Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:23 AM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Chuck Jensen)
2. 06:27 AM - Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines (Gordon or Marge)
3. 06:33 AM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty)
4. 07:48 AM - Re: Liquid cooling (Skylor Piper)
5. 08:08 AM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Bob)
6. 08:26 AM - Re: Liquid cooling (Ed Anderson)
7. 09:11 AM - Re: Re: Ethanol not from corn (Dave Bergh)
8. 09:39 AM - Re: Re: Ethanol not from corn (Timothy E. Cone)
9. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: Ethanol not from corn (John Jessen)
10. 10:41 AM - Re: Re: Ethanol not from corn (Terry Watson)
11. 11:43 AM - Insulation (D Paul Deits)
12. 03:09 PM - Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) ()
13. 03:15 PM - Nuclear Energy (Don McCallister)
14. 03:23 PM - Re: Ethanol not from corn ()
15. 03:41 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Peter Hudes)
16. 04:19 PM - Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! (Louis Willig)
17. 04:33 PM - Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! ()
18. 04:41 PM - Re: Nuclear Energy (PJ Seipel)
19. 05:49 PM - Re: Insulation (Bobby Hester)
20. 07:20 PM - DPS Smart Tach User Manual (Doug Morrison)
21. 07:44 PM - Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer (Bill Schlatterer)
22. 07:53 PM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Brad Templin)
23. 08:13 PM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Charlie England)
24. 10:19 PM - Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! (Kelly McMullen)
25. 10:30 PM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Chris W)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Dave Bergh, Amen.
Sherman Butler, Amen
Jerry Isler, Amen
Rich Galati, Amen
GMCJet, Oh man
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave Bergh
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Bill,
Well put. The farm bill is really more of a =93food bill=94 with all of
the nutrition and food stamp programs it contains. Direct payments
amount to less than 25% of the new proposed Farm Bill. In the case of
our county in Idaho, govt. payments accounted for only 0.039% of total
gross income for our producers! On average the grower gets less than 20
cents out of every food dollar and in many cases it is considerably less
for most commodities. That loaf of bread has only 13 cents worth of
wheat in it. Who gets the other $2.37? The price increases being seen in
today=92s food costs are more energy driven than raw product driven.
We have to get off foreign oil and soon. Oil traded above $108/ bbl
today. We might look at $3.40 diesel as cheap (ouch) in hindsight if
this trend continues. That should scare all of us. Corn ethanol is not
THE answer, but can be PART of the answer, along with other renewable
resources. We are on the path with cellulosic and it will happen in
time. In the mean time I prefer to keep our energy dollars =93in
country=94 and tell the likes of Chavez to go to *&##.
Like you, I am proud to feed the world and don=92t ask for much in
return, but it really is irritating when people criticize producers
unfairly using bad information.
People shouldn=92t criticize US agriculture or US Ag policy on a full
stomach! We supply the most abundant, most affordable and safest food
supply in the world. US consumers have the best deal going of any
citizens in any developed country.
Sorry for the off subject rant and now back to your regularly scheduled
programming!
Dave Bergh,
Mountain Home, ID
RV6 sloooooow build
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Britton
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Not that you care mister gmcjetpilot but I take some offense to your
rambling. You need to do some research on the farm bill. You say that
farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm bill--I
don't know why)! For years farmers have been well underpaid for their
commodities and now that we are actually getting a decent price we are
all of a sudden the blame for nearly everything -- or so it seems. My
grandad tells me that back in the '40's and '50's he sold wheat for
nearly $2.50/bushel. Up until just the last couple years wheat was
still only $2.75 to $3/bushel. I don't know what you do for a living
but I can guarantee you that if you are in any kind of sales your prices
have gone up since the 40's. The US has and always will have the
cheapest, most abundant supply of food in the world. The price of
commodities actually has very little to do with the price of food at
your grocery store. The price markup comes from all of the middle men
such as millers.
As for the ethanol thing you are right about it being a scam. However,
I support it and buy ethanol every chance I get because our dependency
on foreign oil is ludicrous. You talk about farmers getting rich, how
about $102/barrel crude. Why don't more people bitch about that. It
may or may not be the answer to our fuel problems but atleast we are
trying something besides oil.
As for the farmers getting rich, have you checked out the price of
inputs for raising corn, wheat, sorghum, etc... NH3 (anhydrous
ammonia--nitrogen) is pushing $700/ton now. This time last year we
bought it for $385. A single bag of corn is pushing $250 (1 bag plants
about 2.5 acres). Not to mention equipment (planters are $150,000,
tractors are $200,000 and combines are near $300,000). Fuel has gone up
nearly 40% in the last year. Our farm alone is going to need over
60,000 gallons of diesel fuel this year and right now it is
$3.40/gallon(and no, we are not a corporate farm, we are a single family
farm going on 125 years now). You do the math and tell me who is
getting rich.
I am not crying on anybody's shoulder but blatant, rude statements like
yours really get me going and I really wish more people knew the
truth!!!
Bill Britton
Lewis, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
_____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_____
3/9/2008 12:17 PM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG. Date: 3/8/2008 12:00 AM
Checked by AVG.
12:00 AM
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Liquid cooling-alternative engines |
This is an interesting thread. I have great respect and admiration for the
Tracy Crooks, Jess Meyers and Ed Andersens who have tackled the problems
associated with alternative engines and succeeded. If I were 30 years
younger I might take a shot at it myself. I think it was Bob Nuckolls who
quoted Charles Kettering as saying, and I paraphrase,"You fail, perhaps many
times, until you succeed." The task is solvable but for every success there
are many failures. My comments are meant to call attention to a few of the
large problems to those whose expectations may be unrealistic. In no way do
I mean to put down anyone's efforts in this arena.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Dave, I like your rant. It's hard for consumers to look down the road
just a few short years. I agree with you completely, and thanks for
supplying us with food, your products are very important in my life.
Lightly sweetened corn & whole wheat flake cereal with granola in Pequot
Lakes yesterday was $5.00 for two 16 OZ boxes. That would last Diane
and me for over a year. Previous life, ag business, Co-op manager and
farm boy. Thanks.
Jim
RV9A Builder
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Bergh
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Bill,
Well put. The farm bill is really more of a =93food bill=94 with all
of the nutrition and food stamp programs it contains. Direct payments
amount to less than 25% of the new proposed Farm Bill. In the case of
our county in Idaho, govt. payments accounted for only 0.039% of total
gross income for our producers! On average the grower gets less than 20
cents out of every food dollar and in many cases it is considerably less
for most commodities. That loaf of bread has only 13 cents worth of
wheat in it. Who gets the other $2.37? The price increases being seen in
today=92s food costs are more energy driven than raw product driven.
We have to get off foreign oil and soon. Oil traded above $108/ bbl
today. We might look at $3.40 diesel as cheap (ouch) in hindsight if
this trend continues. That should scare all of us. Corn ethanol is not
THE answer, but can be PART of the answer, along with other renewable
resources. We are on the path with cellulosic and it will happen in
time. In the mean time I prefer to keep our energy dollars =93in
country=94 and tell the likes of Chavez to go to *&##.
Like you, I am proud to feed the world and don=92t ask for much in
return, but it really is irritating when people criticize producers
unfairly using bad information.
People shouldn=92t criticize US agriculture or US Ag policy on a full
stomach! We supply the most abundant, most affordable and safest food
supply in the world. US consumers have the best deal going of any
citizens in any developed country.
Sorry for the off subject rant and now back to your regularly
scheduled programming!
Dave Bergh,
Mountain Home, ID
RV6 sloooooow build
Do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Britton
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 9:08 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Not that you care mister gmcjetpilot but I take some offense to your
rambling. You need to do some research on the farm bill. You say that
farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm bill--I
don't know why)! For years farmers have been well underpaid for their
commodities and now that we are actually getting a decent price we are
all of a sudden the blame for nearly everything -- or so it seems. My
grandad tells me that back in the '40's and '50's he sold wheat for
nearly $2.50/bushel. Up until just the last couple years wheat was
still only $2.75 to $3/bushel. I don't know what you do for a living
but I can guarantee you that if you are in any kind of sales your prices
have gone up since the 40's. The US has and always will have the
cheapest, most abundant supply of food in the world. The price of
commodities actually has very little to do with the price of food at
your grocery store. The price markup comes from all of the middle men
such as millers.
As for the ethanol thing you are right about it being a scam.
However, I support it and buy ethanol every chance I get because our
dependency on foreign oil is ludicrous. You talk about farmers getting
rich, how about $102/barrel crude. Why don't more people bitch about
that. It may or may not be the answer to our fuel problems but atleast
we are trying something besides oil.
As for the farmers getting rich, have you checked out the price of
inputs for raising corn, wheat, sorghum, etc... NH3 (anhydrous
ammonia--nitrogen) is pushing $700/ton now. This time last year we
bought it for $385. A single bag of corn is pushing $250 (1 bag plants
about 2.5 acres). Not to mention equipment (planters are $150,000,
tractors are $200,000 and combines are near $300,000). Fuel has gone up
nearly 40% in the last year. Our farm alone is going to need over
60,000 gallons of diesel fuel this year and right now it is
$3.40/gallon(and no, we are not a corporate farm, we are a single family
farm going on 125 years now). You do the math and tell me who is
getting rich.
I am not crying on anybody's shoulder but blatant, rude statements
like yours really get me going and I really wish more people knew the
truth!!!
Bill Britton
Lewis, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Be a better friend, newshound, and
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.m
atronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.mat
ronics.com/c
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
3/9/2008 12:17 PM
http://www.matronics.com/contribution Checked by AVG. Date: 3/8/2008
12:00 AM
Checked by AVG.
12:00 AM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
3/8/2008 10:14 AM
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling |
--- Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca> wrote:
> <rv7@b4.ca>
>
> On 19:12 2008-03-10 "Wheeler North"
> <wnorth@sdccd.edu> wrote:
> > And it is a
> > mistake to say that the 51 will drop dead if they
> loose their
> > coolant. That is not true. They will need overhaul
> after landing but
> > they will produce power when decidedly overheated
> particularly if one
> > backs off the power.
>
> Coincidentally, this is one of the arguments in
> favour of a rotary
> conversion... Mazda rotaries are known for running
> dry and not failing. In
> the event of an oil leak, your power will drop off a
> bit, but you won't
> have to shut down. Might make the difference
> between an off-airport
> landing risking life, limb, and airframe, and a safe
> landing followed by an
> overhaul.
Well, I know of one rotary powered RV-6 that had an
off-airport landing due to cooling system failure, and
subsequent engine failure. His engine did not run for
very long at all after the coolant leaked out and
boiled over. Fortunately, he was able to make a safe
landing on a highway.
Skylor
RV-8 QB
Under Construction
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
At 07:35 PM 3/10/08, you wrote:
> >farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
> >portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
> >food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm bill--I
>
>Right, uhmm huha. Sure. Farmers don't get subsidies.
I am a farmer, have been doing it for the last 10 years. I have yet
to see any farm subsidies, nor have I ever received any. I quit
raising beef cattle because before I could break even, hamburger at
Wal-Mart would have to be selling for $15.00/Lb. As a farmer, I got
tired of subsidizing the beef eating consumer. I can now sell corn
for more than I can sell beef.
If I got $5 billion for farming, I sure would not have built nor
would I be flying an RV! If money was not a problem, I can think of
many other airplanes I would rather own.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling |
> Well, I know of one rotary powered RV-6 that had an
> off-airport landing due to cooling system failure, and
> subsequent engine failure. His engine did not run for
> very long at all after the coolant leaked out and
> boiled over. Fortunately, he was able to make a safe
> landing on a highway.
>
> Skylor
> RV-8 QB
> Under Construction
>
I know about the one rotary powered RV-6 with a blown radiator hose where
the pilot elected to make an emergency landing on a dirt road due to the
smoke and steam (and probably fear of fire) - who can blame him. Since both
he and the aircraft flew again - he clearly made a good decision. Could he
have made it to an airport - we will never know for certain and I certainly
would not fault him for the good decision he made.
I do know of two other rotary powered aircraft that lost coolant and
although the engine was fried got both aircraft back to a safe airport
landing. One was a LongEZ and the second was another RV-6. The pilot in
the Rv-6 even had to make a go-a-round due to conflicting traffic. He
stated that when he returned the next day to examine the engine and poured
liquid into the engine - it leaked like a sieve - all the rubber seals had
been destroyed. $600 for another core and $1800 for new parts and he was
flying again for less than $3000.
The rotor engine is a bit different than piston engines in one significant
way that prolongs the engines ability to operate while overheated. In a
piston engine the overheated aluminum pistons will expand more than the
iron cylinder until the engine seizes. The rotary engine on the other hand
has an iron rotor inside an aluminum housing - the housing expands greater
than the rotor so you do lose some compression but the engine will not seize
due to loss of coolant alone.
The rotary can also operate on very low oil pressure due to its large
bearing surface and low inertia loads on the eccentric shaft (crankshaft) -
however, it like any other engine, it will eventually seize without oil to
the bearings.
The mechanical configuration of the rotary also does a good job of isolating
one rotor from what happens to the second rotor. I lost all the power to
one rotor on my way to Sun & Fun one year, my fully loaded RV-6A. I
managed to maintain 6500 MSL on the one remaining good rotor by cranking the
mixture to full rich and getting 14 gph fuel flow. It was just blowing
through the bad rotor but was enabling the good rotor to make max power
which was sufficient to get me to a 6000 foot runway 60 miles away.
Yes, I will admit after 400 hours behind my rotor I am a "bit" biased
toward the rotary, but, I like to think its because it has proven its
suitability as a viable aircraft engine. But, like with any engine -
failures can happen and the one thing all engine failures have in common is
that they rarely happen at a good time {:>).
Ed
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
Rick,
I hate to go off again, but you have really touched a nerve here.
The US sugar program is a response to predatory foreign trade practices in
which countries "dump" their excess sugar supplies far below their cost of
production in an attempt to bolster their own domestic sugar markets. This
dump market is very thinly traded and if we went to this for our needs the
price paid by sugar buyers in this country would and does skyrocket. The
fact is the world market was very nearly equal to our domestic price
recently (and our price has not risen in 25 years). As far as Mexico goes-
their market price has actually been higher than the US price for several
years now due to a number of internal factors and trade restrictions. Sugar
is one of the most distorted markets on a global basis.
The Fanjoul's are the exception to the rule in our industry and are
regularly used as the "whipping boy" by folks that have tried to dismantle
our policy for many years. There are exceptions to every rule and this is
one- but is not representative of the industry as a whole.
I agree, there are abuses in the farm bill system and we attempt to deal
with these every 5 to 7 years when we write a new bill. No bill is perfect
but I think overall it does a pretty good job of supplying consumers in this
country with a viable food supply at affordable prices.
Most other commodity programs pay direct subsidies to producers and then
attempt to export excess production offshore as we produce in excess of our
domestic needs. The difference in our program and most commodity programs is
that we produce 85% of our domestic needs and import the remaining 15% from
foreign producers through trade agreements around the world. We get our
income from the market place- not direct payments. Imports are limited
through tariffs (remember the world dump market). The intent of the policy
is to maintain a stable supply and price for both sides of the equation. It
does this quite well. Look at sugar prices on your grocer's shelves. They
have been stable for many years. In the 70's we had no sugar policy for a
number of years and the price swings were huge and not survivable for many
producers or users.
Also 53% of our domestic sugar is produced from Sugarbeets, produced by
family farmers all across the northern half of our country. In addition we
own all of our facilities as cooperative members so we are personally
invested in our industry. We are competitive with most other producers in
the world and we are not protectionist. We import sugar from 42 different
countries through bi-lateral trade agreements and WTO obligations. Our
policy is designed to provide a stable, affordable and safe supply of sugar
for users while maintaining the viability of our domestic producers.
Trust me, the vast majority of us are not getting rich off this program, we
get by and some years are better than others but rising input costs are a
serious threat to this and many other industries in the US.
I saw a bumper sticker that read "If you like foreign oil you'll Love
Foreign Food". Pretty scary if you consider the implications of losing our
domestic food producers and becoming dependant on the likes of "ChiIndia"
for this most precious staple of life-Food. The country that can't feed
itself stands no chance of long term survival in a manner that any of us
would care for.
Be careful what you read and hear in the media. They have been known to
leave out a few very important facts that don't happen to fit in with their
definition of what the story should be. We all fall victim to the 30 second
sound bite on the 6:00 news and don't have the time to do our own fact
checking so it is incumbent on all of us to be a wise consumer on the "news"
front.
Not trying to pick on you Rick, but I had to present the other side of the
story.
I'm sorry to be so long winded and get off track again but this industry
(Ag) is near and dear to my heart and I want folks to hear more than what
the media reports on some issues.
Dave Bergh
Bergh Farms LLC
Mountain Home, ID
RV6
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 2:07 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Ethanol not from corn
Chuck,
I feel your rage but for the record, sugar is the second most profitable
crop in the U.S. only exceeded by tobacco. The Florida Everglades produces
hundreds of tons of the stuff each year. Don't assume Archer Daniel Midland
is behind sugar prices and tariff restrictions. Just follow the money.
There is plenty of blame to spread around and in the special case of sugar
we can look to vast sums of money that are funneled into the pockets of two
little known, yet extremely wealthy and politically powerful brothers named
Alfie and Pepe Fanjul of Palm Beach Fla. They are far and away the prime
recipients of the sugar program in the United States, estimated to cost the
U.S. taxpayers 1.4 billion a year. How? According to NBC news, our
government guarantees the Fanjul brothers 22 cent per pound of sugar even
though the worldwide price is 7 cents a pound. It is argued that elements of
the sugar program are custom crafted to serve the Fanjul brothers and
include import quotas and !
tariffs that effectively keeps foreign sugar out of the U.S. Look no
further than Canada to the north and Mexico to the south to observe two
nearby countries that enjoy sugar prices one third the U.S. price. Not
only that, it is said the Fanjul brothers have petitioned our government to
amend immigration laws so they can and do legally bring in foreign workers
who live an anonymous life of hard labor and virtual bondage in company
"housing." If more Americans really knew about the ongoing sweetheart deal
in Florida, especially as regards the Fanjul brothers and the Florida
Crystals Corp., maybe the sugar program could finally be adjusted to truly
serve the needs of the average American citizen the way the sugar program
was intended to instead of lining and relining the pockets of two
fantastically wealthy brothers and the political cover they have nurtured
for years. They dispense large sums of money to gain political access
while covering all the bases. One brother!
is a Democrat and the other is a Republican.
cjensen(at)dts9000.com wrote:
> ......The reason they don't export more of it to the U.S. is the U.S.
slaps a 30%-50% tariff on it. I assume we can thank Archer-Daniel Midlands
and their buddies for that..... Chuck Jensen-
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168867#168867
Checked by AVG.
AM
Checked by AVG.
AM
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
I NEVER do this, but....
Where's the RV relevance in any of this entire thread?
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
You have a good point, but I, for one, like this thread very much. It has
been civil, informative, food for thought, has made me dig for more
information. I think it important for our flying community to every once in
awhile have at a critical topic. It'll die down after awhile, but in the
meantime this great forum gives voice to some good debate. Sure it can be
shouted down and moved off the list, but it's one of the great things about
this forum that a RV related topic (oil, gas, are we going to be flying in
20 years time) is heard. I hate it when people get mean about their posts,
driving good RV folks off the list, but that type of behavior isn't on
display here.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [
<mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com>
mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Timothy E. Cone
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Ethanol not from corn
I NEVER do this, but....
Where's the RV relevance in any of this entire thread?
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
RV drivers are concerned about the various government mandates for ethanol
in auto fuel. Ethanol can cause problems when used in airplane engines. This
lead to a discussion of the merits and demerits of government mandated
programs which lead to a discussion of farm subsidies so now we have some of
what was once that fiercely independent group called farmers defending their
handouts and restrictions on competition.
If you want to destroy an industry, give it price supports. If that doesn't
work, subsidize it, and if that doesn't work protect it from competition,
all the time claiming that without your help we wouldn't have whatever vital
product that industry produces.
Farmers, like so many other groups in an economy are vital to us living
healthy and happy lives. But so is a free market where we can decide for
ourselves how much we are willing to pay for what we consume and charge for
what we produce. If we want to pay too little or charge too much we will
have to make adjustments or do without. This all works extraordinarily well
until someone decides they should get special treatment because of their
unique products or services or needs and gets their congressperson to pass a
law telling the rest of us that we have to pay them a little more or charge
a little less, or buy something we don't need, or buy from someone other
than who we want to buy from.
It's all just a food fight after that.
That's the relevance. It seems to me the thread connecting it back to RV's
is getting pretty thin.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Timothy E. Cone
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Ethanol not from corn
I NEVER do this, but....
Where's the RV relevance in any of this entire thread?
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
What type of vibration and sound dampening material is recommended?
Firewall? Cockpit? Other? Where can it be obtained?
Aircraft Spruce has many items in their catalog.
Paul building 7A
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II
"All corn ethanol will do is make corn farmers richer"
"If corn ethanol was so good than it would not need subsidies"
>Subject: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
>From: "Chuck Jensen" cjensen@dts9000.com
>
>gmcjetpilot...rambling...surely you jest.
No, I'm not jesting and don't call me Shirley.
>Nothing but the facts from the "scrambled letters
>after the name man".
What does that mean? Sounds like you are grinding
an ax. Why don't you email direct and you can talk
to me like a man, instead of this childish name
calling.
I LOVE how you call me names, but you
don't present any facts or dispute anything I say.
You just posted William Britton, who by the way
is agreeing with me. FACT's are the Gov is
subsidizing corn ethanol. OK, experiment is
done and EVEN the Gov realizes this is stupid
and constituents are complaining so much, even
the Gov is planning ending the subsides.
Why don't you do some research & learn
something and than write, instead of piling on
and acting like a big waa snif sob waa cry baby.
If you have something original and intelligent to
say great, but if all you got is personal attacks,
shut up. If corn ethanol is good it would not
need subsidies.
Don't come to a debate stupid; you are like a
knife in a gun fight, you're defenseless. Now
go crawl in your little troll hole.
Because I don't think you can read or write:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II
Here is your reading assignment of you can:
http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/ethanolprimer.pdf
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005020.html links to
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080215TynerRevolution.html
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/02/ethanol_subsidi.html
NOW SHUT UP IDIOT. :-)
>Has more ratings than a movie. gmcjectpilot is a
>fountain of B.S. (basic science). :-)
>Chuck Jensen
You sound jelious. Yes I do have 9 faa ratings and
three type ratings, so what? If I don't say what my
background is, I get complaints. So shut up.
Cheers :-) WTF
---------------------------------
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
From: D. McCallister
don522@webtv.net
On a
recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear". In 1987 I was invited to t
he Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering Development La
boratory in Richland, Washington. During the tour, we were given a smal
l card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder
Fuel Pellet attached. This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4" long.
A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount of energy
as:
3 tons of coal, or
12 barrels of oil, or
500 gallons of gasoline, or
75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.
Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce powe
r for autos and aircraft?
Do not archive
Don
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
>From: "dave@rv-7.com" <dave@rv-7.com>
>Subject: Ethanol not from corn
>
> I haven't heard anybody weighing in on
> "Cellulose Ethanol".
>
> David Richardson
> http://rv-7.com, finishing
Yes sugar cane and switch grass is way better, but
the corn lobby has power. Obviously we don't or
can't grow sugar cane like Brazil. Switch grass is
great but takes lots of land. Bottom line ethanol is
not the panacea or be all end all, to end foreign oil
dependence. It is only a small part of the
solution. Wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen fuel cells
elec, ethanol, are all bits and pieces of the solution;
none are the single solution. All have negatives.
It will take a little of each technology to get the job
done, but the BIG ONE, no one has the cajones to
talk about, is "CONSERVATION". I am no green
guy, I LOVE burning fossil fuels, but reality is, in
the next 40 years, we, our kids or grand kids will
be looking back at $100 barrel oil as THE GOOD
OLD DAYS. George RV-7, finishing
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
George,
You go off your medications again?
Pete Hudes
On Mar 11, 2008, at 3:01 PM, <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
<gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II
>
> "All corn ethanol will do is make corn farmers richer"
> "If corn ethanol was so good than it would not need subsidies"
>
> >Subject: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
> >From: "Chuck Jensen" cjensen@dts9000.com
> >
> >gmcjetpilot...rambling...surely you jest.
>
> No, I'm not jesting and don't call me Shirley.
>
> >Nothing but the facts from the "scrambled letters
> >after the name man".
>
> What does that mean? Sounds like you are grinding
> an ax. Why don't you email direct and you can talk
> to me like a man, instead of this childish name
> calling.
>
> I LOVE how you call me names, but you
> don't present any facts or dispute anything I say.
> You just posted William Britton, who by the way
> is agreeing with me. FACT's are the Gov is
> subsidizing corn ethanol. OK, experiment is
> done and EVEN the Gov realizes this is stupid
> and constituents are complaining so much, even
> the Gov is planning ending the subsides.
>
> Why don't you do some research & learn
> something and than write, instead of piling on
> and acting like a big waa snif sob waa cry baby.
> If you have something original and intelligent to
> say great, but if all you got is personal attacks,
> shut up. If corn ethanol is good it would not
> need subsidies.
>
> Don't come to a debate stupid; you are like a
> knife in a gun fight, you're defenseless. Now
> go crawl in your little troll hole.
>
> Because I don't think you can read or write:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II
>
> Here is your reading assignment of you can:
> http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/ethanolprimer.pdf
> http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005020.html links to
> http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080215TynerRevolution.html
>
> http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/02/ethanol_subsidi.html
>
> NOW SHUT UP IDIOT. :-)
>
> >Has more ratings than a movie. gmcjectpilot is a
> >fountain of B.S. (basic science). :-)
> >Chuck Jensen
>
> You sound jelious. Yes I do have 9 faa ratings and
> three type ratings, so what? If I don't say what my
> background is, I get complaints. So shut up.
>
> Cheers :-) WTF
>
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List _-
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! |
Hi gang,
I would like to thank all of you who helped me with my leaky fuel
tank last month. The removal of the tank was much easier than I
anticipated. The removal of the access plate was Hell.
Now, there is still a problem to solve. The tank has a 1/16" thick
x1" wide reinforcing ring flush riveted around the 5" access hole in
the tank wall ( rib). This was the mysterious 2nd layer of metal that
I saw when I tried to remove the access plate. This ring is riveted
to the outside of the rib. The nutplates that hold the access plate
sit inside the tank, and are thru-riveted to the ring. Thus, the ring
has 33 flush-head rivets sitting on the ring's surface. BUT NOT ONE
OF THEM IS SITTING FLUSH!!! The holes were countersunk, but not very
well. Every rivet is different but all of them are sitting proud of
the ring. This is why I have always had some leakage on this tank.
The Proseal between the access plate and the ring was 99.99%
effective, but I believe there were some gaps it couldn't fill in.
Time made it worse.
So how do I smooth out these flush rivet heads. I have decided to
install the access plate with a rubberized cork gasket (that I will
fashion myself) and use Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket. This will
make future removal easier than the proseal. However, these Unflush
Rivets must be improved upon. HELP, HELP!! You guys have been great
so far. I hope you can continue to tolerate my inexperience.
Thanks again.
Louis
Louis I Willig
1640 Oakwood Dr.
Penn Valley, PA 19072
610 668-4964
RV-4, N180PF
190HP IO-360, C/S prop
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! |
Get a rivet grinding bit from Avery tool. The bit is used in your counter sink
cage. adjust the height to be flush with the cage and then remove the protruding
portions of each rivet.
---- Louis Willig <larywil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi gang,
>
> I would like to thank all of you who helped me with my leaky fuel
> tank last month. The removal of the tank was much easier than I
> anticipated. The removal of the access plate was Hell.
> Now, there is still a problem to solve. The tank has a 1/16" thick
> x1" wide reinforcing ring flush riveted around the 5" access hole in
> the tank wall ( rib). This was the mysterious 2nd layer of metal that
> I saw when I tried to remove the access plate. This ring is riveted
> to the outside of the rib. The nutplates that hold the access plate
> sit inside the tank, and are thru-riveted to the ring. Thus, the ring
> has 33 flush-head rivets sitting on the ring's surface. BUT NOT ONE
> OF THEM IS SITTING FLUSH!!! The holes were countersunk, but not very
> well. Every rivet is different but all of them are sitting proud of
> the ring. This is why I have always had some leakage on this tank.
> The Proseal between the access plate and the ring was 99.99%
> effective, but I believe there were some gaps it couldn't fill in.
> Time made it worse.
>
> So how do I smooth out these flush rivet heads. I have decided to
> install the access plate with a rubberized cork gasket (that I will
> fashion myself) and use Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket. This will
> make future removal easier than the proseal. However, these Unflush
> Rivets must be improved upon. HELP, HELP!! You guys have been great
> so far. I hope you can continue to tolerate my inexperience.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Louis
>
>
>
> Louis I Willig
> 1640 Oakwood Dr.
> Penn Valley, PA 19072
> 610 668-4964
> RV-4, N180PF
> 190HP IO-360, C/S prop
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
We don't use it for cars or aircraft because it doesn't work on that
scale yet. You can't extract the energy from 1 pellet. You need enough
pellets to create a critical mass in order to sustain a chain reaction,
along with water, graphite, or some other exotic material to moderate
the reaction and prevent a nuclear explosion. You also need some method
of turning the heat created by the reaction into some form of power,
i.e. a steam generator, plus some kind of shielding to keep the
radiation inside where you want it.
While the calculations are correct that one pellet produces that much
energy, it only works when you have hundreds or thousands of the
pellets. The smallest reactor I've seen is roughly the size of a large
room (college nuclear physics lab), and most are much larger. Great
technology for for power plants, ships, subs, and such but at our
current level of technology, not very efficient for small vehicles like
cars, or where weight is an issue like aircraft. Maybe someday.
PJ Seipel
do not archive
Don McCallister wrote:
> From: D. McCallister
> don522@webtv.net
> <mailto:don522@webtv.net>
>
> On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear". In 1987 I was
> invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering
> Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington. During the tour, we
> were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder
> Fuel Pellet attached. This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4"
> long. A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount
> of energy as:
> 3 tons of coal, or
> 12 barrels of oil, or
> 500 gallons of gasoline, or
> 75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.
> Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce
> power for autos and aircraft?
> Do not archive
> Don
> *
>
>
> *
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I installed Super sound proof on my firewall, I used the kind without
the sticky back and used contact cement to install it.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/soundproofinstall.php
I installed Classic Aero carpet which has something that looks just like
it on the back of the carpet.
http://www.classicaerodesigns.com/web/public/Products/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=15&ProductCategory=RV-7/7A&ProductCategoryID=5
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my flying RV7A web page:
http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm
D Paul Deits wrote:
>
> What type of vibration and sound dampening material is recommended?
> Firewall? Cockpit? Other? Where can it be obtained?
>
> Aircraft Spruce has many items in their catalog.
>
> Paul building 7A
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | DPS Smart Tach User Manual |
Does anyone have a user manual for a "Smart Tach", manufactured by DPS?
Unfortunately, DPS is out of business (new business name is DMA Speed
Mods) and the owner is no longer supporting or servicing the unit.
Thanks in advance,
Doug Morrison
RV-8A, fuselage
RV-4, N818WW
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer |
I have a problem with the Spinner gap caused by using the Vans 2.25 spacer
recommendation instead of waiting on the prop. First let me say that I
think the spacer method would have worked fine BUT it should have been 2
1/16 instead of 2 1/4. I am fitting a Hartzell BA to an O-360 AIA and it
just doesn't work. I used the 1/4 inch metal spacer and one washer under
the spinner plate per plans.
The first picture shows the spinner spacer which was three pieces of good
plywood cut accordingly with a couple of nickels for additional space. That
gave me a 2.230" spacer. I fitted the cowl which was a little tight at the
top and a little wide at the bottom. The faces of the top and bottom cowl
are not actually parallel. My plan was to build up the inside back of the
top cowl face and the outside of the bottom face and then shave it parallel
with the spinner plate to make a perfect 1/4. In the second picture with
no prop and spacer, the clearance at the top is a little under 1/4 and maybe
3/8 at the bottom.
Third picture. Now comes the prop and with nothing different,..the gap
closed to 0 at the top and 1/4 at the bottom. No doubt about it, the spacer
was simply too long. It should have been no more that 2 1/8 to 2 1/16 to
leave a little fill room. 2.00 might be perfect if you plan to true up the
face later. It the spacer is too long, it causes you to fit the cowl
further out from the firewall than it should be.
Here is where I would ask for an opinion on my fix.
I don't want to recut the hinges and try to move it around so I am thinking
that I will build up the top cowl face from the inside with epoxy and long
hair flox about 3/8 of an inch and then simply sand off/back 1/4 inch off
the top half of the cowl and square it up with the spinner plate. In the
third picture, you can see marks that would be a 1/4 inch gap. (effectively
just sand back to those lines)
The bottom is about right now but needs to be trued up a bit with some build
on the outside and then the whole cowl face fitted parallel to the spinner.
This doesn't seem like nearly as much work as cutting the whole face off,
trimming, and then glassing back. Other than taking a little patience, I
can't see any reason why it won't work. I don't have a lot of glass
experience yet but I think the epoxy / long hair / layer of glass on the
inside should be as strong as the original when it's sanded back a 1/4. The
last picture shows how much needs to come off on the top. ( 1/4 inch paint
paddle)
Comments please.
Thanks for any help?
Bill Schlatterer
7a ARK
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
You're not the first this think of this. It's been looked into before:
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=Space,History
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of PJ Seipel
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Nuclear Energy
We don't use it for cars or aircraft because it doesn't work on that
scale yet. You can't extract the energy from 1 pellet. You need enough
pellets to create a critical mass in order to sustain a chain reaction,
along with water, graphite, or some other exotic material to moderate
the reaction and prevent a nuclear explosion. You also need some method
of turning the heat created by the reaction into some form of power,
i.e. a steam generator, plus some kind of shielding to keep the
radiation inside where you want it.
While the calculations are correct that one pellet produces that much
energy, it only works when you have hundreds or thousands of the
pellets. The smallest reactor I've seen is roughly the size of a large
room (college nuclear physics lab), and most are much larger. Great
technology for for power plants, ships, subs, and such but at our
current level of technology, not very efficient for small vehicles like
cars, or where weight is an issue like aircraft. Maybe someday.
PJ Seipel
do not archive
Don McCallister wrote:
> From: D. McCallister
> don522@webtv.net
> <mailto:don522@webtv.net>
>
> On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear". In 1987 I was
> invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering
> Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington. During the tour, we
> were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder
> Fuel Pellet attached. This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4"
> long. A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount
> of energy as:
> 3 tons of coal, or
> 12 barrels of oil, or
> 500 gallons of gasoline, or
> 75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.
> Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce
> power for autos and aircraft?
> Do not archive
> Don
> *
>
>
> *
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Don McCallister wrote:
> From: D. McCallister
> don522@webtv.net
> <mailto:don522@webtv.net>
>
> On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear". In 1987 I was
> invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering
> Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington. During the tour, we
> were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder
> Fuel Pellet attached. This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4"
> long. A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount
> of energy as:
> 3 tons of coal, or
> 12 barrels of oil, or
> 500 gallons of gasoline, or
> 75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.
> Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce
> power for autos and aircraft?
> Do not archive
> Don
Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power plants.
I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our
government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger & risk.
After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could
ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.
I realize that no one died at 3 Mile Island, but the circumstances
surrounding the incident made it 'one more case' of government
deception. If they implied that nothing at all bad could happen & then
something did, maybe something much worse could happen next time.
Understand, I'm not talking about the real risks; I'm talking about
average citizens not being able to trust their government to tell them
the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government is
'crying wolf', as we may soon see.
Charlie
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! |
If you weren't aware, there is a non-hardening version of PRC just for
access plates. It cleans up with isopropyl alcohol and is much easier to
get loose the next time you need into a tank.
Louis Willig wrote:
>
> Hi gang,
>
> I would like to thank all of you who helped me with my leaky fuel tank
> last month. The removal of the tank was much easier than I
> anticipated. The removal of the access plate was Hell.
> Now, there is still a problem to solve. The tank has a 1/16" thick x1"
> wide reinforcing ring flush riveted around the 5" access hole in the
> tank wall ( rib). This was the mysterious 2nd layer of metal that I
> saw when I tried to remove the access plate. This ring is riveted to
> the outside of the rib. The nutplates that hold the access plate sit
> inside the tank, and are thru-riveted to the ring. Thus, the ring has
> 33 flush-head rivets sitting on the ring's surface. BUT NOT ONE OF
> THEM IS SITTING FLUSH!!! The holes were countersunk, but not very
> well. Every rivet is different but all of them are sitting proud of
> the ring. This is why I have always had some leakage on this tank. The
> Proseal between the access plate and the ring was 99.99% effective,
> but I believe there were some gaps it couldn't fill in. Time made it
> worse.
>
> So how do I smooth out these flush rivet heads. I have decided to
> install the access plate with a rubberized cork gasket (that I will
> fashion myself) and use Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket. This will
> make future removal easier than the proseal. However, these Unflush
> Rivets must be improved upon. HELP, HELP!! You guys have been great so
> far. I hope you can continue to tolerate my inexperience.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Louis
>
>
> Louis I Willig
> 1640 Oakwood Dr.
> Penn Valley, PA 19072
> 610 668-4964
> RV-4, N180PF
> 190HP IO-360, C/S prop
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Charlie England wrote:
> Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power plants.
>
> I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our
> government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger & risk.
> After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could
> ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.
I'm not sure if it was unintentional or not, but you implied that 3 Mile
Island happened "after" Chernobyl, when in fact it happened long before
Chernobyl. I don't have to rely on what the government or nuclear
industry say. When I lived in Syracuse, NY, a friend of mine was an
engineer at the nuclear plant they were building on lake Ontario North
west of Syracuse. After Chernobyl happened he told my that it is
amazing how superior the plant he was working on was to the one in
Ukraine. And what happened there could in reality NEVER happen here.
The Russians didn't care much about safety, they just wanted it built
fast and cheap. The design of the reactor was flawed from the
beginning. I don't remember the details to prove that, I just remember
it had something to do with a dry vs a wet reactor. At the plant my
friend was working on if a melt down were to happen, it was amazing the
number of levels of safeties that would either stop it or at the very
least contain it. If I had to have a power plant in my back yard I
would take a nuclear one over any other type in a heart beat. That is a
US nuclear plant. As for the Russians, there is evidence that the
pathetically sub standard job of containing Chernobyl, may in fact
eventually prove to be more dangerous than it was the first time.
>
> I realize that no one died at 3 Mile Island, but the circumstances
> surrounding the incident made it 'one more case' of government
> deception. If they implied that nothing at all bad could happen & then
> something did, maybe something much worse could happen next time.
Well you have to be an idiot if you believe some one that tells you
"nothing bad could happen". Something bad can always happen, but how
likely is it? Given the number of nuclear plants around the world
operating 24/7 and only two significant incidents, I would say they are
pretty safe.
>
> Understand, I'm not talking about the real risks; I'm talking about
> average citizens not being able to trust their government to tell them
> the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government
> is 'crying wolf', as we may soon see.
I have to agree with you here, you just can't trust the government on
anything. You have to always take an "I'll believe it when I see it"
attitude, even then it may not be believable:)
do not archive
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"
Ham Radio Repeater Database.
http://hrrdb.com
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|