Newsgroup sci.chem 89533

Directory

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> "Dave"  writes:
>  >
>  >> : >: Perhaps it would help, but not much.  Methane is not an abundant
>  >> : >: resource.
>  >
>  >What? Are you thinking of methanol?  Methane is natural gas and it is
>  >extremely abundant,
snip
>  >
> Methane is abundant but not enough to replace coal and oil
snip
Methane is also a renewable resource that can be produced biologically
on a sustained basis - therefore it is potentially infitie, although the
amount of biogenic methane available for use at any given time may be
quite limited.  In fact biogenic methane emissions from agriculture
receive a fair bit of ink in the IPCC _Climate Change 1995_ report - as
a pollution source rather than as an energy source, unfortunately.
-dl

Fred McGalliard wrote:
> 
> David Hatunen wrote:
> 
> > I don't expect there's enough nickel (or lead) in the world to
> > maintain
> > anything near our current mobile lifestyle.
> 
> Dear David. As I recall, the earth is a large nickel iron asteroid with
> a thin foam of interesting rocks and minerals, and, oh, by the way just
> the teensiest sheen of water over 2/3 of the surface. I think there is
> way more lead than we would need for this purpose, but lead acid
> batteries are really not very suitable anyway.
[snip]
Well, there you are!  The solution is trivial.  We take an unused ocean (might as 
well be the Atlantic, Canada has stripped all the cod and herring from Grand 
Banks' fisheries), fill it with 34% sulfuric acid, and make one really big lead 
storage battery.  Excess capacity could be rented to Europe.  As long as you are 
covering the thing it might as well be covered with solar cells.
news:alt.pave.the.earth  was right all along.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Fred McGalliard wrote:
> David Hatunen wrote:
> 
>> Metal hydrides. And they all generally rely on the use of large
>> amounts of heavy metals such as nickel. This introduces potential
>> problems with heavy metal pollution, and an economic problem of
>> supply and demand: there ain't enough nickel in the world to be
>> used extensively for fuel tanks in personal automobiles.
> 
> Dave. You really must get back to your chemestry books now and then.
> Nickel is not a heavy metal, it is not particularly poisonous, nor is
> it really used in any biological processes I recall now.
Perhaps *you* should do a little more research.  I enclose some
information from a Materials Safety Data Sheet on nickel:
 Common Name:    Nickel 
 CAS Number:     7440-02-0 
 DOT Number:     UN 2881 (Nickel catalyst, dry) 
 Date:           April, 1989 
 ----------------------------------------- 
 HAZARD SUMMARY 
 *    Nickel dusts and fumes can affect you when breathed in. 
 *    Nickel is a CARCINOGEN and may damage the developing fetus.  
      HANDLE WITH EXTREME CAUTION.  Cancers in humans are associated 
      with Nickel refining. 
 *    Skin contact may cause skin allergy, with itching, redness and 
      later rash. 
 *    Lung allergy occasionally occurs with asthma-type effects. 
 *    High exposure can cause cough, shortness of breath and fluid 
      in the lungs, which is sometimes delayed for 1 to 2 days after 
      exposure. 
 *    It is a HIGHLY FLAMMABLE SOLID and is a DANGEROUS FIRE and 
      EXPLOSION HAZARD. 
From further on in the data sheet:
 *    Nickel may form metal fumes which present different hazards 
      than the substance itself. 
 *    Nickel is a PROBABLE CARCINOGEN in humans.  There may be no 
      safe level of exposure to a carcinogen, so all contact should 
      be reduced to the lowest possible level. 
The reference is:
gopher://ecosys.drdr.Virginia.EDU:70/00/library/gen/toxics/Nickel
> It makes a great under coat for Chrome, and is used in greater or
> lesser quantities in steel.
True, but not particularly relevant.
> It is not a limiting resource, although dense concentrations of it
> in an easily mined and processed form may be limited.
It is in fact a limiting resource.  It is vital to the economy of the
United States, and essentially all deposits which are economically
feasible to mine are located outside that country.  If supplies of
nickel were interrupted for some reason, the consequences would be
most serious.
> I think most of the core of the earth includes a significant
> percentage Nickel.
Probably true, but entirely irrelevant.  I replied to this observation
of yours in another part of this thread, and remain very interested
in knowing the scheme by which you propose to exploit the mineral
wealth of the core of the earth.  In order for some substance to be
considered a *resource* it must be *accessable.*  How on earth(!) do
you think you're going to get to all that nickel down there?
> I think that you will find it is currently produced for use in steel
> and such in such vast quantities that fuel tanks for cars and trucks
> is no additional load at all.
It is in fact used in vast quantities, but does not exist on earth in
inexhaustible deposits.  I expect that you are correct in suggesting
that there are sufficient supplies available to manufacture hydrogen
tanks for automobiles.
-- 
Best regards,
Neil Dickey
http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/dickey/dnd.html
*Note: Remove the spam trap in my address -- the capital 'X' --
before attempting to reply to me by e-mail.  Finger the sanitized
address for my public key.

In article <5q5gh4$hhf@curly.cc.emory.edu>,
	Lloyd R. Parker  wrote:
>Michael Pelletier (mikep@comshare.com) wrote:
>: And higher construction costs can be offset by the fact that you
>: need only a truckload of fuel every year, instead of dozens of rail
>: cars every day.  Some of the lowest-cost generating plants in the
>: world are nuclear.
>
>Gee, in this country, it's the other way around.
Refer to 
"The best nuclear plants in the country are quite competitive with
 the best fossil plants in the country.  In a recent five-year survey
 by the Utility Data Institute, five of the top 25 electrical power
 plants in the country are heated by uranium fuel. All of the other
 plants on the list are coal burning plants located west of the
 Mississippi. Most of them are located near a source of low-sulfur
 coal. Not a single plant on the list is heated by natural gas or oil."
This is only referring to the United States, which I presume, based
on your address, is where you are located.  France, for example, sells
nuclear-generated power to almost all its neighboring countries, and
one would assume that if it was cheaper for those countries to generate
their own power with fossil fuel, they would do so, economics being what
it is.
See 
>: At least nuclear fuel is solid, non-flammable, and insoluable,
>: unlike, say, oil, or natural gas (think: "Exxon Valdez" and "gas
>: pipeline explosion kills hundreds").
>
>Gee, at least oil can't cause cancer in anybody who breathes it.  A gram 
>of oil in the air isn't sufficient to kill millions of people.  Oil can't 
>be diverted to make nuclear weapons.  And oil wastes aren't going to be 
>toxic to people for billions of years.
Have you ever read the warning labels on the sides of your cans of
motor oil?  It says "prolonged exposure to skin has caused cancer
in laboratory animals" or something along those lines.  Pick your
carcinogen.  Not to mention the "Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials," "NORM" as they call it in the gas industry, coming in
through your gas pipeline.
Coal plants release about 100 times more radiation than nuclear plants
are allowed to: 
And the argument that finely divided plutonium is enough to kill
millions is proven to be the myth that it is by the simple fact
that over 11 tons of plutonium were dispersed in the atmosphere
during atomic bomb testing, and no massive die-off of humanity ensued.
See 
And how do you suppose that oil wastes aren't going to be toxic
for billions of years?  What are they going to turn into?  Heavy
metals and other crud from oil and coal don't spontaneously
disappear, unlike nuclear waste that eventually turns into lead.
Mercury two billion years from now is just as poisonous as mercury
today.  Spent nuclear fuel two billion years from now will be mostly
lead.  See: , in the section about
"radioactive decay."
And the only reason you hear talk about millions of years
of storage is because there's no political will to extract the
fission products from the waste and recycle the fuel.  The fission
products will become inert, non-radioactive materials in a few
hundred years, and take up a fraction of the room.
Refer to: 

>: And trying to use Chernobyl as a representative sample of the entire
>: nuclear power industry is sophistry at its worst.
>
>Didn't you just cite the Exxon Valdez?  Hello, pot, kettle?
Exxon Valdes ranks about ... !!!FIFTY-THIRD!!! ... on the list
of the worst oil spill accidents.  So you can just grill those
words up and eat 'em on a stick, my friend.
The worst oil spill ever was *240* *MILLION* (that's MILLION)
gallons, on 26 January 1991, off the coast of Kuwait in the
Persian Gulf.  This is TWENTY-TWO times as bad as the "piddling"
10.8 MILLION gallon Exxon Valdez spill.  The second worst was
140 MILLION gallons in 1979 in the Gulf of Mexico.  I could
list the other fifty here, but I suppose you should go to this
web page instead: 
The top fifteen alone add up to over a BILLION gallons spilled.
Is this a representative sample of the entire oil industry?
  Considering that we can't seem to go a full year without
some kind of environmentally damaging spill, like the one in
Japan two weeks ago, and the spill off Rhode Island January of
1996, or the 60,000 gallon spill near Sweden in October 1995,
or the 30 million gallon spill in Russia in 1994, or the Braer
tanker in 1993 (25 million) or the La Corun~a Harbor, Spain
spill in 1992, or the ABT Summer tanker spill of 15 million
gallons in the Atlantic in 1991...  (FYI, Chernobyl was over
10 years ago and TMI was close to 20 years ago) I don't know
about you, but I tend to think that maybe it is.
When you can come up with sixty two nuclear power accidents
that had as devastating an impact on the environment as that list
of 62 major, over-10-million-gallon oil spills, then let's talk.
(Then I'll ask you about the death tolls from gas explosions.)
	-Michael Pelletier.

In article <5q5kjt$ek4@valhalla.comshare.com>  mikep@comshare.com
(Michael Pelletier) writes:
AP:  I suspect someone in a lab of sonoluminescence work can easily get
a
AP: container of mercury and observe whether mercury sonoluminesces. If
AP: mercury sonoluminens as well as water does then that will be big
news.
AP:
AP:  Then someone will look to find if mercury needs doping for maximum
AP: luminescence.
MP: Might be a little difficult to tell if mercury sonoluminesces,
MP: considering that it's an opaque metal.  How do you propose to
MP: do this?
        -Michael Pelletier.
  Good question. It is probably the opacity of mercury that kept all
scientists away from researching mercury as a Fusion test tube device
of EM-luminescence.
Often in science a technique is transferrable to other materials. There
was never a restriction the luminescence should occur only in water
solutions. Due to the opacity of mercury is probably why noone bothered
to check it out.
  Mercury luminescence will be studied by scientists and they will
bring all sorts of elaborate equipment to examine what happens. This is
science and not business. What is important for business is to see if
mercury luminescence yields excess heat.
  Thus, it really does not matter if we can not see mercury
luminescence for the practical engineering is concerned only with heat
calibrations. If a Faraday Electric Mercury Motor of EM-luminescence
produces excess heat. Well, break out the champagne. I love sweet
bubbly champagne.
  The most important thing to find out first is if this new invention
yields excess heat. Then the hard work of finding out all the details
follows. So, in answer to the question, I am not concerned on how to
observe whether a gas bubble luminesced in mercury. I am more concerned
in finding out whether the Electric Motor seems to HEAT UP! Once I find
out, then I will look for the details.
   And I was curious over another issue that my memory fetched this
morning. I remember circa 1970-1974 my father replaced the light
switches on our house with silent mercury switches. I do not see
mercury switches anymore? Anyone know why? The reason I am curious is
because, perhaps, just perhaps some of those switches overheated. And
the reason they did so was not because of electricity problems, but it
just might be the case (I am only farfetchedly guessing) that some of
those mercury switches may have sonoluminesced, built up heat and went
bad? Perhaps , if that is true, the old mercury switches some of them
experienced the first sonoluminescence, unknowingly to its owners or
manufacturer.

Dave Hatunen includes:
     So, what you're suggesting is that your car have what
     amounts to a 55-gallon drum for a fuel tank, plus whatever
     insulation is required. What's the final bulk and weight of
     such a tank?
     Have you calculated your evaporation losses in your fuel
     requirement? And are you sure teh proper ration would be 50
     gal of liquid hydrogen to 15 gal of gasolien for
     equivalence? Or is that just a guess? (Please see your own
     sig.)
I do computations when I have the data.  I don't know the
thickness of insulation required.  Neither do I know the
evaporation losses.  I will try to find a study that covers these
points and put the results on my hydrogen web page.  Someone has
already supplied me information about the energy costs of
electrolysis, and I'll put that on the Web page when I understand
it better.
I have to admit that my information on the energy generated by
burning hydrogen as compared to gasoline came from an old book on
rocketry.  Hmm. Maybe I still have the book.
I don't think Hatunen is entitled to demand a complete design of
a hydrogen power system to justify a newsgroup post.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

fathom.NOSPAM@sonic.net (Fathom) writes:
>In article <33c3d812.6717549@news.clara.net>, gareth@clara.net (Gareth
>Thomas) wrote:
>> Nuclear power has one of the highest efficiencies of any fuel.  
>> Load factors are around 70-80%.  Wind power, by comparison has a load
>> factor of only 25-35%. 
>Um, where do you get this figure?
>In a typical nuclear power plant, the nuclear reaction heats core
>water--that may be 70-80% efficient, as you suggest. But then the core
>water is used to heat a separate circuit of cooling water (which for
>safety reasons is kept completely sealed off from any
>radioactivity)--that's perhaps 60-70% efficient. The secondary coolant is
>allowed to escape as steam to turn turbines--let's say another 70% of the
>enrgy is captured there.  So that's a net conversion factor of roughly
>35%.
I am quite sure you misunderstood him and what he meant was that a
nuclear powerplant gives full power 70-80% of the time like 255 to
290 days per year while a typical wind powerplants production can be
summed up to 25-35%
This means that if you want to replace a nuclear powerplant, say a
1000 MW one with 1 MW wind powerplants it will not be enough with
1000, you will need to build about 2500 to 3500 windmills plus reserve
capacity like hydropower or gas turbines for calm days.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Rydsvägen 214B, 584 32 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

>>Gee, at least oil can't cause cancer in anybody who breathes it.  A gram 
>>of oil in the air isn't sufficient to kill millions of people.  Oil can't 
>>be diverted to make nuclear weapons.  And oil wastes aren't going to be 
>>toxic to people for billions of years.
This is such a weak argument - it's like name calling.  What's the
point of this? All forms of energy have advantages and disadvantages.
Too many people refuse to accept that the benefits of nuclear power
have been, are doing and will continue to massively outweigh any
disadvantages.  Many of the arguments against nuclear power revolve
around hypothetical situations -  situations which have previously
been considered by the industry and it's regulatory bodies - and if
necessary been dealt with. 

>Subject: Re: electrons
>From: altavoz 
>Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:11:06 -0700
>Message-ID: <33C517AA.11F4@mail.idt.net>
>
>>
>Why does all atoms strive to have 8 electrons in its outermost electron
>shell?   Please help!   adahl@tripnet.se
>>
>altavoz: They do not have 8 . They have as many as the electrons wave
>length can handle at that radius . The inner shell( shell = energy
>level) 
>can handle only 2 , next shell 8 ,next is 18.......
>  An electron has 3 modes of oscillation . One mode ( wave length) is 
>what limits it's radius from the nucleus .
>
>
>
>
>
>
 adahl
The things that altavoz has told you are certainly true, but I fear that
they really don't answer your question.  The reason that atoms try to get
8 electrons in their outer s and p shells is that that creats a full
valence shell and is especially stable.  In order to fully understand this
you should probably review Hund's Rule for filling orbitals and the order
in which orbitals are actually filled.  Just because an orbital may have a
higher principal quantum number does not mean that it is at a higher
energy level within the atom.  For example we know that the 4s and 4p
electronic orbitals are filled before the 3d electronic obitals.  You
should be able to find an energy diagram in any first year general
chemistry book.  The s and p orbitals are those used in bonding by the
majority of what we call the "main group" elements.  To make what could be
a long story short.  After the s orbitals have been filled the atom will
set about the task of adding electrons to the higher energy orbitals of
lower principle quantum numbers if they are available. The first instance
of this is after the 4s orbital is filled to be followed by the 3d and
then the 4p.  It has been found the the 4s orbital is actually a bit lower
in energy than the 3d orbital and that is why it fills first.  Next comes
the 3d and then the 4p but before you can fill the 4d you must fill the 5s
because it is lower in energy than the 4d orbital.  So as you can see,
once you get to N=3, every time you fill a p orbital you must skip to the
next available s orbital then back track to fill up the holes in previous
quantum levels.
I hope I have not been too long winded,
If you have any further questions please feel free to ask
Best of luck,
Pat Summers

Merlin Null wrote:
> Hydrogen is not a fuel.  There is no source of free hydrogen on
> Earth for use as a fuel. =
=46rom Webster's Dictionary;
fu=B7el
Etymology: Middle English fewel, from Old French fouaille, from
(assumed) Vulgar Latin focalia, from Latin focus hearth
Date: 13th century
1 a : a material used to produce heat or power by burning b : nutritive
material c : a material from which atomic energy can be
liberated especially in a reactor
2 : a source of sustenance or incentive : REINFORCEMENT =
>It can only be a storage device for energy
> derived from other sources.  You must break down some other
> compound to make free hydrogen.  The usual process is to separate
> it from water.  This takes more energy to do than you get out
> from burning it.
As in any energy conversion process.
> What do you gain in air pollution if you burn oil to generate
> electric power, use that power to break water into hydrogen
> and oxygen and then burn the hydrogen in a vehicle?
Who said that oil would be burned?  There are a number of renewable
sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and non-CO2 generating sources,
such as nuclear.
 =
Cheers,
-- =
Will Stewart
To reply, remove "_spam" from the reply line
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.

Neil Dickey  wrote:
>Fred McGalliard wrote:
>> David Hatunen wrote:
>> 
>>> Metal hydrides. And they all generally rely on the use of large
>>> amounts of heavy metals such as nickel. This introduces potential
>>> problems with heavy metal pollution, and an economic problem of
>>> supply and demand: there ain't enough nickel in the world to be
>>> used extensively for fuel tanks in personal automobiles.
>> 
>> Dave. You really must get back to your chemestry books now and then.
>> Nickel is not a heavy metal, it is not particularly poisonous, nor is
>> it really used in any biological processes I recall now.
>Perhaps *you* should do a little more research.  I enclose some
>information from a Materials Safety Data Sheet on nickel:
> 
> Common Name:    Nickel 
> CAS Number:     7440-02-0 
> DOT Number:     UN 2881 (Nickel catalyst, dry) 
> Date:           April, 1989 
> ----------------------------------------- 
> 
> HAZARD SUMMARY 
> *    Nickel dusts and fumes can affect you when breathed in. 
> *    Nickel is a CARCINOGEN and may damage the developing fetus.  
>      HANDLE WITH EXTREME CAUTION.  Cancers in humans are associated 
>      with Nickel refining. 
> *    Skin contact may cause skin allergy, with itching, redness and 
>      later rash. 
> *    Lung allergy occasionally occurs with asthma-type effects. 
> *    High exposure can cause cough, shortness of breath and fluid 
>      in the lungs, which is sometimes delayed for 1 to 2 days after 
>      exposure. 
> *    It is a HIGHLY FLAMMABLE SOLID and is a DANGEROUS FIRE and 
>      EXPLOSION HAZARD. 
>From further on in the data sheet:
> *    Nickel may form metal fumes which present different hazards 
>      than the substance itself. 
> *    Nickel is a PROBABLE CARCINOGEN in humans.  There may be no 
>      safe level of exposure to a carcinogen, so all contact should 
>      be reduced to the lowest possible level. 
Uh, what are nickels made of?  IIRC,  pocket change (US) is made of a
copper-nickel alloy.  Do we need hazmat suits and gloves to feed a
parking meter?
If everything is hazardous, nothing is hazardous. 
Regards, 
Bill Ward

    Does anyone know of a study, or some body of work,  that talks about
any kind of limitation in the oceans when they might function less
effectively--or no longer function--as an efficient as a carbon sink?
(I'm looking for something more than a paragraph in an IPCC report
saying it is possible or something that says we should dump a pile of
iron in the ocean and let algae ingest  CO2.)
Thanks
Dan Gottlieb
http://www.rockisland.com/~genian/bannedbook.html

Greig Ebeling wrote:
> 
> In answer to CO2 atmospheric increase, perhaps we can enhance the
> most  significant depletion mechanism of absorption in the ocean.
> 
> This was adressed two years ago by experiments showing that an
> increase in iron in sea water stimulated the growth rate of algae by
> several times and that a ton of iron could increase carbon uptake 3-4
> orders of magnitude.  In Engineering Australia last month a study has
> been reported that shows similar results were obtained by injecting
> nitrogen compounds 30m under the surface and costs were given.  The
> costs were not that attractive but a direction for development seems
> to have been suggested or established.
> 
> Such studies show that: should atmospheric CO2 be a significant
> problem, the process can be reversed, and perhaps for a much lower
> cost than radical changes to our energy infrastructure.
> 
> Comments welcome.
So you would add iron to the oceans and increase algae populations
dramatically.  Amazing. So in order to avoid some impacts associated
with climate change, you would sacrifice the oceans.
Why would anyone give this a serious thought?
--
Will Stewart
To reply, remove "_spam" from the reply line
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.

In article <5q3jdf$j9t@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net> "Steve Spence"  writes:
> only up to the point you remove it from the ground. then you've killed it.
>Can I have some steak with those potatoes?
Not true.  Have you ever grown a carrot from a slice, or planted a potato and 
had it grow?  They're *alive*!  And therefore conscious.
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
   526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
   630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D; and gas sensor-based product 
development to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************

>Neil Dickey (neilX@geol.niu.edu) wrote:
>: 
>: Naw.  I think the smartest vegetable is Venus' Flytrap.  It's a
>: carnivore . . . .
In the interests of PC, I think that enormous Federal money needs to be spent 
to develop a vegetarian variety of this plant.
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
   526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
   630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D; and gas sensor-based product 
development to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************

William R. Penrose wrote:
> 
> In article <33c55976.276714469@news.wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Rob Rodgers) writes:
> 
> >Cactus is a bottom feeder.  No, the braniac of the vegetative kingdom
> >is obviously the rutabaga.  This foul tasting, gritty tuber contains
> >few nutrients and, like human beings, can grow and survive pretty much
> >anywhere, and somehow it has domesticated a mammalian species to
> >service it's every need.
> 
> This brings things full circle.  Obviously the best and most morally
> acceptable form of nutrition are human beings themselves.  (For the menu, of
> course, it's "long pig".)
> 
> Bill "To Serve Man" Penrose
Right on!  It is a modest solution:
  http://www.paranoia.com/coe/e-sermons/butcher.html
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (cAsE-sensitive; until 31 July)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

GSD wrote:
> 
> Steve Spence wrote:
> >
> >  you are right, human meat-eaters shouldn't have any rights. That's why it
> > is illegal to eat human meat ;-)
> 
> Is it illegal to eat humans???
> We eat a lot of human here in Africa.  It's cheap, and available almost
> everywhere. Many westerners find human meat to be a little on the sweet
> side, but actually it's not unlike warthog meat..  Goes well with a
> variety of vegetables.
My favorite briefcase is faced with 100% Nigerian babybide.  The leatherwork is 
superb.  Every couple or three months I work in a little mink oil to keep it in 
tip-top shape.  Given the incredible overabundance of source, the price was very 
reasonable.
	http://www.paranoia.com/coe/e-sermons/butcher.html
"If God had not meant animals to be eaten, He would not have made them of meat."
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

 Are you including fish & chicken? I doubt your knowledge on the subject!
--
Steve Spence
sspence@sequeltech.com
Http://www.sequeltech.com
SteveSpence@worldnet.att.net
Http://www.areaairduct.com/spence
MSMVP, MSDN, ClubIE
BetaID# 254651
____________________________________
Toe wrote in article ...
>In article <01bc8caa$bd43d700$2fa8469c@uswr250.zeneca.com>, "Western
>Research Center"  wrote:
>> > > I don't eat vegtables. I leave that for those cruel
>> > > unsportsmanlike people who are too lazy or cowardly to take on
>> > > animals.
>> > >
>> > You mean you hunt all the meat that you consume?
>> >
>> > Or that you let butchers murder it for you, and you drop by the store
and
>> > pick out a haunch you like?
>> >
>>
>> I like to view it that since I've got soooo much energy from eating meat,
>> that I can work a full day, rise a bit in the socio-economic structure
and
>> afford a hit-man to take care of the drudgery of getting my meat for me.
>> If he wants to call himself a butcher, fine.  Whatever "empowers" him.
How
>> can you be against that?  He's eanbled!  Ennobled!  His self-esteem is in
>> tact because he's not saddled with YOUR label!  I'm helping to free my
>> fellow human from the shackles of a social stigma!  I feel so darn good
>> about that, I think I'll have a steak to celebrate!!!!
>
>Ahh... very "sportsmanlike," as you said. And it's a wonderful world that
>you envision as well. One, I suppose, where hiring a hit man to take out
>another person makes one "rise a bit in the socio-economic structure." So I
>suppose this makes a mafia thug just about the highest form of life.
>
>Oh, and by the way, it's poor imagination that can believe that meat gives
>people more energy. At best, you can hope that meat provides you with large
>quantities of energy in the form of fat around your waist. As for energy
>you can actually use, meat is a very poor source.
>
>>
>>         Vince
>>
>>         If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made thm
out of
>> meat.
>
>People are meat too. Or did you forget that?
>
>
>
>  Toe!  ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
>      \  . . `; -._    )-;-,_`)
>         (v_,)'  _  )`-.\  ``-'
>        _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
>      ((,.-'   ((,/
>epastore@erols.com
>
>

wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes: > In article <5q3jdf$j9t@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net> "Steve Spence"  writes:
> Not true.  Have you ever grown a carrot from a slice, or planted a potato and 
> had it grow?  They're *alive*!  And therefore conscious.
The exact same logic about "how far should one go"
applies to our treatment of each other as to animals.
Saying, "I go only so far in helping animals.  But, I'm going
to create new ones, confine them their whole lives, and slaughter
them, just because I want to eat hamburgers" 
is exactly analogous to rapists saying that 90% of the time they
are polite and cordial to women, but that they can only go so far
in sacrificing themselves for women: they won't rape women 5 times
a year, but they will rape them 3 times a year. 
At least, I DO feel sorry for rapists in jail: at least they get
punished: in fact, way OVER punished, with extremist jail sentences.
Whereas, meateaters like Penrose are loose and should be locked up.
And, yes, this IS math-and-science-related: 
any time one tries to quantify
variables like numbers of death, duration of suffering, etc...

Ivan wrote:
> 
> "Western Research Center"  writes: >
> 
> >
> >       If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made thm out of
> > meat.
> 
> I knew there'd be a much of subhuman trash responding to this thread
> when I answered it.  To which I respond, I don't think human meat-
> eaters should be given any legal rights.  They live by the law of
> the jungle, so I shouldn't have one cent of my tax dollars spent on
> defending their "rights".  No one should be prosecuted for doing
> any harm to those who deliberately bring more animals into the
> world for slaughter.
> 
> John
What do you have against pregnant Inner City teenagers?
I agree with you.  End Welfare.  Absolutely.  Right now.  NOT ANOTHER CHECK! 
(BTW, where will you get your Vitamin B-12?  It isn't produced in plants.  
Not a molecule of it.  It isn't made synthetically, either - way too complex.)
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

In article <33C4CBEF.4D8B@lanl.gov> "Rebecca M. Chamberlin"  writes:
>Most scientists are leaning toward the more "direct" style that uses 1st
>person.  The ACS style guide suggests "Use first person where
>appropriate... First person is perfectly acceptable where it helps keep
>your meaning clear."  As you've noticed, using a more direct style tends
>to engage the reader and make the author seem more human. 
Let me ask the question again, "Has anybody published a scientific paper or 
even a formal report, like a thesis, using the first person or even the active 
voice?"  
Answers please.
Stuffy = erudite; clear and concise = superficial, in the eyes of editors, no 
matter what they say in the style guides.
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
   526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
   630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D; and gas sensor-based product 
development to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************

So, ahve you had any optically active compound?
Eric Lucas  wrote in article
<33C5799B.665D@ix.netcom.com>...
> Richard Mateles wrote:
> > 
> > They can, and do, exchange places!  Have you ever collected any
D-CHDFT? Or
> > L-CHDFT?
> 
> 
> And by exactly what mechanism do you propose they change places?  You'd
> do well to know what the hell you're talking about before you tell
> someone else they're wrong.  See a paper in the early 80s by John
> Gladysz on the synthesis and properties of chiral acetic acid,
> HDTC-CO2H.
> 
> 	Eric Lucas
> 

Are you sure it isn't sulfur chemistry you are seeing?  Have you isolated some 
chromophore and verified its classification?
Why would an underground storage organ incorporate anthocyanines?
OTOH, if you can get the color change reproducible, patent the process and hawk 
it to nouvelle cuisine eateries.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!
================================================
J. Johnstone wrote:
> 
> Hi, i would be estatic to hear from anyone who has done some
> work/research with anthocyanins.  I've been working with garlic and have
> noted a colour change when it is exposed to acidic conditions. (It
> actually turns a vibrant shade of blue/ green). I have
> attributed this colour change to anthocyanins and have tried several
> methods to eliminate it from occuring.  From what i understand there are
> four main forms of the pigment, a quinodal base (blue pigment), a flavylium
> salt (red), a carbinol pseudobase (colourless), and a chalcone (also
> colourless). When the garlic is exposed to acidic conditions a shift in
> equilibrium occurs towards the blue quinodal base.  I've made several
> adjustments to the pH and have tried to leach out the anthocyanins
> by soaking the garlic in a 10% NaCl for several hours but a small amount of
> greening still occurs.  I've read that co-pigmentation (the condensation
> of an anthocyanin with another organic compound such as amino acids,
> tannins, flavonoids) allows the anthocyanin to withstand greater
> processing (temp, pH changes) and storage conditions.  Is there a way to
> free the anthocyanin from the organic compound that is involved in the
> co-pigmentation??  This might decrease the stability of the anthocyanin
> and eliminate the greening.
> 
> If anyone has any thoughts or comments on this subject i would be
> delighted to hear them.
> Thanks in advance
> jennifer

Robert Kelly wrote:
> 
> I am thinking of trying a postcolumn reaction to enhance the characteristics
> of the eluent from my HPLC column and give a stronger signal in my detector.
> 
> The particular experiment i have in mind is to involve a photolysis of the
> material as it comes from the hplc column and before it arrives at the
> detector.  The only thing is that my initial experiments have indicated that
> it could take up to 5 minutes to effective photolyse the material.  Given that
> the HPLC tubing i am using is 0.5mm internal diameter and the flow rate is
> 0.5ml per minute, that equates to 12.5 meters of tube.  My first thought is
> that so much diffusion will occur in this length of tube that the peak will
> become so broad as to become undetectable.
> 
> If i use wider tubing i am worried that, althought the length of tubing will
> be less, the fact that the tubing is wider will cause  a similar problem.
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject?
Excimer laser.  Throw in a hundred joules of UV.  Cooling is left as an exercise 
for the alert reader.
Electrodeless Hg lamp.  They are rated around a kilowatt net UV output.  Look up 
Fusion Systems  http://www.thomasregister.com/
Short arc Hg/xenon bulb.  Optical Radiation Corp. or Hammamatsu.
Note that UV photolyses have a nasty habit of depositing crud on transparent 
reactor walls.  Good luck.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Mike. I am not at all convinced that the current "cost of clean up"
funds for nuclear reactors are really capturing the cost of actually
decommisioning the plants. As I recall we really do not have very much
experience with this and each time we try we are like reinventing the
wheel, and find it is more difficult after every "improvement".
Second. I think objecting to nuclear reactors because the fuel can be
diverted by the controling government to antisocial uses is really an
unfortunate side effect. The shoe is really on the other foot. These
governments will build and operate their reactors whether or not they
get power out of them. They would throw away the power just to  get the
plutonium. So you can't argue that building reactors for power will make
plutonium available to them, in fact if they are using the reactor for
power this may make it harder for them to shut it down and remove the
plutonium. You can argue that some governments should not be permitted
to have reactors for any purpose, and I think we have done that with
Iraq.

On 11 Jul 1997 11:30:46 -0700, John McCarthy 
wrote:
>My estimate of the amount of hydrogen required to give a 300 mile
>range was based on comparing the energy produced when hydrogen is
>combined with oxygen with that produced when gasoline is combined with
>oxygen.  If 15 gallons does it with gasoline, 50 gallons should do it
>with hydrogen in spite of the low density of liquid hydrogen.  I
>wasn't proposing that the tank be pressurized.  The heat coming in
>through the insulation is compensated for by letting some of the hydrogen
>evaporate.  I don't understand Hatunen's mention of CO2.
>
>I think the hydrogen will most conveniently be injected into the
>cylinders as a liquid.  You will want as much density as you can get.
>Rocket engines don't heat the hydrogen before it enters the combustion
>chamber.  
>
No rocket engines don't but on the other hand they burn everything in
the tank in one huge blast. Not the sort of thing that would be
desirable on a trip to the corner grocery store for a pound of onions.
Would you care to discuss the need for a reasonable time lag in
starting the engine after returning to the vehicle in the parking lot.
It would appear that liquid hydrogen within centimeters of the
presumably hot engine might create some serious insulation problems.
In addition of course as a resident of northern Minnesota I am
interested in just how you propose to insure that I don't freeze my
ass off in this inhospitable climate. That may make a difference in
the milage.
  _               _   _                  Für d' Flöh gibts a Pulver 
 (_|   |   |_/o  | | | |  o              für d' Schuah gibts a Wix, 
   |   |   |     | | | |      _  _    ,   für'n Durst gibts a Wasser
   |   |   |  |  |/  |/_) |  / |/ |  / \_  bloss fuer d' Dummheit gibts nix.
    \_/ \_/   |_/|__/| \_/|_/  |  |_/ \/ 

On 11 Jul 1997 14:11:52 GMT, hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) wrote:
>In article <5q3s81$q7e$1@morgoth.sfu.ca>, Ian Gay  wrote:
>>In article <33C54B53.E22DF9ED@earthlink.net>,
>>   Merlin Null  wrote:
>>
>>>Hydrogen is not a fuel.  There is no source of free hydrogen on
>>>Earth for use as a fuel. It can only be a storage device for energy
>>>derived from other sources.  You must break down some other
>>>compound to make free hydrogen.  The usual process is to separate
>>>it from water.  This takes more energy to do than you get out
>>>from burning it.
>>>
>>Most H2 today is not made electrolytically - that's too expensive. It's made by 
>>reactions like  CH4 + 2 H2O  -->  CO2 + 4 H2. The question then is whether one 
>>can get more out of the H2 via a fuel cell than one can from the CH4 using one's 
>>favourite combustion technology.
>
>Don't forget that CO2 is now one of our no-no byproducts, so H@ is not
>providing a pollution-free fuel by this process.
No problem.  Joe Camel is currently unemployed so we just get him to
push carbonated soft drinks.
>
  _               _   _                  Für d' Flöh gibts a Pulver 
 (_|   |   |_/o  | | | |  o              für d' Schuah gibts a Wix, 
   |   |   |     | | | |      _  _    ,   für'n Durst gibts a Wasser
   |   |   |  |  |/  |/_) |  / |/ |  / \_  bloss fuer d' Dummheit gibts nix.
    \_/ \_/   |_/|__/| \_/|_/  |  |_/ \/ 

On 11 Jul 1997 15:34:21 GMT, ghg@shay.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble)
wrote:
>In article <5q4c25$g6u$1@news.wco.com>, David Hatunen  wrote:
>>In article ,
>>John McCarthy   wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>3. Various schemes for storing hydrogen in a car have been proposed.
>>>Compressed hydrogen gas or metal hydrides or hydrogen adsorbed on
>>>metal will work but can't provide the range of present cars.  If you
>>>imagine the competition to be cars powered by lead-acid batteries or
>>>flywheels, these schemes are in the running.
>>
>
>I have seen a scheme for H2 storage that involved carbon whiskers.
>It has a patent applied for. Metal hydrides only store 1-5% H2
>by weight.. This whiskers claimed to hold 75% their weight of H2,
>which is far denser than liquid H2.  There were estimates
>of 5000 mile ranges from a tank of whiskers, and you change
>the gas when you change the oil.
Is that so? 
>
I hesitate to change the subject but I do have a lovely bridge for
sale at a very attractive price.
  _               _   _                  Für d' Flöh gibts a Pulver 
 (_|   |   |_/o  | | | |  o              für d' Schuah gibts a Wix, 
   |   |   |     | | | |      _  _    ,   für'n Durst gibts a Wasser
   |   |   |  |  |/  |/_) |  / |/ |  / \_  bloss fuer d' Dummheit gibts nix.
    \_/ \_/   |_/|__/| \_/|_/  |  |_/ \/ 

Hi folks:
A friend, who works in a Organic Chem lab, would like to know
if its safe to conceive and go through a pregnancy, while
working for almost 8-10 hrs every day. She does not handle any
radioactive stuff although she works with several organic 
chemicals like acetone, hexane, etc etc
She is a grad student doing a Master's and has another 2 years to go. 
Can anyone share suggestions or experiences ?
Thanks a bunch. 
Deb.

In article ,
Rick Troendle   wrote:
>
>On 8 Jul 1997, Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>
>:Wm James (spam@here.not) wrote:
>:: 
>:: Who taught you politics, Jane Fonda?  Try looking up socialism in
>:: the dictionary.  You guys like big brother, and you seem to have
>:: this fantasy about your slave masters seeing it your way.
>:
>:I have -- it's government control of the means of production and 
>:distribution.  Nazi Germany was quite capitalistic -- Speer, for example, 
>:owned a huge armament industry.  Of course, you use socialism to mean 
>:whatever you don't like.......
>:
>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You are right Speer owned a
>huge armament industry. He was a member of the Nazi party. He had a
>position in Hitler staff. You are twisting the definition of Socialism to
>fit your means. Okay, the government of Nazi Germany did not bother to
>offically take over the industry of Germany, but like your definition
>says: govenment control of means and production. You really believe that
>Hilter and the nazi's did not control the means and production in Germany.
>Please.
>
   Speer was an architect.  I don't think that he owned an armaments
   firm.
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III          |   Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
                              |     
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com |   My opinions only 
                              |                  

David Hatunen (hatunen@shell.) wrote:
: In article <5q2tec$bhd@curly.cc.emory.edu>,
: Lloyd R. Parker  wrote:
: >Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz) wrote:
: >: H2 is difficult to store in a safe manner.  The costs (in $ and kg)
: >: associated with safety devices significantly hamper the potential for
: >: H2 an a mobile energy source.
: >
: >And what of the costs of pollution and global warming due to hydrocarbon 
: >combustion?  What of the costs as fossil fuels get scarcer?
: 
: You are rhetorically changing the subject. Eliminating pollutants from
: hydrocarbon combustion does not necessarily equal hydrogen-is-the-answer.
Not so.  If you're going to talk about fuel cost, you have to talk about 
the total cost -- not just making the fuel, but its societal costs to the 
environment.
: >Factor in the cost of pollution and environmental damage from fossil 
: >fuels.  Factor in the icreased cost of fossil fuels as they get scarcer, 
: >or harder to obtain because of the location (very deep ocean deposits, 
: >Siberia, etc.).  You seem to be assuming gasoline will always be as cheap 
: >as it is in the US today, and that there are no societal costs associated 
: >with its use.
: 
: People who talk about factoring in the cost of pollution and environmental
: damage from fossil fuels should first tell us just exactly what those costs
: are, in dollars. Otherwise it is just puffy oratory.
People who talk about the added cost of hydrogen (see the top of the 
post) need to do the same thing then.  Or do you not play even-handedly?

Michael Pelletier (mikep@comshare.com) wrote:
: And higher construction costs can be offset by the fact that you
: need only a truckload of fuel every year, instead of dozens of rail
: cars every day.  Some of the lowest-cost generating plants in the
: world are nuclear.
Gee, in this country, it's the other way around.
: 
: At least nuclear fuel is solid, non-flammable, and insoluable,
: unlike, say, oil, or natural gas (think: "Exxon Valdez" and "gas
: pipeline explosion kills hundreds").
Gee, at least oil can't cause cancer in anybody who breathes it.  A gram 
of oil in the air isn't sufficient to kill millions of people.  Oil can't 
be diverted to make nuclear weapons.  And oil wastes aren't going to be 
toxic to people for billions of years.
: 
: And trying to use Chernobyl as a representative sample of the entire
: nuclear power industry is sophistry at its worst.
Didn't you just cite the Exxon Valdez?  Hello, pot, kettle?

Merlin Null (merlinnull@earthlink.net) wrote:
: 
: Hydrogen is not a fuel.  There is no source of free hydrogen on
: Earth for use as a fuel. It can only be a storage device for energy
: derived from other sources.  You must break down some other
: compound to make free hydrogen.  The usual process is to separate
: it from water.  This takes more energy to do than you get out
: from burning it.
But you can use solar power at a stationary site to make hydrogen, a 
mobile fuel.  If you're using solar energy, the energy used becomes 
rather irrelevant.  At least for a few billion years.
: 
: What do you gain in air pollution if you burn oil to generate
: electric power, use that power to break water into hydrogen
: and oxygen and then burn the hydrogen in a vehicle?
That's why most people are talking about using solar energy.
: 
: If you separate the hydrogen from a hydocarbon, you would have
: the carbon left over as either longer chain hydrocarbons, or
: as something like coal or coal dust.  Where would you find a
: place to burn that?
The Chrysler hybrid engine burns the hydrocarbon to make CO2 and H2O, 
eliminating hydrocarbons and CO that'd you'd get from burning gasoline.  
If you burn at a constant rate and temperature, you can get much cleaner 
combustion.

In article <5q5fie$eqn@curly.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd R. Parker  wrote:
>David Hatunen (hatunen@shell.) wrote:
>: In article <5q2tec$bhd@curly.cc.emory.edu>,
>: Lloyd R. Parker  wrote:
>: >Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz) wrote:
>: >: H2 is difficult to store in a safe manner.  The costs (in $ and kg)
>: >: associated with safety devices significantly hamper the potential for
>: >: H2 an a mobile energy source.
>: >
>: >And what of the costs of pollution and global warming due to hydrocarbon 
>: >combustion?  What of the costs as fossil fuels get scarcer?
>: 
>: You are rhetorically changing the subject. Eliminating pollutants from
>: hydrocarbon combustion does not necessarily equal hydrogen-is-the-answer.
>
>Not so.  If you're going to talk about fuel cost, you have to talk about 
>the total cost -- not just making the fuel, but its societal costs to the 
>environment.
So hydrogen is the only answer?
>: >Factor in the cost of pollution and environmental damage from fossil 
>: >fuels.  Factor in the icreased cost of fossil fuels as they get scarcer, 
>: >or harder to obtain because of the location (very deep ocean deposits, 
>: >Siberia, etc.).  You seem to be assuming gasoline will always be as cheap 
>: >as it is in the US today, and that there are no societal costs associated 
>: >with its use.
>: 
>: People who talk about factoring in the cost of pollution and environmental
>: damage from fossil fuels should first tell us just exactly what those costs
>: are, in dollars. Otherwise it is just puffy oratory.
>
>People who talk about the added cost of hydrogen (see the top of the 
>post) need to do the same thing then.  Or do you not play even-handedly?
Nifty way to get out of answering. So you think you don't have to justify
your statements as long as someone else isn't justifying theirs?
The whole premise of much of this clamor for alternate fuels is based on
some claim about the overall environmental "cost" fo using the present
fuels, frequently with a blind eye to the similar costs of the proposed
alternative, and so far no one seems to be able to quantify these costs in
any meaningful manner, preferring to point wih alarm instead.
There are glib answers, but not easy answers.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

In article <5q5eb0$29a8@sccat.pgh.wec.com>,
B. Alan Guthrie  wrote:
>In article ,
>Rick Troendle   wrote:
>>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You are right Speer owned a
>>huge armament industry. He was a member of the Nazi party. He had a
>>position in Hitler staff. You are twisting the definition of Socialism to
>>fit your means. Okay, the government of Nazi Germany did not bother to
>>offically take over the industry of Germany, but like your definition
>>says: govenment control of means and production. You really believe that
>>Hilter and the nazi's did not control the means and production in Germany.
>>Please.
>>
>
>   Speer was an architect.  I don't think that he owned an armaments
>   firm.
He didn't.
And national Socialism wasn't socialism. It started out that way, before
Hitler joined the party to change it. And socialistic principles continued
to remain in the party "platform" for long afterward, as a lip service. But
Hitler had Roehm and his Brownshirts eliminated because they still believed
in the socialist part of the party name, and that scared the hell out of the
capitalist industrialists Hitler was wooing, given the power base Roehm
represented.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

Fred McGalliard wrote:
> 
> Geoff Henderson wrote:
> 
> > Alcohol (ethanol or methanol) has higher octane than
> > petrol and thus could deliver better thermal efficiency in
> > purpose-designed engines.  Also I see no reason why it could not be
> > used for gas turbines for aviation,
> 
> Pinch me if I am wrong, but from the top of my head, as I remember,
> Alcohol has a lower energy density, sucks up more heat on evaporation,
> burns colder (pretty much point one and 2 actually), and doesn't produce
> such nasty smoke and partly decomposed junk. It might make a perfectly
> good jet fuel but the combustors would have to be changed a lot to get
> the mix to burn fast enough.
Fermentation alcohol delivers about 80% of the joules that were expended in its 
creation.  Look up the Kilkenny cats.
You could hydrate ethylene, but that smacks of civilization.
Environmentalism is that philosophy and dialectic in direct opposition to 
progress in its every form.  The Luddites are smashing the power looms and 
saving the Earth for mud huts.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

In article <5q5gh4$hhf@curly.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd R. Parker  wrote:
>Michael Pelletier (mikep@comshare.com) wrote:
>: And higher construction costs can be offset by the fact that you
>: need only a truckload of fuel every year, instead of dozens of rail
>: cars every day.  Some of the lowest-cost generating plants in the
>: world are nuclear.
>
>Gee, in this country, it's the other way around.
Depends on how you're looking at it. BAsed on fuel and operating costs,
nukes in America are pretty cheap. It was the capital investment that pushed
the KWH cost up.
>: At least nuclear fuel is solid, non-flammable, and insoluable,
>: unlike, say, oil, or natural gas (think: "Exxon Valdez" and "gas
>: pipeline explosion kills hundreds").
>
>Gee, at least oil can't cause cancer in anybody who breathes it.  A gram 
Uh. Are you sure about that? And hydrocarbosn do cause liver damage.
>of oil in the air isn't sufficient to kill millions of people.  Oil can't 
A gram of uranium isn't either.
>be diverted to make nuclear weapons.  
Power plant fuel can't be used for nuclear weapons, although they can be
used to make fuel for nuclear weapons if designed for it.
>And oil wastes aren't going to be 
>toxic to people for billions of years.
Nuclear wastes aren't toxic for *milions* of years either. 
>: And trying to use Chernobyl as a representative sample of the entire
>: nuclear power industry is sophistry at its worst.
>
>Didn't you just cite the Exxon Valdez?  Hello, pot, kettle?
Count up all the oils spills. Count up all the nuclear accidents of a
similarly serious nature or worse. Compare. What do you get?
Count up all the lead poisoning from leaded gas over the decades. Count up
all the lung ailments from auto pollution. Find out what a coal-fired power
plant does with all the acids and ash they have removed from their effluent
streams (all of the nucelar waste from commercial nuclear power plants over
the last several decades could be stored in the settling ponds of a single
medium-sized coal-fired plant). Find out how many people died in London and
Donnemara Pennsylvania from coal pollution in the major smog incidents in
those places after WW2, and then count up all the known incidents of human
injury from the TMI incident. Count up all the deaths in coal mine
accidents. All the black lung disease.
There was a recent explosion at the oil refinery at Martinez near here. A
worker was killed. He, alone, constitutes a greater process-related death
toll [*] than that of all the commercial nuclear power plants in the USA
since the beginning.
When you're all done, nuclear looks pretty good.
* I'm saying "process-related" because I don't think we want to start
looking at stuff like a guy who was killed because someone dropped a wrench
on him from a high place or other such "routine" industrial accidents.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

In article <5q5gn3$i2f@curly.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd R. Parker  wrote:
>Merlin Null (merlinnull@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: 
>: Hydrogen is not a fuel.  There is no source of free hydrogen on
>: Earth for use as a fuel. It can only be a storage device for energy
>: derived from other sources.  You must break down some other
>: compound to make free hydrogen.  The usual process is to separate
>: it from water.  This takes more energy to do than you get out
>: from burning it.
>
>But you can use solar power at a stationary site to make hydrogen, a 
>mobile fuel.  If you're using solar energy, the energy used becomes 
>rather irrelevant.  At least for a few billion years.
Transportion is nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it would be. And
especially not in teh quantities required for any truly significan usage as
a fuel for personal vehicles.
>The Chrysler hybrid engine burns the hydrocarbon to make CO2 and H2O, 
>eliminating hydrocarbons and CO that'd you'd get from burning gasoline.  
>If you burn at a constant rate and temperature, you can get much cleaner 
>combustion.
Andyou still get all that CO2 greenhouse gas.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

In article <5q4c25$g6u$1@news.wco.com>, David Hatunen  wrote:
>In article ,
>John McCarthy   wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>3. Various schemes for storing hydrogen in a car have been proposed.
>>Compressed hydrogen gas or metal hydrides or hydrogen adsorbed on
>>metal will work but can't provide the range of present cars.  If you
>>imagine the competition to be cars powered by lead-acid batteries or
>>flywheels, these schemes are in the running.
>
I have seen a scheme for H2 storage that involved carbon whiskers.
It has a patent applied for. Metal hydrides only store 1-5% H2
by weight.. This whiskers claimed to hold 75% their weight of H2,
which is far denser than liquid H2.  There were estimates
of 5000 mile ranges from a tank of whiskers, and you change
the gas when you change the oil.
see http://www.ttcorp.com/nha/thl/feb97.htm
--ghg

In article <5q5ev8$p8t$3@news.wco.com>, hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) wrote:
[snip]
>>Most H2 today is not made electrolytically - that's too expensive. It's made 
by 
>>reactions like  CH4 + 2 H2O  -->  CO2 + 4 H2. The question then is whether one 
>>can get more out of the H2 via a fuel cell than one can from the CH4 using 
one's 
>>favourite combustion technology.
>
>Don't forget that CO2 is now one of our no-no byproducts, so H@ is not
>providing a pollution-free fuel by this process.
Indeed. But CO2 emission is not going to go away any time soon. So I would still 
like to know - does anybody have _real_ figures? - can we get more useful energy 
per unit CO2 emitted by best combustion technology, or by reforming and hydrogen 
fuel cell?
*** To reply by e-mail, remove _nospam from address ***