Ethanol Powered Aircraft

"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

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

"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.

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???

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