Newsgroup sci.chem 89274

Wm James wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 05 Jul 1997 09:37:58 -0700, Uncle Al
>  wrote:
> 
> >Ed Zotti wrote:
> >> Here's what the product sheet for one product, from "Real Goods," says
> >> about how the product works:
> >>
> >> "1. Metallic elements (including copper and silver) in the activated

> >It is crap.  It is nothing but crap.  It is only crap.  It is purely crap.
> Your response was a lot of crap.
> 
> I like that!
> 
> William R. James
Hi Ed, 
I agree with the others, this is a bunch of crap.  In fact, a patiently
pointed out the lies and errors of a similar scheme advertised on an
environmental resource page.  The powers that be on that page removed
the add, restoring a portion of my faith in the environmental movement
(and boy, does it ever need restoring.)
Say hi to Cecil for me, 
Jeff

Roger Dodger  wrote:
>Roger Dodger has this to say about that:
>
>>> I quit smoking cigarettes 3 months ago (Went cold turkey and haven't
>>> cheated once!), and those guys over there are losing their minds because
>>> I mentioned that catching a buzz helped during the first couple days,
>>> and because I felt that yes, cigarettes are addictive and I wanted to be
>>> rid of them, but I did NOT feel that marijuana was addictive, and I had
>>> no desire to have it removed from my life -- It is there by my choice.
>>> It's a want to, not a have to.  Now I've been branded a "junkie", and
>>> all of my thoughts on ending nicotine addiction are instantly
>>> disregarded just because I stood up for what I believe about the herb.
>
>>I've heard people say that marijuana made it easier to get off
>>alcohol, to get off heroin and opium.  Maybe it helps one get off cigarettes
>>too ... relaxes cravings.  You *are* substituting one form of
>>*smoking* for another -- which may mean something in particular,
>>I can't tell.
>
>>Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs around.  It's one of
>>the few drugs for which users are likely to be addicts.  The
>>people who are lambasting you are nicotine addicts, hooked on a
>>drug which has more health consequences than heroin.
>
>I too, would like to quit cigarettes.  The nicotine in tobacco is one of
>three truely addicting drugs around (the other two being alcohol and the
>opiates). I really feel that nicotine in 1/2 the problem and 'ritual' is the
>other half.
>
>I would like to buy some very low grade MJ leaf to substitute for the
>nicotine in the cigarettes.  When I was growing my own grass, I used to smoke
>the leaf quite often.  I could roll 'California Joints', but not get so
>stoned that I couldn't function.  Unfortunatly, most growers seem to just
>throw away the leaf and sell only the bud.  Nice for a 'high' but totally
>worthless as a substitute for nicotine 'ritual'.
>
>Not that I live in a trailer park, growing my own is out of the question.
>Maybe I'll take a trip to Oklahoma. Apparently they have so much 'dirt
>weed' left over from the last war that their legislature is seriously
>considering helicopter spraying 'Agent Orange' to erradicate this menace.
>:)
>
>Did someone say 'Paranoid'?  Did I hear 'Hysteria'?
>
 I'm trying to quit cigarettes myself. I'm only eighteen and have been
smoking for 2 years. I never dreamed it would be this difficult to
break the habit, but, I've had to live with nervousness,tightness in
my chest, irritability (I become fucking impossible to be around.) and
an overall sence of discomfort that borders on pain. 
That was the first part of quitting, now I'm on to the part where i
start asking myself, "well, that wasn't so bad, mabye i could have
another cigarette and just quit again."
That was the second part, and the worst. I quit for 9 months and i
picked up another marlboro again the day I turned 19. I don't think
i'll ever figure out why.
MJ was an incredible help during the second part and growing in a
trailer park isn'ty impossible. just a little more expensive than
outside growing. Hey, if all you want is the leaf than why not offset
the cast by selling the rest?
Roam8
"Wherever I may...

Gavin Grandish wrote:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> Chemistry Carols
> 
> from the desk of Gavin Grandish 
> 
------snip, snip, snip--------------8<------------------------
Uh - - - - Gavin, this country gets enough bad press regarding
weather without posting this sort of thing in the middle of July.
Dave
-- 
from the igloo of
J. David Malinsky               Internet: malinsky@chem.ucalgary.ca
Department of Chemistry         Phone:(403)220-5371  FAX:(403)289-9488
The University of Calgary

In article <5ppqhi$61r@ednet2.orednet.org>, "Lawrence R. Jordan"
 writes:
>Subject:	Re: New Interdisciplinary Listserv Group on CYCLES request
for
>interest?
>From:	"Lawrence R. Jordan" 
>Date:	7 Jul 1997 04:15:45 GMT
>
>rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) wrote:
>>I am planning to set up a listserv group for discussion on the subject
>>of CYCLES, meaning phenomena in any discipline that are repeated in time
>>or space.
>
>
>This is my simple statement of interest in your listserv group.  
>
>
>------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby01.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!news-out.
internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!News1.Toronto.iSTAR.net!News1.Vanc
ouver.iSTAR.net!news.istar.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news.ner
o.net!ednet2!usenet
>From: "Lawrence R. Jordan" 
>Newsgroups:
>sci.chem,sci.econ,sci.economics,sci.geo.earthquakes,sci.geo.geology,sci.g
eo.meteorology,sci.math,sci.med,sci.med.physics
>Subject: Re: New Interdisciplinary Listserv Group on CYCLES request for
>interest?
>Date: 7 Jul 1997 04:15:45 GMT
>Organization: Oregon EDNET COMPASS
>Lines: 8
>Message-ID: <5ppqhi$61r@ednet2.orednet.org>
>References: <3407022d.246451451@aklobs.org.nz>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.212.6.185
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2 (Windows; U; 16bit)
>To: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz
>Xref: lobby01.news.aol.com sci.chem:80339 sci.econ:53179
>sci.geo.earthquakes:12009 sci.geo.geology:38924 sci.geo.meteorology:28016
>sci.math:137308 sci.med:139244 sci.med.physics:4944
>
>
I think it is a very good idea.
Javaid (Jim) R. Khwaja

>I can't see why this would be chiral.  There is free rotation for all 
of
>the atoms.
>
What difference does that make ??? as long as the substituents on the 
carbon cannot exchange places then the C is a chiral centre.
                       H
                       I
                       C
                     / I \
                     F D  T
would be one enantiomer 
                       H
                       I
                       C
                     / I \
                     D F  T
would be the other enantiomer.
Bond rotation makes no difference !!!!

It can be done colormetrically in a number of ways, the easiest is 
using ninhydrin, though Nesslers reagent can also be used - see Vogel's 
handbook of analysis.

Im trying to optimise a separation of ethanol extracted components from
cooked beef samples. I am using reverse phase, gradient elution
(acetonitrile/water) and have tried a range of C18 columns with little
success. The molecules are quite polar and are eluting quite early in the
run, my peaks are tending to coelute and tail.
Can anyone suggest another type of column which might prove more suitable
to this analysis. My eventual aim is to identify these molecules using
LC-MS and NMR.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Dear colleagues,
What are the market information sources that you know?
 Especially concerning the essential oils.  What would you do if you had
to follow up the pricing and the traded volumes of these oil?  Recently I
found interesting datas on citronelle in the "chemical market reporter"
but would it exist a more specialized source on essential oils and their
markets?
Thank you for sharing your experiences!
dgrondin@criq.qc.ca
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

FLEMING 2.15 wrote:
> 
> Chlorox and amonia mixed together will form Chlorine gas.
Please get it right if you speak authoritatively about toxic mixtures. 
Clorox and ammonia mix to form chloramines, *not* chlorine gas.  To
release Cl2 from NaOCl, you need to lower the pH, which ammonia just
can't do.
They are equally nasty (if anything, chloramines are more insidious
because they are less reactive and can easily penetrate into the human
body to do damage.  This topic has been discussed ad nauseum on this ng;
you *should* know what you're talking about now.
> So will vinegar and bleach !
Well, at least you got that part right.
	Eric Lucas

klaas wrote:
> 
> In a Dutch national paper (Volkskrant) of today there was a small
> article on the front page that the Dutch government wants to
> ban all products containing Hg from Jan 1, 1999 on.
> Exceptions will be made on products where no replacement is possible.
> I think that should be the case on fluorescent lamps and
> virtually all HID lamps (HP mercury, metal halide and HPS lamps).
> Otherwise a large scale streetlamp replacement should occur to
> ... incandescent bulbs .... or LPS lamps ????
Na vapor lamps have been in wide use in the US for about 20 years now,
and I think they're great.  The have the advantage of producing a
pleasant, yellow-tan light.  Not only is this easier on the eyes, it
makes it easier to see clearly.
> What about lab mercury thermometers ?
Agreed.  There isn't a particularly good replacement for temperatures
above about 100 C.  Sounds like a good argument to make thermometers one
of those thing "where no replacement is possible".
On the whole, it seems kinda silly to ban mercury.  I'm unaware that it
really poses that great of a public health risk, but I could simply be
poorly informed.
	Eric Lucas

I can't see why this would be chiral.  There is free rotation for all of
the atoms.
FLEMING 2.15  wrote in article
<5pvdac$6b@orac.sunderland.ac.uk>...
> 
> Surely the smallest chiral molecule would be something along the lines 
> of CHDTF ?
> 
> 

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Eric Lucas wrote:
> [stuff by Andrew Karpinski and Chris Pollard snipped,
>  see previous postings]
>
> This is a badly oversimplified view of capitalism.  
Well, considering how short it was, it's unreasonable to expect a full
treatise on the subject.  As for it being bad, I disagree. 
> Ever heard of advertising?  Ever noticed what has gotten about 70 % of
> all automobile advertising in the last several years?  Ever notice the
> tactics used to advertise SUVs (can you say "testosterone", boys and
> girls?)  You say you don't believe in the power of advertising to get
> you to do something that is very, very bad for you and society as a
> whole?  Ever heard of cigarettes? 
Ever heard of New Coke?  All the advertising in the world didn't get
enough people to buy it.  Seems to me you overestimate the role of
advertising in creating the demand for a product category.  Show us your
source for this 70% number for automobile advertising.  Show us your
source that establishes advertising as the primary factor in creating
demand for cigarettes in general.  
> Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.  In that light, drivers have
> a responsibility to make choices that are consistent with the good of
> all, and I maintain that SUVs and minivans are contrary to the greater
> good.  The most obvious reason is that they waste precious resources and
> as a result, pollute more (including CO2) and produce more greenhouse
> gases.  
Your opinions about what is the greater good of all are just that, your
opinions, and controversial opinions at that.
> However, there is also an issue of the safety of other drivers. 
> When I choose to drive my socially-responsible efficient subcompact, 
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Are you invoking the "moral superiority" argument?  Oh my.
> I cannot see around, over, or now with nearly-black tinted windows,
> through those damn things.  I simply cannot see what is going on ahead
> of those vehicles.  This compromises my right and responsibility to
> drive as safely as possible and to know what is happening on the road
> ahead of my car. 
Three points.  One, the same holds for driving behind semi-trucks.  Do you
propose to ban them too?  And what about motorhomes, campers, travel
trailers, boats, or U-Hauls?
Two, if you feel your right and responsibility to drive as safely as
possible is compromised by SUVs, then don't drive so closely behind them. 
Leave yourself enough reaction room to allow for whatever problem may
occur.  This is not hard to do.  Your complaint about not being able to
see around SUVs is only relevant if you choose to drive too closely behind
them, and thus (according to law) it is your own fault. 
Three, it was your choice to tint your windows.  You can't blame that on
SUVs or minivans.
> Just because some insecure idiot needs the testosterone rush of driving
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> a vehicle that the auto makers have convinced them that they cannot live
> without. 
How does an ad hominem argument like this make your case?  Looking in the
parking lot, about a third of the people in my small office, including two
women, drive SUVs and none of them suffer from the need for a testosterone
rush by driving them. 
> The one legitimate reason people might have for buying an SUV is hauling
> things that won't fit into a car.  However, I refuse to believe that
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> people all the sudden in the 90s have so much to haul that they can't do
> what they need with a car.  Funny, in the 70s, I'm sure people had every
> bit of much to haul, and far, far fewer people had SUVs and trucks. 
Again, these are your *opinions*, and not everyone agrees with you.  For
one, there were far fewer SUVs or minivans available for purchase in the
70s.  And two, some people just like big cars, and SUVs fill that need. 
Happy times upon you, Richard.

       Hi there,
       We are doing non-premixed combustion research and has developed
       program to calculate the
       relationship between temperature and mixture fraction of propane
       using fast chemistry concept.
       However, the fast chemistry concept is not particularly suitable
       for propane combustion. We would like to find if there are
       any public-domain program which adopts equilibrium chemistry
       model for propane.
       If you can help, please let me know.
       Thank you in advance.
       Chao-An Lin, calin@pme.nthu.edu.tw

Toe  wrote in article
...
> In article <33ce8d83.7616504@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, spam@here.not
wrote:
> 
> > >> Support vegtable rights.  At least Bambi can make a run for it,
> > >> but that poor innocent tomato can't even beg for mercy.
> > >> 
> > >> William R. James
> > >Haven't you heard the broccoli screams as you cut off their heads?
> > >David
> > 
> > 
> > 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!!!!
	Vince
	If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made thm out of
meat.

Greetings,
I am interested in what people think the proper writing style is for 
scientific documents.  I ask because I am about to begin writing a 
preliminary report for my Ph.D. candidacy exam, and I am torn between the 
way I think it should be written, and the way I was taught to write 
(years back - 3rd person).  Writing in the first person is so much more 
interesting, and much easier to read.  I have followed discussions and 
articles about this subject, but I would like to hear from those involved 
in scientific writing (chemistry in particular).
Reply or posts appreciated,
Chris

slow down.
data should be on books (the complexation constants of organic ligands...)
anyhow, I think:
1) If I remember right, the Fe(II) (ferrous) complex is violet.
There is in the literature a method to measure salicylate using Fe(II) (not
so sure of the (II) part. I used 20 years ago.
Anyhow, make sure you have no Fe(II) there...
2) for all purposes, in moderate pH media, up to three salicylates would
complex. What pH you are at? 1:2 complex may disproportionate and let Fe
down as hydroxo (rust..).
3) the phenolic H become more labile on complexation.  best to consider
a) metal M
b) fully deprotonated -OC6H4COO-
c) H
than you have complexes M33 (beta133), M32 would be 1 metal, 3 salicylates,
2 protons.
I am sure somebody studied it and reported mixed OH- complexes, usually an
artefact
if this doen not help, you may want to check STN, they provide inexpensive
serches of literature, but the original data is so very old
Tian  wrote in article
<33BC696E.1DC0@post.drexel.edu>...
> Does the following equation seem good?
> 
> o-HO-C6H4-COOH + Fe(III) --> [(O-C6H4-COO)Fe](I)
> 
> If amount of salicylic acid is far greater than Fe(III), will
> [(O-C6H4-COO)2Fe](I-) or [(O-C6H4-COO)3Fe](III-) become major product?
> 
> I tried 1:1, 4:1 and 10:1 reation, the product is always red. I know
> [(O-C6H4-COO)Fe](I) is red. What are the other two complexes' colour?
> (red also??)
> 
> Any suggestion is greatly appreciated.
> 

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.

>
>OK, let me spell it out. The best you can do is burn all your U into fission 
>products. As you say, a typical reactor can't do this all in one pass, so you do 
>it in several passes with reprocessing in between. So if you do the best thing 
>you start with pile of U and end with a pile of fission products, getting a 
>certain amount of energy.
>
>You then ask yourself if what you have done is better than getting the same 
>energy from other sources. (In my opinion it is, is the other sources are fossil 
>fuels). But the 96% is totally irrelevant to the big picture, and your opening 
>sentence (above) smacks of propaganda, rather than argument. 
Whatever.  I think you seem to be avoiding the point here.  CO2
emissions were the key issue.  Fossil fuels - especially coal and oil
are by far the worst offenders. 
Please don't insult fifty years of nuclear technology by trying to
argue that nuclear power is inefficient.  This might make an
interesting debate - although I believe the facts clearly show that
nuclear power is a vital part of the energy mix (and by the way, thank
you to Fred who explained a bit more of the detail behind the
process).  Uranium is a far more efficient fuel than either coal or
oil in terms of amount burnt per kilowatt hour of energy produced.  So
why burn up more coal or oil to produce less energy than burning a
lesser amount of uranium would produce.  CO2 emissions would be
drastically reduced.  In the UK alone nuclear power saves around 55
million tonnes of CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere every year. 
However, returning to your point (and once again I am happy to bow to
the superior knowledge of those in the know) about 96% being
irrelevant: I disagree.  Just because the vast majority of the fuel is
recyclable, doesn't mean it hasn't been used already.  Take the
comparison of glass - 100% glass gets used - 100% (I think) gets
recycled.  Same with nuclear fuel - not with fossil fuels.  
I am not for one minute suggesting the end of fossil fuels and I am
not opposed to "alternative" forms of energy (except wind power -
which I personally believe to a waste of time and resources), I just
believe that too many people oppose nuclear power without first of all
considering any rational (if there is such a thing!) arguments. 
G

David Hatunen wrote:
>
> Once you start making special tanks for safety, you can make special tanks
> for gasoline safety, too. 
Fuel cells are likely to be the primary energy conversion method for
hydrogen.
> BTW, someone has pointed out that there is more combustible hydrogen in a
> gallon of gasoline than in a gallon of liquified H2.
And far more pollutants, too.
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.

David Hatunen wrote:
>  And combusting the
>  H2 does create NOx, if air is used as the provider of the oxidant, with the
>  amount of NOx dependant of factors like compression ratio.
Fuel cells do not have this problem.
Cheers,
-- 
Will & Ann 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.

William R. Penrose wrote:
> If we are forced to eat nothing but vegetables, it behooves us to choose ones
> that are very low down on the intelligence ladder.  I suspect cauliflower is
> probably the smartest vegetable, since it looks like a brain.  Therefore, I
> don't eat cauliflower.  Likewise, parsnip is clever enough to contain a
> carcinogenic chemical within its cells, so it is probably pretty smart, too.
> 
> Now, corn -- there is a dumb vegetable.  It can't survive for even a season
> without human help.  It's like a chicken or cow trying to survive in the wild.
> It comes on a convenient holder to make it easier to eat.  You don't even have
> to bend over to pick it.  That is one dumb veggie!
> 
> Bill
A vegitarian is someone who is too insensitive to hear the screams of a carrot - or in this 
case, corn.  :-)
Chuck Szmanda
chucksz@ultranet.com

Christian Wold wrote:
> 
> Im trying to optimise a separation of ethanol extracted components from
> cooked beef samples. I am using reverse phase, gradient elution
> (acetonitrile/water) and have tried a range of C18 columns with little
> success. The molecules are quite polar and are eluting quite early in the
> run, my peaks are tending to coelute and tail.
Are the compounds you are assaying volatile at all?
Fred

David Hatunen wrote in article <5q1ohu$me5$1@news.wco.com>...
>In article <33C45007.4F1D@patriot.net>,
>Will Stewart   wrote:
>>David Hatunen wrote:
>>>
>>> Once you start making special tanks for safety, you can make special
tanks
>>> for gasoline safety, too.
>>
>>Fuel cells are likely to be the primary energy conversion method for
>>hydrogen.
>
>Uh. You still have to store the hydrogen.
>
 or transform another fuel into hydrogen at point of use.

Ivan  writes:
 >
 >"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
 >
John Nahay is a vegetarian, and vegetarianism represents a step up in
human life affirmation.  However, vegetarianism has been around for a
long time, and it is time for a further advance in consciousness - to
mineralism.
We mineralists regard eating plants to be even more life denying than
eating meat.  One should properly arrange a diet consisting entirely
of minerals.  Of course, this is not easy to arrange, and today I
attended a reception at which the only item entirely consistent with
my convictions was the salt.
When the mineralist movement first started three years ago at our
convention in Benares, some of our members starved to death (including
our founder), salt having proved inadequate to sustain them.
We have found two temporary expedients that will have to do until our
laboratory produces nourishing meals that are entirely mineral.
(1) We allow ourselves to eat fruit with pits under the condition that
the consumer immediately plant the pit in a location where it can
grow.  (No tropical fruits may be consumed in Northern latitudes).  An
alternative is to eat the pit too and arrange to defecate in a
suitable location.  The justification is that the plant arranges for a
fruit with a pit in order to propagate.  However, none of us, in spite
of great effort has succeeded in getting an unambiguous statement of
permission from a fruit tree.
(2) We allow ourselves to eat animals that have only eaten plants
without pits.  This can be regarded as a fit punishment for the plant
eater.  However, if a cow eats a sparrow, as someone described in this
newsgroup, we shouldn't eat the cow, but regard it as to some extent a
fellow fighter for vegetable rights.  Fortunately, many farmers can
provide certification that their cows don't eat sparrows.
It should be understood that these are temporary expedients.
We have a problem with carbon sources.  Imagine the disgust one feels
while processing a lump of coal to find a leaf in it.  Fortunately, we
are assured that methane hydrates soon to be available are entirely
non-biogenic.
A question has arisen about whether it is permissible to eat
vegetarians; of course they would have to be strict vegetarians.  At
our third convention held in Cannes, it was agreed while eating strict
vegetarians was permissible in principle, under present conditions it
was likely to be misunderstood.  Therefore, it was agreed to postpone
eating vegetarians until an educational campaign had explained its
morality to a sufficient fraction of the population.
To that end, it would be helpful to learn what fraction of the readers
of this newsgroup regard eating vegetarians as ok.
-- 
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.

>>>
>>Reprocessing - recovers 96% uranium and 1% plutonium.  3% waste - as
>>opposed to 100% waste with direct disposal. 
>
>96% of WHAT? The U that was originally in the fuel? That simply means you are 
>using an absurdly inefficient reactor.
Err ... no it doesn't. I don't pretend to fully understand the
physics, but after about 4 years in the reactor, the fuel becomes less
efficient and has to be removed from the reactor to maintain
efficiency levels.  However, as i said 96% of the U can be reprocessed
into new fuel. 
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%. 

Eric Lucas wrote:
> 
> Jim Cornwall wrote:
> >
> > Rick Ottolini wrote:
> > >
> > > >>In the U.S. people, whether they drive or not, subsidize driving by
> > > >>paying taxes for road building & maintenance.  If only the drivers
> > > >>paid for driving, if roads were maintained out of gas taxes etc., I
> > > >>think there would be more incentive to use bicycles etc. and more
> > > >>demand for bike paths or whatever would make it safe to drive these
> > > >>lighter vehicles.  The U.S. encourages people to drive cars.
> > >
> > > In my younger students I was more hopeful this would happen.
> > > However, the 1973 energy crisis made me cynical.
> > > That crisis increased the price of a gallon of gasoine to about $5
> > > in 1997 equivalent prices.  That didn't encourage a whole lot
> > > of people to look for driving alternatives.  Instead that price
> > > was aborbed into the general economy causing a couple rounds
> > > of severe price inflation over the following decade.
> > >
> > > Americans are addicted to their cars.
> >
> > In some cases, they're a necessity.  In some cases (far fewer,
> > unfortunately), they're an option - but only when there are practical
> > alternatives like rail, good busses, etc.
> >
> > Personally, I commute 52 miles each way to the university (hopefully not
> > for more than another year or so...) and there is no other regular
> > transport btwn my home and campus, so I see mine as a necessity. YMMV.
> 
> This is not meant as a flame, but you have to keep in mind that *you*
> chose to live 52 miles from where you work.  You therefore chose to give
> up the alternatives to driving and have the luxury of living far away
> from work.  You were so addicted to your car before you chose where to
> live, that you chose a lifestyle that made it seem like it was a
> necessity, rather than choosing a lifestyle in which it was an option.
> 
>         Eric Lucas
You assume he works at "the university." You assume he chose where he
lives. What if he's a student who can only afford to live at home? In
that case his parents chose where he lives, his commuting to school is
temporary (in the grand scheme of things), and for all you know when he
starts his career he'll find a residence within walking distance of
work.
In my experience, housing is cheaper the further out you move. At some
point you find the optimal mix of housing costs plus commuting costs:
Closer in and housing costs more than the savings from a shorter
commute; further out and the commute costs outweigh the cheaper housing.
The catch is that "commute costs" include time, and for most Americans
personal cars are far cheaper (in time plus money) than any of the
alternatives. Since the alternatives are not getting any cheaper (in
time OR money), we won't switch until the automobile costs more (in time
OR money). If we keep going the way we are, either the time cost will go
up (traffic congestion) or the money cost will go up (higher taxes to
build more roads). But without viable alternatives to automobiles, this
will simply cause people to stay in their cars and move closer to work.
It all evens out in the end.
-- 
Rick Downer
rkd7949@ballard.ca.boeing.com
These opinions are not mine, they're Boeing's. Boeing paid me while I 
opined them, so Boeing owns them. But Boeing might not agree with them.

In article <33C45007.4F1D@patriot.net>,
Will Stewart   wrote:
>David Hatunen wrote:
>>
>> Once you start making special tanks for safety, you can make special tanks
>> for gasoline safety, too. 
>
>Fuel cells are likely to be the primary energy conversion method for
>hydrogen.
Uh. You still have to store the hydrogen.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *