----- Original Message -----
From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 16:30
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Better, Faster & Deader Armour
>
> This conversation would not even exist (at least not here and now) were it
> not for the present military assault on Iraq. Nor would it exist were it
not
> for the fact that you can't seem to kick your ingrained military training
> and mindset into low gear.
>
> The whole issue of DU was initiated under a context of Gulf War I (Can you
> spell I-r-a-q?), the post-war human toll, the ongoing use of DU in Gulf
War
> II and the inevitable and untold future deaths to non-combatants that will
> arise.
>
> So if you want to get snitty, great. But don't try and pull some kind of
> half-baked imitation of a guardhouse lawyer ("Gee. I guess it all depends
> what the definition of "is" is.") to somehow extract yourself simply
because
> you didn't spell out the word I-R-A-Q and others did.
>
> I guess if you don't spell it out the devastation is somehow lessened? No
> doubt a comforting thought to those who have no part in military/political
> folley, only to die years later or never be born or born mis-shapen in
> places such as (S-h-h-h-h-h-h-h!!!!!!) iraq....
>
You right, the topic of DU originally had to do with Gulf War 1, but, like
so many, evolved beyond the original discussion, and the current subject
being discussed was [Subject: Re: [biofuel] Armour - was Dirty Bombing], see
that it was no longer Dirty Bombing. The question was asked ( by paul van
den bergen ), about armor. Not how it was used in Gulf War 1, not how in is
being used in Iraq today, but as to it's type, the how and why it is, the
way it is (see below).
----- Original Message -----
From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 17:23
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Armour - was Dirty Bombing
> now we are getting waaay off topic... but I just can't help myself...
>
> the armour used in tanks etc. to defeat projectile weapons... I would have
> thought that it would be a multi-layered composite - like extra heavy duty
> kevlar... with layers including MMC (metal matrix composites)... there are
> plenty of materials with both toughness and strength and high temperature
> properties that are cheap enough for an advaned army... Tantalum wire
wrapped
> ceramic composites for instance would have excellent toughness and
> strength... and resist temoperatures in excess of 2000 oC
>
Nothing in that about Iraq, not even implied.
My reply below:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg and April" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 21:47
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Armour - was Dirty Bombing
> The best is. DU can be a part of the multi layer, the M1-A1, and M1-A2
> Abrams, incorporate as one of the layers. The problem with ceramics, is
> that while they resist shaped charges well, kinetic energy penetrators
will
> break them up, the more shots they take, the less effective they are.
>
> Kevlar is good for spall blankets, but, ( for all practical purposes ) be
> ignored by sabots, and burned by shaped charges.
>
> Chombram armor (or a type variant) was a main stay of NATO armor before DU
> was used. I don't know all the details, because it is still classified,
but
> it is basically 3 - 5 layers of heavy plate separated by layers of rods
( I
> don't know of what material ) at right angles and layers of ceramic.
>
> The reason for the rods was to deal with rod type kinetic energy
penetrators
> ( that basically turn them selves inside out while digging through the
> armor ), and it was to make the penetrator change direction suddenly, by
> using the path of least resistance technique. If you could get the
> penetrator, to suddenly change direction, you would over stress it causing
> it to break, and the loss of mass from it breaking, prevented the rod from
> continuing through the armor.
>
> The ceramic dealt with the burning jet from shaped charges.
>
> Another way to deal with shaped charged would be standoff protection or
> explosive plates that disrupted the jet.
>
> Armor and Anti-Armor, is true evolution in progress, and so it continues.
> First one will get the upper hand then the other. I find the race between
> Armor and Anti-Armor the be fascinating, and still study it when I have a
> chance.
>
> Greg H.
Nothing in that about Iraq.
Your reply to my answer:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 06:44
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Better, Faster & Deader was Armour - was Dirty
Bombing
> Oh goodie goodie joy joy!
>
> We now have a "best part" when it comes to killing people better, faster
and
> deader, or keeping people alive a little longer so they can kill others
> faster, better and deader.
>
> If you guys enjoy all this so much, why not just re-up? No doubt there
will
> always be a demand for your services.
>
> And hell! If not? We'll create one!
>
> It's all rather doubtful that we'll ever need to put anything more than a
> containment dike around a biodiesel or ethanol processing tank, much less
a
> sheathe capable of deterring whatever new bunker busting device the
> brainchildren of mayhem can come up with.
>
> But it's comforting to know what Exxon and Raytheon might be coluding on
in
> the background as a pre-emptive weapon against biofuels.
>
> Maybe I can put some of this stuff to use in the garden to protect against
> full frontal assault by groundhogs!
>
> Todd Swearingen
Lots of hate there. You are talking about killing people, we were not,
mearly talking about armor types.
My reply to you:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg and April" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 09:43
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Better, Faster & Deader Armour
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 06:44
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] Better, Faster & Deader was Armour - was Dirty
> Bombing
>
>
> > Oh goodie goodie joy joy!
> >
> > We now have a "best part" when it comes to killing people better, faster
> and
> > deader, or keeping people alive a little longer so they can kill others
> > faster, better and deader.
> >
>
> What's a matter, a little to OT for you? If keeping our troops alive
longer
> to kill more of the enemy, keeps me a free man ( or you and others for
that
> matter ), your damn right. I'm not willing to trade my freedom for peace,
> we saw what happens with WW2 when that is done. It sounds like you would
> have rolled over and said "Well at least we have peace and everyone is
> alive", when Hitler started marching. I think that would have changed when
> he stopped marching and started doing other things.
>
> > If you guys enjoy all this so much, why not just re-up? No doubt there
> will
> > always be a demand for your services.
> >
>
> First migraine headaches and now too old.
>
> >
> > Maybe I can put some of this stuff to use in the garden to protect
against
> > full frontal assault by groundhogs!
> >
>
> Many people do, it's called varmint shooting, and in some places it is a
> viable way to get rid of pest. Maybe you should try it. You would kill a
> mosquito if it landed on your arm wouldn't you? What about a hornworm on
> your tomatoes? What is it going to be, life at any cost? Even that of
your
> own family? No thank you.
>
> Greg H.
Still no mention of Iraq, because it was not part of the discution. Not even
being implyied by anyone ( except maybe you, but, it is not clear if you
were ).
Your reply:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:11
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Better, Faster & Deader Armour
> Greg,
>
> "to kill more of the enemy..." - yessiree!!! that's what women, children
and
> a contained government are - an enemy - a "threat" worth unleashing the
> firestorm of hell on, rather than deploying all peaceful means first.
>
> Not willing to trade your freedom for peace? Is that what the good ole' US
> of A is over there doing? Protecting your freedom? Must be, because it
sure
> is a damned funny way of preserving the peace.
>
> Well, I've gotta' give you credit...at least you're consistant in your
> lopsided and near sighted analysis - looking well beyond the simplest and
> easiest solutions, instead reaching for your cans of malathion and
roundup.
> But then that is the way you've been trained and most have been
programmed -
> instant results first - consequences second (or consequencesbe damned all
> together).
>
> And "pests?" I think your perspective on "varmints" pretty much
generically
> sums up your total dilemma. While you may want to use armour piercing
> projectiles for groundhogs and rabits, a good dog or two feet of
horizontal
> below-soil barrier or a dense thicket of black berries will suffice quite
> nicely. All are a lot more peaceful, effective and less consequential than
> your options.
>
> Just one other minor wee tad little thing.... You might wish to get those
> ears of yours checked as well as those migrains. Because what something
> "sounds like" and what I didn't say are not one in the same.
>
> Todd Swearingen
Now you are talking about killing women & children, and in doing so implying
Iraq and that I would condone a thing, by twisting my words for your use.
You see Todd, you bust in on a technicnal discution and use it for personal
attacks, by saying "The whole issue of DU was initiated under a context of
Gulf War I ", well not every thing is about Iraq, despite what you seem to
think.
> Maybe you'd also like to spell "l-a-n-d m-i-n-e" and discuss the
enormous
> military benefit that no doubt supercedes human cost decades after their
> seeding?
>
Totaly different issue, and contex than the Armor subject.
> And just in case you forgot, you were the one that attempted to display
your
> vast array of knowledge by firing off derogatorily and half-cocked,
> attempting to debase and defame the author of the original article on DU's
> role in Gulf War I, as well as to try and downplay the depth and bredth of
> the human toll decades after "coalition" exit from the theatre (that's
> "tragedy, comedy and farce, all rolled into one) - all based solely upon
> your "doubts" - doubts which were substantiated as being entirely
> inaccurate.
>
Many of the comments made by the same artical are stil wrong.
> Of course you then synchro-switched out of defame mode and into technical
> mode to keep the "discussion" door open.
It was technical from the start for me.
>
> Certainly makes one wonder how many months you worked as a disinformation
> specialist.
>
Never worked there, if I had, I would be making more than I am now. On the
other hand for you to take a technical subject and make it a political
statment and personal attacks with words twisted for your own use, clearly
shows you must have made a long living at it. Tell me, what major political
party do you work for?
> As for "prove it?" :-) ... Chuckle... :-) ..... Chuckle.... :-)
A common response for those that can't.
>
> I think that it's not your military zeal that needs to be kicked down to
low
> gear, but your bully brain that needs to be kicked up to first gear.
Pretty
> clear that all you're looking for is a fight - damn whether there be any
> logic behind it or not.
>
Any time I am attacked for what I believe, I will strike back. Bully? That
shoe fits you better that I, you are the one that attacked me for what I
believe in, I didn't attack you. You may not believe in taking a life, but,
you sure believe in attacking thoes that are different than you.
> And to revisit, relative to "varmints," if you're planting acres but not
> planting 10% for the animal inhabitants, you're not thinking outside your
> own sphere of "self." Probably also stands to reason that you wouldn't be
> re-introducing any fox onto the farm to keep the population in balance.
>
When you figure 10% and the animals take more or you don't have room for an
extra 10%, and that 10% is what makes or breaks the farm?
> But then "what something "sounds like" and what [you] didn't say are not
> [necessarily] one in the same [thing]," are they?
>
Perhaps what something " sounds like " and what I " didn't say " are the
same, but, you sure as hell made it sound like I didn't mention it for the
purpose you said, when as far as I was concerned, Iraq had no reason to come
up at all. I do regret the sounds like comment, and have since a little
after hitting the send button.
Greg H
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Save Smiley. Help put Messenger back in the office.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4PqtEC/anyFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
