Ethanol Powered Aircraft [Archive]

James Robinson

August 15th 06, 03:33 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
> than it actually produces,

There is a certain amount of healthy debate on that issue.

A couple of professors from Cornell and Berkeley have been making that
argument, but the Dept. of Energy has come out with the "definitive"
analysis that concludes you get something like 25 or 30% more energy out,
when corn is used as the base. A higher level of return is projected for
other sources, like switchgrass.

There are still arguments about the DOE study, however.

Most ethanol plants use natural gas in the distillation process, which is
where most of the energy is used, so the production of ethanol is really
a conversion of natural gas to a liquid fuel, with a bit left over.

Since North America is projected to be importing something like 20
percent of its natural gas by 2020, the amount of ethanol reaching the
market will probably drop because of the need to move to more self-
contained production, i.e. using some ethanol to make slightly more
ethanol.

> To which I again ask: Where is EAA on this? Why are they washing their
> hands of this all-important issue? Are the asleep at the switch, or
> simply hoping the issue goes away?

They probably hope it will go away.

We have already been discussing some of the problems with pumping ethanol
through existing engines without making appropriate modifications to
accept the different chemical properties of the fuel. Such things as the
effect on gaskets and synthetic materials, the attraction of ethanol to
water, and potentially increased risk of vapor lock, filter clogging, and
ice crystal development.

One thing I don't think has been touched on is the different physical
properties, which can have significant implications to pilots. These are
that ethanol has about 30 percent lower energy content per gallon than
gasoline, and has about 5 to 10 percent higher density. Think for a
moment what effect these factors have on range and weight limits.

With the lower energy content, range is significantly affected,
particularly for those who use personal margins that are more restrictive
than typical minimums.

The higher density means that even to get that reduced range, you will
have to sacrifice payload to compensate for the added weight of the lower
energy fuel.

As far as EAA's position on the subject, here is a statement from their
web site on what they are doing to influence legislation in various
states:

================================================== ====
EAA Keeps Aircraft Fuel Tanks Full

EAA is focusing its organizational and member resources to head off an
attempt by several states to require ethanol additives in gasoline before
it leaves countless pilots without a way to obtain suitable fuel for
their aircraft.

Legislation being debated in Missouri, for example, would require all
gasoline sold to consumers for use in motor vehicles to contain 10
percent ethanol. Even though provisions are included to allow the sale of
non-ethanol gasoline for use by aircraft, vintage cars, and motorboats,
these aren’t feasible because they could impose financial and logistical
burdens on fuel sellers, including installation of special tanks and/or
requiring potentially expensive special delivery arrangements to ensure
non-ethanol fuel availability.

Instead, EAA is promoting a simple solution based on legislation passed
in Montana, exempting one grade of gasoline—premium grade (antiknock
index number of 91 or greater)—from the ethanol requirement. This will
cover any and all possible combinations of exemptions to this proposed
new rule and allow ethanol-free premium gasoline to be available to all
aircraft, vintage cars, recreational vehicles, etc., at every gas station
in the state.

Idaho and Washington are currently facing Senate and House Bills that
would require all gasoline sold to consumers for use in motor vehicles to
contain 2 percent denatured ethanol by December 1, 2008. Even though
pending Idaho Senate bills include aviation exemptions, EAA feels they
aren’t practical. But aircraft owners in Idaho who rely on auto fuel to
operate their aircraft gained a reprieve earlier this month thanks in
part to the efforts of EAA and its members. As a result, Idaho’s proposed
legislation failed to make it out of a House committee which killed the
state’s ethanol mandate for this session.

In Wisconsin, legislative action to require 10 percent ethanol in
gasoline other than premium grade sold in the state was postponed
indefinitely by a 17-15 vote in the State Senate. An EAA-led provision to
exclude premium grade gasoline was included in the bill’s final version.

EAA is currently engaged in pending ethanol legislation in several other
states, working to ensure that ethanol-free fuel remains widely available
to its members and other pilots who need it.

Jim Burns[_1_]

August 15th 06, 03:47 PM

You've got a great point. Not to mention the costs of production that are
involved in growing corn.

From an insiders view (forgive me while I whine) there is currently no
incentive for the farmers of this country to produce corn for ethanol if
they have any other alternatives. Ethanol companies are true bottom
feeders. They purchase the poorest and cheapest corn they can, often paying
more in freight than they do for the corn, then they sell the by products
back to the feed companies and dairies, competing directly with the farmers
that supply them the higher quality corn.

Currently, the cash corn market is around $2 per bushel, the alcohol plants
are buying it for less. Assume an average yield of 150 bu / A at the $2
price and you end up with $300 per acre gross income. Throw in about $1 per
bu from uncle Sam because the market is so low, but wait, don't forget about
the max subsidy limit of $60,000 so, make that $0.50 from Sammy. Now we're
getting a whopping $375 per acre gross income to grow the corn. That's
about $100 per acre under the cost of production, drying, and storage.
Forget about return on investment.

I'm looking at returns for growing peas, green beans, and sweet corn...
$450-$600 per acre and I don't have to harvest it, dry it, store it, haul
it, or market it. Plus they are all shorter season crops which means less
herbicide, insecticide, aerial application, and irrigation.

Current US corn production is roughly 10 billion bushels. The carry over
from the previous year has been getting smaller. Next year there won't be a
carry over. This is due to increased usage including ethanol production.
Unless corn prices rise significantly, the US will not produce enough corn
to meet current market demands PLUS enough to produce enough ethanol to
treat 100% of the gasoline. Other methods for producing ethanol will no
doubt be tried, but when 1 bu of $2.00 corn will produce 2.5 gallons of
ethanol, other US available sources may not be as efficient. Watch for
ethanol imports. It will happen.

The monkey is definitely turning the ethanol crank.

Jim

Jim Burns[_1_]

August 15th 06, 03:54 PM

Jay,
You know what the real irony is? One of Wisconsin's largest ethanol plants
is located less than 5 miles SW of the EAA headquarters.
Jim

Bret Ludwig

August 15th 06, 04:15 PM

There are several issues here.

Ethanol is politically popular because it is a farm subsidy to an
extent.

Other sources of heat besides natural gas exist for firing alcohol
plants. I would think that burning the corncobs and other unwanted
biomass from the corn itself would be good, as would burning garbage.
But what do I know.

Natural gas is methane, which can be turned into methanol pretty
cost-effectively. Ethanol, despite its poorer power density and seals
compatibility issues, is far more benign and has more energy per gallon
than does methanol. Be very glad you are being required to deal with
ethanol and not methanol.

Everyone knows that materials compatibility has been something doomed
to bite aviation in the ass, hard, for decades. Certificated aircraft
rubber materials have been manufactured since the postwar period with
the same inferior grades of rubbers at great expense to avoid
recertification while everyone else now uses better, more alcoholproof
materials. Dave Blanton told me that in the mid-80s and he was right.

Operation of aircraft on E10 or E15 auto fuel is a different issue
than operating on E85 or E100 with entirely different problems
especially in terms of water separation issues.

The LyCon engines themselves, in terms of top end life especially,
actually like ethanol a lot. Their fuel systems are a different issue.
But I saw an AEIO-540 powered Pitts do an acro routine on straight
ethanol (E100) in the late eighties. The pilot said that the cylinders
lasted a lot longer than with gasoline and all competition acro pilots
would use it if permitted by aerobatic rules.

Robert M. Gary

August 15th 06, 04:30 PM

Must make fuel stops hard. Perhaps its "flex fuel".
-Robert

Jay Honeck wrote:
> For those who think ethanol is a fuel that can't be made to work in
> aircraft, I present the following:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E6EB52F8D
>
> and
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N40C13F8D
>
> These folks, photographed by me at OSH '06, are burning ethanol in
> certificated engines (and, in the case of the Mooney, in a certificated
> aircraft) without difficulty.
>
> Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
> than it actually produces, this is a fuel that we're apparently going
> to be stuck with -- forever? -- for political reasons. We're gonna
> have to live with it, somehow.
>
> To which I again ask: Where is EAA on this? Why are they washing their
> hands of this all-important issue? Are the asleep at the switch, or
> simply hoping the issue goes away?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Steve Foley[_1_]

August 15th 06, 04:45 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
> than it actually produces, this is a fuel that we're apparently going
> to be stuck with -- forever? -- for political reasons. We're gonna
> have to live with it, somehow.

How much energy is used to make the Duracell AA battery that you use in your
GPS?

If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

Gig 601XL Builder

August 15th 06, 04:54 PM

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:6_lEg.237$ha1.93@trndny03...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
>> than it actually produces, this is a fuel that we're apparently going
>> to be stuck with -- forever? -- for political reasons. We're gonna
>> have to live with it, somehow.
>
> How much energy is used to make the Duracell AA battery that you use in
> your
> GPS?
>
> If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
> something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane),
> it
> does.
>
>

As has been listed Natural Gas is the main source of energy in the process.

And of course there is a lot of loss making a Duracell but that is for
practicality. I really don't want a fire powered laptop in my lap. That's
why I got rid if the Sony battery in my Dell.

Steve Foley[_1_]

August 15th 06, 04:59 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:6_lEg.237$ha1.93@trndny03...
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> >> Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
> >> than it actually produces, this is a fuel that we're apparently going
> >> to be stuck with -- forever? -- for political reasons. We're gonna
> >> have to live with it, somehow.
> >
> > How much energy is used to make the Duracell AA battery that you use in
> > your
> > GPS?
> >
> > If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
> > something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane),
> > it
> > does.
> >
> >
>
> As has been listed Natural Gas is the main source of energy in the
process.
>
> And of course there is a lot of loss making a Duracell but that is for
> practicality.

My point exactly.

> I really don't want a fire powered laptop in my lap. That's
> why I got rid if the Sony battery in my Dell.
>
>

I really don't want a Natural Gas powered lawn mower.

ktbr

August 15th 06, 04:59 PM

Jim Burns wrote:
> Unless corn prices rise significantly, the US will not produce enough corn
> to meet current market demands PLUS enough to produce enough ethanol to
> treat 100% of the gasoline.

Oh but wait... enviro-fascists will demand that we have MORE
ethanol production and use. That little green thingy looks so
cute on vehicles too doncha know.

Do something... do *anything*.. throw more MONEY at the problem
(money is green!!) to make us feel like we are doing something
good! Just do NOT even mention exploration or production for
more of own petroleum resources.

Larry Dighera

August 15th 06, 05:40 PM

On 15 Aug 2006 08:15:58 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote in m>:

>Natural gas is methane, which can be turned into methanol pretty
>cost-effectively. Ethanol, despite its poorer power density and seals
>compatibility issues, is far more benign and has more energy per gallon
>than does methanol.

How does the energy density of LNG compare to ethanol?

Robert M. Gary

August 15th 06, 06:13 PM

Steve Foley wrote:
> If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
> something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
> does.

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.
Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
difference.

Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
it will probably be easier to understand.

-Robert

Bret Ludwig

August 15th 06, 06:26 PM

ktbr wrote:

<<snip>>

> Do something... do *anything*.. throw more MONEY at the problem
> (money is green!!) to make us feel like we are doing something
> good! Just do NOT even mention exploration or production for
> more of own petroleum resources.

If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

There are areas oil companies can and should explore and they are
doing that. The fundamental problem is that as long as Saudi oil costs
a dollar a barrel to lift there is no way serious capital expenditure
is going into alternate sources because as they do the Saudis will drop
the price. They are a low grade bunch of whores. They are literally
pigs, living off their cash flow as if there is no tomorrow. The idea
of seriously restricting supply to keep their nation solvent for more
than a few decades more is unimaginable to them-they are all old men
making the decisions and they will be dead before then.

As far as aviation goes, the first and foremost totally unnecessary
and wasteful expenditure of money to fly is the delta between aviation
fuel and the fuel every other engine runs on. If you are flying on
$5/gallon avgas, 2/5ths of your fuel budget is wasted. Light aircraft
must run on generally available, non-aviation-specific fuels as a
matter of principle more than the actual cost. There is no solid
technical reason why aircraft flying at the speeds and altitudes light
aircraft most all spend their time at need an exotic and specially
toxic fuel, which is why banishment of avgas will please me. If we were
flying P-51s or Connies at FL 400 the argument for low-RVP fuels with
octane ratings based on different procedures than R+M/2 would make
engineering sense.

Steve Foley[_1_]

August 15th 06, 06:35 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
> it will probably be easier to understand.
>
> -Robert
>

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

Clear as mud, huh?

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 15th 06, 06:45 PM

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:47:04 -0500, "Jim Burns"
> wrote:
> Other methods for producing ethanol will no
> doubt be tried, but when 1 bu of $2.00 corn
> will produce 2.5 gallons of ethanol, other US
> available sources may not be as efficient. Watch
> for ethanol imports. It will happen.

Ethanol (from corn) in gasoline is a waste of perfectly good corn
liquor...

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 15th 06, 06:49 PM

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:54:05 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> I really don't want a fire powered laptop in my lap. That's
> why I got rid if the Sony battery in my Dell.

I've had a couple of laptops over the years that definitely acted as
lap warmers... I remember an older IBM ThinkPad that would leave a red
mark on your leg if you left it there too long...

Bret Ludwig

August 15th 06, 06:50 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Steve Foley wrote:
> > If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
> > something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
> > does.
>
> As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
> Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
> large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
> etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
> central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
> more efficient than the individual engines.
> Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
> difference.
>

There is no reason to burn oil to make electrical power (for utility
use.) Even burning natural gas is wasteful. Coal and garbage are what
we should be burning for power, if anything at all.

Beech did a lot of work with LNG. It was, like all Beech designs,
expensive, complex and a pain in the ass to maintain.

Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from
peak to off-peak, and nuke plants do best at steady power output.
Nuclear is actually the way to go and is in my opinion inevitable. In
the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge
subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 15th 06, 06:59 PM

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:59:57 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote:
> I really don't want a Natural Gas powered lawn mower.

Probably wouldn't be any more inconvenient than one of the electrical
ones that require a cord (i.e. not the rechargable battery types)...
I've used air hoses like you use for shop air tools for routing
natural gas to grills for temporary use... CNG (compressed natural
gas) would work, but is not as convenient as LPG...

LPG (aka propane) would probably work since you see LPG powered fork
lifts and such...

Hmmm... A quick search via google shows that it's already been done...

http://www.landscapemanagement.net/landscape/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=317568
http://chenchang.en.alibaba.com/product/0/50242041/LPG_Powered_Lawn_Mower.html

Denny

August 15th 06, 07:04 PM

I started a couple of hours ago researching the production of ethanol,
use of land, fetilizers, an thos dam tracters.. I juss fin the sbjek
too be too dam comp, comp, cmmp, uhhh hard to ger reel faks... scuze me
I'm gonna resea, resear, resur, unhhh, opena nother pint...

d ennnn i

Don Tuite

August 15th 06, 07:08 PM

On 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

> Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
>electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from
>peak to off-peak, and nuke plants do best at steady power output.
>Nuclear is actually the way to go and is in my opinion inevitable. In
>the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge
>subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
>wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?

What's your take on a distributed network of pebble-bed plants? I
like the advantages of easier containment, no single-point-of-failure
myself, but I don't understand all the disposal issues.

Don

Gig 601XL Builder

August 15th 06, 07:13 PM

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:54:05 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> I really don't want a fire powered laptop in my lap. That's
>> why I got rid if the Sony battery in my Dell.
>
> I've had a couple of laptops over the years that definitely acted as
> lap warmers... I remember an older IBM ThinkPad that would leave a red
> mark on your leg if you left it there too long...

But did yours do this?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32550

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 15th 06, 07:20 PM

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:40:11 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:
> How does the energy density of LNG compare to ethanol?

It's less than gasoline, but I'm not sure how it compares to
ethanol... Do you mean LNG or LPG though?

Propane has an octane rating of 110 to 120... Sounds great, right?
Unfortunately, the weight of the tanks is what would probably get
us... Our tanks would have to be built quite a bit sturdier to handle
the increased pressure... Although typical operating pressures are
around 130 psi, tanks are typically rated to over 300 psi...

With LNG, you need either higher pressure or a cooling system...

Here's some info:
http://www.wps.com/LPG/WVU-review.html

James Robinson

August 15th 06, 07:56 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On 15 Aug 2006 08:15:58 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
> wrote in m>:
>
>>Natural gas is methane, which can be turned into methanol pretty
>>cost-effectively. Ethanol, despite its poorer power density and seals
>>compatibility issues, is far more benign and has more energy per gallon
>>than does methanol.
>
>
> How does the energy density of LNG compare to ethanol?

LNG has about 73,000 BTU/US Gal., while ethanol has about 80,000. Gasoline
ranges between 110,000 and 125,000.

Keep in mind that the LNG is also accompanied by a very heavy tank, which
has payload implications.

ktbr

August 15th 06, 08:31 PM

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
> it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
> whole area.

Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
before blathering off like that.

> As far as aviation goes, the first and foremost totally unnecessary
> and wasteful expenditure of money to fly is the delta between aviation
> fuel and the fuel every other engine runs on. If you are flying on
> $5/gallon avgas, 2/5ths of your fuel budget is wasted. Light aircraft
> must run on generally available, non-aviation-specific fuels as a
> matter of principle more than the actual cost. There is no solid
> technical reason why aircraft flying at the speeds and altitudes light
> aircraft most all spend their time at need an exotic and specially
> toxic fuel, which is why banishment of avgas will please me. If we were
> flying P-51s or Connies at FL 400 the argument for low-RVP fuels with
> octane ratings based on different procedures than R+M/2 would make
> engineering sense.
>

oh...So... since YOU don't fly any of these aircraft, the fuel they
use should banned. And you could care less whether they fly or not...
Who cares if most flight schools use airplanes that burn this fuel.
You are knee-jerkingly ignorant of the facts and that is a sad
comentary.

Sheesh... GA doesn't need anymore enemies... hopefully you are not
a pilot.

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 15th 06, 08:43 PM

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:56:11 -0500, James Robinson >
wrote:
> LNG has about 73,000 BTU/US Gal., while ethanol has about 80,000. Gasoline
> ranges between 110,000 and 125,000.

Of course you also get to factor in the difference in weight per
gallon...

> Keep in mind that the LNG is also accompanied by a very heavy tank, which
> has payload implications.

LPG has lighter tanks, but still heavy compared to the ones we have
now for gasoline... Now, on the other hand, I can see the Grumman AA1
series aircraft fuel tanks possibly being converted to LPG in that
they use the tubular spar for a fuel tank... One could perhaps argue
that under pressure the spar might even be stronger... Still, that's a
20g fuel tank... Range will be decreased, but cargo capacity will go
up a few pounds from the reduced weight of the fuel... I suspect that
most aircraft would not be able to have their fuel tanks so easily
modified...

Stubby

August 15th 06, 08:56 PM

We use propane in the balloon. So that's an example of "propane in an
aircraft". The balloon I used to fly has three 15-gal tanks. So each
tank has 75 lb of LP in it. The stainless tanks are quite heavy,
requiring 4 of us to set it up. It's easier when we have to put it
away. Also, in the dead cold winter, a heater must be attached to it
over night before the flight so the LP will vaporize. Just like
preheating an airplane.

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:59:57 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> > wrote:
>> I really don't want a Natural Gas powered lawn mower.
>
> Probably wouldn't be any more inconvenient than one of the electrical
> ones that require a cord (i.e. not the rechargable battery types)...
> I've used air hoses like you use for shop air tools for routing
> natural gas to grills for temporary use... CNG (compressed natural
> gas) would work, but is not as convenient as LPG...
>
> LPG (aka propane) would probably work since you see LPG powered fork
> lifts and such...
>
> Hmmm... A quick search via google shows that it's already been done...
>
> http://www.landscapemanagement.net/landscape/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=317568
> http://chenchang.en.alibaba.com/product/0/50242041/LPG_Powered_Lawn_Mower.html

Larry Dighera

August 15th 06, 10:03 PM

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:56:11 -0500, James Robinson >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2006 08:15:58 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
>> wrote in m>:
>>
>>>Natural gas is methane, which can be turned into methanol pretty
>>>cost-effectively. Ethanol, despite its poorer power density and seals
>>>compatibility issues, is far more benign and has more energy per gallon
>>>than does methanol.
>>
>>
>> How does the energy density of LNG compare to ethanol?
>
>LNG has about 73,000 BTU/US Gal., while ethanol has about 80,000. Gasoline
>ranges between 110,000 and 125,000.
>
>Keep in mind that the LNG is also accompanied by a very heavy tank, which
>has payload implications.

If Kevlar reinforced aluminum is used in the construction of the tank
(as is used for aviation O2), tank weight shouldn't be such a large
factor:
http://www.mhoxygen.com/index.phtml?nav_id=28&product_id=372
1,800 psig service pressure
The KF series cylinders are the perfect solution for cylinder
installations far aft in the aircraft previously not possible
before. A thin-wall, seamless aluminum (6061-T6) alloy
'liner-cylinder' is reinforced by a full over-wrapping of Kevlar
fibers sealed in epoxy. This yields about a 50% to 60% weight
savings over conventional cylinder technology without any
compromise in safety.

KF-050, Item #CYL1050 For built-in applications
MAX DIAMETER: 17.27 cm. (6.8 in)
MAX LENGTH: 64.00cm. (25.2 in)
AVG WEIGHT: 3.58kg. (7.9 lbs)
SERVICE VOLUME: 1416 liters (50 cu. ft.)

Below are the results of my research on BTU content of various fuels:

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
Natural gas: LHV = 930 Btu/ft3 = 34.6 MJ/m3
Therm (used for natural gas, methane) = 100,000 Btu (= 105.5 MJ)
Ethanol energy content (LHV) = 11,500 Btu/lb = 75,700 Btu/gallon =
26.7 GJ/t = 21.1 MJ/liter.

Barrel of oil equivalent (boe) = approx. 6.1 GJ (5.8 million Btu),
equivalent to 1,700 kWh. "Petroleum barrel" is a liquid measure
equal to 42 U.S. gallons (35 Imperial gallons or 159 liters);
about 7.2 barrels oil are equivalent to one tonne of oil (metric)
= 42-45 GJ.

Gasoline: US gallon = 115,000 Btu = 121 MJ = 32 MJ/liter (LHV).
There are 19.5 gallons of gasoline in a barrel of oil,
4.1 gallons of kerosene-type jet fuel in a barrel of oil

Petro-diesel = 130,500 Btu/gallon (36.4 MJ/liter or 42.8 GJ/t)

Efficiency of an internal combustion engine is about 22% and
electric motor...about 96%(plus or minus a few points...depending
on who built it).

Electricity at 3412 Btu input per kWh.

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/netenergy/NEYShapouri.htm
http://www.ethanol.org/EthanolNewsSpecial1.28.05.htm
This report estimates the net energy balance of corn ethanol utilizing
the latest survey of U.S. corn producers and the 2001 U.S. survey of
ethanol plants.

On the average, dry mill ethanol plants used 1.09 Kwh of
electricity and about 34,700 Btu of thermal energy (LHV) per
gallon of ethanol. When energy losses to produce electricity and
natural gas were taken into account, the average dry mill ethanol
plant consumed about 47,116 Btu of primary energy per gallon of
ethanol produced. Wet mill ethanol plants that participated in the
survey used 49,208. Btu per gallon of natural gas and coal, on
average, to produce steam and electricity in the plants. After
adjustments for energy losses to produce natural gas and coal, on
the average, a wet mill ethanol plant used 52,349 Btu of energy to
make a gallon of ethanol.

All energy inputs used in the production of ethanol is adjusted
for energy efficiencies developed by GREET model. The estimated
energy efficiencies are for gasoline (80.5 percent), diesel fuel
(84.3 percent), LPG (98.9 percent), natural gas (94 percent), coal
(98 percent), electricity (39.6 percent), and transmission loss
(1.087 percent). After adjusting the energy inputs by these energy
efficiencies, the total estimated energy required to produce a
bushel of corn in 2001 was 49,753 Btu.

http://www.herecomesmongo.com/ae/comptab.html
1 gallon non-reformulated gasoline = approximately 113,500 BTU
(depending on seasonality and other factors... Oil Industry
Literature reportedly indicates that real-world gasoline sold at
US pumps can go to 108,500 BTU or lower).

1 gallon of #2 diesel = approximately 131,295 BTU (LHV)

1 gallon of biodiesel = approximately 117,093 BTU (LHV)
(10/08/02: BTU per gallon for diesel and biodiesel updated using
best-available info from US DOE website).

1 cubic foot of natural gas = approximately 1000 BTU

1 lb of H2 = approximately 61,000 BTU

1 gallon = approximately 3.785 liters (1 quart = 1 quarter of a
gallon = .946 Liters)

Definitions: 1 kWh = 3412 BTU = 3,599,660 Joules

1 barrel (of Petroleum) = 42 gallons

1.0 US bushel = 0.0352 m3 = 0.97 UK bushel = 56 lb, 25 kg (corn or
sorghum) = 60 lb

http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/toolbox/pdfs/shapouri_webcast.pdf
Btu content (LHV):- Diesel fuel 128,450 per gallon
- Gasoline 116, 090 per gallon
- LPG 84,950 per gallon
- Natural gas 983 per cubic ft.
- Electricity 3,412 per kwh
- Coal 9,773 per pound
- Ethanol 76,330 per gallon

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/testpick.htm
Commodity Costs and Returns: U.S. and Regional Cost and Return
Data

http://energy.cas.psu.edu/costcomparator.html
Energy Cost Calculator is an EXCEL spreadsheet.

Jay Honeck

August 15th 06, 11:15 PM

> Also, in the dead cold winter, a heater must be attached to it
> over night before the flight so the LP will vaporize. Just like
> preheating an airplane.

You fly a balloon -- in WINTER?

BRRRRRRR!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 16th 06, 02:20 AM

On 15 Aug 2006 15:15:31 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:
> You fly a balloon -- in WINTER?
>
> BRRRRRRR!

Well, they do carry a really big heater with 'em...

James Robinson

August 16th 06, 02:27 AM

Grumman-581 > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>
>> You fly a balloon -- in WINTER?
>>
>> BRRRRRRR!
>
> Well, they do carry a really big heater with 'em...

and once aloft, there is no wind.

Jose[_1_]

August 16th 06, 04:48 AM

> The idea is a
> large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
> etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines....
>
> Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
> it will probably be easier to understand.

Fine, except that the argument is that the ethanol production (analogy
to large central engine) is -less- efficient.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose[_1_]

August 16th 06, 04:49 AM

> [The Saudis] are a low grade bunch of whores. They are literally
> pigs, living off their cash flow as if there is no tomorrow.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Morgans[_3_]

August 16th 06, 06:29 AM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

> As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
> Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
> large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
> etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
> central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
> more efficient than the individual engines.

The only problem with that point of view, is that every energy
transformation and use carries a penalty of a percentage of the energy being
lost.
--
Jim in NC

Bret Ludwig

August 16th 06, 01:51 PM

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:40:11 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
> > How does the energy density of LNG compare to ethanol?
>
> It's less than gasoline, but I'm not sure how it compares to
> ethanol... Do you mean LNG or LPG though?
>
> Propane has an octane rating of 110 to 120... Sounds great, right?
> Unfortunately, the weight of the tanks is what would probably get
> us... Our tanks would have to be built quite a bit sturdier to handle
> the increased pressure... Although typical operating pressures are
> around 130 psi, tanks are typically rated to over 300 psi...
>
> With LNG, you need either higher pressure or a cooling system...
>

LNG, as used in the Beech system (Beech Aircraft really did the
pioneering work on LNG, of course it went nowhere....) was stored at
very low temperature at approximately atmospheric pressure in a dewar
type insulated tank. It's important to understand that methane-natural
gas- is an incondensible gas for all intents and purposes, like oxygen
and nitrogen but unlike propane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, ammonia
which can be stored at human-habitable ambient temperatures at
pressures feasible for storage tanks.

Methane and propane can be burned in an IC engine in similar fashion
once they are a gas, but at very different fuel-air mixtures. Methane
is approximately 108 octane and propane is in the 103-106 range
depending on exactly what's in it (LP motor fuel is nothing like
reagent grade and contains methane, butane, methanol, and lots of
other junk).

LNG would be practical but the cost of distribution would be high and
the fuel system is fairly complex, at least in the Beech system. CNG
has no range to speak of. LPG is very practical for all sort of ground
vehicles and has been done successfully in helicopters, but large
volume storage in fixed wing aircraft is problematic. A fixed wing
aircraft designed around a fuselage LP tank as a stressed member might
make some sense.

Floyd L. Davidson

August 16th 06, 02:19 PM

ktbr > wrote:
>Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
>> it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
>> whole area.
>
>Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
>was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
>of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
>before blathering off like that.

Tell you what fellow, *you* are the one who needs an education!

The 1002 Area of ANWR is 1.5 *million* acres, and the amount of
that which is going to be affected with exploration and possible
production of oil... is 1.5 *million* acres. Even with your
limited education you'll recognize that as slightly bigger than
anything you can even imagine.

Oh, and *you* have almost certainly never been to ANWR if you
think all it is is "frozen tundra"! Some people (those with a
bit more knowledge than you) are aware that frozen tundra is
some pretty awesome landscape.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Greg Copeland[_1_]

August 16th 06, 02:33 PM

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:
> the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge
> subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
> wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?

I have a hard time imagining anything less likely. This sounds like a
"World of Tomorrow" movie clip made during the 50's. We all know how much
we love our flying cars and cities in the skies!

Greg

Jay Honeck

August 16th 06, 02:38 PM

> >> You fly a balloon -- in WINTER?
> >>
> >> BRRRRRRR!
> >
> > Well, they do carry a really big heater with 'em...
>
> and once aloft, there is no wind.

"It's a dry cold..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Greg Copeland[_1_]

August 16th 06, 02:57 PM

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:33:50 -0500, James Robinson wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
>> than it actually produces,
>
> There is a certain amount of healthy debate on that issue.
>
> A couple of professors from Cornell and Berkeley have been making that
> argument, but the Dept. of Energy has come out with the "definitive"
> analysis that concludes you get something like 25 or 30% more energy out,
> when corn is used as the base. A higher level of return is projected for
> other sources, like switchgrass.

I seriously question their results. Pretty much every other study shows,
with current technology, that's pretty much impossible. On top of that,
countries which are currently using agro to produce eneregy have long
since moved from crappy corn to crops that make more sense: sugar cane,
sugar beats, and hemp. Even with these crops, obtaining a return was
difficult.

Beyond that, every study I've read which indicated a return from corn were
torn to bits by other papers, rightfully so, because they ignored huge
segments of the process which chewed up energy to obtain the energy from
corn.

I have to agree, trying to obtain energy from corn is stupid when far
better crops readily exist. Trying to make it work with corn only
translates into higher prices at the end of the day.

Greg

Jose[_1_]

August 16th 06, 03:48 PM

> I have to agree, trying to obtain energy from corn is stupid when far
> better crops readily exist. Trying to make it work with corn only
> translates into higher prices at the end of the day.

.... which is probably the =real= agenda.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera

August 16th 06, 04:40 PM

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:19:12 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote in >:

>The 1002 Area of ANWR is 1.5 *million* acres, and the amount of
>that which is going to be affected with exploration and possible
>production of oil... is 1.5 *million* acres. Even with your
>limited education you'll recognize that as slightly bigger than
>anything you can even imagine.

Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 16th 06, 06:22 PM

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:
> Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
> easier to visualize. :-)

In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

JJS

August 16th 06, 06:49 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message ups.com...

> LNG, as used in the Beech system (Beech Aircraft really did the
> pioneering work on LNG, of course it went nowhere....) was stored at
> very low temperature at approximately atmospheric pressure in a dewar
> type insulated tank. It's important to understand that methane-natural
> gas- is an incondensible gas for all intents and purposes, like oxygen
> and nitrogen but unlike propane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, ammonia
> which can be stored at human-habitable ambient temperatures at
> pressures feasible for storage tanks.
>
> Methane and propane can be burned in an IC engine in similar fashion
> once they are a gas, but at very different fuel-air mixtures. Methane
> is approximately 108 octane and propane is in the 103-106 range
> depending on exactly what's in it (LP motor fuel is nothing like
> reagent grade and contains methane, butane, methanol, and lots of
> other junk).
>
> LNG would be practical but the cost of distribution would be high and
> the fuel system is fairly complex, at least in the Beech system. CNG
> has no range to speak of. LPG is very practical for all sort of ground
> vehicles and has been done successfully in helicopters, but large
> volume storage in fixed wing aircraft is problematic. A fixed wing
> aircraft designed around a fuselage LP tank as a stressed member might
> make some sense.
>
>
For those of you who have not yet decided that this guy Ludwig is a dufus and / or a troll.... natural gas is not
methane. Although methane makes up approximately 96% of the local natural gas here, there are many other
constituents. Several of the products that he says are stored at human habitable temperatures... well lets just say
that he is wrong at least on the ones that I am most familiar with. For instance, ammonia is stored at temperatures
around -28 degrees f. As a matter of fact, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia are all cryogenically stored. BTW,
we condense methane at -282 degrees f. at my work place 24 hours a day as a step in recovery hydrogen for reuse.

Joe Schneider
N8437R

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bret Ludwig

August 16th 06, 06:59 PM

> For those of you who have not yet decided that this guy Ludwig is a dufus and / or a troll.... natural gas is not
> methane. Although methane makes up approximately 96% of the local natural gas here, there are many other
> constituents.

96% is "most", most of the time. Where I'm from.

Several of the products that he says are stored at human habitable
temperatures... well lets just say
> that he is wrong at least on the ones that I am most familiar with. For instance, ammonia is stored at temperatures
> around -28 degrees f. As a matter of fact, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia are all cryogenically stored.

Nitrogen must be cryogenic to be in liquid form. CO2 and NH3 are
stored in regular steel tanks and when both gas and liquid are in the
tank, and the tank is allowed to sit with no flow, the tank assumes
ambient temperature (or higher in the sun) and the pressure inside is a
direct function of the product's temperature. Same with Freon (most
kinds), propane, etc. Nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium, are a liquid
at earth temperatures only under freakish pressures. There is said to
be solid methane at the bottom of the ocean in certain places but what
is the absolute pressure at those depths? About ten thousand psi is the
practical limit for pressure vessels. That's why these gases are
transported cryogenically or as _gases_ in the 2-3000 psi welding type
cylinders.

Bret Ludwig

August 16th 06, 07:09 PM

ktbr wrote:

>
> oh...So... since YOU don't fly any of these aircraft, the fuel they
> use should banned. And you could care less whether they fly or not...
> Who cares if most flight schools use airplanes that burn this fuel.
> You are knee-jerkingly ignorant of the facts and that is a sad
> comentary.
>

Even given a unlimited fuel supply they will be out of the air well
within my lifetime unless highly modified or someone starts making
R-3350 Turbocompound and RR Merlin parts again including cases, banks
and cranks. The Connies could now be converted to turboprop in the
stock nacelle and with the stock blades (the hub, or at least the pitch
mechanism, would need changing depending on whether a single or double
shaft engine were used) but a turbine Mustang just isn't a Mustang and
Allisons are in the same boat.

Running them on straight ethanol would be the easy mod.

Besides, I thought we were done "aggrandizing WWII"......((ROTFLMAO)).

Bret Ludwig

August 16th 06, 07:13 PM

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
> > Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
> > easier to visualize. :-)
>
> In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

The point is, it's a short term fix anyway. If the oil gets so scarce
a small quantity is needed truly at any cost, then get it there. Not
now. Let oil go high enough to get alternatives capitalized, with a
price floor if necessary, lest the Saudis pull the rug out from under
the billion dollar investments needed.

Robert M. Gary

August 16th 06, 08:50 PM

Morgans wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
> The only problem with that point of view, is that every energy
> transformation and use carries a penalty of a percentage of the energy being
> lost.

If the penalty is less than the gain, it's a win. There is a penalty
for producing electricity on the edge of town and wiring it to your
house vs. having your own home generator. Most of us decided that the
gain of using municipal power outweighs the penalty of having to pipe
it to our house (in which it losses power in the transit).

-Robert

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 16th 06, 08:52 PM

On 16 Aug 2006 11:13:08 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:
> The point is, it's a short term fix anyway. If the oil gets so scarce
> a small quantity is needed truly at any cost, then get it there. Not
> now. Let oil go high enough to get alternatives capitalized, with a
> price floor if necessary, lest the Saudis pull the rug out from under
> the billion dollar investments needed.

I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
make hydrogen... Once we no longer need the oil from the Middle East,
the rich camel ****in' Bedoins can go back to being what they have
been throughout history -- POOR camel ****in' Bedoins... Without the
money from the oil, terrorism will not be able to be financed...
Problem solved...

RST Engineering

August 16th 06, 09:07 PM

Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from a
compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).

Jim

>
> I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
> make hydrogen...

RST Engineering

August 16th 06, 10:32 PM

No, he was quite clear about a FUSION reactor. A fusion reactor takes two
hydrogen atoms and fuses them together into helium plus energy. Now you
could take that energy and convert it into electricity to electrolyze water,
but what's the point? The electrical energy is what we need, not hydrogen.

Jim

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>>> I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
>>> make hydrogen...
>>Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
>>almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from a
>>compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).
>
> I think that's what he meant - use nuclear to create
> electricity for electrolysis of water to produce a hydrogen
> supply as an energy storage medium to be burned elsewhere -
> with water as the combustion product.

Floyd L. Davidson

August 16th 06, 10:42 PM

Grumman-581 > wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>> Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
>> easier to visualize. :-)
>
>In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

Or to be more to the point, about 1/10th the size of all of
little ol' Texas itself. Obviously there aren't any ranches in
Texas anything near that size. The 1002 Area of ANWR absolutely
dwarfs the largest ranch in Texas. It dwarfs at least the two
largest ranches *combined*. I didn't try to see, but it is possible
that all ranches in Texas put together might actually equal the size
of the 1002 Area in ANWR...

Somewhat larger than a few states. About the size of West
Virginia, and larger than 9 states to be specific.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 16th 06, 11:30 PM

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:07:03 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:
> Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
> almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from a
> compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).

Exactly... Inefficient, but with since it only needs water as a fuel
and we have *plenty* of that, a bit of inefficiency might be
acceptable...

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 16th 06, 11:33 PM

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:42:47 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
> Or to be more to the point, about 1/10th the size of all of
> little ol' Texas itself. Obviously there aren't any ranches in
> Texas anything near that size. The 1002 Area of ANWR absolutely
> dwarfs the largest ranch in Texas. It dwarfs at least the two
> largest ranches *combined*. I didn't try to see, but it is possible
> that all ranches in Texas put together might actually equal the size
> of the 1002 Area in ANWR...

Awh 'ell, if ya gonna bring *facts* into this conversation, I'm not
playin' anymore... <grin>

Next ya gonna tell me that I can't propagate the Texas stereotypes...
Hell, you might even try to claim that someplace other than Texas
knows how to do *real* BBQ...

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 16th 06, 11:39 PM

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:32:27 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:
> No, he was quite clear about a FUSION reactor. A fusion reactor takes two
> hydrogen atoms and fuses them together into helium plus energy. Now you
> could take that energy and convert it into electricity to electrolyze water,
> but what's the point? The electrical energy is what we need, not hydrogen.

Does your plane run on electricity? Do you think that it will be
possible anytime soon to make it run on electricity? On the other
hand, do you think that it could probably be modified with existing
technology to run on hydrogen? Probably, but the problem with
hydrogen is that it needs to be kept either *very* cold or under quite
a bit of pressure to equal the energy per volume that we get out of
gasoline... Perhaps hydrogen could be converted into a liquid type of
fuel by adding some carbon to it? From what I remember, all the
various petrochemical type fuels are basically just a combination of
carbon and hydrogen...

Floyd L. Davidson

August 17th 06, 12:00 AM

Grumman-581 > wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:42:47 -0800, (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>> Or to be more to the point, about 1/10th the size of all of
>> little ol' Texas itself. Obviously there aren't any ranches in
>> Texas anything near that size. The 1002 Area of ANWR absolutely
>> dwarfs the largest ranch in Texas. It dwarfs at least the two
>> largest ranches *combined*. I didn't try to see, but it is possible
>> that all ranches in Texas put together might actually equal the size
>> of the 1002 Area in ANWR...
>
>Awh 'ell, if ya gonna bring *facts* into this conversation, I'm not
>playin' anymore... <grin>
>
>Next ya gonna tell me that I can't propagate the Texas stereotypes...
>Hell, you might even try to claim that someplace other than Texas
>knows how to do *real* BBQ...

I wasn't going to tell any Texas jokes... really I wasn't.

I did visit Houston once, and rather liked it. Just like
Prudhoe Bay... except for all the Texans, that's some nice
country. We drove by the Museum of Texas History, and they told
me it was a great demonstration of everything good about Texas!
I asked the folks I was with if we could schedule at least half
an hour there the next day.

They asked why I'd want to see everything more than twice.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

john smith

August 17th 06, 12:05 AM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > I have to agree, trying to obtain energy from corn is stupid when far
> > better crops readily exist. Trying to make it work with corn only
> > translates into higher prices at the end of the day.
>
> ... which is probably the =real= agenda.

Of course it isQ
Archer-Daniels-Midland doesn't throw all that money at the politicians
in Washington because it likes them.

john smith

August 17th 06, 12:13 AM

In article om>,
"Denny" > wrote:

> I started a couple of hours ago researching the production of ethanol,
> use of land, fetilizers, an thos dam tracters.. I juss fin the sbjek
> too be too dam comp, comp, cmmp, uhhh hard to ger reel faks... scuze me
> I'm gonna resea, resear, resur, unhhh, opena nother pint...
>
> d ennnn i

Denny, you're not suppose to drink the ethanol when you are doing the
ethanol research!

Morgans[_3_]

August 17th 06, 01:03 AM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Morgans wrote:
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
> > The only problem with that point of view, is that every energy
> > transformation and use carries a penalty of a percentage of the energy
being
> > lost.
>
> If the penalty is less than the gain, it's a win. There is a penalty
> for producing electricity on the edge of town and wiring it to your
> house vs. having your own home generator. Most of us decided that the
> gain of using municipal power outweighs the penalty of having to pipe
> it to our house (in which it losses power in the transit).
>
> -Robert

I guess I didn't state what I meant well enough.

You take some hydrocarbon and burn it to make electricity, you lose some in
waste heat. You take the electricity, and pipe it somewhere, and you lose
some in line loss. You take some of that electricity and put it into making
hydrogen, and you lose some more, or store it in a battery and lose some of
it that way. You use the electricity to make a car go, and you lose some
of the electricity to heat, again, or by burning the hydrogen.

Loss energy due to efficiency is inevitable.
--
Jim in NC

Ken Chaddock

August 17th 06, 01:47 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>
>
>>As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
>>Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
>>large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
>>etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
>>central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
>>more efficient than the individual engines.
>
>
> The only problem with that point of view, is that every energy
> transformation and use carries a penalty of a percentage of the energy being
> lost.

This is "theoretically" true but not "practically" true. A central
power station that is burning petroleum products to generate electricity
would likely be using large gas turbines with efficiencies pushing 60%.
Transmission losses to the end used might account for 2% and the
electric motors of the cars would be running about 95%. So overall
"system" efficiency would be running over 55%...which is *much* higher
than your typical Otto cycle internal combustion engine at around 25%...

....Ken

JJS

August 17th 06, 02:45 AM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message ups.com...
>
>> For those of you who have not yet decided that this guy Ludwig is a dufus and / or a troll.... natural gas is not
>> methane. Although methane makes up approximately 96% of the local natural gas here, there are many other
>> constituents.
>
> 96% is "most", most of the time. Where I'm from.
>
> Several of the products that he says are stored at human habitable
> temperatures... well lets just say
>> that he is wrong at least on the ones that I am most familiar with. For instance, ammonia is stored at
>> temperatures
>> around -28 degrees f. As a matter of fact, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia are all cryogenically stored.
>
> Nitrogen must be cryogenic to be in liquid form. CO2 and NH3 are
> stored in regular steel tanks and when both gas and liquid are in the
> tank, and the tank is allowed to sit with no flow, the tank assumes
> ambient temperature (or higher in the sun) and the pressure inside is a
> direct function of the product's temperature. Same with Freon (most
> kinds), propane, etc. Nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium, are a liquid
> at earth temperatures only under freakish pressures. There is said to
> be solid methane at the bottom of the ocean in certain places but what
> is the absolute pressure at those depths? About ten thousand psi is the
> practical limit for pressure vessels. That's why these gases are
> transported cryogenically or as _gases_ in the 2-3000 psi welding type
> cylinders.
>

You are in way over your head Ludwig. I've worked with all these gases for 28 years, in well, let's just say very
large quantities. I do this stuff for a living. You don't have a clue. The more you try to defend your incorrect
drivel the deeper you get. Be a man and back off and admit you don't know what you are talking about.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jose[_1_]

August 17th 06, 03:04 AM

> I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
> make hydrogen... Once we no longer need the oil from the Middle East...

Besides the repulsive words that follow, don't you think that a country
that can't educate itself, that still believes in gods and spirits, that
rejects evolution, and that believes taking shoes off and banning
toothpaste and fine wines on carry-on luggage keeps us safe, is not
really the right country to entrust bunches of nuclear reactors to?

Do you really think that terrorists who plan ten years ahead won't have
moles in the reactors?

The simple solutions aren't.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Morgans[_3_]

August 17th 06, 05:18 AM

"Jose" > wrote
>
> Do you really think that terrorists who plan ten years ahead won't have
> moles in the reactors?

Nah, moles in the reactors will not do any good. They are just small
rodents.

Anyway, moles in reactors would be quickly killed from all of the radiation.

<g>

You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit "send."
;-)
--
Jim in NC

Morgans[_3_]

August 17th 06, 05:28 AM

"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote

> You are in way over your head Ludwig. I've worked with all these gases
for 28 years, in well, let's just say very
> large quantities. I do this stuff for a living. You don't have a clue.
The more you try to defend your incorrect
> drivel the deeper you get.

God forbid that I would in any way defend anything that this nutjob says,
but I think there is incomplete statements on both your parts going on here.

You store these gasses at low temps, because it is impractical to store them
at the crazy pressures that they would have to be, if kept at room
temperature. The way things are done, in a real world? Very cold, with
some pressure to help out, so you get a you are right, on this one.

Yes, as he said, they can be kept at room temperatures. Almost anything can
be. Practical? No. Wrongly stated? No.
--
Jim in NC

Jose[_1_]

August 17th 06, 05:43 AM

> You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit "send."
> ;-)

Nope. From the moment I hit "reply". :)

Actually, some particle accelerators used hamsters to clean the tunnels.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Emily[_1_]

August 17th 06, 05:47 AM

Jose wrote:
>> You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit
>> "send."
>> ;-)
>
> Nope. From the moment I hit "reply". :)
>
> Actually, some particle accelerators used hamsters to clean the tunnels.
>
> Jose

Huh? Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters
to clean.

I must have missed something.

Don Tuite

August 17th 06, 06:19 AM

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:47:01 -0500, Emily >
wrote:

>Jose wrote:
>>> You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit
>>> "send."
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Nope. From the moment I hit "reply". :)
>>
>> Actually, some particle accelerators used hamsters to clean the tunnels.
>>
>> Jose
>
>Huh? Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters
>to clean.
>
>I must have missed something.

Give the hamsters a couple of generations in the tunnels.

Don

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 17th 06, 06:25 AM

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:04:03 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> Besides the repulsive words that follow

Awh, gee, I'm not ****in' politically correct... That just breaks my
****in' heart...

> don't you think that a country that can't educate itself, that
> still believes in gods and spirits, that rejects evolution, and
> that believes taking shoes off and banning toothpaste
> and fine wines on carry-on luggage keeps us safe, is not
> really the right country to entrust bunches of nuclear reactors to?

Hmmm... The way you describe it, it must really suck to live up there
in Connecticut... I can understand it though -- It must suck having to
live around so many Damn Yankees...

> Do you really think that terrorists who plan ten years ahead
> won't have moles in the reactors?
>
> The simple solutions aren't.

And sometimes the complicated solutions aren't needed... There's
probably two ways to solve this problem... One is to just nuke the
whole ****in' Middle East... The other is to make their product
virtually worthless... As enticing as the first method might be, I
would prefer the second so that they have longer to contemplate how
they screwed up... Hell, we can always go back to the first way...

Jose[_1_]

August 17th 06, 06:32 AM

> Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters to clean.

They dragged some sort of brush behind them, and were trained to run
through the tunnels. I don't know which one, I think it was in Europe.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Robert M. Gary

August 17th 06, 07:07 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> Loss energy due to efficiency is inevitable.

But if the gain in efficiency is more than the loss, who cares. Its not
very efficient for me to run a Honda generator in my backyard so I
choose to hook up to the power grid, even though there is power loss in
delivering power to my house.

-Robert

kontiki

August 17th 06, 11:34 AM

RST Engineering wrote:

> Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
> almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from a
> compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).
>
> Jim

You have just pointed out the level of overall ignorance that pervades
this country these days. That's part of the reason why we are in the
situation we are in in the first place.... ignorant people elect ignorant
politicians.

kontiki

August 17th 06, 11:44 AM

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Even given a unlimited fuel supply they will be out of the air well
> within my lifetime unless highly modified or someone starts making
> R-3350 Turbocompound and RR Merlin parts again including cases, banks
> and cranks.

Can you provide any information to back that statement up?

> The Connies could now be converted to turboprop in the
> stock nacelle and with the stock blades (the hub, or at least the pitch
> mechanism, would need changing depending on whether a single or double
> shaft engine were used) but a turbine Mustang just isn't a Mustang and
> Allisons are in the same boat.

Turbine engines are extremely expensive.... turbine conversions have been
certified for a few types but waay to expensive for most people. You
are not gonna get people who own classic airplanes to pretty much destroy
their collector value by installing a turbine... even if it could be done.

>
> Running them on straight ethanol would be the easy mod.

If its so easy why haven't you come out with the kit and STC for all these
airplanes? Can wee sue you if things don't work out?
>
> Besides, I thought we were done "aggrandizing WWII"......((ROTFLMAO)).
>

I don't think you are running on all cylinders.

Morgans[_3_]

August 17th 06, 12:13 PM

> > Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
> > almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from
a
> > compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).
> >
> > Jim
>
> You have just pointed out the level of overall ignorance that pervades
> this country these days. That's part of the reason why we are in the
> situation we are in in the first place.... ignorant people elect ignorant
> politicians.

Oh?

Won't you be so kind as to explain why you feel your statement is true, and
how it is, that gives you a reason to call a person ignorant?
--
Jim in NC

ktbr

August 17th 06, 12:47 PM

Morgans wrote:
>
> Won't you be so kind as to explain why you feel your statement is true, and
> how it is, that gives you a reason to call a person ignorant?

Look up the definition of "ignorant" and determine for yourself
whether or not the word applies to many of the posts in this thread.

Emily[_1_]

August 17th 06, 01:26 PM

Jose wrote:
>> Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters to
>> clean.
>
> They dragged some sort of brush behind them, and were trained to run
> through the tunnels. I don't know which one, I think it was in Europe.
>
> Jose
We must be talking about different kinds of accelerator tunnels. Last
one I was in was like 10 feet high by 10 feet wide.

James Robinson

August 17th 06, 01:43 PM

Ken Chaddock > wrote:
>
> Morgans wrote:
>>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>>
>>> Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is
>>> a large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less
>>> expensive, etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines.
>>> Whether that central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference,
>>> as long as its more efficient than the individual engines.
>>
>> The only problem with that point of view, is that every energy
>> transformation and use carries a penalty of a percentage of the
>> energy being lost.
>
> This is "theoretically" true but not "practically" true. A central
> power station that is burning petroleum products to generate
> electricity would likely be using large gas turbines with efficiencies
> pushing 60%. Transmission losses to the end used might account for 2%
> and the electric motors of the cars would be running about 95%. So
> overall "system" efficiency would be running over 55%...which is
> *much* higher than your typical Otto cycle internal combustion engine
> at around 25%...

That description is more theory than reality. The current installed base
of thermal power plants in the US, mainly coal-fired is about 35 percent
efficient. Yes, there are new turbine designs that approach 60 percent,
fired by natural gas, but there aren't many of them around, nor are many
being planned. More typical for new natural gas, simple cycle plants is
an efficiency of about 45 percent.

Distribution losses in just the last 1/4 mile from the local substation
to your home are probably 2 or 3 percent. Overall losses of the entire
grid are in the order of 15 percent.

Finally, you have left out the charge/discharge losses of batteries on
the electric cars, which are perhaps 70 percent efficient with current
technologies.

Multiplying all of that out, yields an overall efficiency of about 20 or
25 percent.

Morgans[_3_]

August 17th 06, 01:50 PM

"ktbr" > wrote
> Look up the definition of "ignorant" and determine for yourself
> whether or not the word applies to many of the posts in this thread.

Back up, there!

So you are referring to the entire content of the thread, not just to Jim's
addition to the thread?

So that is why you wrote, "You have just pointed out the level of overall
ignorance that pervades
> this country these days." ? My emphasis, here; you wrote, "You".

Does that not point to one person's contribution, instead of the "many of
the posts in this thread." ?

I am familiar with the mean(s) of the word ignorant. I'm trying to pin down
what, exactly, is the "ignorant" part of the post you are referencing.

Is it a word, or a group of words? Is it, "Fusion reactors use hydrogen as
fuel" ?

Is it, "to make helium plus energy." ?

Is it, "It is almost impossible to "make" hydrogen" , or perhaps, "although
you can liberate it (hydrogen) from a
> compound (i.e. electrolysis of water)." ?

Is it just one word, out of all of them, that threw you over the edge?

Help me out here. I'm trying to understand.
--
Jim in NC

Gig 601XL Builder

August 17th 06, 02:47 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jose" > wrote
>>
>> Do you really think that terrorists who plan ten years ahead won't have
>> moles in the reactors?
>
> Nah, moles in the reactors will not do any good. They are just small
> rodents.
>
> Anyway, moles in reactors would be quickly killed from all of the
> radiation.
>
> <g>
>

No... They'd mutate into Molezilla

Morgans[_3_]

August 17th 06, 02:57 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote

> No... They'd mutate into Molezilla

Well, Superman had a problem overcoming Kryptonyte, so I wonder if Molezilla
has a problem with Grubenyte?
<g>
--
Jim in NC

Jose[_1_]

August 17th 06, 03:07 PM

> Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters to clean.

Thinking a bit more, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean the tunnel in which
the accelerator lies, I mean the tunnel (or tube), inside the
accelerator, in which the particles actually travel.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose[_1_]

August 17th 06, 03:09 PM

> No... They'd mutate into Molezilla

At first I read that as "Molezerilla", but that would be pretty cheezy.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

ktbr

August 17th 06, 03:45 PM

Grumman-581 wrote:
> And sometimes the complicated solutions aren't needed... There's
> probably two ways to solve this problem... One is to just nuke the
> whole ****in' Middle East... The other is to make their product
> virtually worthless... As enticing as the first method might be, I
> would prefer the second so that they have longer to contemplate how
> they screwed up... Hell, we can always go back to the first way...

Their product will never be worthless. Its energy potential as a
fuel not whithstanding, it will always been needed and desired
as a product for lubricants, plastics, medicines, a zillion
differnt chemicals and lots of other stuff.

Petroleum is also the most efficient way to power an engine for
aircraft for a number of reasons.... and especially small aircraft
because of their size and weight limitations.

Hydrogen/nuclear/solar/whatever powered aircraft may one day
be a reality... but long after these other technologies have
been successfully used in automobiles - why are by far the
largest mass consumers of petro fuels on the planet. In fact,
once petroleum is replaced in vehicles the proce of fuel
JET ot AVGAS will go down accordingly.

Emily[_1_]

August 17th 06, 05:31 PM

Jose wrote:
>> Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters to
>> clean.
>
> Thinking a bit more, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean the tunnel in which
> the accelerator lies, I mean the tunnel (or tube), inside the
> accelerator, in which the particles actually travel.
>
> Jose
Oohhhh....you mean the tunnel inside the magnets. I got it.

Hence the post I skimmed about radioactive mutant moles.

Morgans[_3_]

August 17th 06, 05:49 PM

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote

Wooosssh!!!!

What was that? That was the sound of Jim picking a nit, going over your
head! <g>

The comment about being near impossible to "make" hydrogen, is that changing
one element into another is the only way to "make" an element, and that is
"near impossible" for most of us!

On the other hand we can produce, or "liberate" hydrogen from water, by
simply adding electricity. That is not "making" hydrogen.

Man, don't you hate it when you have to draw a picture to explain a joke?
<g>

'Specially when it wasn't very good, to begin with! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Tom Conner

August 17th 06, 05:58 PM

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
> >> Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for
> >> hamsters to clean.
> >
> > They dragged some sort of brush behind them, and were
> > trained to run through the tunnels. I don't know which
> > one, I think it was in Europe.
> >
> We must be talking about different kinds of accelerator tunnels.
> Last one I was in was like 10 feet high by 10 feet wide.

Maybe he is talking about the "tunnel" for the particle beam, and you are
talking about the tunnel that houses the particle accelerator.

Bret Ludwig

August 17th 06, 07:36 PM

JJS wrote:

<<snip>>
> You are in way over your head Ludwig. I've worked with all these gases for 28 years, in well, let's just say very
> large quantities. I do this stuff for a living. You don't have a clue. The more you try to defend your incorrect
> drivel the deeper you get. Be a man and back off and admit you don't know what you are talking about.

Okay smartypants, why is propane sold as a liquid in low pressure
tanks and nitrogen as a GAS in high pressure tanks or a LIQUID, at cryo
temperatures in dewars???

Roger[_4_]

August 18th 06, 06:37 AM

On 15 Aug 2006 11:04:53 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

>
>I started a couple of hours ago researching the production of ethanol,
>use of land, fetilizers, an thos dam tracters.. I juss fin the sbjek
>too be too dam comp, comp, cmmp, uhhh hard to ger reel faks... scuze me
>I'm gonna resea, resear, resur, unhhh, opena nother pint...

Keep goin' and you'll have as much time in there as I do<:-))
Pick a stance and you can find supposedly creditable studies that
support it.

Skewed results, commissioned studies with limitations that will
strongly bias the output which is particularly true of corn produced
ethanol and these are state supported studies in some instances. It
just depends on the state rep(s) and/or senator(s) who set the
criteria. The big one is making sure they included *ALL* the costs of
growing the crop to come up with a real energy balance. (energy to
grow the crop and produce the alcohol compared to the energy in the
alcohol as well as any saleable byproducts. Sometimes the byproducts
can make a product profitable) "NEAR AS I CAN TELL" the general
consensus (if there is one) it there is now a small positive energy
gain when producing alcohol from corn. I think this in part (possibly
mainly in part) comes from the ability to use/sell the byproducts of
the process as feed stock.

BTW the most skewed result I saw was from a large state university
that did a state sponsored study.

Then there is E-85, the flex fuel vehicles, and gasohol (E10).
We would do well to remember the car manufactures receive mileage
credit for producing flex fuel vehicles that allow them to keep on
producing gas guzzlers. Then there is the question: How many of
those flex fuel vehicles actually use E85? How many of them use E85
when regular gas is available? How much E-85 is actually used?

From what I've been able to find "IT APPEARS" that most, (the vast
majority) of "flex fuel" vehicles are not running on E-85. If this is
true, what advantage is there to having the "flex fuel" vehicle other
than it lets "Detroit" to continue to make gas guzzlers while claiming
mileage credits for producing those unused features. BTW check to see
what additional elements are required for a vehicle to be called "flex
fuel".

Overall efficiency wise, "IT APPEARS" that the two best alternatives
at present are hybrid cars and E-10.

Applying this to airplanes, although they may be true, I can not come
up with the figures "they claim" for performance and fuel consumption.
Nor can I come any where near the claimed cost for converting an
aircraft to *SAFELY* run on E85. (I wish they stop calling them
Methanol run and admit to E85).

Even if I could convert the engine in the Deb to burn E-85 by changing
a few gaskets and O-rings (they claim a few hundred dollars) what
about the gas tanks. How would the bladder tanks handle E85? For
planes with Aluminum tanks, is there enough protection afforded by the
15% gas to make the tanks last.

Unless I screwed up my math (which I have done on occasion) E-85 has
about 60% of the energy contained in AvGas. That means to come up
with the same power it takes 40% more fuel which means a 40% reduction
in range for the same fuel and power. OTOH as Alcohol weighs less we
could probably fit another 20 to 30% fuel in the plane for the same
weight (if we have a place to put it).

I purchased the plane I have to go places at about 190 MPH, not to run
at economy cruise to get what I see as a useful range.
>
OTOH, from what I've read it'd cost me at least several thousand
dollars to convert even if I didn't have the bladder tanks. New
bladder tanks can be built that should handle E-85 nicely. I
seriously doubt the old natural rubber and canvas tanks would do well
even with Gasohol (E10). Taking onto account the Deb's old bladder
tanks and fiberglass tip tanks and I figure it'd cost 12 to $15,000 to
convert. OTOH with the tip tanks full I'd be able to get about the
range I do now on the mains and Aux tanks without the tip tanks. To
top it off the price will be as much or more than I'm paying now.

>d ennnn i
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

August 18th 06, 06:39 AM

On 16 Aug 2006 06:38:59 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> >> You fly a balloon -- in WINTER?
>> >>
>> >> BRRRRRRR!
>> >
>> > Well, they do carry a really big heater with 'em...
>>
>> and once aloft, there is no wind.
>
>"It's a dry cold..."

Evidently this is not in Michigan!

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

August 18th 06, 06:44 AM

On 15 Aug 2006 10:13:59 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>
>Steve Foley wrote:
>> If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
>> something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
>> does.
>
>As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
>Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a

Unfortunately if you are talking electricity production you are not
talking oil, but rather coal and lots of it. I read an article
earlier this week that stated all but a few of the new proposed power
plants will be coal fired.

>large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
>etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
>central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
>more efficient than the individual engines.
>Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
>difference.

If that central engine puts out a lot of particulate matter, sulphur,
and other pollutants it makes one.

>
>Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
>it will probably be easier to understand.

Now that's Hydrogen. We'd need to nearly double our grid capacity
to go to Hydrogen and/or electric power on a large scale and it takes
more power to produce Hydrogen than you get out of it.

>
>-Robert
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

August 18th 06, 06:47 AM

On 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>
>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> Steve Foley wrote:
>> > If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
>> > something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
>> > does.
>>
>> As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
>> Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
>> large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
>> etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
>> central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
>> more efficient than the individual engines.
>> Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
>> difference.
>>
>
> There is no reason to burn oil to make electrical power (for utility
>use.) Even burning natural gas is wasteful. Coal and garbage are what
>we should be burning for power, if anything at all.
>
> Beech did a lot of work with LNG. It was, like all Beech designs,
>expensive, complex and a pain in the ass to maintain.
>
> Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
>electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from

That is one of the main fallacies of the electric car. They also need
to be charged during the day due to limited range.

>peak to off-peak, and nuke plants do best at steady power output.
>Nuclear is actually the way to go and is in my opinion inevitable. In

The technology already exists to build much better plants than we have
now.

>the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge

land is probably a better place to keep pollutants down in case of a
leak. Salt water is good at becoming radioactive.

>subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
>wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 18th 06, 10:15 AM

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:44:35 -0400, Roger >
wrote:
> it takes more power to produce Hydrogen than you get out of it.

Correct, but the idea is that with fusion, you have the energy to
waste in order to convert it into a more useful form of energy for
existing technology... Unfortunately, hydrogen either needs to be kept
really ****in' cold or under quite a bit of pressure in order to
provide a useful reserve of BTUs of energy that could be used in
vehicles... I'm not sure that is going to happen anytime soon...
Retrofitting existing aircraft to run on hydrogen would definitely be
problematic... LPG is possible due to less strength needed in the
pressure vessel... Automobiles on the other hand would be able to more
readily handle the added size and weight of hydrogen tanks...

Not sure how many cu-ft of gasoline vapor you get out of a gallon of
gasoline, but you get around 36 cu-ft of propane vapor out of a gallon
of propane liquid... A standard (i.e. AL80) SCUBA tank holds 80 cu-ft
of gas at 3000 psi and ends up weighing about 38 lbs... For a 50g
tank, you get 1800 cu-ft of gas... This would take around 22.5
equivalent SCUBA tanks, or 855 lbs... The 50g of avgas would have
weighed 300 lbs, therefore we're looking at 555 lbs extra in tankage
-- assuming your aircraft even has roof for this many tanks...

Carbon fiber tanks might work a bit better though... They're 11.3 lbs
empty for an 88 cu-ft tank... Hydrogen weighs 0.005229 lbs per cu-ft,
thus the 88 cu-ft tank would weigh approximately 11.76 lbs... We would
need approximately 20.45 tanks, for a total weight of 240.492 lbs...

From what I understand, hydrogen contains quite a bit more BTUs of
energy in it per pound than gasoline -- 61,000 vs around 20,500... As
such, it sounds like we might actually be able to use hydrogen in our
aircraft, assuming we could find room for the tanks...

There's also the issue of how fast these carbon fiber tanks can be
filled...

Other stuff here...
http://planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html

Basically, it boils down to the best way to use hydrogen might be to
add carbon back to it and convert it to gasoline...

Bret Ludwig

August 18th 06, 07:12 PM

Roger wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Robert M. Gary wrote:
> >> Steve Foley wrote:
> >> > If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
> >> > something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
> >> > does.
> >>
> >> As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
> >> Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
> >> large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
> >> etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
> >> central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
> >> more efficient than the individual engines.
> >> Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
> >> difference.
> >>
> >
> > There is no reason to burn oil to make electrical power (for utility
> >use.) Even burning natural gas is wasteful. Coal and garbage are what
> >we should be burning for power, if anything at all.
> >
> > Beech did a lot of work with LNG. It was, like all Beech designs,
> >expensive, complex and a pain in the ass to maintain.
> >
> > Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
> >electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from
>
> That is one of the main fallacies of the electric car. They also need
> to be charged during the day due to limited range.

Electric cars will supplant rather than replace IC cars. The people
who are good candidates for electric cars are those that customarily
drive a 5 to 25 mile radius to work, as 10 to 50 miles is the optimum
range of electric cars. Those with substantially longer commutes or who
mostly use their cars for long trips are simply not good candidates for
electric cars and no effort should be made to sell those people an
electric car.

Vacation trips and occasional longer drives are best handled in one of
two ways. Electric cars can be built with low power gensets making them
"electric-primary" hybrids (as opposed to today's hybrids which are all
"gasoline primary" hybrids.) Or, a second vehicle can be used.

The only need to charge during the day for people who fit the EV
mileage profile would be third shift workers, who therefore are poor EV
candidates as well.

Bret Ludwig

August 18th 06, 07:25 PM

kontiki wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > Even given a unlimited fuel supply they will be out of the air well
> > within my lifetime unless highly modified or someone starts making
> > R-3350 Turbocompound and RR Merlin parts again including cases, banks
> > and cranks.
>
> Can you provide any information to back that statement up?

Yes. The supply of "desireable dash number" RR Merlin (and Allison)
parts is becoming very limited. A few things are available new from PMA
or noncertified suppliers-most, but not all Warbirds operate
Experimental but P-51s may be on restricted, Limited or even, I think,,
standard C of A-but others are not. No one will make cranks and gears
are quite problematic now. Aeroproducts prop parts are also getting
very scarce. Of course they can do what Spitfire owners have had to do
and go over to a German Hoffmann prop.

The R-3350 Turbocompound was a maintenance nightmare in its own day.
Conversion to a straight 3350 would be possible but the power is
substantially less. The later aircraft would have to operate virtually
empty. R-4360s could be adapted but they are also cantankerous. I think
the day of the flying Connie is nearly over myself.

>
> > The Connies could now be converted to turboprop in the
> > stock nacelle and with the stock blades (the hub, or at least the pitch
> > mechanism, would need changing depending on whether a single or double
> > shaft engine were used) but a turbine Mustang just isn't a Mustang and
> > Allisons are in the same boat.

A Connie has limited "collector" value as opposed to "exhibitor" or
however you want to put it value. A turbine conversion on one would be
very expensive but since the trend is that the very wealthy are getting
a lot richer and everyone else is getting poorer , there are thoise for
whom money is no deterrent. (For better or worse, few are particularly
interested in old airplanes.)

>
> Turbine engines are extremely expensive.... turbine conversions have been
> certified for a few types but waay to expensive for most people. You
> are not gonna get people who own classic airplanes to pretty much destroy
> their collector value by installing a turbine... even if it could be done.

Most people are not who flies warbirds.
>
> >
> > Running them on straight ethanol would be the easy mod.
>
> If its so easy why haven't you come out with the kit and STC for all these
> airplanes? Can wee sue you if things don't work out?

Anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time in the US. However,
frankly your chances of getting money are nil.

> >
> > Besides, I thought we were done "aggrandizing WWII"......((ROTFLMAO)).
> >
>
> I don't think you are running on all cylinders.

You are not very observant.

JJS

August 20th 06, 03:52 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote
>
>> You are in way over your head Ludwig. I've worked with all these gases
> for 28 years, in well, let's just say very
>> large quantities. I do this stuff for a living. You don't have a clue.
> The more you try to defend your incorrect
>> drivel the deeper you get.
>
> God forbid that I would in any way defend anything that this nutjob says,
> but I think there is incomplete statements on both your parts going on here.
>
> You store these gasses at low temps, because it is impractical to store them
> at the crazy pressures that they would have to be, if kept at room
> temperature. The way things are done, in a real world? Very cold, with
> some pressure to help out, so you get a you are right, on this one.
>
> Yes, as he said, they can be kept at room temperatures. Almost anything can
> be. Practical? No. Wrongly stated? No.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Sorry for the late reply, Jim. We had to restart the plant and I was working some long hours. What you say above is
correct. But some things he has stated, not included above, are totally incorrect. I'm just sick of Ludwig making
blanket statements that are only partially correct so that he can forward his troll agenda. Some of his statements
are correct enough that some people "partially in the know" might accept them as gospel. That was my sole reason for
responding to the group. I try hard not to fall for troll bait If you'll go back and read his drivel, he says
things like, "you can't condense methane". Yeah right! He makes statements about the way products are stored when
there are multiple ways to store them. I tried to reply that in my experience he was wrong. There are other ways.
He attacks Van and Rutan, two of the icons of the experimental aircraft movement. He calls Van's keen observations
blather. Another "for instance": His assertion that natural gas is methane: Natural gas varies in composition
depending on a host of factors including what processing it has gone through, if any, and also from gas well to gas
well. It is not "only" methane: Here is an example. From one of our supply pipe lines, on August 9th it was 96.00
mole % methane, .43% carbon dioxide, .08 helium, .0012 i-butane, .0012 n-butane, 2.4621% ethane, .9300 nitrogen,
..0957 propane. Another pipeline was 95.76% methane, .00220 C6+, .64 carbon dioxide, .04 helium, 2.7004 ethane, .74
nitrogen, .1101 propane, .0023 i-butane, .0020 n-butane. So what? He replied that 96% is mostly methane. Each of
these constituents affects the BTU value of the gas. The first pipeline was running 1017 BTU's and the second 1027
BTU's. This is a huge factor not only in using the gas as a fuel but also in process it into other commodities such
as ammonia, methanol, carbon dioxide, etc.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Roger[_4_]

August 21st 06, 12:52 AM

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 09:52:03 -0500, "JJS" <jschneider@remove socks
cebridge.net> wrote:

>
>"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote
>>
>>> You are in way over your head Ludwig. I've worked with all these gases
>> for 28 years, in well, let's just say very
>>> large quantities. I do this stuff for a living. You don't have a clue.
>> The more you try to defend your incorrect
>>> drivel the deeper you get.
>>
>> God forbid that I would in any way defend anything that this nutjob says,
>> but I think there is incomplete statements on both your parts going on here.
>>
>> You store these gasses at low temps, because it is impractical to store them
>> at the crazy pressures that they would have to be, if kept at room

I worked for a company that used a *LOT* of H2. Probably as much or
even more than NASA. We had a very large tank farm which "as I
recall" had 12 tanks. (This was well over 20 years ago so I may be
mis-remembering some of it) We had a lot of tankers loaded with H2
coming into that place.

Of course the tanks were insulated, but we used the pressure of the
vaporizing H2 to move the stuff. N2 for us was a contaminant.

Cold? I noted some liquid running off one of the fittings and figured
it was way too cold for water, but it sure looked like it. The tank
farm operator remarked; "Water? No, it's way too cold for that. That
stuff running off is liquid Oxygen".

>> temperature. The way things are done, in a real world? Very cold, with
>> some pressure to help out, so you get a you are right, on this one.

For us the only alternative for pressure besides the evaporating
liquid H2 was Helium (analysis grade which I believe is five nines)
and even with all those tanks the stuff didn't evaporate fast enough
go keep the pressure up.

Purity was our problem as we were working at less than one part per
billion. That is difficult to maintain.

>>
>> Yes, as he said, they can be kept at room temperatures. Almost anything can
>> be. Practical? No. Wrongly stated? No.

Times change though.The output of that plant is many times what it
used to be and they have gone through two very large expansions since
they became the world's largest supplier of that product. Currently
(according to the local paper) they are looking "world wide" for a new
site to build another plant and it's my understanding there are a lot
of places that want them.

With improved recovery techniques and some "other processes" that
tank farm has disappeared. Last I saw there was only one small tank.
Probably 5 to 10,000 gallons give or take a bunch as I don't know how
much they kept in there. Stuff that was byproduct is reused in one
form or another. Recovery techniques have dropped the H2 use to a tiny
fraction of what it was at one time.

However I would add that there is a way to keep a lot of H2 in a
relatively small space at room temperature that is "physically
practical". Unfortunately it takes a lot of some very expensive
material that is also toxic. They can use metal Hydrides as "metal
sponges" and the things do hold a tremendous amount of H2. Also a
ruptured tank is not a fire safety issue as you normally have to use a
small heater to get the H2 out.

I believe these are the same type of Hydrides they use in batteries
which are a disposal problem. They aren't supposed to go in the
garbage, but being sold to the general public I'd bet way more than
half of those batteries do end up in the trash. Think of what NiMH
batteries cost and then think of a chunk of that stuff the size of the
gas tank in a car.

A bit of history. I started working for that company about the time
they moved from using an old two story farm house for an office and a
large cement block garage for production to a new office building plus
a new production facility about the size of a basketball court.

With the first expansion we were using so much H2 we installed the
World's largest electrolytic cell for generating H2 as there wasn't
enough liquid H2 capacity in the US to supply us and NASA. For some
strange reason they gave NASA a higher priority than us.

You should have heard that cell. When running at capacity it was
deafening. The O2 was just vented to the atmosphere and that was a
*lot* of O2. It was sorta like standing in front of an F-16 getting
ready to taxi. That cell was dismantled not long after sufficient
quantities of liquid H2 became available.

I worked there 26 years, quit and went back to college to earn my
degree. Never went back except in an official capacity to consult on
a computer system as they were a subsidiary for the corporation I
ended up working for after graduating.

>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>Sorry for the late reply, Jim. We had to restart the plant and I was working some long hours. What you say above is
>correct. But some things he has stated, not included above, are totally incorrect. I'm just sick of Ludwig making
>blanket statements that are only partially correct so that he can forward his troll agenda. Some of his statements
>are correct enough that some people "partially in the know" might accept them as gospel. That was my sole reason for
>responding to the group. I try hard not to fall for troll bait If you'll go back and read his drivel, he says
>things like, "you can't condense methane". Yeah right! He makes statements about the way products are stored when
>there are multiple ways to store them. I tried to reply that in my experience he was wrong. There are other ways.
>He attacks Van and Rutan, two of the icons of the experimental aircraft movement. He calls Van's keen observations
>blather. Another "for instance": His assertion that natural gas is methane: Natural gas varies in composition
>depending on a host of factors including what processing it has gone through, if any, and also from gas well to gas
>well. It is not "only" methane: Here is an example. From one of our supply pipe lines, on August 9th it was 96.00
>mole % methane, .43% carbon dioxide, .08 helium, .0012 i-butane, .0012 n-butane, 2.4621% ethane, .9300 nitrogen,
>.0957 propane. Another pipeline was 95.76% methane, .00220 C6+, .64 carbon dioxide, .04 helium, 2.7004 ethane, .74
>nitrogen, .1101 propane, .0023 i-butane, .0020 n-butane. So what? He replied that 96% is mostly methane. Each of
>these constituents affects the BTU value of the gas. The first pipeline was running 1017 BTU's and the second 1027
>BTU's. This is a huge factor not only in using the gas as a fuel but also in process it into other commodities such
>as ammonia, methanol, carbon dioxide, etc.
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Don Tuite

August 21st 06, 01:52 AM

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:52:40 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>Cold? I noted some liquid running off one of the fittings and figured
>it was way too cold for water, but it sure looked like it. The tank
>farm operator remarked; "Water? No, it's way too cold for that. That
>stuff running off is liquid Oxygen".

Jesus. What was it dripping onto?

>However I would add that there is a way to keep a lot of H2 in a
>relatively small space at room temperature that is "physically
>practical". Unfortunately it takes a lot of some very expensive
>material that is also toxic. They can use metal Hydrides as "metal
>sponges" and the things do hold a tremendous amount of H2. Also a
>ruptured tank is not a fire safety issue as you normally have to use a
>small heater to get the H2 out.
>
FWIW, the H2 in GM's little hydrogen-fueled electric cars is gaseous,
pressureized to 10K psi.

Don

Roger[_4_]

August 23rd 06, 10:40 AM

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:32:27 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>No, he was quite clear about a FUSION reactor. A fusion reactor takes two
>hydrogen atoms and fuses them together into helium plus energy. Now you
>could take that energy and convert it into electricity to electrolyze water,
>but what's the point? The electrical energy is what we need, not hydrogen.

Now all we need to do is develop a fusion reactor that works well and
develops useful power, something that has been eluding us for many
decades..

And agreed. If we have the cheap power why do we need to generate the
hydrogen to run the cars.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 23rd 06, 02:54 PM

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:40:13 -0400, Roger >
wrote:
> And agreed. If we have the cheap power why do we need to generate the
> hydrogen to run the cars.

Because battery technology is not sufficient... Hydrogen works out to
be the energy transport / storage mechanism... Existing vehicles can
be converted to work on hydrogen... Unless we can come up with a
battery type that charges significantly quicker than current ones and
holds significantly more energy, I don't see us getting away from some
sort of internal combustion engine... Yeah, fuel cells might be good,
but you still need some sort of fuel that contains hydrogen in it...

RST Engineering

August 23rd 06, 05:47 PM

(PLEASE don't take this as a political rant. A scientific or engineering
rant perhaps.)

Roger ...

What we need is a national leader with the balls of a Kennedy who said in
1961 that "we will send man to the moon by the end of this decade (the easy
part) and bring him back to earth safely (the hard part).

While that wasn't something that really HELPED the economy, or that gave us
immediate technical gains (teflon and Tang notwithstanding), we did it for
the same reason that Isabella hocked the crown jewels and gave Columbus his
marching orders. It was something that had never been done before ... man's
insatiable desire to know what is over the far hill.

A generation of us who were drifting rudderless all of a sudden had a
pointer. Tens of thousands of us who weren't sure what we would be doing
that August started poring over college catalogs to see what sort of a major
program would put us on-line with our new national goal. Somehow I finagled
a triple major in electronic physics, math, and aerospace studies, which
coupled with my ham ticket and college airline job fixing radars and other
microwave gear put me right down the localizer to have a teeny tiny part in
the Apollo landing radar.

Unpaid overtime wasn't an option, it was expected. We had a deadline. We
beat Kennedy's challenge by five months.

And now are you all telling me that if we had somebody that said that if we
don't solve our energy problem that we are all going to be sitting around
our campfires in the dark in a hundred years that we couldn't solve that
problem?

Are you telling me that a generation of the finest and cleverest amongst our
young couldn't pick up the traces that we dropped almost forty years ago and
pull that wagon across the finish line ahead of schedule?

Are you telling me that if we took all the trillion$ we are ****ing down one
rathole after another and turned it to making the magnetic Klein bottle to
hold the fusion energy genie that we couldn't do it on time and within
budget?

I think not. It takes a single charismatic leader with a vision and a
purpose. I hope (s)he appears before we are too far behind the power curve
to recover.

Jim

> Now all we need to do is develop a fusion reactor that works well and
> develops useful power, something that has been eluding us for many
> decades..

Don Tuite

August 23rd 06, 06:18 PM

Nice rant. I did one back in March where I sent the wayback machine
to a few years before Kennedy:

http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=12217

Don

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:47:12 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>(PLEASE don't take this as a political rant. A scientific or engineering
>rant perhaps.)
>
>Roger ...
>
>What we need is a national leader with the balls of a Kennedy who said in
>1961 that "we will send man to the moon by the end of this decade (the easy
>part) and bring him back to earth safely (the hard part).
>
>While that wasn't something that really HELPED the economy, or that gave us
>immediate technical gains (teflon and Tang notwithstanding), we did it for
>the same reason that Isabella hocked the crown jewels and gave Columbus his
>marching orders. It was something that had never been done before ... man's
>insatiable desire to know what is over the far hill.
>
>A generation of us who were drifting rudderless all of a sudden had a
>pointer. Tens of thousands of us who weren't sure what we would be doing
>that August started poring over college catalogs to see what sort of a major
>program would put us on-line with our new national goal. Somehow I finagled
>a triple major in electronic physics, math, and aerospace studies, which
>coupled with my ham ticket and college airline job fixing radars and other
>microwave gear put me right down the localizer to have a teeny tiny part in
>the Apollo landing radar.
>
>Unpaid overtime wasn't an option, it was expected. We had a deadline. We
>beat Kennedy's challenge by five months.
>
>And now are you all telling me that if we had somebody that said that if we
>don't solve our energy problem that we are all going to be sitting around
>our campfires in the dark in a hundred years that we couldn't solve that
>problem?
>
>Are you telling me that a generation of the finest and cleverest amongst our
>young couldn't pick up the traces that we dropped almost forty years ago and
>pull that wagon across the finish line ahead of schedule?
>
>Are you telling me that if we took all the trillion$ we are ****ing down one
>rathole after another and turned it to making the magnetic Klein bottle to
>hold the fusion energy genie that we couldn't do it on time and within
>budget?
>
>I think not. It takes a single charismatic leader with a vision and a
>purpose. I hope (s)he appears before we are too far behind the power curve
>to recover.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>> Now all we need to do is develop a fusion reactor that works well and
>> develops useful power, something that has been eluding us for many
>> decades..
>

RST Engineering

August 23rd 06, 06:46 PM

Nicely done.

Jim

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> Nice rant. I did one back in March where I sent the wayback machine
> to a few years before Kennedy:
>
> http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=12217
>

ktbr

August 23rd 06, 07:13 PM

RST Engineering wrote:
>
> Are you telling me that a generation of the finest and cleverest amongst our
> young couldn't pick up the traces that we dropped almost forty years ago and
> pull that wagon across the finish line ahead of schedule?

Ya know.. I'm not so sure we could do that anymore. It worked back
then because we were still a cohesive nation of largely english
speaking people. Nowadays we are a conglomeration of dozens of
factions/groups all having their own agenda, many with no apparent
love for this country.

The WWII generations was still alive and well back in the 60's,
most of them are dead or dying now and what's left is a bunch of
whining socialists. If you now what finally brought down Rome
you'll understand what's happening to the United States.

Ken Finney

August 23rd 06, 08:12 PM

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Nicely done.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Don Tuite" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nice rant. I did one back in March where I sent the wayback machine
>> to a few years before Kennedy:
>>
>> http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=12217
>>
>
>

I read them both, and I have one issue: "the youth of today". I know it is
an old arguement that "today's kids aren't interested", but unfortunately
I've had way too much experience to not believe most of it. In
rec.crafts.metalworking, one of the perennial discussions in the closing
down of school shop classes; some of the stories bring tears to your eyes.
A combination of kids not interested, parents (and teachers) that vow that
"no kid of mine is ever going to work with their hands!", to legal liability
issues. I tried to set up a program where several high tech companies would
donate surplus test equipment to schools, and the schools all told me "We
don't want or need that stuff, none of our kids are interested in subjects
like that". I'm doing my part (in the process of joining CAP), but in this
CAP area, several squadrons have consolidated due to a lack of interest, and
the squadron I'm joining has gone from 30-50 cadets down to 3 in the past
few years. We are going to ramp that back up, but to a large extent, it
isn't just the kids not interested, it is the parents as well.

RST Engineering

August 23rd 06, 08:14 PM

Nope, sorry, don't buy it. The head of the department had a thick German
accent. THe best analyst was Chinese, barely spoke English, but the
calculations and insights were amazing. Japanese? Koreans? Vietnamese?
Hey, this was a Navy town; we had every nationality you could imagine
working in some aspect of the program.

Yeah, we all had an agenda. Toss the tin whore up there and bring her home.

Jim

>
> Ya know.. I'm not so sure we could do that anymore. It worked back
> then because we were still a cohesive nation of largely english
> speaking people. Nowadays we are a conglomeration of dozens of
> factions/groups all having their own agenda, many with no apparent
> love for this country.

Gig 601XL Builder

August 23rd 06, 08:47 PM

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Nope, sorry, don't buy it. The head of the department had a thick German
> accent. THe best analyst was Chinese, barely spoke English, but the
> calculations and insights were amazing. Japanese? Koreans? Vietnamese?
> Hey, this was a Navy town; we had every nationality you could imagine
> working in some aspect of the program.
>
> Yeah, we all had an agenda. Toss the tin whore up there and bring her
> home.
>
> Jim
>
>>
>> Ya know.. I'm not so sure we could do that anymore. It worked back
>> then because we were still a cohesive nation of largely english
>> speaking people. Nowadays we are a conglomeration of dozens of
>> factions/groups all having their own agenda, many with no apparent
>> love for this country.
>
>

I don't think Jay was talking about those working on the program. More the
country as a whole. Today, the special interest groups could get together to
agree the sky is blue or that water is wet.

RST Engineering

August 23rd 06, 09:01 PM

And political leaders with their pecker caught in the cookie jar to answer
those questions with "it all depends on what you mean by 'blue' and 'wet.'"

(Two particularly apt adjectives for the political leader in question, no?)

Jim

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...

> agree the sky is blue or that water is wet.
>

RST Engineering

August 23rd 06, 09:04 PM

I understand completely. I just participated for the last year (as the
teacher) to try and resurrect a dying vocational electronics program. I've
never put so much effort into a program with so little response. Yeah,
nobody wants to get their hands dirty. The hell of it is, I've got my car
in the Miata shop right now getting a radiator and water pump put in by $30
an hour mechanics and you can't find enough of them that know what they are
doing even at that rate.

Jim

> A combination of kids not interested, parents (and teachers) that vow that
> "no kid of mine is ever going to work with their hands!", to legal
> liability issues. I tried to set up a program where several high tech
> companies would donate surplus test equipment to schools, and the schools
> all told me "We don't want or need that stuff, none of our kids are
> interested in subjects like that".

Ken Finney

August 23rd 06, 09:47 PM

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>I understand completely. I just participated for the last year (as the
>teacher) to try and resurrect a dying vocational electronics program. I've
>never put so much effort into a program with so little response. Yeah,
>nobody wants to get their hands dirty. The hell of it is, I've got my car
>in the Miata shop right now getting a radiator and water pump put in by $30
>an hour mechanics and you can't find enough of them that know what they are
>doing even at that rate.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>> A combination of kids not interested, parents (and teachers) that vow
>> that "no kid of mine is ever going to work with their hands!", to legal
>> liability issues. I tried to set up a program where several high tech
>> companies would donate surplus test equipment to schools, and the schools
>> all told me "We don't want or need that stuff, none of our kids are
>> interested in subjects like that".
>
>

Is that the shop rate or the mechanics wages? I don't think there are any
dealerships around Seattle with less than $50 an hour rates, and I've seen
up to $72 a hour.

Larry Dighera

August 24th 06, 02:59 AM

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:04:46 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote in
>:

>I understand completely. I just participated for the last year (as the
>teacher) to try and resurrect a dying vocational electronics program. I've
>never put so much effort into a program with so little response. Yeah,
>nobody wants to get their hands dirty. The hell of it is, I've got my car
>in the Miata shop right now getting a radiator and water pump put in by $30
>an hour mechanics and you can't find enough of them that know what they are
>doing even at that rate.

It's almost as if public schools try to prevent students from becoming
employable instead of readying them for a productive adult life. There
is no question that vocational training should have a prominent
position in public school curricula, and corporate industry should be
participating in training the workers their particular specialty
requires, like CAD programmers, service technicians, etc. But as it
is, high-school kids are prevented from working after school without
school permission.

It's going to take someone with the vision to understand, that the
youth of today are the world of tomorrow, and see to it that public
education creates the best possible future it is capable of imagining.

Larry Dighera

August 24th 06, 03:01 AM

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:47:12 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote in >:

>
>(PLEASE don't take this as a political rant. A scientific or engineering
>rant perhaps.)
>
>Roger ...
>
>What we need is a national leader with the balls of a Kennedy who said in
>1961 that "we will send man to the moon by the end of this decade (the easy
>part) and bring him back to earth safely (the hard part).
>
>While that wasn't something that really HELPED the economy, or that gave us
>immediate technical gains (teflon and Tang notwithstanding), we did it for
>the same reason that Isabella hocked the crown jewels and gave Columbus his
>marching orders. It was something that had never been done before ... man's
>insatiable desire to know what is over the far hill.
>
>A generation of us who were drifting rudderless all of a sudden had a
>pointer. Tens of thousands of us who weren't sure what we would be doing
>that August started poring over college catalogs to see what sort of a major
>program would put us on-line with our new national goal. Somehow I finagled
>a triple major in electronic physics, math, and aerospace studies, which
>coupled with my ham ticket and college airline job fixing radars and other
>microwave gear put me right down the localizer to have a teeny tiny part in
>the Apollo landing radar.
>
>Unpaid overtime wasn't an option, it was expected. We had a deadline. We
>beat Kennedy's challenge by five months.
>
>And now are you all telling me that if we had somebody that said that if we
>don't solve our energy problem that we are all going to be sitting around
>our campfires in the dark in a hundred years that we couldn't solve that
>problem?
>
>Are you telling me that a generation of the finest and cleverest amongst our
>young couldn't pick up the traces that we dropped almost forty years ago and
>pull that wagon across the finish line ahead of schedule?
>
>Are you telling me that if we took all the trillion$ we are ****ing down one
>rathole after another and turned it to making the magnetic Klein bottle to
>hold the fusion energy genie that we couldn't do it on time and within
>budget?
>
>I think not. It takes a single charismatic leader with a vision and a
>purpose. I hope (s)he appears before we are too far behind the power curve
>to recover.
>
>Jim

A nice bit of writing. Well said.

Not being knowledgeable about the current state of fusion technology,
it would appear to me, that the fundamental physics of controllable
fusion reactions is still unproven, whereas the man on the moon
mission was more of an engineering exercise. Please enlighten me if
that is not the case.

Larry Dighera

August 24th 06, 03:02 AM

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:13:32 GMT, ktbr > wrote in
>:

>If you now what finally brought down Rome
>you'll understand what's happening to the United States.

Of course, Rome's populations were even more heterogeneous than that
of the US.

Perhaps the chaos you sense is a result of increasing population
densities, single parent households' influence on childhood
experiences and education, perceived environmental stresses, and the
lead pipes conducting our potable water. :-)

RST Engineering

August 24th 06, 03:19 AM

Mechanics wages. You can figure somewhere between 25% (cheap *******s) and
50% (enlightened employers) of the "shop rate" for mechanic's wages. Shop
rates around here are a bit north of $75 an hour.

Jim

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I understand completely. I just participated for the last year (as the
>>teacher) to try and resurrect a dying vocational electronics program.
>>I've never put so much effort into a program with so little response.
>>Yeah, nobody wants to get their hands dirty. The hell of it is, I've got
>>my car in the Miata shop right now getting a radiator and water pump put
>>in by $30 an hour mechanics and you can't find enough of them that know
>>what they are doing even at that rate.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>> A combination of kids not interested, parents (and teachers) that vow
>>> that "no kid of mine is ever going to work with their hands!", to legal
>>> liability issues. I tried to set up a program where several high tech
>>> companies would donate surplus test equipment to schools, and the
>>> schools all told me "We don't want or need that stuff, none of our kids
>>> are interested in subjects like that".
>>
>>
>
> Is that the shop rate or the mechanics wages? I don't think there are any
> dealerships around Seattle with less than $50 an hour rates, and I've seen
> up to $72 a hour.
>
>
>

RST Engineering

August 24th 06, 03:34 AM

The fundamentals of UNcontrollable fusion reactions have been well
understood since we set of the first H-bomb in the early '50s.

The fundamentals of COntrollable fusion reactions were well known when I
made the conscious decision NOT to take a job at the better paying Gulf
General Atomics on Torrey Pines and took the Apollo job at Teledyne in San
Diego when I got out of college. Gulf was damned close to controllable
fusion; it was just that it would have taken more energy to contain the
genie than the genie would have created. Since we know how to do it, it
devolves itself to a "simple" engineering problem.

However, do you think that the prime contractor on the Apollo program would
have invested hundreds of billions of dollars of their own money on the off
chance that they could make the system work? Hell no, the feds pumped
BILLIONS into the space program and got back a sack of rocks. I saw one of
those rocks at the Smithsonian a couple of years ago and bawled like a baby,
right there in the museum, that once we had the power to bring back alien
property from space. Ladies and gentlemen, we have extraterrestrial beings
walking amongst us right now ... we call them astro and cosmo nauts.

So in both cases we have engineering problems to solve. In the case of
Apollo, it was the national will that we solve the problem. So far, the
ultimate solution for humankind, the replication of the sun's process for
making energy, hasn't been made a national priority.

Jim

>
> Not being knowledgeable about the current state of fusion technology,
> it would appear to me, that the fundamental physics of controllable
> fusion reactions is still unproven, whereas the man on the moon
> mission was more of an engineering exercise. Please enlighten me if
> that is not the case.
>

Jim Logajan

August 24th 06, 03:59 AM

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Not being knowledgeable about the current state of fusion technology,
> it would appear to me, that the fundamental physics of controllable
> fusion reactions is still unproven, whereas the man on the moon
> mission was more of an engineering exercise. Please enlighten me if
> that is not the case.

Your understanding of the current state of fusion technology appears to me
to be a reasonably accurate assessment. When controlled fusion research
began, it appears that physicists thought that plasmas would be easy to
model and understand. Alas, plasmas turned out to be rather complex and
required decades to model and predict their behavior properly. I believe
computer models of plasmas have been refined enough that when a confinement
scheme appears to work in the computer, the real thing would have a good
chance to work. But I believe the confinement scheme of choice doesn't work
until scaled way up, so a "simple" test device isn't cheap. For some
reason, all this took decades to discover.

A Mr. Fusion wont be powering anyone's aircraft anytime soon.

RST Engineering

August 24th 06, 04:15 PM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message

For some
> reason, all this took decades to discover.

Ah, but you weren't considering the NASA Nine Pregnant Women principle. It
is NASA's contention that if you throw enough money at the problem, nine
pregnant women can have a baby in a month. And guess what? To a good first
approximation, they are correct.

>
> A Mr. Fusion wont be powering anyone's aircraft anytime soon.

Depends entirely upon how soon the country wakes itself up and faces the
problem square on.

Jim

Don Tuite

August 24th 06, 05:25 PM

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:15:50 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> For some
>> reason, all this took decades to discover.
>
>Ah, but you weren't considering the NASA Nine Pregnant Women principle. It
>is NASA's contention that if you throw enough money at the problem, nine
>pregnant women can have a baby in a month. And guess what? To a good first
>approximation, they are correct.
>>
>> A Mr. Fusion wont be powering anyone's aircraft anytime soon.
>
>Depends entirely upon how soon the country wakes itself up and faces the
>problem square on.

Forget Mr Fusion. I think the pebble bed is pretty close to Mr
Fission. We learned a lot from the German experimental ones, the
China/MIT plant is on-line, and I would be surprised if the first
South African pebble bed modular reactor wasn't running by 2012. Idaho
National Lab is where the action seems to be at here in the States.
It might be a good idea to shift some funding there from Lawrence and
Berkeley.

The NASA analog to fusion power is probably Taylor and Dyson's Project
Orion. (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/OrionProj.html)

Don

ktbr

August 24th 06, 06:55 PM

RST Engineering wrote:
>
> Depends entirely upon how soon the country wakes itself up and faces the
> problem square on.

Which problem? As far as I can tell there are about five (5)
really critical ones that have been facing us square on for
the past 10 or 15 years (or more) and we've pretty much done
nothing except bitch, whine or pontificate about.

And the reason why I don't think anything really ever *will*
be done (until possibly a catastrophe occurs of course) is
because we are a nation of factions with little cohesion. Our
leaders are a bunch of old farts, out of touch with reality,
obsessed with politcal correctness and willing to sell their
souls to get re-elected.

No, this not a nation that demonstrates it has the will
or ability to face big problems head on and solve them.

Jose[_1_]

August 24th 06, 07:21 PM

> And the reason why I don't think anything really ever *will*
> be done (until possibly a catastrophe occurs of course) is
> because we are a nation of factions with little cohesion. Our
> leaders are a bunch of old farts, out of touch with reality,
> obsessed with politcal correctness and willing to sell their
> souls to get re-elected.

No, the reason why nothing will be done is that those who could do
something about any given problem actually benefit by the existence of
that problem. They benefit by actions that prolong the problem while
offering noises about a solution.

As for nuclear power, I am more concerned about the results of
ineptitude. Make a mistake with coal and it's unfortunate. Make a
mistake with uranium and it's tragic. And ineptitude can include both
technical, design, security, and logic.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

ktbr

August 24th 06, 07:47 PM

Jose wrote:
> No, the reason why nothing will be done is that those who could do
> something about any given problem actually benefit by the existence of
> that problem. They benefit by actions that prolong the problem while
> offering noises about a solution.

Well that's true also, but that doesn;t make my assertions any less true.

Roger (K8RI)

August 25th 06, 03:28 AM

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:47:12 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

Boy, but you sure did hit on a bunch of my pet peeves Jim<:-))
Remember I quit work at age 47 and went back to college full time to
earn a degree in CS (minors in math and art)

>(PLEASE don't take this as a political rant. A scientific or engineering
>rant perhaps.)

I guess I'd have to say mine is aimed at the average individual on the
street.

>
>Roger ...
>
>What we need is a national leader with the balls of a Kennedy who said in
>1961 that "we will send man to the moon by the end of this decade (the easy
>part) and bring him back to earth safely (the hard part).
>
>While that wasn't something that really HELPED the economy, or that gave us

I do think in the long run it did make a substantial boost for the
economy from the technological gains alone, let alone the "spin offs".

>immediate technical gains (teflon and Tang notwithstanding), we did it for
>the same reason that Isabella hocked the crown jewels and gave Columbus his
>marching orders. It was something that had never been done before ... man's
>insatiable desire to know what is over the far hill.
>
>A generation of us who were drifting rudderless all of a sudden had a

While we now have several generations in that boat. When I was taking
a college Anthropology class (Sociology) the Prof remarked about an
article she had read that stated people were no where nearly as
success oriented as those of several generations prior. She wanted to
know if any of us agreed with that. Only two of us did. Of course I
was probably older than the prof so she asked me why I thought that
today's (It was 1989) people were not as success oriented at those of
earlier generations.

I said that the average individual's idea of success oriented was
getting a degree, or just a good job, working 8 hours, go home, prop
their feet up in front of the TV and have a beer while watching "the
game". The whole back row stood up and complained. (they were mostly
our sports players). They had absolutely no idea as to what success
oriented meant. They had confused it with successfully reaching their
goal. I told the prof, "I rest my case". She had a bit of a problem
keeping a straight face, but then proceeded to explain to the rest of
the class the definition of "success oriented".

>pointer. Tens of thousands of us who weren't sure what we would be doing
>that August started poring over college catalogs to see what sort of a major
>program would put us on-line with our new national goal. Somehow I finagled
>a triple major in electronic physics, math, and aerospace studies, which
>coupled with my ham ticket and college airline job fixing radars and other
>microwave gear put me right down the localizer to have a teeny tiny part in
>the Apollo landing radar.

Today the trend is to avoid the sciences as well as the technical.
Then people complain AND blame the schools when their kids who aren't
suited for advanced education aren't prepared to step out into a good
paying job. They come out unable to continue into college but with no
technical background and the parents blame the system instead of
taking responsibility for where their kids are headed.
>
>Unpaid overtime wasn't an option, it was expected. We had a deadline. We
>beat Kennedy's challenge by five months.

I was still paid overtime back then.

>
>And now are you all telling me that if we had somebody that said that if we
>don't solve our energy problem that we are all going to be sitting around
>our campfires in the dark in a hundred years that we couldn't solve that
>problem?

No, but <:-)) First we have to convince both the public and
government leaders there is a problem that can't be ignored for a few
more generations. Problems of a size that Band-Aid will not cure.
Both are still in denial and are just blaming the big corporations or
believing in junk science.

>
>Are you telling me that a generation of the finest and cleverest amongst our
>young couldn't pick up the traces that we dropped almost forty years ago and
>pull that wagon across the finish line ahead of schedule?

Two problems: We have to convince enough of them who are not already
believers to get busy and we need to prevent the older generations
from holding them back. Encouragement would be nice, but not holding
them back would be a big step.

>
>Are you telling me that if we took all the trillion$ we are ****ing down one
>rathole after another and turned it to making the magnetic Klein bottle to
>hold the fusion energy genie that we couldn't do it on time and within
>budget?

Now there's one of the main kickers. The owners of all those "rat
holes" through which the money is sliding are going to fight to get
bigger "rat holes" rather than spend the money on something to which
they have no connection even if it is far more useful, or even
essential.

The fusion energy genie is a slippery little bugger isn't it? To me
it seems like a big computer, a bit of chaos theory, and some super
conductors should be able to do it. Certainly that is an over
simplification but I think it conveys the general idea. It would seem
that some one could figure out how to contain that very slippery
critter that is developing its own magnetic field inside another
magnetic field. Of course that's like trying to push like poles on
two very strong magnets together that are moving and changing strength
continually.

>
>I think not. It takes a single charismatic leader with a vision and a
>purpose. I hope (s)he appears before we are too far behind the power curve
>to recover.
>

Knowledgeable, honest, and charismatic leaders are as rare as the
proverbial "hens teeth" and appear to be in short supply be they
Liberal or Conservative.

People would prefer to have "faith" in some one watching over them so
they don't have to be responsible. We have built up a tremendous
inertia where the general population relies on support in one form or
another. Getting them to step in and take responsibility is a big leap
and the chasm is getting wider every day.

We are looking at the requirements for a multi tiered program
consisting of alternative energy sources, advancements in technology,
education and acceptance of reality that we really do have a problem,
and conservation at the individual level.

It's a bit sobering to see that conservation at the individual level
could make the US independent of foreign oil, yet the average
individual blames big industry for high prices and polluting the
atmosphere. OTOH those individuals are calling for more oil
refineries instead of using less.

>Jim
>
>
>
>> Now all we need to do is develop a fusion reactor that works well and
>> develops useful power, something that has been eluding us for many
>> decades..
>
73

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

RST Engineering

August 25th 06, 03:45 AM

> It's a bit sobering to see that conservation at the individual level
> could make the US independent of foreign oil, yet the average
> individual blames big industry for high prices and polluting the
> atmosphere. OTOH those individuals are calling for more oil
> refineries instead of using less.

And driving their letters to the editor complaining about it to the local
newspaper in their SUVs.

Jim

Jose[_1_]

August 25th 06, 03:49 AM

> I said that the average individual's idea of success oriented was
[...]
> She had a bit of a problem
> keeping a straight face, but then proceeded to explain to the rest of
> the class the definition of "success oriented".

Seems the question is being begged here. You can define "success
oriented" and then discuss whether people fit or don't fit it, or you
can state that people fit it, and discuss what "success oriented" means
to different folks.

But to do both at the same time is oiling an eel.

> Today the trend is to avoid the sciences as well as the technical.

.... and embrace superstition.

> The fusion energy genie is a slippery little bugger isn't it?

The solution is itself a bigger problem, IMHO. Suppose we could contain
the genie. We'd also know how not to contain it. We'd know how to not
contain it on command. This technology would be all over the place, and
ten years later, when all the glamor is gone, would be run like NASA in
the early "The Space Shuttle is just a truck" days, or worse, like the
present day bus sytem.

Another big difference between the moon shot and energy sources is that
with the moon shot, we DID something, we GOT something, we could point
to it and say "I had a part in that". With the energy thing, all we'd
get back is what we already have... just cheaper and without ruining
stuff nobody seems to care about anyway. That's a hard sell.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roger[_4_]

August 25th 06, 07:49 AM

Roger[_4_]

August 25th 06, 07:53 AM

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:45:04 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>> It's a bit sobering to see that conservation at the individual level
>> could make the US independent of foreign oil, yet the average
>> individual blames big industry for high prices and polluting the
>> atmosphere. OTOH those individuals are calling for more oil
>> refineries instead of using less.
>
>
>And driving their letters to the editor complaining about it to the local
>newspaper in their SUVs.

One Irate gal answered one of my letters to the editor by saying she
couldn't cut back on her driving any more as she'd done all she could
do what with all the activities in which the kids had to participate.
She was making about 5 round trips a day.

BTW I send my letters to the editor via e-mail. With my Internet bill
I'm not sure it's cheaper but it does save energy.<:-))

73

>
>Jim
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Larry Dighera

August 25th 06, 11:40 AM

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:28:24 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote in
>:

>It's a bit sobering to see that conservation at the individual level
>could make the US independent of foreign oil, yet the average
>individual blames big industry for high prices and polluting the
>atmosphere. OTOH those individuals are calling for more oil
>refineries instead of using less.

"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
-- George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
-- Vice President Dick Cheney

Bob Noel

August 25th 06, 11:49 AM

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
> sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

note the word "sufficient"

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 25th 06, 06:07 PM

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:49:15 -0400, Roger >
wrote:
> Hummers!

Yeah, but they are the H2s, so they're not *real* Hummers, just
posers...

cjcampbell

August 26th 06, 05:14 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> For those who think ethanol is a fuel that can't be made to work in
> aircraft, I present the following:

I still would not feel safe with ethanol. Materials compatibility aside
(and that is a big issue all by itself), ethanol is hydrophilic. It
attracts and absorbs water, increasing the chance of fuel
contamination. Airplane fuel tends to be stored a lot longer than
automobile fuel anyway. I know that ethanol advocates claim that
ethanol has a storage life equivalent to that of gasoline, but ethanol
advocates claim a lot of other things, too. So far, no hard data on
storage life, but anecdotal evidence indicates that ethanol has a much
shorter storage life than claimed. You can bet that if it really was as
good as gasoline that the ethanol advocates would have published hard
data showing it a long time ago.

In a car, the worst ethanol can do is ruin your engine. In an airplane
it could kill you.

Eduardo K.[_1_]

August 26th 06, 09:35 PM

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> -- Vice President Dick Cheney
>

eufemistic title :)

--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|

Roger[_4_]

August 27th 06, 10:38 AM

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:49:29 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> I said that the average individual's idea of success oriented was
>[...]
>> She had a bit of a problem
>> keeping a straight face, but then proceeded to explain to the rest of
>> the class the definition of "success oriented".
>
>Seems the question is being begged here. You can define "success
>oriented" and then discuss whether people fit or don't fit it, or you
>can state that people fit it, and discuss what "success oriented" means
>to different folks.
>
Success or goal oriented (they are pretty much the same) is well
defined.

>But to do both at the same time is oiling an eel.

Becoming a success at one goal is not goal oriented by any stretch.
Goal/success oriented people are constantly setting new goals. They
reach one and set the next, or set the next before even reaching the
first. They may have a series laid out and just add to it as they
continually succeed at reaching new goals. There is a big difference
between succeeding at something and being success oriented.

>
<snip >
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Larry Dighera

August 27th 06, 01:43 PM

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:35:41 +0000 (UTC), Eduardo K.
> wrote in >:

>In article >,
>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> -- Vice President Dick Cheney
>>
>
>eufemistic title :)

[euphemistic?]

Oh. Right. That title is more accurately applicable to Karl Rove,
the un-elected co-leader of our noble nation. :-(

Jose[_1_]

August 27th 06, 03:54 PM

> Success or goal oriented (they are pretty much the same) is well
> defined.

Well, it's a definition (thank you) of which I was not aware, and I
doubt I'm unique in that respect. The OP has expired on my server, so I
no longer have the context ("I said that the average individual's idea
of success oriented was...") but it seems all you're saying there is
"people have a mistaken notion of what X is".

But in terms of your definition (keep setting new goals), I don't think
the country was ever "success oriented", and I don't think "success
orientation" is necessarily a good thing.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roger[_4_]

August 28th 06, 04:58 AM

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:54:04 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Success or goal oriented (they are pretty much the same) is well
>> defined.
>
>Well, it's a definition (thank you) of which I was not aware, and I
>doubt I'm unique in that respect.

Not by a long shot..

>The OP has expired on my server, so I

This is more than a little thread drift and the OP was probably well
over a month ago. This is a thread that is an off spring of a thread
that is an offspring of a thread...etc... IF you are willing to wade
through that much it should be available by doing a google search on
Ethanol Powered Aircraft. There have been at least three threads
since the original including at least one or more with the same name
some of which are due to the posters actually posting instead of
replying which of course starts a new thread and who knows which one
goes where.

>no longer have the context ("I said that the average individual's idea
>of success oriented was...") but it seems all you're saying there is
>"people have a mistaken notion of what X is".

Actually it's most people compared to what the sociologists use for a
definition.

>
>But in terms of your definition (keep setting new goals), I don't think
>the country was ever "success oriented", and I don't think "success

As I recall it was phrased that we are no longer as success oriented
as we used to be, or at least that was the intent.

Many are success oriented without even knowing it. Most of us set
small goals each day, or week, or month. For some it's learning and
particularly with adult education and the retired.

The paragraph below is paraphrased from Cannon and Boglarsky (Wayne
State)

The goal setting is more related to a strong work ethic. Generally
these people are called "achievers", have a strong work ethic, are
family oriented, and have a strong sense of self worth.

IOW they believe in themselves, do their best, and strive to keep
improving "their station" in life.
>orientation" is necessarily a good thing.

Extremism, even addiction, exists for most anything including
Conservatism, Liberalism, religion, sex, and .. well... you name it.

Some people are just not cut out for the psychological effort required
of goal setting. Others set goals too far in advance and end up
discouraged, or depressed while others become obsessed by it. None of
this is good.

>
>Jose
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com