Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.


Gunner wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:35:25 -0700, The Independent
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >I think it would be simpler to build a simple steam turbine and power
> >the generator that way. But the boiler thing whoooeee. Why do you
> >think the railroads went to diesel electric locomotives.

>
> But...it took them over a hundred years to do the change over. Steam
> worked well enough for all that time to justify its issues.
>
> Gunner
>


Actually it took about 30 years. The first Diesel electric units stated
coming off the production lines in the 1930's and I think that the last
steam locomotive was put to rest in the 1960's. The diesel electric
units just could not pull long trains up out of Rock Spring Wyoming up
the Green River Pass. I think that it took the development of the big
double locomotives (4500 HP) to accomplish that task. Even today the
Diesel locomotives cannot maintain the speeds of the old steam passenger
locomotives. (100 MPH over long distances) I think that the best
Am-Trac can do is about 70 MPH and that is slower than you automobile.
Of course the track beds are in far worse shape than they were when the
100 MPH passenger steam locomotives ruled the root.

The Independent


> That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
> cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
> there.
> - George Orwell

 
On Sat, 15 May 2004 23:31:18 -0700, The Independent wrote:

>If I remember correctly there were some higher yielding plants, (palm
>oil was the highest if I remember right. Jojoba oil was up there too.
>However that stuff is worth its weight in gold. Jojoba oil has all the
>qualities of sperm whale oil (doesn't spoil or go rancid and doesn't gum
>up under heat and pressure). Almost all of that stuff goes into
>government contracts for the lubrication of precision ball bearings in
>guidance systems. Some of it goes into the cosmetic industry.


interesting...

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993464
 
"The Independent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> double locomotives (4500 HP) to accomplish that task. Even today the
> Diesel locomotives cannot maintain the speeds of the old steam passenger
> locomotives. (100 MPH over long distances) I think that the best
> Am-Trac can do is about 70 MPH and that is slower than you automobile.
> Of course the track beds are in far worse shape than they were when the
> 100 MPH passenger steam locomotives ruled the root.


Yes, but that's partly because you Americans don't really do much with
passenger railways. Even us Brits, who have a pretty lousy rail system,
have 125mph long-distance diesel trains. The German ICE does about the same
in diesel guise. But as far as I can see, anything faster uses gas turbine
or electric power, so diesel does seem to have its limits.

David


 
Hybrids high mileage HYPE.

The 19-year-old EPA tests for city and highway mileage actually gauge
vehicle emissions and use that data to derive an estimated
fuel-efficiency
rating. The EPA tests pre-production vehicles in a lab to simulate
vehicle
starts and stops on crowded city streets and open road conditions.
According to the EPA website, "The tests measure the waste substances
emitted from consuming the fuel, not the actual fuel consumed. From the
measurement of emissions, EPA can estimate the miles per gallon achieved
by
the vehicle on average."

http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,63413,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1


--
Steve Williams



"R. David Steele" <[email protected]/OMEGA> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 15:30:25 -0700, The Independent
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |According to the Department of Ag and the Alternative Fuels Data
> |Center, the amount of vegetable oils and animal fats that can be
> |recycled and the overproduction of Soy oil, the United States has
> |the capacity to produce 1,900,000,000 (that 1.9 billion) gallons
> |of BioDiesel annually. That is the equivalent of 6.65 million tons
> |of Diesel fuel or 33 super tankers full of diesel fuel.
> |
> |Besides the BioDiesel is a much cleaner burning fuel than regular
> |Diesel and is much more environmentally friendly fuel.
> |
> |Bio Diesel can be made in your kitchen and the only tricking things
> |that you need (hard to get) are methyl Alcohol, and some small
> |amount of Sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid is used to pretreat
> |contaminated oil from deep fat Fryers and other places. Common
> |household lye can be purchased from local supermarket.
> |
> |Studies were done at the University of Idaho Chemical Engineering
> |department determined that BioDiesel made with Ethyl Alcohol,
> |(Ethyl Alcohol was chosen so that the fuel could be made from
> |all renewable resources. The Cost of the fuel in small batches
> |was determined to be $1.85 a gallon with the production of Glycerin
> |that was regarded as a waste product. Approximately 40$ of the
> |vegetable oil was converted into Glycerin. (However glycerin can be
> |used to make home made soap, shampoo, and hand lotion so it does have
> |a value)
> |
> |The web site that I visited and down loaded for the making of

BioDiesel
> |was:
> |http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make2.html#ethylester
> |
> |This is directions of making BioDiesel from Ethyal Alcohol and oil
> |to make BioDiesel.
> |
> |I think that Making BioDiesel in TEOTWAWKI is a very doable thing.
> |This should make sure that fuel will be available for Diesels Gen
> |Sets remain Viable long after fuel becomes unavailable.
> |
> |The Independent
>
> I have been surprised at how most Americans have been resistant
> to diesel. Half of all vehicles in France are diesel. Jeep
> makes, in the US,the Liberty with a diesel (Mercedes common rail)
> but is sold in Europe. The PT Cruiser, the Jeep Grand Cherokee
> and the Land Rover line are all made with a diesel. But not sold
> here.
>
> Here in DC we have, surprising, a lot of gas stations selling
> diesel (at very high prices) diesel. Cheaper for us retired
> military types to go to Ft Myers. And you see a huge amount of
> diesel (TDI) Jetta from VW. Now Mercedes has brought back the
> E320 with the CDI (for $49K).
>
> I can't remember the one actress, Dayrll Hanna I think, who is
> pushing bio-diesel. Her company reprocesses old cooking oil
> (from french friers). But it is also possible to make bio-diesel
> from soy or other plants. By law we are to have 20% of our
> diesel made from soy.
>
> Also we are starting to see engines made for small aircraft that
> are diesels. Jet A or diesel is just more available than AVGAS.
> Especially in the third world. In many places you can not even
> get regular gas (let alone unleaded!!).
>
> In smaller 4 or six cylinder, in line, engines diesel makes more
> sense. Until you get to the V-6, gas has no real advantage.
>
> Now, when are we going to see Land Rover or Jeep sell a diesel
> SUV in the US? These gas prices are making SUVs too expensive to
> drive!
>
>





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 20:22:07 GMT, "L0nD0t.$t0we11"
> <"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >
> > Except of course for that nasty little prerequisite of electricity.
> > Or the water itself...

>
> the water is reusable though, once the hydrogen has been used in the car it
> goes back to being water.


However none of the "we can make huydrogen by electrolysis" nuts ever
addresses the problems. The inefficiency and the potential for pollution
in the form of chlorine and hydroxide. Neither of them trivial
byproducts.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
 
On Mon, 17 May 2004 05:22:56 -0700, The Independent
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> But...it took them over a hundred years to do the change over. Steam
>> worked well enough for all that time to justify its issues.
>>
>> Gunner
>>

>
>Actually it took about 30 years. The first Diesel electric units stated
>coming off the production lines in the 1930's and I think that the last
>steam locomotive was put to rest in the 1960's. The diesel electric
>units just could not pull long trains up out of Rock Spring Wyoming up
>the Green River Pass. I think that it took the development of the big
>double locomotives (4500 HP) to accomplish that task. Even today the
>Diesel locomotives cannot maintain the speeds of the old steam passenger
>locomotives. (100 MPH over long distances) I think that the best
>Am-Trac can do is about 70 MPH and that is slower than you automobile.
>Of course the track beds are in far worse shape than they were when the
>100 MPH passenger steam locomotives ruled the root.


Chuckle..think again...

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/nation/train_1
First U.S. Railway Chartered to Transport Freight and Passengers
February 28, 1827
On February 28, 1827, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad became the first
U.S. railway chartered for commercial transport of passengers and
freight. There were skeptics who doubted that a steam engine could
work along steep, winding grades, but the Tom Thumb, designed by Peter
Cooper, put an end to their doubts. Investors hoped a railroad would
allow Baltimore, the second largest U.S. city at the time, to
successfully compete with New York for western trade.
The first railroad track in the United States was only 13 miles long,
but it caused a lot of excitement when it opened in 1830. Charles
Carroll, the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence,
laid the first stone when construction on the track began at Baltimore
harbor on July 4, 1828.

Another typical example
http://www.historicperrysburg.org/history/rail.htm
Perrysburg's First Railroad

Today we complain that they are noisy, dirty and dangerous, but almost
150 years ago people went out of their way to have a railroad come
through here. A town just couldn't expect to succeed and grow without
one.

The steam locomotive had become America's growth stimulant. Canals,
which in this part of the country offered snail-pace transportation
and were uselessly frozen over in the winter, had passed their brief
heyday.

Railroad building was busting out all over America and within a short
period of time Toledo, with its excellent outlet to the Great Lakes,
was to have railroads approaching from all directions. The challenge
for our village was to get one of them through here.

In 1850 a delegation a meeting in Norwalk, Ohio to plead for
consideration of Perrysburg as the site of the river crossing for a
new railroad to be built coming this way from Cleveland. Former mayor
John C. Spink, speaking for the delegation, stated that his group did
not think it possible to ever construct or keep up a drawbridge then
being considered downriver toward Toledo. He humorously cited the
backing of the high authorities: the U. S. Supreme Court, and God
Almighty "who gave us a navigable river, except he put the bottom in a
little too high in some places."

The citizens of Perrysburg and Maumee were even willing to tax
themselves to buy stock ownership in the railroad, but it is not known
if they actually did. However, in 1851 the people of the area
announced with great joy that they had secured the permanent location
of the Junction Railroad through Perrysburg and Maumee to Toledo.
Stock sales had raised $120,000 from our town and adjoining townships.

The new railroad, organized a year earlier, was to run from Cleveland
through Elyria, Sandusky, Port Clinton, Perrysburg, and then across
the river to Maumee and on to Swanton where it linked up with a branch
of the Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Road. Completion was
promised for 1853.

The line was to run through here along Third Street, as it does now,
but continuing west at Cherry Street and passing just to the right of
what is now Fort Meigs Cemetery. A new railroad bridge was to be built
across the rapids near where the present vehicular bridge now stands.

Work on the railroad began, coming west, in 1852 and a local man,
Shibnah Beach, had the contract to lay eight miles of track in this
area. But sometime during this year Junction Railroad merged with the
Cleveland, Norwalk and Toledo line and work apparently slowed down or
stopped.

Three long years went by before the Perrysburg Journal reported that
the stone piers and abutments for the new bridge were finally finished
and trestle work underway. Local news coverage is apparently lost now,
but sometime, probably in 1858, the "Iron Horse" finally chuffed into
Perrysburg without much fanfare. People were probably so tired of
waiting for it that they didn't feel like celebrating.

Backing up a little to 1852, Perrysburg got all excited about the
proposed laying of a north-south line between Cincinnati and Detroit,
organized at the Dayton and Michigan Road.

Plans called for it to cross the river on the Junction bridge, and the
Village bought $50,000 worth of stock and the Township $10,000 worth.
In time this was to become a hefty tax burden for the people.

But this rail line was also a long time a-coming. Four years went by
and rumors were that Perrysburg might be by-passed. However, by the
end of May track laying was completed from Toledo to Perrysburg, and
by August of 1859 construction crews from both north and south met 50
miles south of here and the last spike was driven.

As the years went by, the original railroad went out of business and
in 1861 the D & M built a two-story depot here and in 1879, a large
frame engine house. Still later we had double tracks through here and
passenger and freight trains ran at all hours. We especially needed
trains then to carry passengers and mail, for this was before the days
of trucks and automobiles.

We paid a high price, however, for over the years before we had gates
and warning lights at crossings here in town and in the Township, a
large number of people were killed by trains.



That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell
 
In article <1gduh08.smo931ullc5lN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%
@malloc.co.uk says...
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sorry chucklehead but you argument doens't fly. There's nothing more
> > environmentally friendly about burning home brewed fuel in a home
> > modified car.

>
> <sigh> Of course not. Much better to burn the fuel in a power station at
> 45% efficiency then transport it long distances on overhead pwoerline
> losign another 10% or so then to turn it into hydrogen using an
> inefficient and polluting process.
>
> Do dweebs like you ever engage their brains?
>
>


You just don't get it do you? Do you work for big oil or something?
Why in hell would you do that when you can produce hydrogen locally from
renewable sources.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
Myal <[email protected]> wrote:

> where are six billion people going to poop ?


Pipeline (or poopline) to Canada. It's not used for much else.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
 

>
> > there are actually hydrogen filling stations producing hydrogen ON SITE,
> > RIGHT NOW.

>
> Yes, have you bothered to think about the energetics of those stations?
> Burning fossil fuel to turn it into hydrogen by electrolysis is umm
> dumb. Very, very dumb.
>


There is no fossil fuels invovled in GEOTHERMAL ENERY. Iceland is
moving towards a 100% hydrogen powered society and will soon be able to
EXPORT hydrogen to short cited idiots like you. Here in Canada we have
hydro electric dams already producing hydrogen. Ballard, the leading
comany in the Hydrogen fuel cell game is not a UK company. Your
ignorance precees you.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <1gdvpot.1uygjwf1rp6dy6N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-urcx4
@malloc.co.uk says...
> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 20:22:07 GMT, "L0nD0t.$t0we11"
> > <"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> enlightened us thusly:
> >
> > >
> > > Except of course for that nasty little prerequisite of electricity.
> > > Or the water itself...

> >
> > the water is reusable though, once the hydrogen has been used in the car it
> > goes back to being water.

>
> However none of the "we can make huydrogen by electrolysis" nuts ever
> addresses the problems. The inefficiency and the potential for pollution
> in the form of chlorine and hydroxide. Neither of them trivial
> byproducts.
>
>


I think you mean fictional byproducts.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <X%upc.98696$Ik.7710789@attbi_s53>, "L0nD0t.$t0we11"
<"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> says...
> For what, all three dozen vehicles in the entire country? And what
> sort of highly volcanic geology does Iceland have that allows this
> geothermal energy to be extracted? This might possibly scale to
> allow enough hydrogen to power a few snowmobiles in Yellowstone,
> but it ain't gonna scale to even power New York City.
>
>
>



Are you a complete idiot? Try 300,000 people and 150,000 cars boats and
trains all running on 100% inported oil because they did not have a way
to store their massive energy reserves in a transportable way, until
now. Iceland has heated streets, do you have enough excess free energy
in your town to HEAT THE STREETS? I can not believe the ignorance about
the outside world that is being exposed in this thread. When Iceland
stars exporting Hydrogen from their 100% renewable energy source powered
stations, and the good oil USA is left holding their dick again
importing 80% of their energy needs will the army be trading in their
desert camo for white and black?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
Austin Shackles wrote:

> On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 23:35:25 -0700, The Independent
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>I think it would be simpler to build a simple steam turbine and power
>>the generator that way. But the boiler thing whoooeee. Why do you
>>think the railroads went to diesel electric locomotives.

>
> Oil lobby...


Victorian railways were fully oil fired (as a result of coal strikes) but
still converted to diesels - which use less oil. Makes this theory less
likely.

>
> electric locos with fixed generating plant make sense.


But only where the line is very close to power grids and has traffic levels
that are not usually found away from suburban areas anywhere outside of
Western Europe or a few areas of high population density outside there.
JD
 
In article <[email protected]>, austin@ddol-
las.fsnet.co.uk says...
> On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 20:26:43 GMT, "L0nD0t.$t0we11"
> <"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >Insufficient inbound solar radiation to perform this task. Worse
> > would be the lack of real estate where solar collectors could be
> > placed.

>
> see my other post nearby for a link which says you'd need 3000 sq. miles of
> solar collectors to supply current US vehicle fule requirements.
>
>


Wind farms in the ocean, tidal force hydroelectric, and geo thermal are
all more economically viable. Hawaii has the potential to be the USA's
new Texas. Of course the Texan's that run the goverment won't let that
happen in your lifetime.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> > see my other post nearby for a link which says you'd need 3000 sq. miles of
> > solar collectors to supply current US vehicle fule requirements.

>
> That wouldn't be a big chunk of New Mexico or Arizona - or Saudi Arabia
> come to think of it. 55 miles x 55 miles. I have me doubts though.
>
> Steve
>
>


When the oil is gone they won't be using the desert for much else. And
if the middle eastern countires again corner the market on energy
production, well...
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <1gduj4q.1lgp2xrypppcdN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%
@malloc.co.uk says...
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > and where, pray, do you get the electricity?
> > >

> >
> > Well in iceland they get it from geothermal and produce hydrogen right
> > at the gas station.

>
> Right, so all 6 billion of us should live in Iceland right?
>
>


Why? 6 billion of us don't live in Saudi Arabia do they?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 11:08:40 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Wind farms in the ocean, tidal force hydroelectric, and geo thermal are
>all more economically viable. Hawaii has the potential to be the USA's
>new Texas. Of course the Texan's that run the goverment won't let that
>happen in your lifetime.


Tidal power has a lot of potential but there are relatively few sites where
it can easily be exploited. geothermal is very good in places like Iceland
where it's easily tapped. NZ is another such, as well as Hawaii as you say.

however, the people doing the research I quoted address other possibilities
like wind power, and conclude that you'd need a couple of decent-sized
states covered in windmills.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditations, VIII.16
 
Skipping school, I decide to respond to what "David French"
<[email protected]> fosted Mon, 17 May 2004 16:53:03 +0100 in
misc.survivalism , viz:
>"The Independent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> double locomotives (4500 HP) to accomplish that task. Even today the
>> Diesel locomotives cannot maintain the speeds of the old steam passenger
>> locomotives. (100 MPH over long distances) I think that the best
>> Am-Trac can do is about 70 MPH and that is slower than you automobile.
>> Of course the track beds are in far worse shape than they were when the
>> 100 MPH passenger steam locomotives ruled the root.

>
>Yes, but that's partly because you Americans don't really do much with
>passenger railways. Even us Brits, who have a pretty lousy rail system,
>have 125mph long-distance diesel trains. The German ICE does about the same
>in diesel guise. But as far as I can see, anything faster uses gas turbine
>or electric power, so diesel does seem to have its limits.


The Diesel Engines in the States are "Diesel Electric" - big diesel engines
hooked to big generators, which then turn the wheels. (And slowing trains down
involve unlinking the diesels and using the motors now as Brakes, which shunt
the energy into cooling grids, which I take it get a wee bit warm at times.)

tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."
 
On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 12:37:58 +0100, [email protected]
(Steve Firth) enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 20:22:07 GMT, "L0nD0t.$t0we11"
>> <"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>> >
>> > Except of course for that nasty little prerequisite of electricity.
>> > Or the water itself...

>>
>> the water is reusable though, once the hydrogen has been used in the car it
>> goes back to being water.

>
>However none of the "we can make huydrogen by electrolysis" nuts ever
>addresses the problems. The inefficiency and the potential for pollution
>in the form of chlorine and hydroxide. Neither of them trivial
>byproducts.


not sure about chlorine, dunno as you'd get much of that unless you're using
seawater. But you'd have to desalinate the seawater anyway to be able to
electrolyse it, AFAIK.



--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditations, VIII.16
 
On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 10:52:09 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>You just don't get it do you? Do you work for big oil or something?
>Why in hell would you do that when you can produce hydrogen locally from
>renewable sources.


I grant the truth of what you're saying, but I doubt that there are readily
available renewable resources in sufficient quantity.

I started trying to work out how much fuel is used in passenger cars per day
in the UK, and it's a hell of a lot. Even if by running fuel cell cars you
can double the efficiency of current cars, you still want a hell of a lot of
fuel.



figures...

UK population about 60 million.
assume 1 car per 3 people: 20 million cars
assume car usage as follows:
10% of cars in use on average 24/7
cars do 20 mph on average.
cars do 20 mpg on average.

so:

2,000,000 * 20 * 24 / 20 gallons of fuel per day, the 2 20s cancel out and
you get 48 million gallons per day.

OK, they're guesses. maybe the usage isn't as high as 10%. Maybe it's only
5%, and maybe the cars average 30 mpg. even so, you'd still have 16M
gallons per day.

and that's without counting trucks, buses, trains or planes.

OK, taking the lower figure, 16M gallons or 72.6M litres of fuel. now
assume that you can have hydrogen fuel cell cars and they're twice as
efficient, so you'll want about 37 million litres of hydrogen per day.

Just found this:
--------------------------
(a) 1 kWh (kilowatt-hour) equals 1,000 J/sec x 3,600 sec = 3.6 million
joules;

(b) 237.13 kJ/mole ÷ 3.6 MJ/kWh = 0.06587 kWh/mole;

(c) 1 kilogram of H2 is approximately equal to 1 gallon of gasoline in its
available energy content, given a conversion efficiency of 100% [for a
comprehensive and well-done Hydrogen Energy Equivalence table, ref.:
www.hionsolar.com/n-heq1.html];

(d) since 1 mole of H2 weighs 2 grams, 1 gallon of gasoline is therefore
equivalent to 500 moles of H2;

(e) thus, the electric power required to electrolyze the hydrogen
equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline is equal to (500 moles) x (0.06587
kWh/mole) = 32.935 kWh, and the approximate cost of that power = (32.935
kWh) x (12.2¢/kWh) = $4.02 per "gallon equivalent" [using the cost/kWh from
our power bill!].
--------------------------

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)
 
The Independent wrote:

> First Fordson (Henry Ford couldn't use Ford as a tractor name as is
> was already in use in England) came of the assembly line in 1917.
> Many other tractors were built in the 1920's and they primarily used
> distillate or tractor fuel as it was called. Tractor fuel was a form
> of kerosene.


Wasn't it TVO (Tractor Vapourising Oil) - a Diesel/Petrol mix (or
Diesel/Kerosene mix).

--
Simes
 
Back
Top