Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

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


pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
> Skipping school, I decide to respond to what The Independent
> <[email protected]> fosted Sun, 16 May 2004 02:43:46 -0700 in
> misc.survivalism , viz:
> >
> >Gasoline did not become widely available until after World War I.
> >It wasn't until the early 1930's that farm equipment became gasoline
> >powered. Before the 1930's farm equipment motive force was a verity of
> >heavy oil engines.

>
> As I understand it, prior to the 19030s, "farm equipment motive force" was
> equine (horses). There were tractors, but mostly steam powered -which meant


My father in law left the Family farm in Minot North Dakota in the early
1930, because his dad wouldn't switch to tractors. Most of the tractors
of the 1920's were oil pulls which were heavy oil (kerosene) mainly.

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.
Gasoline started making inroads into farm equipment just before world
war two. I think the John Deere model L was the first gasoline John
Deere and was a fairly small tractor. I was first sold in 1938.

The Independent


> coal or wood. IT wasn't until IC engines got reliable (and relatively cheap)
> that the farmers traded in their horses for gas tractors.
>
> My great uncle still had a team in the barn in the late 50s. I don't know
> if he still farmed with them, I was only 4 years old myself.
>
> >The switch to Diesel on the Farm began in the late
> >60's. It was the switch to Diesel on the farm is what forced the major
> >automobile manufactures to begin manufacturing light diesel trucks.

>
> "force" or provided a user base to make it worth while?
>
> tschus
> pyotr
>
> --
> pyotr filipivich
> "Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
> insignificant, and biodegradable."

 
Tim May <[email protected]> wrote in
news:160520042352189062%[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, R. David
> Steele <[email protected]/OMEGA> wrote:
>
>> The topic was the use of bio diesel for emergency purposes or to
>> survive if the grid went down. Bio diesel would work but for
>> long term, off the grid usage, steam or water would be a better
>> way to make power. We are talking survive here, not our current
>> culture.
>>
>> Think out of the box.

>
> I guarantee neither you nor anyone here is going to set up a wood-fired
> boiler for a "20 KW household needs," which is precisely what you
> yammered about.
>
> A couple of the illiterati here have described feeble efforts to take
> an automobile generator and fan and put it in a stream.
>
> I ask again: where are you going to get the wood to generate 20 KW?
>
> And I won't even _bother_ to ask why you think a household would be
> wise in lighting itself up like a Christmas tree by dissipating 20 KW
> in a situation where the overall grid has, as posited, gone down.
>
> My plans are to keep a low profile, to use propane lanterns and stoves,
> LED lights with solar battery chargers, to use limited lead acid
> batteries charged from either solar panels or judicious use of a small
> Honda 2.2 KW generator (with el cheapo Generac 5 KW as a backup), and
> to generally avoid calling attention to my location on top of a hill.
>
> Having put a watt-meter on some of the things I think are very
> important to have, I figure I can do OK on 2 KW for 1 hour, 1 KW for 2
> hours, and 0.1 KW for 5 hours, or about 2.5 kilowatt-hours per day. And
> if I did without access to pumped water or central heat (which is
> doable here in coastal California), I could get by on much less.
>
> And I have about 1.5 acres of heavily wooded land, of oak and madrone,
> and am adjacent on three sides to about 50 acres of wooded land I could
> scrounge on, probably. However, it's still better to keep a low
> profile.
>
> Cutting and haulng the wood to generate 20 KW of electricity, as you
> described, seems silly, unneeded, and dangerous.
>
> Doing it with the boiler you hypothesize, but certainly will never
> have, is just an idle fantasy.
>
> --Tim May


Tim , youre getting old , well ,youre mellowing at least .
Not one " They need killing" or send them up the chimneies glorious burn
off etc
Keep it up , youre nearly becoming human
 
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

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 Sun, 16 May 2004 23:52:18 -0700, Tim May
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Doing it with the boiler you hypothesize, but certainly will never
>have, is just an idle fantasy.
>
>--Tim May


http://www.ecozen.com/steam1.htm
http://solar1.mech.unsw.edu.au/glm/papers/saad-ANZSES98s2.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/clean_energy/concentratingsolar.html

Think outside the box

Gunner

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 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...

electric locos with fixed generating plant make sense.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Robert Frost (1874-1963)
 
Austin Shackles wrote:

> On or around Mon, 17 May 2004 05:28:26 GMT, pyotr filipivich
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>As I understand it, prior to the 19030s, "farm equipment motive force"
>>was
>>equine (horses). There were tractors, but mostly steam powered -which
>>meant
>>coal or wood. IT wasn't until IC engines got reliable (and relatively
>>cheap) that the farmers traded in their horses for gas tractors.

>
>
> any of you with the National Geographic for last month, (I think) there's
> an
> article about the great plains and the corn belt. There's a little
> picture of them ploughing in the 20s, using a sod-off steam tractor
> pulling a 14-furrow plough...
>

Conversion of farming to tractors started early in the 20th century, but did
not make much progress until Ford started to make tractors in 1917.
Although tractors were readily available, and making inroads into
agriculture, the big change took place during WW2 with the shortage of
manpower in the combatant countries, especially US, UK, Canada, Australia.
The re-equipping of farming from horses to tractors in these countries was
essentially completed by around 1950. Tractors were usually petrol or
kerosene powered until around 1950 although there have been diesel or
semi-diesel tractors available since before WW1, and by 1960 almost all
tractors sold were diesel.
Although requiring less cash outlay, horses need a lot more manpower than
tractors, so the cost and availability of labour was the deciding factor.
JD
 
Skipping school, I decide to respond to what The Independent
<[email protected]> fosted Mon, 17 May 2004 00:02:12 -0700 in
misc.survivalism , viz:
>> >Gasoline did not become widely available until after World War I.
>> >It wasn't until the early 1930's that farm equipment became gasoline
>> >powered. Before the 1930's farm equipment motive force was a verity of
>> >heavy oil engines.

>>
>> As I understand it, prior to the 19030s, "farm equipment motive force" was
>> equine (horses). There were tractors, but mostly steam powered -which meant

>
>My father in law left the Family farm in Minot North Dakota in the early
>1930, because his dad wouldn't switch to tractors. Most of the tractors
>of the 1920's were oil pulls which were heavy oil (kerosene) mainly.


And a cousin of mine left the city and moved back home, borrowed a team and
put a crop in the ground, this in ~1929. They ate, even if i tended o be the
same thing (My Dad describes it as "Peas and Potatoes for breakfast, Potatoes &
Peas for lunch, and Peas, Potatoes and Ham for supper." Of course, I also get
the "...and we ate rocks and we were glad to have them!" kind of stories as
well.)

tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."
 


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

 
"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! =-----
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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."
 
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
 

|>> > wasn't for the fact that it's a byproduct of refining oil to get
|>> > gasoline and kerosene. Imagine if oil was refined only to get diesel,
|>> > more than half the energy and 80% of the dollar value would just go down
|>> > the drain.
|>> >
|>>
|>> That's hardly relevant.
|>>
|>
|>Hardly relevant!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?
|>
|>
|>?!??
|>
|>
|>FACT IS there would be no cheap diesel available were it not for
|>gasoline production.
|
|sorry, but that's crap. There's far more diesel (fuel oil) produced and
|used in the world than there is gasoline. all the trucks run on it, a hello
|f a lot of trains run on it, all the motor ships, half the central
|heating...
|
|fact is, most of the fractional distillation products of crude oil are now
|being used, especially with a rise int he use of LPG (mostly Propane) for
|vehicles, which is the stuff that used, in the old days, to be flamed off.

that is a good point. We are now seeing the production of diesel
engines for small aircraft so that they can run on either Jet A
or diesel. It is hard to get regular gasoline (petrol or MOGAS)
in much of the world let alone AVGAS. But Jet A and diesel are
available everywhere. And, as we pointed out, a diesel engine
will run on olive oil if needed.


 

|> > 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.

Look, they push for one type of technology. They know that it
has problems but that sets them up to have the next round of
protests. As long as the far left is made up of people with
bitterness in their souls, we will never have peace.



 
Back
Top