Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now

[Josh Boltrek]

Yes, but when you figure in all the energy required to make the batteries for 
the Prius (and to replace them after 6-8 years), I'd bet that the Puegot HDI 
(the 407 HDI wagon with a manual gearbox averages 49 miles per US gallon in the 
city, and as high as 54 MPG driving to Melbourne from Adelaide) has a smaller 
'carbon footprint' than the Prius.  Ive never, ever seen a puff of smoke come 
out of the tailpipe.  I'll take the simplicy of my little diesel over the 
complexity of a petrol hybrid any day.
Cheers,
Josh



- Original Message 
From: Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, 28 April, 2008 9:49:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now

doug wrote:
> Hi,
>  You are saying you got 56mpg from your Prius: I have a 307 Peugeot Diesel & 
> get ~17Km/L: ie about 50M/imp Gallon (about 10% bigger than a US Gallon I 
> think: one of the few things the Poms can claim is bigger than in the 
> States!!)
> 
>  If the Pug is driven with economy in mind, the recent Australian record is 
> 2760 Km on 70L fuel: a 406 peugeot was driven from Rockhampton in Queensland 
> to Melbourne on 1 tankful of fuel. The diesels leave the Priuses for dead!

Yes, no argument.

But somehow I doubt the dear old peugeot's can touch the prius on 
emissions. And I do love the peugeot's but peugeot wisely figured
out that the US market just isn't worth the trouble :)

Everyone knows that the prius is the worst of all cars, everyone loves
to climb on and piss on it. That's fine with me. No harm, no foul.



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



  Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/4696cb4f/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] 'Neglect of Farming Led to Rice Crisis'

[Keith Addison]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/26/8546/
Published on Saturday, April 26, 2008 by Inter Press Service

'Neglect of Farming Led to Rice Crisis'

by Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK - The headlines screaming about a global food shortage have 
not aroused surprise in a leading non-governmental organisation (NGO) 
working with farming communities across Asia. To its members, 
warnings of hunger on a biblical scale are hardly news.

After all, the Asia-Pacific arm of the Pesticide Action Network 
(PAN), a global environmental lobby, has been raising the alarm about 
an impending rice shortage for years. Among its more recent campaigns 
was one launched to coincide with ''The International Year of Rice," 
which was marked globally in 2004.

But the alarm bells rung by PAN were ignored by governments in the 
region, home to nine of the world's top 10 producers of the grain. 
They are China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand, 
Burma, the Philippines and Japan. The only non-Asian in this rice 
league is Brazil.

''Governments refused to listen to our concerns. In the last five 
years we have been saying that we are in rice crisis, that food 
security and food sovereignty were being undermined," Clare Westwood, 
campaign coordinator for PAN's 'Save Our Rice Campaign, said during a 
telephone interview from Malaysia. ''It was only a matter of time 
before the warnings became real."

PAN's primary concern was the push towards rice cultivation on an 
industrial scale that promoted monoculture, where a few high-yield 
rice varieties that needed large doses of chemicals were held up as 
the answer to growing demand. Marginalised, consequently, were the 
small farmers, who came from rural communities that had used local 
knowledge over centuries to generate new varieties of paddy seeds 
that blended with the local environment.

''The high-yielding seeds prompted in the monoculture style of 
farming are not as hardy as local varieties produced through the 
ecological style of farming," adds Westwood. ''This hybrid rice can 
only perform well under certain circumstances and they need a lot of 
fertiliser and pesticides and they are water intensive. These are 
their inherent weaknesses."

A recent report by a regional U.N. body lends weight to PAN's view 
about the high cost Asian governments are currently paying for 
neglecting the agricultural sector, where a bulk of the poor in Asia 
and the Pacific - some 641 million people - live. ''The rural poor 
account for 70 percent of the poor in the Asia-Pacific region, and 
agriculture is their main livelihood," states a survey published by 
the Bangkok-based Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the 
Pacific (ESCAP).

''The agriculture sector has been neglected for a long time, nearly 
four decades, and the Asia-Pacific regions would have run into a food 
shortage problem and rising food prices sooner or later," says 
Shamika Sirimanne, chief of the socioeconomic section in the poverty 
and development division of ESCAP. ''Governments used to provide much 
more public services to the agriculture sector earlier."

Assistance had ranged from public funds to help farmers improve their 
Yields, assistance with research and development and with marketing 
the grain. State funds had also been invested to improve roads and 
other infrastructure projects to improve the quality of life in rural 
areas.

''This shift has become marked since the 1980s," Sirimanne explained 
in an interview. ''Everybody began to think of economic growth in 
that decade and what could be achieved through manufacturing, 
industry and services. The idea of growth through agriculture was 
sidelined."

World Bank figures help to explain why these new avenues for growth 
in the region were attractive. In China, the emerging Asian economic 
powerhouse, the gross domestic production (GDP) from agriculture 
during the 1981-1985 period was 28.7 percent, while industry 
accounted for 26 percent. But during the 2001-2006 period, 
agriculture's contribution to China's GDP had dropped to 8.7 percent, 
while industry rose to 49.1 percent.

In India, during the same period, agriculture went down from 18.4 
percent of GDP to 6.2 percent, making way for industry and services. 
And in Indonesia, agriculture dropped from 18.4 percent of GDP to 
11.8 percent, also making way for industry and services.

But what did not follow as a result of this shift away from 
agriculture was a drop in the number of poor in rural areas. ''Even 
today, 60 percent of the region's labour force is in the agriculture 
sector, where a large number live in poverty," says Sirimanne. ''The 
Asian agriculture sector is dominated by very poor people and it is 
the duty of governments to start re-investing in them to improve 
productivity."

And now, even the authors of a major international study on the 
future of global agriculture have made a strong case to resurrect the 
role of the small, neglected rural farming communi

[Biofuel] [New from GRAIN] Making a killing from the food crisis

[Keith Addison]

New from GRAIN
28 April 2008
http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=565

MAKING A KILLING FROM THE FOOD CRISIS

A new report by GRAIN - http://www.grain.org/2/?id=39

The world food crisis is hurting a lot of people, but global 
agribusiness firms, traders and speculators are raking in huge 
profits.

Much of the news coverage of the world food crisis has focussed on 
riots in low-income countries, where workers and others cannot cope 
with skyrocketing costs of staple foods. But there is another side to 
the story: the big profits that are being made by huge food 
corporations and investors. Cargill, the world's biggest grain 
trader, achieved an 86% increase in profits from commodity trading in 
the first quarter of this year. Bunge, another huge food trader, had 
a 77% increase in profits during the last quarter of last year. ADM, 
the second largest grain trader in the world, registered a 67% per 
cent increase in profits in 2007.

Nor are retail giants taking the strain: profits at Tesco, the UK 
supermarket giant, rose by a record 11.8% last year. Other major 
retailers, such as France's Carrefour and Wal-Mart of the US, say 
that food sales are the main sector sustaining their profit 
increases. Investment funds, running away from sliding stock markets 
and the credit crunch, are having a heyday on the commodity markets, 
driving prices out of reach for food importers like Bangladesh and 
the Philippines.

These profits are no freak windfalls. Over the last 30 years, the IMF 
and the World Bank have pushed so-called developing countries to 
dismantle all forms of protection for their local farmers and to open 
up their markets to global agribusiness, speculators and subsidised 
food from rich countries. This has transformed most developing 
countries from being exporters of food into importers. Today about 70 
per cent of developing countries are net importers of food. On top of 
this, finance liberalisation has made it easier for investors to take 
control of markets for their own private benefit.

Agricultural policy has lost touch with its most basic goal: that of 
feeding people. Rather than rethink their own disastrous policies, 
governments and think tanks are blaming production problems, the 
growing demand for food in China and India, and biofuels. While these 
have played a role, the fundamental cause of today's food crisis is 
neoliberal globalisation itself, which has transformed food from a 
source of livelihood security into a mere commodity to be gambled 
away, even at the cost of widespread hunger among the world's poorest 
people.

==

GRAIN, Making a killing from hunger: We need to overturn food policy, 
now! "Against the grain", April 2008, http://www.grain.org/2/?id=39 
and in PDF http://www.grain.org/2/?id=39&pdf


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Eat Locally, Survive Globally

[Keith Addison]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/27/8551/
Published on Sunday, April 27, 2008 by The Toronto Star

Eat Locally, Survive Globally

National food policy should give priority to local agriculture over 
globalized agribusiness

by Thomas Axworthy

Our mothers always told us to eat our greens. Today, the injunction 
should be to eat green.

Eating is many things - a necessity, a pleasure, part of our culture 
- but it is also an environmental act.

Industrial agriculture, the current structure of the North American 
food system, is based on low prices to farmers, high usage of 
chemicals and copious amounts of oil. These factors must be altered 
if Canada is to have plentiful, safe and nutritious food in the 
future.

With oil now costing $120 (U.S.) a barrel, we are entering an era of 
peak oil prices. Gas is approaching the record of $1.26 (Canadian.) a 
litre in Ontario and many forecast it will reach $1.40 by the summer. 
This surge in the cost of fossil fuels will have profound impacts in 
a host of areas, not least in the way we organize our food supply.

Strawberries in December will soon become a luxury few can afford. It 
takes 35 gallons of oil, or the equivalent of a barrel, to raise a 
steer to go to market. Twenty per cent of American petroleum is 
consumed in the producing and moving of food.

Michael Pollan, an award-winning journalist for The New York Times, 
writes that America's "food chain is powered by fossil fuel."

Ingeborg Boyens' book, Another Season's Promise, makes a similar 
point about Canadian farming: "The amount of energy required to 
produce a calorie of food is constantly increasing. At issue is not 
just the food required to do all the mechanical work on the farm: 
energy is also needed to manufacture fertilizer and chemicals at the 
front end of the process and to transport and refrigerate food in the 
final stages of its delivery to the consumer."

Peak oil is already turning Canadians away from giant SUVs and 
towards compact cars. We need a similar turn away from factory farms 
and towards local food producers.

Wendell Berry is a farmer and writer who has authored more than 40 
books imploring North America to re-establish a balance between 
ecology and agriculture.

He begins with the sober reflection that the "qualities that make 
humans the most astonishing of all the families of creatures - our 
intelligence, our ambition, and our power - have made us also by far 
the destructive of all creatures Š " Agriculture's mission is to 
"maintain its people in health, and this applies equally to the 
people who eat and to the people who produce the food."

Canada's current system of agriculture is far from healthy. But not 
so long ago farming was at least in harmony with nature. Farms used 
to waste nothing. My grandfather and uncle farmed grain in 
Saskatchewan but their farm, like their neighbours', was mixed with 
lots of animals to graze, provide manure and ultimately food. The sun 
provided energy to the crops, the animals fed on the grass (what we 
now call free range) and their waste, in turn, provided nutrients to 
plow back into the soil.

In contrast we now have mega-mechanical farms requiring huge amounts 
of capital, chemicals and fossil fuel.

We have not had a national policy to help the family farm since 
Eugene Whelan was minister of agriculture in the 1970s. Ever since, 
we have had a policy of industrial farming, consolidation, 
agribusiness and globalization. But this policy rests on the fatal 
flaw of cheap energy. That era is over. We must return to a policy of 
local food through the family farm.

The recent 2006 Statistics Canada Census on Agriculture paints an 
unhappy picture of the stress that affects farm families. Canadians 
pay 12 per cent of their national income on food, only half the 
percentage their parents paid in the 1950s. As food prices have gone 
up, farmers have not benefited. The census reveals that inflation has 
gone up 8.6 per cent for farming inputs (machinery, chemicals, etc.) 
compared to only 1.7 per cent for products sold. In 2006, 37 per cent 
of the farmers in the census had receipts under $25,000. Not 
surprisingly, 71 per cent of these farmers did not make enough to 
cover expenses.

With farmers squeezed by low prices and high costs, half of the farm 
families had one or both partners working off the farm to make ends 
meet, though farming is more than a full-time job. As a result, 
farmers are leaving their profession in droves: in 1991 there were 
390,000 Canadians in farming but by 2006 there were only 327,000. In 
1991, there were 78,000 young farmers taking over from their parents, 
in 2006 only 30,000. If the trend continues, who will be left to grow 
the food?

We need a national food policy that relies on the family farm to 
produce local supplies.

School boards should purchase food for their lunch programs from 
local farmers, just as St. Lawrence College in Kingston is doing. 
Queen's University shoul

[Biofuel] Home Brew for the Car, Not the Beer Cup

[Keith Addison]

See also:

The Butterfield Still


Farm-scale ethanol fuel production plant






Home Brew for the Car, Not the Beer Cup


Floyd S. Butterfield, left, and Thomas J. Quinn with the MicroFueler 
in Los Gatos, Calif. They say this ethanol system could be a threat 
to the oil industry.

By MICHAEL FITZGERALD

Published: April 27, 2008

WHAT if you could make fuel for your car in your backyard for less 
than you pay at the pump? Would you?

The first question has driven Floyd S. Butterfield for more than two 
decades. Mr. Butterfield, 52, is something of a legend for people who 
make their own ethanol. In 1982, he won a California Department of 
Food and Agriculture contest for best design of an ethanol still, 
albeit one that he could not market profitably at the time.

Now he thinks that he can, thanks to his partnership with the Silicon 
Valley entrepreneur Thomas J. Quinn. The two have started the E-Fuel 
Corporation, which soon will announce its home ethanol system, the 
E-Fuel 100 MicroFueler. It will be about as large as a stackable 
washer-dryer, sell for $9,995 and ship before year-end.

The net cost to consumers could drop by half after government 
incentives for alternate fuels, like tax credits, are applied.

The MicroFueler will use sugar as its main fuel source, or feedstock, 
along with a specially packaged time-release yeast the company has 
developed. Depending on the cost of sugar, plus water and 
electricity, the company says it could cost as little as a dollar a 
gallon to make ethanol. In fact, Mr. Quinn sometimes collects 
left-over alcohol from bars and restaurants in Los Gatos, Calif., 
where he lives, and turns it into ethanol; the only cost is for the 
electricity used in processing.

In general, he says, burning a gallon of ethanol made by his system 
will produce one-eighth the carbon of the same amount of gasoline.

"It's going to cause havoc in the market and cause great financial 
stress in the oil industry," Mr. Quinn boasts.

He may well turn out to be right. But brewing ethanol in the backyard 
isn't as easy as barbecuing hamburgers. Distilling large quantities 
of ethanol typically has required a lot of equipment, says Daniel M. 
Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory 
at the University of California, Berkeley. In addition, he says that 
quality control and efficiency of home brew usually pale compared 
with those of commercial refineries. "There's a lot of hurdles you 
have to overcome. It's entirely possible that they've done it, but 
skepticism is a virtue," Mr. Kammen says.

To be sure, Mr. Quinn, 53, has been involved with successful 
innovations before. For instance, he patented the motion sensor 
technology used in Nintendo's wildly popular Wii gaming system.

More to the point, he was the product marketing manager for Alan F. 
Shugart's pioneering hard disk drive when the personal computer was 
shifting from a hobbyists' niche to a major industry. "I remember 
people laughing at us and saying what a stupid idea it was to do that 
disk drive," Mr. Quinn says.

Mr. Butterfield thinks that the MicroFueler is as much a game changer 
as the personal computer. He says that working with Mr. Quinn's 
microelectronics experts - E-Fuel now employs 15 people - has led to 
breakthroughs that have cut the energy requirements of making ethanol 
in half. One such advance is a membrane distiller, which, Mr. Quinn 
says, uses extremely fine filters to separate water from alcohol at 
lower heat and in fewer steps than in conventional ethanol refining. 
Using sugar as a feedstock means that there is virtually no smell, 
and its water byproduct will be drinkable.

E-Fuel has bold plans: It intends to operate internationally from the 
start, with production of the MicroFueler in China and Britain as 
well as the United States. And Mr. Butterfield is already at work on 
a version for commercial use, as well as systems that will use 
feedstocks other than sugar.

Ethanol has long had home brewers, and permits are available through 
the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. (You must be a property 
owner and agree to make your ethanol outdoors.) But there are plenty 
of reasons to question whether personal fueling systems will become 
the fuel industry's version of the personal computer.

For starters, sugar-based ethanol doesn't look much cheaper than gas. 
It takes 10 to 14 pounds of sugar to make a gallon of ethanol, and 
raw sugar sells in the United States for about 20 cents a pound, says 
Michael E. Salassi, a professor in the department of agricultural 
economics at Louisiana State University. But Mr. Quinn says that as 
of January this year, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, 
he can buy inedible sugar from Mexico for as little 

Re: [Biofuel] 7 myths of energy independence

[Keith Addison]

Hello Francene

>... I'm glad you don't agree with all the
>article said. Sorry.

I agree that energy independence is a myth. Just that the article 
says that is worthy of note, regardless of what else it says. I think 
it's something that's moving into general public awareness, more 
people will be saying it soon, then there'll be an OPED piece in the 
NYT and so on. It's part of the changes that are happening now.

I wrote this here two years ago, on 11 May 2006:

>Lots of people are commenting that Americans are waking up en masse.
>
>One view I get of it comes from what many American applicants to 
>join the list tell listadmin.
>
>In the last year the numbers of applicants rose steadily overall, a 
>considerably steeper rise than a year previously. The global 
>distribution remains the same - very global!
>
>There were always a number of these people among the US contingent:
>
>>Results of previous PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll [May 04]:
>>
>>- A 57% majority believed Iraq was either "directly involved" in
>>carrying out the 9/11 attacks or had provided "substantial support"
>>to al-Qaeda
>>- 82% either said that "experts mostly agree Iraq was providing
>>substantial support to al Qaeda" or "experts are evenly divided on
>>the question"
>>- 45% believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda 
>>has been found
>>- 60% believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of
>>mass destruction or a major program for developing them
>>- 65% said most experts say Iraq did have them or that experts are
>>divided on the question
>>- estimates of the number of US troop fatalities in Iraq varied widely
>>- 59% were unaware that the majority of world public opinion is
>>opposed to the US war with Iraq
>>- asked how many nuclear weapons the U.S. has, the median estimate
>>was 200 (the actual number is 6,000)
>>
>>These beliefs are closely correlated with intentions to vote for Bush.
>
>They often give personal detail, but there tends to be a sameness of 
>view. They'd often tell listadmin they were interested in biofuels 
>because they didn't want to put their money in the pockets of 
>terrorists.
>
>Over the last eight months it's been changing, there's a curve.
>
>It changed from terrorists to terrorist nations, and then to 
>unstable Middle Eastern regimes. Muslims continued to be favourite 
>unpopular people not to put your money in the pockets of (and 
>worse). Around that time (post-Katrina) people also started 
>mentioning environmental benefits as a possible by-product of using 
>biofuels. Then the actual amount they didn't want to give to whoever 
>it was started getting much more important as the gas price rose, 
>but the environment got more important too, even unto climate 
>change. Climate change slowly started changing into global warming, 
>and everything got more intense as the gas price kept rising. The 
>number of people who just wanted to (or had to) save money rose with 
>it. Government started creeping up the unpopularity chart, though 
>mostly only obliquely mentioned, and it hasn't made it to the 
>bigtime yet. More recently, independence from foreign oil shot right 
>up, displacing unstable Middle Eastern regimes, which fell right 
>down in unpopularity. Foreign oil is still right up there, but it 
>was joined by Big Oil companies, and then by ExxonMobil, and then by 
>ExxonMobil's retiring CEO with his $400 million gold watch.
>
>Just think of that: Osama bin Laden just morphed into the CEO of 
>ExxonMobil. Ain't that something.
>
>Nobody has yet said they want to make biodiesel because they hate 
>Iran. (But they have said that about Saudi Arabia.) Iraq comes into 
>it occasionally but never the Iraqis, except maybe as being not 
>worth investing more dead soldiers in. Oil and war are sometimes 
>linked, especially more recently.



>They're moved by memes, as Godwin would say. Just because they think 
>something new now doesn't mean they've worked anything much else out 
>yet. It doesn't even mean they're aware they thought (felt) 
>something different yesterday.
>
>Can you project the curve forward? Who is it they're going to end up 
>wanting to make biodiesel so they don't have to put money in his 
>pocket?
>
>An interesting glimpse.
>
>The only thing I'll bet on is that it won't be Osama bin Laden.
>
>By the way, I'm not being disparaging, I really don't like it when 
>people sneer at "sheeple". But when you're watching social movement 
>it's the tide that counts, more than the drops of water. Of course 
>in another way they're the only thing that matters.
>
>Something else that's to be seen in the same dataset is a different 
>sort of pattern among responses from Americans who probably don't 
>watch FauxTV. It's more interesting, but it's more difficult to 
>describe too because there's more variety, the sameness is lacking. 
>It's something you'd do by using lots of examples, not just pa

Re: [Biofuel] Fuel from Algae??

[Keith Addison]

Hello James

>I'm off to investigate a an algae to oil operation in Phx. I work for a
>large SW US util that has produced biod from algae.

Well that's a little more detail, but not a lot. Previous:

>  >> Here are a few links. I've driven an E250 van that ran on biodiesel made
>  > >from algae oil..
>>
>>  Well that would be a first. It needs a little more detail please
>>  James, or a lot more detail. Considering that by all accounts there
>  > is no such thing as biodiesel from algae apart from a few lab samples
>>  and some pilot projects that never get any further, and zero
>>  production - but LOTS of hype! Please see the links in my reply to
>>  Doug.

Now you add this:

>The big question is how efficient are the oil extraction methods..

So I'm guessing you ran your E250 van on a somewhat bigger than usual 
lab sample. Progress, hey! :-)

But still no real-world production of biodiesel from algae.

>And there appears to
>be an increasing number of algae to oil ventures springing up by the
>month.

That's been going on for two or three years, but it's what I said, 
lab samples, pilot projects that don't go anywhere and LOTS of hype, 
plus a patent or two and a few scams also. That's why I stopped 
posting stuff about algae here, and stopped encouraging small-scale 
attempts, which I'd done previously, and also why Biopact took the 
same stance over algae projects.


[Biofuel] An in-depth look at biofuels from algae - 1


[Biofuel] An in-depth look at biofuels from algae - 2

Pie in the sky.

>Here are a few..
>
>
>

Same, seen them before.

>The big question is how efficient are the oil extraction methods.. Algae
>can also allegedly produce ethanol (75% oil / 25 % ethanol). And using
>the CO2 from biomass / biogas may have great promise for agricultural
>applications.

I think the big question is, once the efficiency problems are solved 
(if ever), what sort of technology will it require? All the 
indications are that it will be high-tech stuff, for industry, 
perhaps including GMO strains. Not Appropriate Technology, and not 
for backyarders. In other words, not very useful, IMHO.

Best

Keith


>What I find disturbing is that this alternative as well as most of the
>rest are antique. Examples are :
>
> * Jimmy Carter MIT algae > oil 1979
> * Stirling Engines Ford Phillips 1975 (modern high pressure / high
>   temp incarnation)
> * Photovoltaics 1950's (HCPV is still under development; close but
>   no cigar)
> * Geothermal 1920's one of Tesla's favorites
> * Wind
> * Solar Thermal AC..(ammonia / lithium bromide) 1974
>
>There has not been a real break thru in alternatives in quite some time...
>
>Regards,
>JQ
>
>Keith Addison wrote:
>>  Hello James
>>
>>  
>>>  Doug,
>>>
>  >> Here are a few links. I've driven an E250 van that ran on biodiesel made
>  > >from algae oil..
>>
>>  Well that would be a first. It needs a little more detail please
>>  James, or a lot more detail. Considering that by all accounts there
>>  is no such thing as biodiesel from algae apart from a few lab samples
>>  and some pilot projects that never get any further, and zero
>>  production - but LOTS of hype! Please see the links in my reply to
>>  Doug.
>  >
>>  
>>>  This process was revived by MIT and Jimmy Carter in
>>>  1979.
>>>
>>
>>  In which John Benemann was one of the lead scientists, and he is
>>  completely sceptical. See:
>>  
>>
>>  
>>>  And is the most bang for the alt energy buck anywhere..
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
>>
>  > Where is the production?
>  >
>>  Best
>>
>>  Keith
>>
>>
>>  
>>>  Regards,
>  >> JQ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>  >> doug wrote:
>>>
   Hi,
I ran into a chap travelling around Australia extolling the virtues of
   running on SVO.
He is to email me more details, but apparently there is a project in
   Australia involved with oil from Algae, aparently using CO2 
feedstock from
   generation equipment.
I googled to try to find more info, but only found foreign 
references from
   ~2005. Has anyone heard anything about this project?


>  >>  > regards Doug


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Scam Artists Are Prepped to Fleece Green Industries as Soon as the Money Comes in

[Keith Addison]

Scam Artists Are Prepped to Fleece Green Industries as Soon as the 
Money Comes in

As long as an investing class makes all major environmental 
decisions, no new sources of energy will replace even one barrel or 
ton of fossil fuel.

By Stan Cox, AlterNet

Posted on April 28, 2008, Printed on April 28, 2008

http://www.alternet.org/story/83478/

Hard times are looming. And in their desperation to keep the American 
economy afloat, government and business will be tossing overboard any 
proposals for real environmental protection. No time for such 
romantic foolishness when there are investments to be protected. Get 
those tax refunds back into retailers' registers, quick!

Not that we won't be hearing about the environment; indeed, the next 
growth spurt, if it comes, is likely to be clothed in a green as 
green as the felt on a blackjack table.

Earlier this year, entrepreneur Eric Janszen declared in Harper's 
magazine that the next bubble -- alternative energy -- had already 
been "branded". His projection: the eventual creation of $20 trillion 
in fictitious, speculative wealth, "money that inevitably will be 
employed to increase share prices rather than to deliver 'energy 
security.'" and that "when the bubble finally bursts, we will be left 
to mop up after yet another devastated industry." After that next big 
bust, not only alternative energy but a host of other "green" 
industries will be left in ruin.

As long as an investing class is allowed to make all major 
environmental decisions, no new sources of energy will actually 
replace even one barrel or ton of fossil fuel; rather, they will go 
to further parasitizing the planet in the cause of growth. The 
boosters of "green" capitalism have never even bothered to argue 
otherwise in any effective way.

Typical is a book by Daniel Esty and Andrew Winston entitled Green to 
Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, 
Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage, which became an 
immediate hit among "green" tycoons when it was published in 2006. It 
was a how-to manual for business people wanting to run the kinds of 
companies that, in the authors' phrase, "get ahead of the Green 
Wave," whose "environmental strategies provide added degrees of 
freedom to operate, profit, and grow."

These are some of the helpful tips to be found in Green to Gold:

"Most successful green marketing starts with the traditional selling 
points -- price, quality, or performance -- and only then mentions 
environmental attributes. Almost always, green should not be the 
first button to push."

"Eco-labels can provide legitimate environmental information to a 
demanding public. But they can also be used as a trade barrier, 
disadvantaging competitors in the marketplace."

"Corporate strategy 101 tells us that a company can drive revenues by 
increasing price or volume. With green products, volume is a much 
safer route."

"Partnering gives a company a strong defense against NGO 
[nongovernmental (nonprofit) organization] attacks, but a large part 
of that defense is the demonstration of genuine progress. We call it 
brand inoculation ... " [their bold]

Right in the first chapter, Esty and Wilson rank companies they've 
designated as green "WaveRiders". Number One in their international 
ranking is petroleum giant BP. Their account of how BP reached the 
top of the green heap is little more than a description of a 
masterful public-relations campaign. "Despite being in a business 
with large environmental impacts, the company is now seen as green," 
they write, and "Here's the real proof: BP's brand value, as measured 
by experts in measuring intangibles, has jumped significantly."

But BP's primary mission is still to earn a profit by selling fossil 
fuels, so it was no big shock when the Independent reported in 2005 
that the company had been lobbying against substantive proposals then 
before the U.S. Congress that would cap carbon dioxide emissions. 
Instead, BP supported a watered-down move that would have "companies 
only try to cut emissions with the promise of tax breaks."

Then, last year, the Environmental Protection Agency exempted BP from 
what the company regarded as a too-restrictive environmental law, 
allowing its Whiting, Indiana facility to discharge increased 
quantities of ammonia and other pollutants into Lake Michigan and to 
continue dumping mercury into the lake. This reportedly was done so 
that BP could refine heavy crude oil from Canadian tar sands.

Under a hail of criticism from local residents and environmentalists, 
BP promised, cross-its-heart, to stick to the old water-pollution 
limits, but its pending state permit for a $3.8 billion expansion of 
the Whiting facility has critics fuming over potential impacts on 
local air quality. The permit is expected to be approved by June 1. 
That is an important deadline, because it's then that some of BP's 
previously earned air-emission credits will expire. BP claims that 

Re: [Biofuel] Fuel from Algae??

[doug]

Kieth,
 I understand what you are saying, but if the process can be industrialised & 
use waste CO2 from power plants, it would be worthwhile: even tho it might 
not scale down.

regards Doug

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:12:36 Keith Addison wrote:
> Hello James
>
> >I'm off to investigate a an algae to oil operation in Phx. I work for a
> >large SW US util that has produced biod from algae.
>
> Well that's a little more detail, but not a lot. Previous:
> >  >> Here are a few links. I've driven an E250 van that ran on biodiesel
> >  >> made
> >  >>
> >  > >from algae oil..
> >>
> >>  Well that would be a first. It needs a little more detail please
> >>  James, or a lot more detail. Considering that by all accounts there
> >>
> >  > is no such thing as biodiesel from algae apart from a few lab samples
> >>
> >>  and some pilot projects that never get any further, and zero
> >>  production - but LOTS of hype! Please see the links in my reply to
> >>  Doug.
>
> Now you add this:
> >The big question is how efficient are the oil extraction methods..
>
> So I'm guessing you ran your E250 van on a somewhat bigger than usual
> lab sample. Progress, hey! :-)
>
> But still no real-world production of biodiesel from algae.
>
> >And there appears to
> >be an increasing number of algae to oil ventures springing up by the
> >month.
>
> That's been going on for two or three years, but it's what I said,
> lab samples, pilot projects that don't go anywhere and LOTS of hype,
> plus a patent or two and a few scams also. That's why I stopped
> posting stuff about algae here, and stopped encouraging small-scale
> attempts, which I'd done previously, and also why Biopact took the
> same stance over algae projects.
>
> 
> [Biofuel] An in-depth look at biofuels from algae - 1
>
> 
> [Biofuel] An in-depth look at biofuels from algae - 2
>
> Pie in the sky.
>
> >Here are a few..
> >
> >
> >
>
> Same, seen them before.
>
> >The big question is how efficient are the oil extraction methods.. Algae
> >can also allegedly produce ethanol (75% oil / 25 % ethanol). And using
> >the CO2 from biomass / biogas may have great promise for agricultural
> >applications.
>
> I think the big question is, once the efficiency problems are solved
> (if ever), what sort of technology will it require? All the
> indications are that it will be high-tech stuff, for industry,
> perhaps including GMO strains. Not Appropriate Technology, and not
> for backyarders. In other words, not very useful, IMHO.
>
> Best
>
> Keith
>
> >What I find disturbing is that this alternative as well as most of the
> >rest are antique. Examples are :
> >
> > * Jimmy Carter MIT algae > oil 1979
> > * Stirling Engines Ford Phillips 1975 (modern high pressure / high
> >   temp incarnation)
> > * Photovoltaics 1950's (HCPV is still under development; close but
> >   no cigar)
> > * Geothermal 1920's one of Tesla's favorites
> > * Wind
> > * Solar Thermal AC..(ammonia / lithium bromide) 1974
> >
> >There has not been a real break thru in alternatives in quite some time...
> >
> >Regards,
> >JQ
> >
> >Keith Addison wrote:
> >>  Hello James
> >>
> >>>  Doug,
> >>>
> >  >> Here are a few links. I've driven an E250 van that ran on biodiesel
> >  >> made
> >  >>
> >  > >from algae oil..
> >>
> >>  Well that would be a first. It needs a little more detail please
> >>  James, or a lot more detail. Considering that by all accounts there
> >>  is no such thing as biodiesel from algae apart from a few lab samples
> >>  and some pilot projects that never get any further, and zero
> >>  production - but LOTS of hype! Please see the links in my reply to
> >>  Doug.
> >>
> >>>  This process was revived by MIT and Jimmy Carter in
> >>>  1979.
> >>
> >>  In which John Benemann was one of the lead scientists, and he is
> >>  completely sceptical. See:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>
> >>>  And is the most bang for the alt energy buck anywhere..
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>> 
> >>>  
> >>>
> >  > Where is the production?
> >>
> >>  Best
> >>
> >>  Keith
> >>
> >>>  Regards,
> >>>
> >  >> JQ
> >  >>
> >  >>
> >  >>
> >  >> doug wrote:
> 
>    Hi,
> I ran into a chap travelling around Australia extolling the virtues
>  of running on SVO.
> He is to email me more details, but apparently there is a project
>  in Australia involved with oil from Algae, aparently using CO2
>  feedstock from
>    generation equipment.
> I googled to try to find more info, but only found foreign
> reference

Re: [Biofuel] Fuel from Algae??

[denise farley]

Just couldn't resist my 2 cents worth here:

The biodiesel plant I work for in the Midwest is investigating using algae
as a feedstock.  I'm not in the loop as far as details, but find it just
fascinating and wonder if they're even thinking about going to go all the
way and 'produce' it as well.  Since they also, at one time, had a soy crush
facility on the drawing board to produce their own soy oil.  So many
plans

I've heard it said that the best salespeople are also some of the most
gullible when it comes to buying into the hype on new products.

It will be interesting to see how/when/if it's all done in the real world.

Denise

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> b sample. Progress, hey! :-)
>
> But still no real-world production of biodiesel from algae.
>
>
> That's been going on for two or three years, but it's what I said,
> lab samples, pilot projects that don't go anywhere and LOTS of hype,
> plus a patent or two and a few scams also. That's why I stopped
> posting stuff about algae here, and stopped encouraging small-scale
> attempts, which I'd done previously, and also why Biopact took the
> same stance over algae projects.
>
> I think the big question is, once the efficiency problems are solved
> (if ever), what sort of technology will it require? All the
> indications are that it will be high-tech stuff, for industry,
> perhaps including GMO strains. Not Appropriate Technology, and not
> for backyarders. In other words, not very useful, IMHO.
>
> Best
>
> Keith
>
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/0838f522/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

Sorry you had a hard time following the links Zeke, mayby your just not
interested in reading what your finding out, for one reaon or another. Here
are the links once again. I did check for you to make sure they worked.
There might have been too many words there for you to read and I apologize
for that but getting educated is sometimes a hard thing to do. 
 
http://www.ByronWine.com/files/1992%20vapor.pdf includes all the information
one would ever need to design and build a vaporized gasoline fuel system.

  The 1959 Opel that got 376 MPGs back in 1973 and reported in the Febuary
20, 2008 'Seattle PI' newspaper is found at this link;
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351903_needle20.html 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Zeke Yewdall
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:57 PM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldby
Shell Oil Company in 1973

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> come up with a solid
>  reason why Shell Oil was able to get 376MPGs (>7 times prius milage) 
> back in  1973.

Were they?  When I followed that link, I got a one page pdf which only
seemed to contain the title page and endmost page of a paper... but it
stated that they thought a 50% fuel efficiency improvement was possible --
of which 20% was from engine design changes -- reasonable, but, this is alot
different than 376 mpg.

Also, byronwine.com includes a bunch of stuff about running engines on
water, which seriously hurts their credibility as a purveyor of actual
information, unless someone can explain to me how the second law of
thermodynamics allows extracting energy from water...  even the websites on
running your car on water can't get their  chemistry right
-- calling the mixture of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gas generated by
electrolysis HHO gas, as if they don't realize the difference between ions
and molecules.  Not saying that everything on there is bunk just because one
thing is, but it doesn't lend credibility to the site.

Z

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3058 (20080427) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[Zeke Yewdall]

gt;  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
>  messages):
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>  ______ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
>  database 3058 (20080427) __
>
>
>  The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>  http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
>  database 3060 (20080428) __
>
>
>
>  The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>  http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>  ___
>  Biofuel mailing list
>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[Kirk McLoren]

Just how many kW Hrs are in a gallon of gas Mike?
  These boys 
  http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Research.html
  say 37.
  Even at 10 times that - you are going to roll an Opel a mile on a kWHr let 
alone 10 miles?
  I bet you will be touting perpetual motion next.
  This is a serious list mike. Enough of these opium dreams.
   
  Kirk

Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
Sorry you had a hard time following the links Zeke, mayby your just not
interested in reading what your finding out, for one reaon or another. Here
are the links once again. I did check for you to make sure they worked.
There might have been too many words there for you to read and I apologize
for that but getting educated is sometimes a hard thing to do. 

http://www.ByronWine.com/files/1992%20vapor.pdf includes all the information
one would ever need to design and build a vaporized gasoline fuel system.

The 1959 Opel that got 376 MPGs back in 1973 and reported in the Febuary
20, 2008 'Seattle PI' newspaper is found at this link;
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351903_needle20.html 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Zeke Yewdall
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:57 PM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldby
Shell Oil Company in 1973

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Mike Pelly 
wrote:
> come up with a solid
> reason why Shell Oil was able to get 376MPGs (>7 times prius milage) 
> back in 1973.

Were they? When I followed that link, I got a one page pdf which only
seemed to contain the title page and endmost page of a paper... but it
stated that they thought a 50% fuel efficiency improvement was possible --
of which 20% was from engine design changes -- reasonable, but, this is alot
different than 376 mpg.

Also, byronwine.com includes a bunch of stuff about running engines on
water, which seriously hurts their credibility as a purveyor of actual
information, unless someone can explain to me how the second law of
thermodynamics allows extracting energy from water... even the websites on
running your car on water can't get their chemistry right
-- calling the mixture of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gas generated by
electrolysis HHO gas, as if they don't realize the difference between ions
and molecules. Not saying that everything on there is bunk just because one
thing is, but it doesn't lend credibility to the site.

Z

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3058 (20080427) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


   
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/3b0ebf54/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proven totheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[robert and benita]

Mike Pelly wrote:

>Why does a gallon of liquid propane need to be pressurized at 172 PSI to
>stay contained in liquid form and gasoline stays liquid at room temperature?
>  
>

Those are its physical properties.  Asking this question with 
respect to internal combustion is a bit like asking why ice floats.  
It's a matter of density at pressure and temperature.

>I use the example of propane to illustrate how a vapor mixes so completely
>with air (unlike a sprayed liquid) There are many reasons why propane and
>gasoline are different including their densities and length of carbon
>chains.
>

Despite propane being a vapor at atmospheric pressure and ambient 
temperatures, there is still a finite amount of energy available in a 
given volume of liquid propane.  It has a LOWER energy density than 
gasoline, hence, even though it's a vapor and mixes completely with air, 
propane delivers less energy per liter than gasoline.  In fact, because 
gaseous fuels in general actually displace air in externally-mixed fuel 
management systems, propane normally delivers about 10% LESS power than 
gasoline.

I'm writing this from many years of actual experience in burning 
propane as an automobile fuel.  I've built engines for propane, too, and 
by virtue of squeezing the intake charge harder (higher compression 
pressure) I managed to equalize fuel economy between gasoline and 
propane in my old Pontiac sedan.  The same technique can be used in ANY 
high octane fuel, though.  Methane, ethanol, methanol also benefit from 
increased compression pressure.  It has nothing to do with vaporized 
fuel, and the improvements are incremental, at best.

We've been around this tree before.  You vanish for awhile, then 
come back with the same claims for astonishing fuel efficiency based on 
vaporized gasoline, but you seem to lack understanding of how high 
pressure, computer-feedback fuel injection works.  Internal combustion 
is a complex, dynamic process for certain, but at the end of all the 
analysis, there is very little energy remaining in the exhaust gases of 
a modern engine.

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
"The Long Journey"
New 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/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proven totheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

I ask you Robert the same questions I have asked before and the
answer never metalizes just a lot of BS that I don't know what I'm talking
about. 
1. Why did Shell Oil get 376 MPGs out of a 1959 Opel back in 1973? Please
explain why, if  not on account of lightening up the car and vaporizing the
fuel as they attested to back than, why did they achieve this type of gas
mileage?
2. If modern engines are so damn efficient, then why is there the need for a
catalytic converter? Bonus question, why did the exhaust from our 1971
Datsun, we ran on vaporized gasoline smell identical to the exhaust from a
propane powered car?
Lastly robert luis rabello, Where in the past did we have any
conversation having anything to do with this subject? I only posted this
info here last week.
I don't care how much you think you might know about propane it's
pretty obvious that either you do not know anything about vaporized gasoline
beyond whatever line you have been fed or Your just a dupe for the oil
companies. Answer for me the two questions above.
 Global Climate change and starvation is here and only getting worse
and if your not up to rolling up your sleeves and doing some positive
actions to address these problems than stay the hell out of the way and quit
you pompous pontificating.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
robert and benita
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:04 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proven
totheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

Mike Pelly wrote:

>Why does a gallon of liquid propane need to be pressurized at 172 PSI 
>to stay contained in liquid form and gasoline stays liquid at room
temperature?
>  
>

Those are its physical properties.  Asking this question with respect to
internal combustion is a bit like asking why ice floats.  
It's a matter of density at pressure and temperature.

>I use the example of propane to illustrate how a vapor mixes so 
>completely with air (unlike a sprayed liquid) There are many reasons 
>why propane and gasoline are different including their densities and 
>length of carbon chains.
>

Despite propane being a vapor at atmospheric pressure and ambient
temperatures, there is still a finite amount of energy available in a given
volume of liquid propane.  It has a LOWER energy density than gasoline,
hence, even though it's a vapor and mixes completely with air, propane
delivers less energy per liter than gasoline.  In fact, because gaseous
fuels in general actually displace air in externally-mixed fuel management
systems, propane normally delivers about 10% LESS power than gasoline.

I'm writing this from many years of actual experience in burning propane
as an automobile fuel.  I've built engines for propane, too, and by virtue
of squeezing the intake charge harder (higher compression
pressure) I managed to equalize fuel economy between gasoline and propane in
my old Pontiac sedan.  The same technique can be used in ANY high octane
fuel, though.  Methane, ethanol, methanol also benefit from increased
compression pressure.  It has nothing to do with vaporized fuel, and the
improvements are incremental, at best.

We've been around this tree before.  You vanish for awhile, then come
back with the same claims for astonishing fuel efficiency based on vaporized
gasoline, but you seem to lack understanding of how high pressure,
computer-feedback fuel injection works.  Internal combustion is a complex,
dynamic process for certain, but at the end of all the analysis, there is
very little energy remaining in the exhaust gases of a modern engine.

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
"The Long Journey"
New 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/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

______ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

______ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 


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

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

S

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proven totheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[Zeke Yewdall]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  quit your pompous pontificating.


Can you please send information on the car that you drive, and what
you have done to it to improve the efficiency, and what sort of
average mpg you are getting from it?

Z

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

gt; Febuary  20, 2008 'Seattle PI' newspaper is found at this link;
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351903_needle20.html
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of
>
> Zeke Yewdall
>  Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:57 PM
>  To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as 
> proventotheworldby  Shell Oil Company in 1973
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Mike Pelly 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  wrote:
>  > come up with a solid
>  >  reason why Shell Oil was able to get 376MPGs (>7 times prius 
> milage)  > back in  1973.
>
>  Were they?  When I followed that link, I got a one page pdf which 
> only  seemed to contain the title page and endmost page of a paper... 
> but it  stated that they thought a 50% fuel efficiency improvement was 
> possible --  of which 20% was from engine design changes -- 
> reasonable, but, this is alot  different than 376 mpg.
>
>  Also, byronwine.com includes a bunch of stuff about running engines 
> on  water, which seriously hurts their credibility as a purveyor of 
> actual  information, unless someone can explain to me how the second 
> law of  thermodynamics allows extracting energy from water...  even 
> the websites on  running your car on water can't get their  chemistry 
> right
>  -- calling the mixture of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gas generated 
> by  electrolysis HHO gas, as if they don't realize the difference 
> between ions  and molecules.  Not saying that everything on there is 
> bunk just because one  thing is, but it doesn't lend credibility to the
site.
>
>  Z
>
>
> ___
>  Biofuel mailing list
>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
>  messages):
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>  __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature  database 3058 (20080427) __
>
>
>  The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>  http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature  database 3060 (20080428) __
>
>
>
>  The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>  http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>  ___
>  Biofuel mailing list
>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

Kirk, The point is not how many kWH in a gallon of gas, its how you end up
burning that gallon of gas. You introduce it as a liquid or you introduce it
in a gasoius form makes all the difference. Yes I know this is a serious
List Kirk. So get serious and answer why Shell got 376MPG and why we need
catalylic converters if gasoline burns so completely in a conventional gas
engine but we do not need Cats on on propane engines? 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Kirk McLoren
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:18 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as
proventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

Just how many kW Hrs are in a gallon of gas Mike?
  These boys
  http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Research.html
  say 37.
  Even at 10 times that - you are going to roll an Opel a mile on a kWHr let
alone 10 miles?
  I bet you will be touting perpetual motion next.
  This is a serious list mike. Enough of these opium dreams.
   
  Kirk

Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
Sorry you had a hard time following the links Zeke, mayby your just not
interested in reading what your finding out, for one reaon or another. Here
are the links once again. I did check for you to make sure they worked.
There might have been too many words there for you to read and I apologize
for that but getting educated is sometimes a hard thing to do. 

http://www.ByronWine.com/files/1992%20vapor.pdf includes all the information
one would ever need to design and build a vaporized gasoline fuel system.

The 1959 Opel that got 376 MPGs back in 1973 and reported in the Febuary 20,
2008 'Seattle PI' newspaper is found at this link;
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351903_needle20.html 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Zeke Yewdall
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:57 PM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldby
Shell Oil Company in 1973

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Mike Pelly
wrote:
> come up with a solid
> reason why Shell Oil was able to get 376MPGs (>7 times prius milage) 
> back in 1973.

Were they? When I followed that link, I got a one page pdf which only seemed
to contain the title page and endmost page of a paper... but it stated that
they thought a 50% fuel efficiency improvement was possible -- of which 20%
was from engine design changes -- reasonable, but, this is alot different
than 376 mpg.

Also, byronwine.com includes a bunch of stuff about running engines on
water, which seriously hurts their credibility as a purveyor of actual
information, unless someone can explain to me how the second law of
thermodynamics allows extracting energy from water... even the websites on
running your car on water can't get their chemistry right
-- calling the mixture of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gas generated by
electrolysis HHO gas, as if they don't realize the difference between ions
and molecules. Not saying that everything on there is bunk just because one
thing is, but it doesn't lend credibility to the site.

Z

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3058 (20080427) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


   
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it
now.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/3b0ebf54/attachment.html
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelis

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proven totheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[robert and benita]

Mike Pelly wrote:

>   I ask you Robert the same questions I have asked before and the
>answer never metalizes just a lot of BS that I don't know what I'm talking
>about. 
>1. Why did Shell Oil get 376 MPGs out of a 1959 Opel back in 1973? Please
>explain why, if  not on account of lightening up the car and vaporizing the
>fuel as they attested to back than, why did they achieve this type of gas
>mileage?
>  
>

People have answered that question.  You don't want to hear the 
answer.  The test was done in a highly specialized environment, with a 
car that wouldn't be considered safe on the road.

>2. If modern engines are so damn efficient, then why is there the need for a
>catalytic converter?
>

It's for emissions purposes.  The accumulated filth of millions of 
cars creates pollution problems, but the VAST majority of all the energy 
in fuel is burned.

>Bonus question, why did the exhaust from our 1971
>Datsun, we ran on vaporized gasoline smell identical to the exhaust from a
>propane powered car?
>  
>

I don't have a problem with that.  It's the outlandish claim that 
vaporized gasoline can return hundreds of MPG in a REAL car that I 
disagree with.

>   Lastly robert luis rabello, Where in the past did we have any
>conversation having anything to do with this subject? I only posted this
>info here last week.
>  
>

Oh, I'm sure we've talked about this before.

>   I don't care how much you think you might know about propane it's
>pretty obvious that either you do not know anything about vaporized gasoline
>beyond whatever line you have been fed or Your just a dupe for the oil
>companies. Answer for me the two questions above.
>  
>

Why the insults, Mike?  I'm writing from actual experience.  I've 
built engines for gasoline AND propane.  I've built a fuel injection 
computer for my truck, and I DO understand how the system works.  Why do 
you dismiss my practical experience in this realm?

You might be smarter than I am, and that would be ok.  But are you 
smarter than Sir Harry Ricardo was?  Do you have something informative 
to say to Mr. Carnot?

>Global Climate change and starvation is here and only getting worse
>and if your not up to rolling up your sleeves and doing some positive
>actions to address these problems than stay the hell out of the way and quit
>you pompous pontificating.
>  
>

We're discussing an issue here.  I've heard these outlandish claims 
for "vapor carburation" many times before.  Part of the reasoning behind 
it involves preserving a lifestyle where our big, heavy machines take us 
wherever we want to go, whenever we want.  That mentality lies at the 
root of the larger problems we're trying to address.

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
"The Long Journey"
New 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/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Zeke Yewdall]

>The
>  biggest problem in their logic is that if the catalytic converter really was
>  burning off a large percentage of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust, it
>  would have to be dissipating enormous amounts of heat
>  -- and though they do run hot, they don't dissipate an equal amount of heat
>  to the rest of the engine.  Therefore, there simply is not that much
>  unburned hydrocarbons to double the gas mileage of a car simply by
>  increasing the combustion efficiency (either by hydrogen injection or
>  gasoline vaporization or whatever).

>  I do not have a clue what point you are trying to make. Can you take another
>  stab at this one?

I think you've just made my point for me.  When I bring it up the
first law of thermodynamics as a potential argument for why what you
are proposing won't work, you don't understand it.  Unless you can
show me where I've drawn the energy boundries in my model in the wrong
place, I simply don't think it's possible  -- if regular automobiles
were sending as much unburned hydrocarbons out the exhaust as you
claim, the catalytic converters would be glowing bright red all the
time (which, in a really out of wack car, they can do, but it's not
normal).

And, as far as high efficiency vehicles go, there was as college
competition not too long ago, that I believe achieved 1700 miles per
gallon on gasoline.  For some little carbon fiber pod thing -- again,
an impressive stunt, but not directly applicable to the behemoth
automobiles that we drive around in reality (which as Robert pointed
out, it part of the problem...)

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Zeke Yewdall]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Zeke they still introduce the fuel into the combustion chamber at ambient
>  temperature and as a liquid like they have since the gasoline powered car
>  was invented. This is about the only thing that has not changed in cars
>  since they were invented. My point is that with gasoline it is the vapors
>  that are flamable and is where the explosion comes from. Given this
>  revelation, Why are we still introducing the fuel into the engine as a
>  liquid and not as a vapor?

Yes, a complete vapor might be more efficient -- but not by the amount
that you claim.  Even at low temperatures, gasoline vaporizes -- there
is a relationship between temperature, pressure, and vapor pressure.
At higher temperatures, it vaporizes faster and easier, till some
temperature, at which it is vapor instead of liquid.  But, even at
room temperature, there is SOME vapor (otherwise, cold gasoline would
be perfectly safe to have sparks around).

Why is there the need for a catalytic converter
>  on gasoline engines and not on propane engines?

Because gasoline engines are not completely burning the fuel.  And
because gasoline engines run slighly rich almost all the time, for
reasons that I am not entirely sure why -- something about burning the
valves if they run lean, but diesel engines always run lean.  Anyway,
a few percent of the gas is going out the exhaust as unburned
hydrocarbons.  I don't argue that that happens.  What I'm arguing is
that the amount is so small -- a few percent of the total gasoline
burned, that even going to complete 100% combustion, we can still only
get a few percent improvement.  Which I am wholley for... but it's not
going to double the efficiency.

Z

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Zeke Yewdall]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  As a mpg stunt, it's quite impressive, but as a scientific experiment, it
>  is unfortuneately not that useful on a quantitative basis for designing more
>  efficient cars.
>  Not if you don't want it to be. Do You want it to be Zeke?
>

Uh... it doesn't really matter whether or not I want it to be the
article did not give numbers for what percent of the efficiency gain
came from the different sources, so we can't really decided what is
most important when designing a superefficient car.  For example, if
they'd run the regular opel around with the vaporized gasoline system
for a while and gotten MPG numbers, then  lightened it and gotten more
MPG numbers, then changed the drive system and got some more numbers,
then did the slow uniform speed test and got some more numbers... then
we could have some idea of how much each item contributed.  Without
more detailed tests like that, we can only conjecture at how much each
item contributed.  What if the lightening of it contributed a doubling
of economy, and the vaporized gas system only increased it another
20%?  We just don't know...

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

I drive a diesel. The work I did on vaporized gasoline carburation ended in
1992 when I wrote the paper http://www.ByronWine.com/files/1992%20vapor.pdf
. If you read that paper than you'll see my recommendation for this
technology is on a 'Prius' type hybrid electric car or a stationary
generator. Read the paper and you'll understand my reasoning for this. I
publish the paper here so others will be inspired to work on this technology
as well and push it further. The timing for now is because of the
collaborating and well documented proof by Shell Oil company with their 1973
project http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351903_needle20.html   that got
376 MPGs and came to the light again recently after 35 years of being tucked
away in some garage.

---Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Zeke Yewdall
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:49 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldby
Shell Oil Company in 1973

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>  quit your pompous pontificating.


Can you please send information on the car that you drive, and what you have
done to it to improve the efficiency, and what sort of average mpg you are
getting from it?

Z

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

I guess we don't know Zeke and we never will if you have anything to do with
it. Zeke it's 376MPG not 76, not 100mpg, not 200mpg. It's all those numbers
added up. Please show me somewhere where you have seen gas mileage
acheivements close to that number from a conventional car by, body
arodynamics, weight reduction and slow steady speeds. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Zeke Yewdall
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:32 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work
asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>  As a mpg stunt, it's quite impressive, but as a scientific 
> experiment, it  is unfortuneately not that useful on a quantitative 
> basis for designing more  efficient cars.
>  Not if you don't want it to be. Do You want it to be Zeke?
>

Uh... it doesn't really matter whether or not I want it to be the
article did not give numbers for what percent of the efficiency gain came
from the different sources, so we can't really decided what is most
important when designing a superefficient car.  For example, if they'd run
the regular opel around with the vaporized gasoline system for a while and
gotten MPG numbers, then  lightened it and gotten more MPG numbers, then
changed the drive system and got some more numbers, then did the slow
uniform speed test and got some more numbers... then we could have some idea
of how much each item contributed.  Without more detailed tests like that,
we can only conjecture at how much each item contributed.  What if the
lightening of it contributed a doubling of economy, and the vaporized gas
system only increased it another 20%?  We just don't know...

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Zeke Yewdall
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:28 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work
asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>  Zeke they still introduce the fuel into the combustion chamber at 
> ambient  temperature and as a liquid like they have since the gasoline 
> powered car  was invented. This is about the only thing that has not 
> changed in cars  since they were invented. My point is that with 
> gasoline it is the vapors  that are flamable and is where the 
> explosion comes from. Given this  revelation, Why are we still 
> introducing the fuel into the engine as a  liquid and not as a vapor?

Yes, a complete vapor might be more efficient 
Thank you Thank you Thank you! You have not heard me claim any numbers and
infact my original post to this list serve has insignificant numbers claimed
if you read back.
Thank you for finally acknowledging that there is something to heating
gasoline to a vaporized state prior to burning it in an engine as a way to
raise gas fuel mileage.

-- but not by the amount that you claim.  Even at low temperatures, gasoline
vaporizes -- there is a relationship between temperature, pressure, and
vapor pressure.
At higher temperatures, it vaporizes faster and easier, till some
temperature, at which it is vapor instead of liquid.  But, even at room
temperature, there is SOME vapor (otherwise, cold gasoline would be
perfectly safe to have sparks around).
 Glad to see your getting it. Yes you get more complete vaporization the
higher you raise the temperature of gasoline. I contend that for best fuel
economy most gasoline needs to be heated to get fully vaporized to a range
of 300F to 350F.

Why is there the need for a catalytic converter
>  on gasoline engines and not on propane engines?

Because gasoline engines are not completely burning the fuel.  And because
gasoline engines run slighly rich almost all the time, for reasons that I am
not entirely sure why -- something about burning the valves if they run
lean, but diesel engines always run lean. 
As do propane
 Anyway, a few percent of the gas
 (more than 50% from the engine) is going out the exhaust (the catletic
converter cuts this number down further but does nothing as work to push the
car)
as unburned hydrocarbons.  I don't argue that that happens.  What I'm
arguing is that the amount is so small -- a few percent of the total
gasoline burned, that even going to complete 100% combustion, we can still
only get a few percent improvement.  Which I am wholley for... but it's not
going to double the efficiency.
The engine is one piece of the fuel effeciency puzzle. Gasoline engines are
only about 30% efficient. This is better than 15-20% back in the old
carburator days.

Z

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

You don't think cats are hot? Put your finger on one sometime and than let
me know what you think. They have shields all over them for a good reason.
They are very efficient at re-burning the hydrocarbon rich exhaust but why
are we not working to improve vehicle fuel effeciency by burning this fuel
properly the first time? 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Zeke Yewdall
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:21 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work
asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

>The
>  biggest problem in their logic is that if the catalytic converter 
> really was  burning off a large percentage of unburned hydrocarbons in 
> the exhaust, it  would have to be dissipating enormous amounts of heat
>  -- and though they do run hot, they don't dissipate an equal amount 
> of heat  to the rest of the engine.  Therefore, there simply is not 
> that much  unburned hydrocarbons to double the gas mileage of a car 
> simply by  increasing the combustion efficiency (either by hydrogen 
> injection or  gasoline vaporization or whatever).

>  I do not have a clue what point you are trying to make. Can you take 
> another  stab at this one?

I think you've just made my point for me.  When I bring it up the first law
of thermodynamics as a potential argument for why what you are proposing
won't work, you don't understand it.  Unless you can show me where I've
drawn the energy boundries in my model in the wrong place, I simply don't
think it's possible  -- if regular automobiles were sending as much unburned
hydrocarbons out the exhaust as you claim, the catalytic converters would be
glowing bright red all the time (which, in a really out of wack car, they
can do, but it's not normal).

And, as far as high efficiency vehicles go, there was as college competition
not too long ago, that I believe achieved 1700 miles per gallon on gasoline.
For some little carbon fiber pod thing -- again, an impressive stunt, but
not directly applicable to the behemoth automobiles that we drive around in
reality (which as Robert pointed out, it part of the problem...)

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Zeke Yewdall]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess we don't know Zeke and we never will if you have anything to do with
>  it.

So, now I'm accused of hiding numbers that I don't have.  Wow.  Or
maybe I've got that old Opel in my garage and won't let anyone test it
any more.  You seem to have more access to it than I do, so why don't
you redo the test to eliminate some of the variables

Since you did all of the testing on your 1970 datsun, what mileage did
it get before and after the gasoline vaporizer was installed?  I
understand that it wasn't as efficient as it could have been because
of the variation in temperature and driving cycle, but still, it
should have show a noticeable improvement?

Z

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Zeke Yewdall]

>  Anyway, a few percent of the gas
>   (more than 50% from the engine) is going out the exhaust (the catletic
>  converter cuts this number down further but does nothing as work to push the
>  car)

If I had to guess, I'd guess that even with a very old carbureator
design from the 30's, it's still less than 5 or 10% unburned, not 50%.
 That's the difference we have.  Does anyone have actual numbers on
this?

Z

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proven totheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

Sorry  robert luis rabello but you are the one who is not reading here. Come
back with some serious answers to address my questions so I can take you
seriously.
"I don't have a problem with that.  It's the outlandish claim that
vaporized gasoline can return hundreds of MPG in a REAL car that I disagree
with."
I never said this will get hundreds of MPGs in a real car. Those are not my
words.. If we end up increasing hundreds of MPGs that would be nice but not
something I'd expect.
 I have always contended that this is something we should be doing to
increase the MPGS in real cars. If every car on earth got 10-15 more MPGs
from this, That would be significant for me. The 376MPG
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351903_needle20.html is an illistration
on a "verified" test on a highly altered 'real' car and I'd hope would work
as an inspiration for auto engineers and backyard fabricators to make a real
positive change in this world like home brewers of biodiesel and plugin
hybrid electric folks have been doing for the past 10 years. Unfortunatly it
seems we need to show the oil and car companies a few tricks before they
ever step up to the plate.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
robert and benita
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:13 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proven
totheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

Mike Pelly wrote:

>   I ask you Robert the same questions I have asked before and the
answer 
>never metalizes just a lot of BS that I don't know what I'm talking 
>about.
>1. Why did Shell Oil get 376 MPGs out of a 1959 Opel back in 1973? 
>Please explain why, if  not on account of lightening up the car and 
>vaporizing the fuel as they attested to back than, why did they achieve 
>this type of gas mileage?
>  
>

People have answered that question.  You don't want to hear the answer.
The test was done in a highly specialized environment, with a car that
wouldn't be considered safe on the road.

>2. If modern engines are so damn efficient, then why is there the need 
>for a catalytic converter?
>

It's for emissions purposes.  The accumulated filth of millions of cars
creates pollution problems, but the VAST majority of all the energy in fuel
is burned.

>Bonus question, why did the exhaust from our 1971 Datsun, we ran on 
>vaporized gasoline smell identical to the exhaust from a propane 
>powered car?
>  
>

I don't have a problem with that.  It's the outlandish claim that
vaporized gasoline can return hundreds of MPG in a REAL car that I disagree
with.

>   Lastly robert luis rabello, Where in the past did we have any 
>conversation having anything to do with this subject? I only posted 
>this info here last week.
>  
>

Oh, I'm sure we've talked about this before.

>   I don't care how much you think you might know about propane it's 
>pretty obvious that either you do not know anything about vaporized 
>gasoline beyond whatever line you have been fed or Your just a dupe for 
>the oil companies. Answer for me the two questions above.
>  
>

Why the insults, Mike?  I'm writing from actual experience.  I've built
engines for gasoline AND propane.  I've built a fuel injection computer for
my truck, and I DO understand how the system works.  Why do you dismiss my
practical experience in this realm?

You might be smarter than I am, and that would be ok.  But are you
smarter than Sir Harry Ricardo was?  Do you have something informative to
say to Mr. Carnot?

>Global Climate change and starvation is here and only getting worse

>and if your not up to rolling up your sleeves and doing some positive 
>actions to address these problems than stay the hell out of the way and
quit
>you pompous pontificating.
>  
>

We're discussing an issue here.  I've heard these outlandish claims for
"vapor carburation" many times before.  Part of the reasoning behind it
involves preserving a lifestyle where our big, heavy machines take us
wherever we want to go, whenever we want.  That mentality lies at the root
of the larger problems we're trying to address.

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
"The Long Journey"
New 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/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.ma

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Zeke Yewdall]

A good ICE engine might turn one third of the input energy to
mechanical energy, one third to heat rejected to the water jacket, and
one third to heat in the exhaust stream.  If we use a 100kW
(mechanical) engine (about 130HP), that means that it is also giving
out 100kW of heat to the exhaust, and 100kW to the cooling water.  If
it is indeed possible to double the efficiency of the engine by
burning unburned hydrocarbons, then we must assume that we have 100kW
of energy in unburned hydrocarbons leaving the tailpipe as well.  If
all of that is burned in the catalytic converter, it would have to
dissipate 100kW of heat, or send it off as an even hotter exhaust
stream.  In addition to the 100kW of waste heat sent off in the
exhaust stream already.  I just question whether the average cat is
capable of dissipating 100kW of heat without getting seriously hot --
not just the 1500F or so that they run, but 4000F or such...  Think
about a regular stove burner which manages to get to 3,000F with just
1500 watts of heat.  I don't have the numbers to prove this though.

Z

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You don't think cats are hot? Put your finger on one sometime and than let
>  me know what you think. They have shields all over them for a good reason.
>  They are very efficient at re-burning the hydrocarbon rich exhaust but why
>  are we not working to improve vehicle fuel effeciency by burning this fuel
>  properly the first time?
>
>
>  -Original Message-
>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>  Zeke Yewdall
>
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:21 AM
>  To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work
>
> asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973
>
>
>
> >The
>  >  biggest problem in their logic is that if the catalytic converter
>  > really was  burning off a large percentage of unburned hydrocarbons in
>  > the exhaust, it  would have to be dissipating enormous amounts of heat
>  >  -- and though they do run hot, they don't dissipate an equal amount
>  > of heat  to the rest of the engine.  Therefore, there simply is not
>  > that much  unburned hydrocarbons to double the gas mileage of a car
>  > simply by  increasing the combustion efficiency (either by hydrogen
>  > injection or  gasoline vaporization or whatever).
>
>  >  I do not have a clue what point you are trying to make. Can you take
>  > another  stab at this one?
>
>  I think you've just made my point for me.  When I bring it up the first law
>  of thermodynamics as a potential argument for why what you are proposing
>  won't work, you don't understand it.  Unless you can show me where I've
>  drawn the energy boundries in my model in the wrong place, I simply don't
>  think it's possible  -- if regular automobiles were sending as much unburned
>  hydrocarbons out the exhaust as you claim, the catalytic converters would be
>  glowing bright red all the time (which, in a really out of wack car, they
>  can do, but it's not normal).
>
>  And, as far as high efficiency vehicles go, there was as college competition
>  not too long ago, that I believe achieved 1700 miles per gallon on gasoline.
>  For some little carbon fiber pod thing -- again, an impressive stunt, but
>  not directly applicable to the behemoth automobiles that we drive around in
>  reality (which as Robert pointed out, it part of the problem...)
>
>
> ___
>  Biofuel mailing list
>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
>  messages):
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>  __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
>
>
> database 3060 (20080428) __
>
>  The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>  http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>  __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
>  database 3060 (20080428) __
>
>  The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>  http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>  ___
>  Biofuel mailing list
>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[robert and benita]

Mike Pelly wrote:

>You don't think cats are hot? Put your finger on one sometime and than let
>me know what you think. They have shields all over them for a good reason.
>  
>

They HAVE to be hot in order to work.

>They are very efficient at re-burning the hydrocarbon rich exhaust but why
>are we not working to improve vehicle fuel effeciency by burning this fuel
>properly the first time? 
>  
>

Sigh . . .

Carbon RICH exhaust?  Hardly!  We measure pollutants in parts per 
million or grams per kilometer, even before the catalytic convertor.  
There is very little unburned fuel leaving the combustion chamber.

Why do we have to run engines a little bit rich?  Under cruise 
conditions, most engines are set up to run lean.  At idle, however, in 
order to improve quality they tend to run a few tenths or so below 
stoichometric.  (This has greatly improved with the introduction of 
sequential injection.)  Acceleration requires more power, and maximum 
power is made at around a 12.5:1 air / fuel ratio for gasoline.  
Acceleration enrichment pumps more fuel into the manifold, a small 
amount of which condenses on the (relatively) cool surface of the intake 
manifold.  (This is all related to temperature and pressure.)  After the 
acceleration event is over, that engine management system returns 
everything to a lean condition for cruise, and that wee bit of extra 
fuel eventually winds up getting burned.  The computer is measuring the 
ratio of oxygen in the exhaust as a means of optimizing the air / fuel 
ratio and adjusting the intake pulse as required, but at low pulse 
ratios it's far harder to be completely precise because there are 
limitations to how narrow the injector pulse can be at a given rpm.

What this means, in practical terms, is that in order to have a car 
that can accelerate and deal with traffic, it HAS to have acceleration 
enrichment.  In addition, during warm-up it's necessary to inject extra 
fuel just to get the machine running!  The variable nature of driving 
ensures that compromises between power and economy have to be made, and 
the catalytic covertor helps to even out those differences.

But here, we're talking VERY small amounts of fuel--not enough to 
change economy by a factor of ten.

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
"The Long Journey"
New 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/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proven totheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[robert and benita]

Mike Pelly wrote:

>Sorry  robert luis rabello but you are the one who is not reading here. Come
>back with some serious answers to address my questions so I can take you
>seriously.
>  
>

Hmm . . .

>"I don't have a problem with that.  It's the outlandish claim that
>vaporized gasoline can return hundreds of MPG in a REAL car that I disagree
>with."
>I never said this will get hundreds of MPGs in a real car. Those are not my
>words.. If we end up increasing hundreds of MPGs that would be nice but not
>something I'd expect.
> I have always contended that this is something we should be doing to
>increase the MPGS in real cars. If every car on earth got 10-15 more MPGs
>from this, That would be significant for me.
>

This is what you've written in this forum?  10 -  15 more MPG can be 
done by making cars lighter and installing smaller engines.  Hybrid 
drives are a step in the right direction, too.  My hybrid Camry gets 
almost double the fuel economy of my Ranger, and both are of similar 
mass and displacement.

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
"The Long Journey"
New 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/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] 7 myths of energy independence

[Darryl McMahon]

Actually, the Prius uses both DC and AC, so it depends which circuit is
of concern as to which is appropriate.  The battery is definitely a CD
device.  Cabling runs from the battery to the inverter which drives the
electric motor.  During charging, the driven alternator produces AC, but
this has to be rectified before being applied to charge the battery. 
Similarly for regenerative braking.

In my experience, affordable equipment designed to measure current and
EMF on DC circuits will also work on AC circuits.  The reverse is not as
common.

Darryl

Doug Younker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Darryl McMahon wrote:
> > Francene,
> > have you done the test with DC-rated equipment?  Most low-cost EMF 
> > testing equipment is designed for use with AC power.
> 
> I believe the Prius does use AC.
> Doug
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
--
Darryl McMahon
It's your planet.  If you won't look after it, who will?

The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy (eBook and trade paper)
http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] american Trucks

[Fritz Friesinger]

Hi all,
a friend of mine wants to buy a 250 Pickup to pull a 5.whealer trailer
What model should he look for to be able to run on BD.We think to look for a 
2tank system.Up here in Canada we have very cold winters
Thanks for your help
Fritz
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/e4c0a8af/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question

[mike]

Hello everyone, my first post

i want to apologize if this has been answered, but I have searched the 
archives and relevant sites without finding a clear answer.

I've been reading the j2f howto for doing my first test batch with 
unused veg oil and a blender. I see that I'm suppose to pre-heat the oil 
before starting the process to 130 deg F, but everything else i read 
says I need to maintain that temperature which isn't possible without 
moving the oil back to another container that can be heated so I 
guess basically i'm asking, is that temp (130) required for the reaction 
or does it just aid in a faster reaction.

Thanks
Mike


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] american Trucks

[Zeke Yewdall]

Most of the diesel mechanic's I've talked to only recommend the
cummins engines, which means the dodge trucks, or the F550 and larger
Fords.  They also don't recommend using biodiesel, for the most
part   As far as running on biodiesel, I think that just about all
of the older ones are compatible -- only the very newest ones with the
high pressure common rail systems have reported any problems that I am
aware of.  The new ones are very nice though... I have a friend with a
2008 Ram 3500, and it barely sounds like a diesel any more, and has
enormous amounts of torque (it slows down a bit coming up the last
hill to my house when pulling the tandem axle trailer fully loaded
firewood or a skidsteer or such... but that same hill easily drops my
old car into 2nd gear too.).  The very old ones are the best if
you want to do SVO since they're not as picky on fuel... I know there
are particular years and pumps that handle it better than others, but
I don't have the experience to know for sure.  In Canada, I'd
recommend a two tank SVO type system just to run biodiesel... just
here in Colorado I have to switch to B20 in the winter or I get
gelling pretty bad (mitsubishi pickup) at temps below 25F (which is
often the high temp for the day)

Z

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Fritz Friesinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>  a friend of mine wants to buy a 250 Pickup to pull a 5.whealer trailer
>  What model should he look for to be able to run on BD.We think to look for a 
> 2tank system.Up here in Canada we have very cold winters
>  Thanks for your help
>  Fritz
>  -- next part --
>  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>  URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/e4c0a8af/attachment.html
>  ___
>  Biofuel mailing list
>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[Kirk McLoren]

why would you drive a diesel when it is inferior to your brilliant discovery?
  Kirk

Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  I drive a diesel. The work I did on vaporized gasoline carburation ended in
1992 when I wrote the paper http://www.ByronWine.com/files/1992%20vapor.pdf
.. If you read that paper than you'll see my recommendation for this
technology is on a 'Prius' type hybrid electric car or a stationary
generator. Read the paper and you'll understand my reasoning for this. I
publish the paper here so others will be inspired to work on this technology
as well and push it further. The timing for now is because of the
collaborating and well documented proof by Shell Oil company with their 1973
project http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351903_needle20.html that got
376 MPGs and came to the light again recently after 35 years of being tucked
away in some garage.

---Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Zeke Yewdall
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:49 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldby
Shell Oil Company in 1973

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Mike Pelly 
wrote:

> quit your pompous pontificating.


Can you please send information on the car that you drive, and what you have
done to it to improve the efficiency, and what sort of average mpg you are
getting from it?

Z

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


   
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/bff128f7/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] american Trucks

[Fritz Friesinger]

Thank you Zeke
Fritz
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/6a86cce4/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Thomas Kelly]

Kirk,
It's possible that Mike makes the fuel for his diesel.
   Tom
- Original Message - 
From: "Kirk McLoren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as 
proventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973


> why would you drive a diesel when it is inferior to your brilliant 
> discovery?
>  Kirk
>
> Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  I drive a diesel. The work I did on vaporized gasoline carburation ended 
> in
> 1992 when I wrote the paper 
> http://www.ByronWine.com/files/1992%20vapor.pdf
> .. If you read that paper than you'll see my recommendation for this
> technology is on a 'Prius' type hybrid electric car or a stationary
> generator. Read the paper and you'll understand my reasoning for this. I
> publish the paper here so others will be inspired to work on this 
> technology
> as well and push it further. The timing for now is because of the
> collaborating and well documented proof by Shell Oil company with their 
> 1973
> project http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351903_needle20.html that got
> 376 MPGs and came to the light again recently after 35 years of being 
> tucked
> away in some garage.
>
> ---Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Zeke Yewdall
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:49 AM
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as 
> proventotheworldby
> Shell Oil Company in 1973
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Mike Pelly
> wrote:
>
>> quit your pompous pontificating.
>
>
> Can you please send information on the car that you drive, and what you 
> have
> done to it to improve the efficiency, and what sort of average mpg you are
> getting from it?
>
> Z
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature
> database 3060 (20080428) __
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature
> database 3060 (20080428) __
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>
> -
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it 
> now.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/bff128f7/attachment.html
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question

[Thomas Kelly]

Mike,
 Test batches can be difficult  ..  well worth the effort.
 Blenders provide excellent agitation, but it is difficult to maintain 
the proper temp.
 PET bottles allow one to maintain temp better, but agitation may be 
inadequate.

 It is important to maintain temp even if you must interupt agitation.
Suggestion:  Achieve the temp of 130F, blend for 5 minutes, check temp
   If necessary, carefully return the liquid to a container 
to be heated.
   Return to blender and repeat 2 (3?) more times

 I use a hot water bath for heating the mix. Do you have a pot big 
enough to fit the blender pitcher into? The pot would contain hot (~150F) 
water. Instead of pouring the hot mix back and forth you could simply place 
the pitcher from the blender, with top on, into the hot water bath to 
re-establish the 130F, blot dry and buzz it again.

 I have returned to doing some test batches. I favor heating the mix in 
a PET bottle that has a wide mouth with a twist open/close top. Sport drink 
plastic bottles often have this feature. This allows me to limit methanol 
evaporation while heating the mix. I either twist the top to open while 
heating or I squeeze the bottle to decrease volume of air before closing and 
heating. The wide mouth and a funnel make it easy to add the liquid. I heat 
the mix in a hot water bath.

   Good Luck,
Tom


- Original Message - 
From: "mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question


> Hello everyone, my first post
>
> i want to apologize if this has been answered, but I have searched the
> archives and relevant sites without finding a clear answer.
>
> I've been reading the j2f howto for doing my first test batch with
> unused veg oil and a blender. I see that I'm suppose to pre-heat the oil
> before starting the process to 130 deg F, but everything else i read
> says I need to maintain that temperature which isn't possible without
> moving the oil back to another container that can be heated so I
> guess basically i'm asking, is that temp (130) required for the reaction
> or does it just aid in a faster reaction.
>
> Thanks
> Mike
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question

[Steve Moran]

I think (but I'm not sure) that methanol will evaporate at 140, is that 
correct?  If it is, then keeping the temp below that would become very 
important too.



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Thomas Kelly
Sent: Mon 4/28/2008 6:39 PM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question



Mike,
 Test batches can be difficult  ..  well worth the effort.
 Blenders provide excellent agitation, but it is difficult to maintain
the proper temp.
 PET bottles allow one to maintain temp better, but agitation may be
inadequate.

 It is important to maintain temp even if you must interupt agitation.
Suggestion:  Achieve the temp of 130F, blend for 5 minutes, check temp
   If necessary, carefully return the liquid to a container
to be heated.
   Return to blender and repeat 2 (3?) more times

 I use a hot water bath for heating the mix. Do you have a pot big
enough to fit the blender pitcher into? The pot would contain hot (~150F)
water. Instead of pouring the hot mix back and forth you could simply place
the pitcher from the blender, with top on, into the hot water bath to
re-establish the 130F, blot dry and buzz it again.

 I have returned to doing some test batches. I favor heating the mix in
a PET bottle that has a wide mouth with a twist open/close top. Sport drink
plastic bottles often have this feature. This allows me to limit methanol
evaporation while heating the mix. I either twist the top to open while
heating or I squeeze the bottle to decrease volume of air before closing and
heating. The wide mouth and a funnel make it easy to add the liquid. I heat
the mix in a hot water bath.

   Good Luck,
Tom


- Original Message -
From: "mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question


> Hello everyone, my first post
>
> i want to apologize if this has been answered, but I have searched the
> archives and relevant sites without finding a clear answer.
>
> I've been reading the j2f howto for doing my first test batch with
> unused veg oil and a blender. I see that I'm suppose to pre-heat the oil
> before starting the process to 130 deg F, but everything else i read
> says I need to maintain that temperature which isn't possible without
> moving the oil back to another container that can be heated so I
> guess basically i'm asking, is that temp (130) required for the reaction
> or does it just aid in a faster reaction.
>
> Thanks
> Mike
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question

[Steve Moran]

I do my test batches in a pot on a coleman stove out in the garage so I
can maintain the temp.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of mike
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:58 PM
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question

Hello everyone, my first post

i want to apologize if this has been answered, but I have searched the 
archives and relevant sites without finding a clear answer.

I've been reading the j2f howto for doing my first test batch with 
unused veg oil and a blender. I see that I'm suppose to pre-heat the oil

before starting the process to 130 deg F, but everything else i read 
says I need to maintain that temperature which isn't possible without 
moving the oil back to another container that can be heated so I 
guess basically i'm asking, is that temp (130) required for the reaction

or does it just aid in a faster reaction.

Thanks
Mike


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] american Trucks

[Steve Moran]

I've also heard that the powerstroke is hit or miss.  Anything after
2003 is going to be a lot quieter than the old diesels, there were some
new federal requirements imposed in 2003 about noise levels.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Zeke Yewdall
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:33 PM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] american Trucks

Most of the diesel mechanic's I've talked to only recommend the
cummins engines, which means the dodge trucks, or the F550 and larger
Fords.  They also don't recommend using biodiesel, for the most
part   As far as running on biodiesel, I think that just about all
of the older ones are compatible -- only the very newest ones with the
high pressure common rail systems have reported any problems that I am
aware of.  The new ones are very nice though... I have a friend with a
2008 Ram 3500, and it barely sounds like a diesel any more, and has
enormous amounts of torque (it slows down a bit coming up the last
hill to my house when pulling the tandem axle trailer fully loaded
firewood or a skidsteer or such... but that same hill easily drops my
old car into 2nd gear too.).  The very old ones are the best if
you want to do SVO since they're not as picky on fuel... I know there
are particular years and pumps that handle it better than others, but
I don't have the experience to know for sure.  In Canada, I'd
recommend a two tank SVO type system just to run biodiesel... just
here in Colorado I have to switch to B20 in the winter or I get
gelling pretty bad (mitsubishi pickup) at temps below 25F (which is
often the high temp for the day)

Z

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Fritz Friesinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>  a friend of mine wants to buy a 250 Pickup to pull a 5.whealer
trailer
>  What model should he look for to be able to run on BD.We think to
look for a 2tank system.Up here in Canada we have very cold winters
>  Thanks for your help
>  Fritz
>  -- next part --
>  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>  URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/e4c0a8af/attachment.html
>  ___
>  Biofuel mailing list
>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


 

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question

[Chris and Ramon Tan]

Hi Mike

Heat the oil further to about 145 deg F to compensate for cooling. Hopefully
the heat will be enough to last the duration of the process. You can also
insulate your blender with buble wrap. 

Best,
Chris

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of mike
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:58 AM
> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Subject: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question
> 
> Hello everyone, my first post
> 
> i want to apologize if this has been answered, but I have searched the
> archives and relevant sites without finding a clear answer.
> 
> I've been reading the j2f howto for doing my first test batch with
> unused veg oil and a blender. I see that I'm suppose to pre-heat the
> oil
> before starting the process to 130 deg F, but everything else i read
> says I need to maintain that temperature which isn't possible without
> moving the oil back to another container that can be heated so I
> guess basically i'm asking, is that temp (130) required for the
> reaction
> or does it just aid in a faster reaction.
> 
> Thanks
> Mike
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Kirk McLoren]

the book of records efforts that were described to me used:
   accelerate modestly to 30 turn engine off and coast to 10. Unusable 
technique in the real world
  Kirk
Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  I guess we don't know Zeke and we never will if you have anything to do with
it. Zeke it's 376MPG not 76, not 100mpg, not 200mpg. It's all those numbers
added up. Please show me somewhere where you have seen gas mileage
acheivements close to that number from a conventional car by, body
arodynamics, weight reduction and slow steady speeds. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Zeke Yewdall
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:32 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work
asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Mike Pelly 
wrote:

> As a mpg stunt, it's quite impressive, but as a scientific 
> experiment, it is unfortuneately not that useful on a quantitative 
> basis for designing more efficient cars.
> Not if you don't want it to be. Do You want it to be Zeke?
>

Uh... it doesn't really matter whether or not I want it to be the
article did not give numbers for what percent of the efficiency gain came
from the different sources, so we can't really decided what is most
important when designing a superefficient car. For example, if they'd run
the regular opel around with the vaporized gasoline system for a while and
gotten MPG numbers, then lightened it and gotten more MPG numbers, then
changed the drive system and got some more numbers, then did the slow
uniform speed test and got some more numbers... then we could have some idea
of how much each item contributed. Without more detailed tests like that,
we can only conjecture at how much each item contributed. What if the
lightening of it contributed a doubling of economy, and the vaporized gas
system only increased it another 20%? We just don't know...

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


   
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/cf9c39ec/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question

[Chris and Ramon Tan]

Methanol shouldn't vaporize until 148.46 deg F assuming the atmospheric
pressure in you area is 760mmHg.

Best,
Chris

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Steve Moran
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:46 PM
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org;
> sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question
> 
> I think (but I'm not sure) that methanol will evaporate at 140, is that
> correct?  If it is, then keeping the temp below that would become very
> important too.
> 
> 
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of
> Thomas Kelly
> Sent: Mon 4/28/2008 6:39 PM
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
>  Test batches can be difficult  ..  well worth the effort.
>  Blenders provide excellent agitation, but it is difficult to
> maintain
> the proper temp.
>  PET bottles allow one to maintain temp better, but agitation may
> be
> inadequate.
> 
>  It is important to maintain temp even if you must interupt
> agitation.
> Suggestion:  Achieve the temp of 130F, blend for 5 minutes, check temp
>If necessary, carefully return the liquid to a
> container
> to be heated.
>Return to blender and repeat 2 (3?) more times
> 
>  I use a hot water bath for heating the mix. Do you have a pot big
> enough to fit the blender pitcher into? The pot would contain hot
> (~150F)
> water. Instead of pouring the hot mix back and forth you could simply
> place
> the pitcher from the blender, with top on, into the hot water bath to
> re-establish the 130F, blot dry and buzz it again.
> 
>  I have returned to doing some test batches. I favor heating the
> mix in
> a PET bottle that has a wide mouth with a twist open/close top. Sport
> drink
> plastic bottles often have this feature. This allows me to limit
> methanol
> evaporation while heating the mix. I either twist the top to open while
> heating or I squeeze the bottle to decrease volume of air before
> closing and
> heating. The wide mouth and a funnel make it easy to add the liquid. I
> heat
> the mix in a hot water bath.
> 
>Good Luck,
> Tom
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:57 PM
> Subject: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question
> 
> 
> > Hello everyone, my first post
> >
> > i want to apologize if this has been answered, but I have searched
> the
> > archives and relevant sites without finding a clear answer.
> >
> > I've been reading the j2f howto for doing my first test batch with
> > unused veg oil and a blender. I see that I'm suppose to pre-heat the
> oil
> > before starting the process to 130 deg F, but everything else i read
> > says I need to maintain that temperature which isn't possible without
> > moving the oil back to another container that can be heated so I
> > guess basically i'm asking, is that temp (130) required for the
> reaction
> > or does it just aid in a faster reaction.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Biofuel mailing list
> > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
> >
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> > messages):
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question

[Keith Addison]

>Methanol shouldn't vaporize until 148.46 deg F assuming the atmospheric
>pressure in you area is 760mmHg.

That's the boiling point of methanol. It starts to evaporate at much 
lower temperatures than that.

Temperature maintenance is one of the reasons we recommend a 
mini-processor rather than a blender: "You can use a spare blender, 
or, better, make a simple Test-batch mini-processor."
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor7.html

Another reason is that processing in a blender doesn't scale up well 
to a full-sized processor, blenders are too fast.
Scaling up:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor.html#scale

Best

Keith


>Best,
>Chris
>
>>  -Original Message-
>>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
>>  Of Steve Moran
>>  Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:46 PM
>>  To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org;
>>  sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question
>>
>>  I think (but I'm not sure) that methanol will evaporate at 140, is that
>>  correct?  If it is, then keeping the temp below that would become very
>>  important too.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of
>>  Thomas Kelly
>>  Sent: Mon 4/28/2008 6:39 PM
>>  To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question
>>
>>
>>
>>  Mike,
>>   Test batches can be difficult  ..  well worth the effort.
>>   Blenders provide excellent agitation, but it is difficult to
>>  maintain
>>  the proper temp.
>>   PET bottles allow one to maintain temp better, but agitation may
>>  be
>>  inadequate.
>>
>>   It is important to maintain temp even if you must interupt
>>  agitation.
>>  Suggestion:  Achieve the temp of 130F, blend for 5 minutes, check temp
>> If necessary, carefully return the liquid to a
>>  container
>>  to be heated.
>> Return to blender and repeat 2 (3?) more times
>>
>>   I use a hot water bath for heating the mix. Do you have a pot big
>>  enough to fit the blender pitcher into? The pot would contain hot
>>  (~150F)
>>  water. Instead of pouring the hot mix back and forth you could simply
>>  place
>>  the pitcher from the blender, with top on, into the hot water bath to
>>  re-establish the 130F, blot dry and buzz it again.
>>
>>   I have returned to doing some test batches. I favor heating the
>>  mix in
>>  a PET bottle that has a wide mouth with a twist open/close top. Sport
>>  drink
>>  plastic bottles often have this feature. This allows me to limit
>>  methanol
>>  evaporation while heating the mix. I either twist the top to open while
>>  heating or I squeeze the bottle to decrease volume of air before
>>  closing and
>>  heating. The wide mouth and a funnel make it easy to add the liquid. I
>>  heat
>>  the mix in a hot water bath.
>>
>> Good Luck,
>>  Tom
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>>  From: "mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>  To: 
>>  Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:57 PM
>>  Subject: [Biofuel] biodiesel test batch question
>>
>>
>>  > Hello everyone, my first post
>>  >
>>  > i want to apologize if this has been answered, but I have searched
>>  the
>>  > archives and relevant sites without finding a clear answer.
>>  >
>>  > I've been reading the j2f howto for doing my first test batch with
>>  > unused veg oil and a blender. I see that I'm suppose to pre-heat the
>>  oil
>>  > before starting the process to 130 deg F, but everything else i read
>>  > says I need to maintain that temperature which isn't possible without
>>  > moving the oil back to another container that can be heated so I
>>  > guess basically i'm asking, is that temp (130) required for the
>>  reaction
>>  > or does it just aid in a faster reaction.
>>  >
>>  > Thanks
>>  > Mike
>>  >
>>  >
>  > > ___
>>  > Biofuel mailing list
>>  > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>  > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>>  >
>>  > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>>  > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>>  >
>>  > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
>>  > messages):
>>  > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>>  ___
>>  Biofuel mailing list
>>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>>
>>  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>>
>>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
>>  messages):
>>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>  ___
>>  Biofuel mailing list
>>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>  http://sustainablelis

[Biofuel] Growdiesel International Summit, New Delhi, India

[Olivier Morf]

September 17-19, 2008

Growdiesel International Summit, New Delhi, India

Growdiesel Climate Care Council is pleased to invite you to the inaugural
International Summit on Algae Biofuels to be held on 17th, 18th & 19th
September 2008 at New Delhi, India. The Summit is focused on next generation
of Biofuels using Algae as main feedstock.
The main objective of the Summit is to provide an improved up-to-date
understanding of the next generation feedstocks and technologies in Algae
Biofuel Industry. The Summit will be an excellent platform to gain and
disseminate information regarding recent research, development and
commercialization activities in the field of Algae, mass production systems,
Photobioreactor technologies and other important areas of Algae Biofuel
Industry. In view of Biofuels emerging as a trillion dollar futuristic
industry, the summit shall bring out many value added opportunities for the
entrepreneurs, investors, venture/PE companies, Renewable fuel Sector,
co-organisers, speakers, industry experts and sponsors.
The technical & financial topics of the summit will cover the entire Algae
Biofuel Industry.


http://www.algaebiofuelsummit.com/

You are also requested to help us by forwarding this communication to your
friends and colleagues who are active in this field. 

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080429/0dd7b01b/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

Thanks Tom, That's absolutely right and I have been since 1996.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Thomas Kelly
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 5:07 PM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work
asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

Kirk,
It's possible that Mike makes the fuel for his diesel.
   Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Kirk McLoren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as
proventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973


> why would you drive a diesel when it is inferior to your brilliant 
> discovery?
>  Kirk
>
> Mike Pelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  I drive a diesel. The work I did on vaporized gasoline carburation 
> ended in
> 1992 when I wrote the paper
> http://www.ByronWine.com/files/1992%20vapor.pdf
> .. If you read that paper than you'll see my recommendation for this 
> technology is on a 'Prius' type hybrid electric car or a stationary 
> generator. Read the paper and you'll understand my reasoning for this. 
> I publish the paper here so others will be inspired to work on this 
> technology as well and push it further. The timing for now is because 
> of the collaborating and well documented proof by Shell Oil company 
> with their
> 1973
> project http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351903_needle20.html that 
> got
> 376 MPGs and came to the light again recently after 35 years of being 
> tucked away in some garage.
>
> ---Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Zeke Yewdall
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:49 AM
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as 
> proventotheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Mike Pelly
> wrote:
>
>> quit your pompous pontificating.
>
>
> Can you please send information on the car that you drive, and what 
> you have done to it to improve the efficiency, and what sort of 
> average mpg you are getting from it?
>
> Z
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature database 3060 (20080428) __
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature database 3060 (20080428) __
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>
> -
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  
> Try it now.
> -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
> scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080428/bff128f7/attachment.html
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

htt

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proven totheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
robert and benita
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:59 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines work as proven
totheworldby Shell Oil Company in 1973

Mike Pelly wrote:

>Sorry  robert luis rabello but you are the one who is not reading here. 
>Come back with some serious answers to address my questions so I can 
>take you seriously.
>  
>

Hmm . . .

>"I don't have a problem with that.  It's the outlandish claim that 
>vaporized gasoline can return hundreds of MPG in a REAL car that I 
>disagree with."
>I never said this will get hundreds of MPGs in a real car. Those are 
>not my words.. If we end up increasing hundreds of MPGs that would be 
>nice but not something I'd expect.
> I have always contended that this is something we should be doing to 
>increase the MPGS in real cars. If every car on earth got 10-15 more 
>MPGs from this, That would be significant for me.
>

This is what you've written in this forum?  10 -  15 more MPG can be
done by making cars lighter and installing smaller engines.  Hybrid drives
are a step in the right direction, too.  My hybrid Camry gets almost double
the fuel economy of my Ranger, and both are of similar mass and
displacement.

And your point here is?? Are you getting anything of what I'm saying about
vaporizing gasoline to increase fuel mileage? Yes robert luis rabello your
camry hybrid gets better gas mileage than your truck. I imagine that is why
you bought a camry in the first place. Just because you get a hybrid does
not mean your fuel savings has hit the highest point it will go. You can
vaporize the fuel or you can make it a plugin and either route will increase
your Camry's gas mileage further. Just because you can not go to the store
and buy one does not mean the technology is non-existent.

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
"The Long Journey"
New 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/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
  

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3061 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3061 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engineswork asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
robert and benita
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:54 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engineswork
asproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

Mike Pelly wrote:

>You don't think cats are hot? Put your finger on one sometime and than 
>let me know what you think. They have shields all over them for a good
reason.
>  
>

They HAVE to be hot in order to work.

>They are very efficient at re-burning the hydrocarbon rich exhaust but 
>why are we not working to improve vehicle fuel effeciency by burning 
>this fuel properly the first time?
>  
>

Sigh . . .

Carbon RICH exhaust?  Hardly!  We measure pollutants in parts per
million or grams per kilometer, even before the catalytic convertor.  
There is very little unburned fuel leaving the combustion chamber.



Why do we have to run engines a little bit rich?  Under cruise
conditions, most engines are set up to run lean.  At idle, however, in order
to improve quality they tend to run a few tenths or so below stoichometric.
(This has greatly improved with the introduction of sequential injection.)
Acceleration requires more power, and maximum power is made at around a
12.5:1 air / fuel ratio for gasoline.  
Acceleration enrichment pumps more fuel into the manifold, a small amount of
which condenses on the (relatively) cool surface of the intake manifold.
(This is all related to temperature and pressure.)  After the acceleration
event is over, that engine management system returns everything to a lean
condition for cruise, and that wee bit of extra fuel eventually winds up
getting burned.  The computer is measuring the ratio of oxygen in the
exhaust as a means of optimizing the air / fuel ratio and adjusting the
intake pulse as required, but at low pulse ratios it's far harder to be
completely precise because there are limitations to how narrow the injector
pulse can be at a given rpm.

Robert, till you are ready to step away from your ingrained thinking about
injecting gasoline into an engine as a 'liquid' and start looking at
introducing gasoline into the engine in a 'gaseous state' you'll continue to
miss the point of this art. Yes you can throw your terms like 12.5/1
stoichometric and anything else you have related to liquid fuel injection
and carburetion out as much as you want but your just confusing yourself.
Gasoline vapor like propane vapor (and I cringe using this analogy because
it is not 100% identical) have no problem mixing with the air and vaporized
gasoline is far more flammable than liquid gasoline. Maybe the analogy of a
car crash and gasoline tank explosion being much worse in a car with an
empty tank of gasoline compared to one with a full tank, might help to
illustrate this point. Vaporized gasoline is as different an art from
gasoline fuel injection and carburetion as is diesel injection and spark
ignited gas ignition. It's like comparing apples and fudge brownies.  Mike

What this means, in practical terms, is that in order to have a car that
can accelerate and deal with traffic, it HAS to have acceleration
enrichment.  In addition, during warm-up it's necessary to inject extra fuel
just to get the machine running!  The variable nature of driving ensures
that compromises between power and economy have to be made, and the
catalytic covertor helps to even out those differences.

But here, we're talking VERY small amounts of fuel--not enough to change
economy by a factor of ten.

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
"The Long Journey"
New 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/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
  

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3061 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3061 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 


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

Biofuel at Journey t

Re: [Biofuel] Vaporized gasoline engines workasproventotheworldbyShell Oil Company in 1973

[Mike Pelly]

>  Biofuel mailing list
>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
>  messages):
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>  __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature
>
>
> database 3060 (20080428) __
>
>  The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>  http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>  __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature  database 3060 (20080428) __
>
>  The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>  http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>  ___
>  Biofuel mailing list
>  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>  http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>  Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 

__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3060 (20080428) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/