  Right 
now I have a bit of a problem with the mass airflow unit that will 
probably result in dispensing with the factory computer and putting in 
a speed density system like the Megasquirt.

> I was a bit confused about the supercharger and reference to hydrogen,
> sorry about that.

That's ok.  I was flattered, at least for a moment!

> Do you foresee injecting hydrogen into gas engines in the future as feasible?

Maybe not pure H2, but a gas fuel will definitely work.  (Although 
with gas prices going up all the time, electrolytic hydrogen might 
actually be cheaper pretty soon!)  Direct injection is the way to go 
with gaseous fuels, and since my cylinder head has TWO spark plugs for 
each chamber, I don't have to modify the head to do it.  I've been 
looking into building a modified gasification unit to run a 
combination of compressed wood gas (for volatility) and vegetable oil, 
since I can't do ethanol up here.  With a programmable onboard 
computer, I can change the injection parameters to suit any fuel I 
want to run.  Whether I can pull that off on my own is another story, 
however . . .

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

2005-09-22 Thread Chris lloyd

> Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
> Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel
> 300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
> That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
> Or 68 mile/gallon/seat.
>
> Compare that to your average car you don't even get close.

About 5% of pollution from cars gets into the upper atmosphere but nearly 
100% of a jumbos pollution gets there. The UK government has found that to 
meet its pollution targets it would have to stop any increase in air travel 
which now causes 85% of atmospheric pollution over the UK.Chris.


Wessex Ferret Club
www.wessexferretclub.co.uk



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] new topic to get my name out of here...

So, what is the fuel economy of the average airplanes, instead of the
efficient ones?  I have no idea how different airplanes compare.

Speaking of emissions, what about using biodiesel in airplane engines.
 I know that quite a few people are excited about the new compression
ignition airplane engines that can burn jet fuel instead of aviation
gas, because it opens up the possibility of using biodiesel for small
airplanes.  So this implies that jet fuel and biodiesel are somewhat
similar?  I would think that the gell point of biodiesel would be
a big problem at 30,000 feet though.

On 9/22/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not yet Zeke.
>
> If the airline wants to tout it's highest fuel economy vehicle, so can
> the ground transportation sector.
>
> Using you're method you'd be giving an unfair leg up to the airline by
> accepting their high fuel efficiency model but handicapping ground
> transport by introducing an "average" efficiency value. Best to best.
> Average to average. Worst to worst.
>
> At least they're getting off the hook by not being scrutinized under an
> emissions regimen (which is actually where this thread started, come to
> think of it), where the Jetta would would cash in nicely with B-100 as
> nearly carbon neutral, compared to their 100% carbon negative.
>
> Todd Swearingen
>
>  Zeke Yewdall wrote:
>
> >Okay, in this case I take your point that with average occupancy rate
> >the jetta is more efficient.  But it is also roughtly twice the mpg as
> >the average car in the US.  So, I still think that 30 PMPG is more
> >realistic an average for car travel  about the same as the
> >efficient airplane.
> >
> >On 9/22/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>I think it's actually more accurate to compare
> >>>each vehical in it's most commonly filled state.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Perhaps, to achieve "real world" passenger mile fuel economy averages, 
> >>presuming an average occupancy rate per vehicle could be achieved. No doubt 
> >>someone has done that somewhere. At least you can bank on the fact that the 
> >>airlines have.
> >>
> >>Still, even if 50% occupancy was considered the average, that particular 
> >>airliner would only net a 31-34 PMPG, whereas the Jetta would net 100 PMPG. 
> >>Seventy percent occupancy versus thirty-three percent? That would be 
> >>approximately 43-47 PMPG vs 66 PMPG for the Jetta.
> >>
> >>Almost no matter how you slice it, air transportation at the industrial 
> >>scale remains the least fuel efficient method.
> >>
> >>Todd Swearingen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think it's actually more accurate to compare each vehical in it's
> >>>most commonly filled state.  At least the airplane usually has more
> >>>than one person in it... whereas most the cars I see here have one
> >>>person in them most of the time.  All the people who I see driving to
> >>>work each morning, alone, in their suburbans, are getting about 14
> >>>PMPG.  woo hoo.  I figure I get about 210 PMPG when I take the
> >>>bus.
> >>>
> >>>On 9/22/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> Mark,
> 
> Your conclusion below is inaccurate.
> 
> It compares a fully loaded vehicle (airliner) and the extrapolated fuel
> economy per passenger to the fuel economy of a car with but one passenger.
> 
> Apples to apples, both vehicles need to be fully loaded when compared.
> 
> A fully loaded, 301 seat, Boeing 777-200LR nets an equivalent fuel
> economy of approximately 68 passenger miles per gallon (PMPG not MPG).
> (62.6 PMPG using http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR77720L.htm ,
> premised upon standard tanks and a specific gravity of 0.81 for Jet A 
> fuel.)
> 
> In comparison, a fully loaded, 4 seat,Volkswagen Jetta or Golf, nets an
> equivalent fuel economy of approximately 200 PMPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>___
> >>>Biofuel mailing list
> >>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> >>>
> >>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> >>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >>>
> >>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
> >>>messages):
> >>>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>___
> >>Biofuel mailing list
> >>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> >>
> >>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> >>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >>
> >>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
> >>messages):
> >>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >___
> >Biofuel mailing list
> >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >http://sustainableli

[Biofuel] Protect Organics!~ What will they attack next?

2005-09-22 Thread Jai Haissman

Hello All,

I am forwarding this because clean food and responsible agriculture are 
so dear to me. Please take a moment, and help protect our food supply 
from Bush and corporate interests. Hoping this finds you well,

Jai Haissman

http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] There's no proof of global warming

2005-09-22 Thread John Mullan




IMHO, the difference in the pictures are a 
good evidence of cause of the warming.  But also, I don't think that a 
natural cycle would account for this.  Even over 100 years.  Good old 
Mother Earth takes thousands of years to go through these cycles and this one is 
happening a little too fast.
 
Again, my 2cents.
 
John
 

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jerry 
  EyersSent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:00 PMTo: 
  Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] There's no proof 
  of global warming
  

  
Hmm... I can't reach them today 
either.  Just go to any nasa sight, and search for apollo pictures 
of the earth, then search for space shuttle pictures of the earth.
 
 
Jerry
 
---Original Message---
 

From: des
Date: 09/22/05 
10:51:36
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: 
[Biofuel] There's no proof of global warming
 
I'm still trying to get to the sites listed in this 
post.  is everyone
else able to get to them?  Just trying to go to http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/
times out.
 
doug swanson
 
 
 
Jerry Eyers wrote:
>  > What did the photos show?
>
> In the late 1960's, it was a beautiful blue sphere,
> clear atmoshpere, very nice.
>
> Now, there is a smokey white smudge over everything.
> There is no nice, clean, blue ball anymore, just
> a smokey, murkey haze all the time.
>
> Compare this picture (apollo 7 docking with satellite):
> http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=true&selections=AS7&browsepage=Go&hitsperpage=20&pageno=1&photoId=AS07-03-1531
> 
>
> With this picture (space shuttle docking with 
satellite):
> http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=true&selections=STS77&browsepage=Go&hitsperpage=10&pageno=3&photoId=s77e5069
> 
>
> And look at the earth in the background.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> 

>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives 
(50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
 
--
All generalizations are false.  Including this one.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
*
 
This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software.
No Microsoft databits have been incorporated herein.
All existing databits have been constructed from recycled 
databits.
 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 
9/19/2005
 
.

  

  
  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill

2005-09-22 Thread Darryl West

Na its not all that bad, although you have to wonder about what is happening
with free of speech and where things are heading.  It kind of funny as I was
only in Iran the other week and chatting with someone about having the
freedom of choice...guess I could have been wrong.  


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Weaver
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:20 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill

So I guess it's crazy to think of moving to OZ? Nuts. I guess it's 
Canada, then.

Darryl West wrote:

> I couldn't have put it better myself
>
> 
>
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Aragorn
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:19 PM
> *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] 'Baffled' peace activist gets $11,700 bill
>
> Thats because our prime minister is Bush's main lap dog and butt licker.
>
> Sorry for the language, but howard is a disgusting traiterous dog who
>
> doesn't even deserve a capital letter for his name.
>
> Any policy of Bush and Blair, he immediately immitates down here.
>
> He doesn't serve our country, he serves Bush.
>
> The only reason he is the leader here is because the general population
>
> is too stupid to do first grade math and is easily distracted by the 
> words:
>
> "interest rates"
>
> The gall of trying to charge someone you jail and deport for their 
> jailtime
>
> and deportation costs is just disgraceful.
>
> Bob
>
>
> */Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
>
>
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baffled-peace-activist-gets-11700-bill/2
005/09/16/1126750099540.html
>
> "In the talks I gave I wasn't even openly critical of Australia,"
> Parkin said.
>
> "I was being openly critical of the US occupation (of Iraq) and I
> was being openly critical of Halliburton."
>
>

>
> Yahoo! for Good
> Click here to donate  to
> the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends 
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>  
>


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of global warming

2005-09-22 Thread capt3d


well said, joe.  this is the imo tragic depth we have reached.  not that this precludes the possibility of diabolical plans, however.  the big wankers that run things are inflicting diabolical plans on us all the time (the existing status quo is itself a diabolical plan if there ever was one).
 
regards,
 
-chris b.
 
 
Joe Street wrote:
 
>Besides it is hard >to really call it a conspiracy when the entire organizational system of >our society works to support and serve the interests of those at the top >of the food chain.
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] "Corporations are ready to act on global warming but..."

2005-09-22 Thread Tom Irwin





Hi All,
 
In shocked, shocked to hear that the market hasn´t taken care of this problem already. So some in industry are begging for regulations so they can compete. That high pitched whine is so hard on my ears, please give us laws because we can´t do things for ourselves. Hard driving captains of business mewling like sheep ready for slaughter. Forward thinking visionaries of the 21st century dumbfounded by the prospect of something beyond a three year payback on investment. Here´s a free clue for the clueless, think about what will happen to your business when GB has a climate similar to Siberia in the 1950´s. Invest now while it´s cheap, it only gets progressively more expensive as the problem becomes worse. It´s Forrest Gump logic, stupid is as stupid does.
 
Tom
 
 
 
 
   


From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:26:13 -0300Subject: [Biofuel] "Corporations are ready to act on global warming but..."The architects Atelier Ten had designed a cooling system based on the galleries of a termite mound. By installing a concrete labyrinth in the foundations, they could keep even a large building in a hot place - such as the arts center that they had built in Melbourne - at a constant temperature without air conditioning. The only power they needed was to drive the fans pushing the cold air upwards, using 10% of the electricity required for normal cooling systems...---http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0920-23.htmPublished on Monday, September 20, 2005 by the Guardian/UKIt Would Seem That I Was Wrong About Big BusinessCorporations are ready to act on global warming but are thwarted by ministers who resist regulation in the name of the marketby George MonbiotClimate-change denial has gone through four stages. First the fossil-fuel lobbyists told us that global warming was a myth. Then they agreed that it was happening, but insisted that it was a good thing: we could grow wine in the Pennines and take Mediterranean holidays in Skegness. Then they admitted that the bad effects outweighed the good ones, but claimed that climate change would cost more to tackle than to tolerate. Now they have reached stage four. They concede that climate change would be cheaper to address than to neglect, but maintain that it's now too late. This is their most persuasive argument.Today the climatologists at the Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado will publish the results of the latest satellite survey of Arctic sea ice. It looks as if this month's coverage will be the lowest ever recorded. The Arctic, they warn, could already have reached tipping point - the moment beyond which the warming becomes irreversible. As ice disappears, the surface of the sea becomes darker, absorbing more heat. Less ice forms, so the sea becomes darker still, and so it goes on.Last month, New Scientist reported that something similar is happening in Siberia. For the first time on record, the permafrost of western Siberia is melting. As it does so, it releases the methane stored in the peat. Methane has 20 times the greenhouse warming effect of carbon dioxide. The more gas the peat releases, the warmer the world becomes, and the more the permafrost melts.Two weeks ago, scientists at Cranfield University discovered that the soils in the UK have been losing the carbon they contain; as temperatures rise, the decomposition of organic matter accelerates, which causes more warming, which causes more decomposition. Already the soil in this country has released enough carbon dioxide to counteract the emissions cuts we have made since 1990.These are examples of positive feedback: self-reinforcing effects that, once started, are hard to stop. They are kicking in long before they were supposed to. The intergovernmental panel on climate change, which predicts how far the world's temperature is likely to rise, hasn't yet had time to include them in its calculations. The current forecast - of 1.4C to 5.8C this century - is almost certainly too low.A week ago, I would have said that if it is too late, then one factor above all others is to blame: the chokehold that big business has on economic policy. By forbidding governments to intervene effectively in the market, the corporations oblige us to do nothing but stand by and watch as the planet cooks. But last Wednesday I discovered that it isn't quite that simple. At a conference organized by the Building Research Establishment, I witnessed an extraordinary thing: companies demanding tougher regulations - and the government refusing to grant them.Environmental managers from BT and John Lewis (which owns Waitrose) complained that, without tighter standards that everyone has to conform to, their companies put themselves at a disadvantage if they try to go green. "All that counts," the man from John Lewis said, "is cost, cost and cost." If he's buying ecofriendly lighting and his competitors aren't, he loses. As a result, he said, "I welcome the EU's ene

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Hello Keith and all,
My earlier posting that 190 proof is not possible is not correct. I am sorry about this but the cost of fractional distillation will be relatively high as a lot of stages are required. I checked out toluene also. It is not listed as azeotrope forming and it scrambles the brain. I posted without first checking first. May I now suggest another possible fuel which is low boiling and lot easier to rectify to 100% - ethyl acetate. It is also relatively easier to prepare with some H2SO4 catalyst.and simple equipment. Do not know how suitable it will be for combustion in engines with or without petrol. It is fairly oxygenated in structure and has pleasant fruity odour.Just a suggestion worth exploring. Cheers,
ManickhKeith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings Manickh>Hello everybody,>If my knowledge of ethanol-water fractionation data serves me >correctly, you cannot get 190proof alcohol by fractional >distillation of alcohol-water mixture. Maximum 96% by distillation, 192-proof, then it stops because of azeotropism. The boiling temperature of 96% ethanol is lower than that of pure ethanol. Quite a lot of home distillers do get 190-proof, but not with a "Charles 803" still.Best wishesKeithPS: Sorry I got waylaid Manickh, I haven't forgotten you, I'll get back to what we were discussing as soon as I can. All best meanwhile, K.>Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get >100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor >followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve
any >water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try >azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with toluene in >which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water >leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first >check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.>Manickh>>Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>>Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?>>I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no>access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still>without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one>if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.>>I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up>with no one that operates a successful fuel
still.>>Thanks>Bob>___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] It's been whispered about in DC

No one is really talking on the record but the chatter has been around since 
the pretzel incident.



IT AIN'T THE MOST REPUTABLE SOURCE, BUT THE SIGNS ARE ALL THERE.

EVEN MORE REASON TO BE SORRY FOR THE COUNTRY.


BUSH'S BOOZE CRISIS
By JENNIFER LUCE and DON GENTILE



Faced with the biggest crisis of his political life, President Bush has hit
the
bottle again, The National Enquirer can reveal.

Bush, who said he quit drinking the morning after his 40th birthday, has
started boozing amid the Katrina catastrophe.

Family sources have told how the 59-year-old president was caught by First
Lady
Laura downing a shot of booze at their family ranch in Crawford, Texas, when
he
learned of the hurricane disaster.

His worried wife yelled at him: "Stop, George."

Following the shocking incident, disclosed here for the first time, Laura
privately warned her husband against "falling off the wagon" and vowed to
travel with him more often so that she can keep an eye on Dubya, the sources
add.

"When the levees broke in New Orleans, it apparently made him reach for a
shot," said one insider. "He poured himself a Texas-sized shot of straight
whiskey and tossed it back. The First Lady was shocked and shouted: "Stop
George!"

"Laura gave him an ultimatum before, 'It's Jim Beam or me.' She doesn't want
to
replay that nightmare especially now when it's such tough going for her
husband."

Bush is under the worst pressure of his two terms in office and his
popularity
is near an all-time low. The handling of the Katrina crisis and troop losses
in
Iraq have fueled public discontent and pushed Bush back to drink.

A Washington source said: "The sad fact is that he has been sneaking drinks
for
weeks now. Laura may have only just caught him but the word is his drinking
has been going on for a while in the capital. He's been in a pressure cooker
for months.

"The war in Iraq, the loss of American lives, has deeply affected him. He
takes
every soldier's life personally. It has left him emotionally drained.

The result is he's taking drinks here and there, likely in private, to cope.
"And now with the worst domestic crisis in his administration over Katrina,
you
pray his drinking doesn't go out of control."

Another source said: "I'm only surprised to hear that he hadn't taken a shot
sooner. Before Katrina, he was at his wit's end. I've known him for years.
He's
been a good ol' Texas boy forever. George had a drinking problem for years
that
most professionals would say needed therapy. He doesn't believe in it
[therapy], he never got it. He drank his way through his youth, through
college
and well into his thirties. Everyone's drinking around him."

Another source said: "A family member told me they fear George is 'falling
apart.' The First Lady has been assigned the job of gatekeeper." Bush's
history
of drinking dates back to his youth. Speaking of his time as a young man in
the
National Guard, he has said: "One thing I remember, and I'm most proud of,
is
my drinking and partying. Those were the days my friends. Those were the
good
old days!"

Age 26 in 1972, he reportedly rounded off a night's boozing with his
16-year-old brother Marvin by challenging his father to a fight.

On November 1, 2000, on the eve of his first presidential election, Bush
acknowledged that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of
alcohol near his parents' home in Maine. Age 30 at the time, Bush pleaded
guilty and paid a $150 fine. His driving privileges were temporarily
suspended
in Maine.

"I'm not proud of that," he said. "I made some mistakes. I occasionally
drank
too much, and I did that night. I learned my lesson." In another interview
around that time, he said: "Well, I don't think I had an addiction. You know
it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very
addicted...
and they required hitting bottom (to start) going to AA. I don't think that
was
my case."

During his 2000 presidential campaign, there were also persistent questions
about past cocaine use. Eventually Bush denied using cocaine after 1992,
then
quickly extended the cocaine-free period back to 1974, when he was 28.

Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington D.C. psychiatrist and author of Bush On The
Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President, told The National Enquirer: "I do
think that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program,
like
the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great.

"I think it's a concern that Bush disappears during times of stress. He
spends
so much time on his ranch. It's very frightening."

Published on: 09/21/2005

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-b

[Biofuel] help please

2005-09-22 Thread Garth & Kim Travis

Greetings,
I have been suffering from a life attack the last few weeks and unable to 
participate on the list.  I do expect my power to go down tomorrow night 
and not be up for at least a week. Will someone please stop my emails from 
coming to my address for me?  I know I am suppose to know how to do it, 
myself, but my brains quit working a few hours ago.  Rita sure is a 
demanding visitor.

We do have enough power for fridges and freezers, some gas for cooking and 
a safe building. I am getting exhausted by clearing room for all the 
animals to come inside for the duration of the storm.  This was suppose to 
be a vacation week, the highlight of which was suppose to be seeing the 
Dali Lama in person.  We tore the bathroom out last weekend to rebuild it 
this week as the plumbing had sprung a leak under the floor.  I am babbling 
so I had better go to bed.

Bright Blessings,
Kim



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of globalwarming

2005-09-22 Thread Ray J

Specs on the current model Boeing 747-400,   57,000 U.S. gallons fuel 
capacity with 8,000 mile range so it gets something like  6-9 gallons a 
mile. so lets say 8 gallons/mile, at around 8 pounds per gallon,= 65 
pounds of fuel per mile...so it uses around 26 tons of fuel in 800 
miles  but they say they put out 28 tons of co2 in the same distance?

thats interesting...

Ray J


>Just seen this on our BBC TV channel " every 800 miles travelled by a jumbo 
>jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."  Chris
>
>
>  
>


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Hello everybody,
Here are two websites that cite ethyl acetate as auto fuel. Note the low price. I think it is viable now. Any comments on this suggestion would be welcome. Cheers
ManickhKeith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings Manickh>Hello everybody,>If my knowledge of ethanol-water fractionation data serves me >correctly, you cannot get 190proof alcohol by fractional >distillation of alcohol-water mixture. Maximum 96% by distillation, 192-proof, then it stops because of azeotropism. The boiling temperature of 96% ethanol is lower than that of pure ethanol. Quite a lot of home distillers do get 190-proof, but not with a "Charles 803" still.Best wishesKeithPS: Sorry I got waylaid Manickh, I haven't forgotten you, I'll get back to what we were discussing as soon as I can. All best meanwhile, K.>Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get >100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor >followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve
 any >water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try >azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with toluene in >which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water >leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first >check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.>Manickh>>Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>>Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?>>I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no>access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still>without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one>if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.>>I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up>with no one that operates a successful fuel
 still.>>Thanks>Bob>___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
		Yahoo! for Good 
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] First bach of Biodiesel

2005-09-22 Thread JJJN

If you wish to learn what was said by those who offer their experience, 
please google" translation software" and you can get some great help in 
deciphering, as well as learn a great deal about linguistics of others 
in the process.  It does require some time but not like it used to.

I really have to agree with Keith on this one, as it seems though an 
unhealthy number of people in the USA think that no one else has 
anything to say or bring to the table - unless they speak fluent 
English.  That attitude is just a more suppressed form of racism 
enough on that ...my opinion only.  Sorry no data to back it up just gut 
feelings.

Jim
Wisdom to all

Keith Addison wrote:

>>Hey no fair I can't read this reply?
>>I wanted to hear it too.
>>Brian Rodgers
>>
>>
>
>Maybe it's "no fair" when both of them and very many others here 
>struggle to read our imperialistic English all the time?
>
>Best wishes
>
>Keith
>
>
>  
>
>>On 9/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Caro João, a temperatura é uma variável que deve ser levada em consideração
>>>uma vez que a cinética da reacção varia com a temperatura, ou seja, maior
>>>temperatura significa menor tempo de reacção. No entanto, num reactor à
>>>pressão atmosférica não se deverá ultrapassar os 60ºC pois  a 
>>>  
>>>
>>temperatura de
>>
>>
>>>ebulição do metanol é cerca de 63ºC.
>>>
>>>Boa sorte e disponha sempre
>>>
>>>Filipe Paulette
>>>Chemical Engineer
>>>
>>>Citando joão martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> I plan to start doing the first bach of biodiesel, and
>>> I will use Methanol.
>>>
>>> I'd like to know if we need always to heat everything
>>> to 50ºC, and way???
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> João Martins
>>> www.martinsportscar.com
>>>  
>>>
>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>  
>

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

Greetings everyone,
Got 2 references for use of ethyl acetate as auto fuel and octane boosting. I believe it will be better than ethanol since it is miscible with petrol and a lot easier to make and rectify, unlike ethanol. Sorry I forgot to include their url in previous mail. Cheers.
Manickh
http://www.speclab.com/compound/c64175.htm
http://www.icislor.com/il_shared/Samples/SubPage208.asp
Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings Manickh>Hello everybody,>If my knowledge of ethanol-water fractionation data serves me >correctly, you cannot get 190proof alcohol by fractional >distillation of alcohol-water mixture. Maximum 96% by distillation, 192-proof, then it stops because of azeotropism. The boiling temperature of 96% ethanol is lower than that of pure ethanol. Quite a lot of home distillers do get 190-proof, but not with a "Charles 803" still.Best wishesKeithPS: Sorry I got waylaid Manickh, I haven't forgotten you, I'll get back to what we were discussing as soon as I can. All best meanwhile, K.>Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get >100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor >followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve
 any >water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try >azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with toluene in >which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water >leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first >check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.>Manickh>>Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>>Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?>>I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no>access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still>without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one>if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.>>I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up>with no one that operates a successful fuel
 still.>>Thanks>Bob>___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] First bach of Biodiesel

Esperanto!

JJJN wrote:

>If you wish to learn what was said by those who offer their experience, 
>please google" translation software" and you can get some great help in 
>deciphering, as well as learn a great deal about linguistics of others 
>in the process.  It does require some time but not like it used to.
>
>I really have to agree with Keith on this one, as it seems though an 
>unhealthy number of people in the USA think that no one else has 
>anything to say or bring to the table - unless they speak fluent 
>English.  That attitude is just a more suppressed form of racism 
>enough on that ...my opinion only.  Sorry no data to back it up just gut 
>feelings.
>
>Jim
>Wisdom to all
>
>Keith Addison wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>Hey no fair I can't read this reply?
>>>I wanted to hear it too.
>>>Brian Rodgers
>>>   
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>Maybe it's "no fair" when both of them and very many others here 
>>struggle to read our imperialistic English all the time?
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>Keith
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 9/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>   
>>>
>>>  
>>>
Caro João, a temperatura é uma variável que deve ser levada em consideração
uma vez que a cinética da reacção varia com a temperatura, ou seja, maior
temperatura significa menor tempo de reacção. No entanto, num reactor à
pressão atmosférica não se deverá ultrapassar os 60ºC pois  a 
 



>>>temperatura de
>>>   
>>>
>>>  
>>>
ebulição do metanol é cerca de 63ºC.

Boa sorte e disponha sempre

Filipe Paulette
Chemical Engineer

Citando joão martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Hi there,

I plan to start doing the first bach of biodiesel, and
I will use Methanol.

I'd like to know if we need always to heat everything
to 50ºC, and way???

Best Regards
João Martins
www.martinsportscar.com
 



>>___
>>Biofuel mailing list
>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>>
>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>>
>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>  
>


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Scales for LYE

2005-09-22 Thread bio


Would it be okay to use an old set of digital scales from weight watchers to
measure grams of LYE. I'm now sure it would be as accurate as a balance
scale. 


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 82 Mercedes Turbo Diesel

2005-09-22 Thread Thomas Kelly




Thanks Zeke, Jan, and Keith for your quick 
responses,
 
  You have inspired me to fill it up with 
homebrewed
biodiesel. After all that's what I got if for.
 
   
Tom
 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

2005-09-22 Thread Jerry Eyers







That's kind of what I had gathered just from reading the book.  The fact that while making wonderful high mileage claims he was unable (or unwilling) to produce any working diagrams, and that as best as I could tell, you would essentially be driving a rolling bomb.  By superheating the fuel through an exhaust based heating system, you would not get any results until after the vehicle ran for a while, and if there were any leaks of any kind, or a backfire, or any problem at all, it would ignite the vaporizer rather violently.
 
I couldn't quite figure out from his descriptions how getting a "complete" vaporization would give such incredible gas mileage.  More is involved with the combustion than just vaporizing the fuel, such as oxygen mixture ratios, hydrogen levels, etc.  Perhaps mixing different gasses AND vaporized fuel, but now your not talking a pure system, so rating "gas mileage" is not accurate either.
 
Your conclusions about him, and his ideas make more sense.
 
Jerry 
 
---Original Message---
 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 09/22/05 16:10:50
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise
 
I've known Bruce McBurney, the fellow who runs himacresearch, for about 14
years now. He lives in Niagara Falls, Ontario, about 12-15 miles from me.
I regard him as a total flake. I suspect that the others whose exploits he
talks about, and whose literature he sells, are much the same.
 
Bruce told me that he had built a "supercarburetor" (from purchased
plans) and had installed it in his van. It involved heating gasoline and
steam, using the engine's coolant and exhaust heat, in the presence of
steel wool whch presumably served as an iron catalyst. He ran the system
for a while and then removed it. I asked him about driveability problems;
he indicated that there were some but refused to discuss details. He
claimed high mileage; I think he said 60 miles per gallon. He also said
that the device only worked for a short time due to poisoning of the
iron catalyst by additives in the gasoline, which sounded plausible to me.
 
Bruce claimed that the device worked because it transformed the fuel into
uniform small molecules. He also showed me a report of an analysis of the
product of his device by a Dr. Cherniak, a professor of chemistry at
Brock University in St. Catharines. It showed ethane and other
hydrocarbons including several alcohols (i.e. the analysis made nonsense
of Bruce's "theory" which didn't appear to register with him). Dr.
Cherniak was not able to test for hydrogen, but I expect there was some.
I don't recall whether the report said anything about carbon monoxide;
again I would expect there was some produced.
 
Hydrogen and some of the hydrocarbons will ignite at extremely lean
mixtures and will enable other fuels which will ordinarily not ignite at
very lean mixtures to do so. I surmise that this lean mixture operation
would produce an improvement in fuel economy. However the heating of the
fuel/air mixture in the device would drastically lower the misture density
and the power produced. That and the changes in mixture ratio, chemical
composition and density of the mixture during warmup would be likely to
produce serious performance and driveability problems, which seems to
have been the case from the limited information I was able to extract
from Bruce.
 
There is a likely efficiency improvement from another source besides the
lean mixture; see if you can guess it what it is.
 
Bruce claimed to me that the inventors of "supercarburetors" had been
routinely assassinated by big oil companies, also that the companies were
responsible for the rewriting of textbooks of chemistry and physics to
conceal the possibility of such devices from the public. It seemed that
nothing was too complicated or expensive for the companies to do to
suppress the inventions. Bruce appeared to believe that he had re-invented
true chemistry and physics although he was unable to produce any coherent
account of what he claimed to have done.
 
I talked to Dr. Cherniak by phone (he died shortly after); he told me
among other things that Bruce "didn't want to learn" which accords with my
experience.
 
I have had some experience with flakes in other lines, one a prophet of
monetary "reform" as the solution to all our economic ills. I've concluded
that ordinary sensible people have no conception of the number of wackos
there are walking around, who are able to function in daily life and earn
their livings, but who have only the weakest connection with reality in
any context which doesn't bring that reality home to them in their daily
lives. These experiences have made my reading of religious and political
history and its high content of madness much more understandable. The
stuff I have encountered about "zero-point energy" has sounded quite
familiar.
 
I also put just as much stock in written testimony as it seems to deserve
from its context. Think about the Protocols of the Elde

Re: [Biofuel] E10 experience here in Manila

Hi All,
Thanks for the replies... The reason why I'm a little bit hesitant is well mainly because the info drive here in Manila is not that good and second some unscrupulous business men before are selling unleaded gas (prior to E10) that has water in it. That's a real bummer but now they are at the hands of the law.

Probably I'll continue using E10 at my old car and will just fill my new car if the masses here would start patronizing E10, coz most of the time the gas station that I bought E10 doesn't have that much customers compared to the gas stations of Shell, Caltex (Chevron Texaco in the US) and Petron (a local venture that has a saudi partner). It's good to know that a lot of people around the world are using E10/E85, it's just that the standards here in the Philippines are not that strict. Like for example when you manufacture Ethanol, you guys there in the commercial level applies strict standards to ensure that the product you're selling is really good right? Here in the Philippines doesn't go that way. The issue I think here is more of the consumers confidence towards Ethanol because as I've said the standards here are not that super strict compared to for example the US.

To Ramon - E10 is 10% Ethanol blend and 90% unleaded gasoline. I don't do the mixing, I buy it from one of the minor oil players here. The major players (Shell, Caltex and Petron) don't carry yet Ethanol in their products.

By the way guys, how about the computer that is controlling the fuel system or whatever you call that... fuel intake of your car? That won't be messed up right if filling up E10?
So to sum it all, E10 is just your ordinary unleaded fuel provided that strict measures/standards are enforced in manufacturing the said fuel?
Regards,
Patrick
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Using E10 in the new car

Hi Mike,
Thanks for the reply, my dillenma is this, my new car is a Toyota but they only sell that model (Toyota Vios) in South East Asia which I believe is new to Ethanol fuel. My owner's manual doesn't say there that it is E10 compatible, it only tells me to use a 91RON and up unleaded fuel only.

But upon intensive research, I found out that the Vios engine is the same as the Toyota Vitz or to some countries it is called the Toyota Echo. Any Echo or Vitz users here who powered their auto's w/ E10 or E85? If yes, what's your experience.

Regards,
Patrick
On 9/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Patrick.I live in Wisconsin and have been using E10 for almost two decades in all of my gasoline powered vehicles.
I worked at a Ford and Chrysler dealership in the service department during the '80's and earliy '90's. Both vehicle manufacturers modified their products' fuel systems to accomodate alcohol back in the late '80's.
If anything, your new car is more compatible with E10 than your older car. It may even be E85 compliant. Check your owners manual.I too have found my vehicles start better on E10 throughout the year. I suspect this is due to the characteristic of alcohol to remove water from the fuel system. I do not need to add any fuel treatment during the winter because the fuel has alcohol in it already.
I did try E85 in both my '94 Ford Crown Victoria and my '96 Ford E150 van. Both vehicles operated normally with the exception of the amber Check Engine light coming on. When I filled up again with E10, the light went out.
I had a friend scan the vehicles for emmission codes. Both vehicles indicated a lean operating condition, but no other malfunctions. I suspect the lean condition was due to the additional oxygen present in alcohol.
I hope this helps.Michael___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
-- This is my email for mailing list purposes only. If you want to send a personal message to me please send it to anton.opaco AT gmail.comhttp://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=20532&t=1">Get Firefox!
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

2005-09-22 Thread Pieter Koole


>
> Maximum 96% by distillation, 192-proof, then it stops because of
> azeotropism. The boiling temperature of 96% ethanol is lower than
> that of pure ethanol. 

With respect Keith, but if I'm not wrong, the boiling point of 96% is higher
than that of pure ethanol. At that percentage the boiling point of the last
bit of water is lower than 100° C, being exactly the same as that of 96%.
Am I wrong ?
Well, anyway not so important. We just cannot get it higher than 96% without
other tricks like tholuene or benzene.
BTW, tholuene isn't half as carcinogene as benzene, but I don't know if it
works with tholuene.

Greetings,
Pieter.




> Best wishes
>
> Keith
>
> PS: Sorry I got waylaid Manickh, I haven't forgotten you, I'll get
> back to what we were discussing as soon as I can. All best meanwhile,
> K.
>
>
> >Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get
> >100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor
> >followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve any
> >water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try
> >azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with  toluene in
> >which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water
> >leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first
> >check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.
> >Manickh
> >
> >Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?
> >
> >I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no
> >access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still
> >without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one
> >if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.
> >
> >I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
> >with no one that operates a successful fuel still.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Bob
> >
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 2 questions about BD production

2005-09-22 Thread Evergreen Solutions

On 9/22/05, Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aren't there tax credits for biodiesel fuel (in the US at least) thatwould negate the effects of having to pay taxes?
I don't know, you tell me?

And...I'm meaning from the prospect of *selling* the finished product, not producing @ home.

~Thanks~
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel in the Philippines

Hi Tanuki,
 
You may want to partner with Seaoil Philippines. They are a minor oil player here. 
 
I don't think there's someone who's doing homebrewing let me just put it this way.. I feel that majority of the biodiesel users here in the Philippines buy their brew at the gas station (Seaoil, Flying V).. Probably some do homebrewing

 
Regards,
Patrick 
On 9/21/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I would like to link up with people in the Philippines who are interested inthe small scale biodiesel production.  Had previously posted here because I
noted a spot of Filipinos responding here.  Anyone doing homebrewing in thePhilippines?___Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/-- This is my email for mailing list purposes only. If you want to send a personal message to me please send it to 
anton.opaco AT gmail.comhttp://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=20532&t=1"
>Get Firefox! 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Steam catapult assisted take off

2005-09-22 Thread Jason

Hi guys,

Interesting thread on the jetliner fuel consumption comparisons. For the 
record, I don't have a car, I walk everywhere but if I'm in a hurry I take 
the bus or train, in Switzerland the buses and trains are mainly electric 
and nearly all electricity is hydro here :) And I'm not particularly fond of 
flying :-p

Now something a little different.
1. Does anyone know how the steam catapults on an aircraft carrier used to 
shoot the planes off works?
2. What speeds to they get the planes up to?
3. What are its limits? ie max speed attainable or efficient distance of 
operation.

If anyone knows about this stuff any info is appreciated. 'nother idea ;)

Thanks

Jay 


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Methanol handling tips needed

2005-09-22 Thread Derick Giorchino









Heater elements are available from
grainger industrial supply or mcmastercarr.com ether stainless steel or well elements
for chemicals. But be prepared they ant cheep. 

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Street
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005
8:44 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Methanol
handling tips needed



 

Try www.omega.com
for stainless heater elements.

Joe

Zeke Yewdall wrote:



How about standard water heater elements?  You might be able to getstainless steel ones for the higher quality tanks, or if not, thecheap ones are only about $10, so replace them every 10 batches orsomething.  I know, throwing away stuff is not what we are going forhere, but it's an idea to get it started till you can find somethingbetter. Zeke On 9/21/05, Darryl West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  

Hi Guys, I am at the same point as you John trying to get a 5 Gallon processor going.I have found getting a submersible heating element a hassle.  Can anyonesuggest a place to get an old (or maybe new) element as I have looked aroundand haven't come across anything!  (I am most likely looking in the wrongplaces) CheersDarryl -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Keith AddisonSent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:33 PMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Methanol handling tips needed Hello John 

Greetings, I'm finally finding the time to make a processor, but find myselfhanging on a couple of points.  First off I'm just going withsomething that resembles the 5gal processor listed on JTF to start.The problem is that I'm not grasping the process in handling themethanol and lye properly.  The idea of forcing air into the methoxidetank thus forcing methoxide out other tube into processor makes sence.I just dont see where/how the methanol and lye are measured andplaced into mixing container to begin with.  

Use translucent HDPE containers for mixing methanol and mark them atthe required volume. Use the air pump to pump methanol out of thecontainer it comes in into the mixing container to the requiredvolume. Weight out the lye (or KOH), we measure it out into plasticbags on the scales (adjusted for the weight of the bag) so thatthere's minimal exposure to the air and moisture in the air. Then addit to the methanol mixing container. Opening the lid for this purposewon't expose you to fumes as the methanol is at room temperature andit's not being agitated. We use a funnel made from the top of a2-litre PET bottle (the kind you buy water in) to pour the KOH infrom its plastic bag. Mix it this way: Methoxide the easy wayhttp://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_aleksnew.html#easymeth Then pump it into the processor with the air-pump. 

So, I'm looking forpointers on how others measure and handle these to get them into mixtank.  Additonally, I'm not sure what to use for heating element(electric at this point) so would appreciate any insight on this aswell.  

With the 5-gal processor type you're more or less confined toelectric heating, those cans don't last very long with an open flameunder them. You can only use an open heat source for pre-heating theoil anyway - no more open flames as soon as there's any methanolinvolved. Maybe a heat exchanger would do, but that would probably bea bit of a hassle in only a 5-gal can. Get a submersion heatingelement, stainless steel, about 1.5 kw should do or maybe less. Tryto get one that fits (unlike ours!). Best wishes Keith  

Thanks,John  

 ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/   ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/  

 ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/   




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofue

[Biofuel] Ethanol and water deposits is this possible?

Hi All,
 
Here in the Philippines, Ethanol is still starting. I was just wondering to all Ethanol users out there. Is it possible to have water deposits in your engine if you continue using Ethanol? 
 
I'm also wondering to all those who have used unleaded fuel for so many years, is it also possible to have water deposits in your engine, like the ones in diesels?
 
Regards,
Patrick-- This is my email for mailing list purposes only. If you want to send a personal message to me please send it to anton.opaco AT gmail.comhttp://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=20532&t=1">Get Firefox! 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 2 questions about BD production

2005-09-22 Thread Chris & Chuck McGuire


> As for #1 diesel, I have seen it at truck refueling places, where you
> can sometimes get #1, #2, or a 50/50 blend of them, but never at the
> local gas station.  And even the #2 diesel at truck stops seems to run
> better than the diesel from in town gas stations.  I suspect that
> these places don't sell enough diesel to people who care to bother
> getting high quality stuff.


Around here, we see number one or a blend come October.  The pour point 
of number one is substantially lower than number two, and when it's -40 
out, fuel gelling can get to be a big problem, very fast.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Anyone actually distilling their own ethanol?

2005-09-22 Thread Bob

Thanks for all of the responses to my previous questions.
 
I have copies of the JTF plans and they seem ok, but is their
anyone here who actually does it?
 
Whilst I do not doubt that many of you are very knowledgable
in this area, there are many variables that make a huge
difference between building a still from a "good" plan and
having one that can consistantly distill to the required proof
for alcohol fuel.
 
I have seen ads for several production stills, but none of them
make any claims as to the alcohol proof that is possible. 
(probably because they are aiming at the drinkers market
where proof is a minor point.)
 

It appears to me that much of what I read is theoretical and not
from a practical example.
 
I would really like a reply from someone who has had success
or who can point me in the direction of someone.
 
bob
		Do you Yahoo!? 
 
Listen to over 20 online radio stations and watch over 5000 music videos on Yahoo! Music.___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Purchasing a still for ethanol

> >
> > Maximum 96% by distillation, 192-proof, then it stops because of
> > azeotropism. The boiling temperature of 96% ethanol is lower than
> > that of pure ethanol. 
>
>With respect Keith, but if I'm not wrong, the boiling point of 96% is higher
>than that of pure ethanol. At that percentage the boiling point of the last
>bit of water is lower than 100° C, being exactly the same as that of 96%.
>Am I wrong ?

Wrong, according to Mike Nixon, who knows what he's talking about. 
See The Compleat Distiller, Nixon and McKay, Amphora Society, 2001, 
p.37. "Another result of azeotropism is that the boiling temperature 
of the 96% ethanol solution is lower than that of pure ethanol."

>Well, anyway not so important. We just cannot get it higher than 96% without
>other tricks like tholuene or benzene.

Or lime, or corn grits, or 3A zeolite, or castor oil, or

Keith


>BTW, tholuene isn't half as carcinogene as benzene, but I don't know if it
>works with tholuene.
>
>Greetings,
>Pieter.
>
>
>
>
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > PS: Sorry I got waylaid Manickh, I haven't forgotten you, I'll get
> > back to what we were discussing as soon as I can. All best meanwhile,
> > K.
> >
> >
> > >Only up to 170-180 proof which could be used for E85 cars. To get
> > >100% alcohol try extraction with castor oil of fermented liquor
> > >followed by simple distillation if castor oil does not dissolve any
> > >water. Please check this in JTF archives. If this does not work try
> > >azeotropic distillation of the 170 proof alcohol with  toluene in
> > >which case simple distillation would suffice to remove the water
> > >leaving more concentrated alcohol in the still. Take care and first
> > >check MSDS data whether toluene is carcinogenic.
> > >Manickh
> > >
> > >Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >Where can I buy a still that can produce fuel grade ethanol (190 proof)?
> > >
> > >I have read that the charles 803 is a poor still and I have no
> > >access to anyone knowledgable enough to build a good enough still
> > >without accurate plans. I could possibly pay someone to build one
> > >if I knew exactly what to tell them to build.
> > >
> > >I have done google and JTF and searched this list but have come up
> > >with no one that operates a successful fuel still.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >Bob


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Anyone actually distilling their own ethanol?