Re: Citizenship silliness. Re: e$: crypto-expatriatism (fwd)

[Petro <petro@playboy.com>]

At 8:15 PM -0500 9/9/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>Forwarded message:
>> 	Put about 2% detergent (just about any grade will do) into that
>> "water spray", and the fire goes out quicker, and stays out longer.
>
>That'll work for gasoline because soap and gasoline are soluble. I doubt it
>would work very well for alcohol but once I get this mess with the tree
>straightened out I'll do a little backyard experiment.
>
>What I had in mind was to pour some alcohol on the concrete drive way and
>light it. Then use a waterbottle with a water/soap mix. Do you think that
>would be a suitable simulation?

	No.

	I know just a bit about Fuel Fires as I worked in Aircraft
Firefighting  and Resuce for Uncle Sams Miserable Children in the last 1/2
of the 80's.

	The point of using the detergent has nothing to do with it's
solubility in gasoline/kerosene (I have much more experience with JP5 than
gas, and JP5 is basically a high grade kerosene/diesel), but rather it is
there to break up the water tension & allow the water to "float" on top of
the gas/oil/whatever. It also improves (somewhat) the "wetting" properties
of water, allowing it to saturate porus material (wood, newspaper rolls
whatever) better.

>> 	There are plenty of unused roof tops here in Chicago bouncing free
>> energy off into the air.
>Yep, use the roof of every 10+ houses to power a single house...

	Actually, by using solar heating/cooling techiques instead of
(ineffecient) conversion to electicity, you can save MUCH more energy.

>Ok, so we let PART of the people starve and die in the dark.

	And the problem here is...

>> 	The waste problem goes away of you build a decently stable launch
>> platform and drop the shit into the sun.
>
>We don't have engines at this point that can do that. The fact is that it
>takes more energy to get to the sun than it does to leave the solar system.
>Nope, not the answer. (I do experimental, ie big bird, rockets for grins and
>giggles)

	I don't see how, you just get it up there inside the orbit of the
earth, and let gravity do the rest.

>> "power sats" into orbit (altho I am not real clear on how the energy gets
>> back down, something about using microwaves <shrug>)
>
>Microwaves, and god help you if you happen to fly through one. I won't even
>talk about the costs of development, control, maintenance, etc. This won't
>fly any time in the next couple of hundred years at least. What about the
>heating of the water in the air, can you say global warming on a scale that
>would make the current issues irrelevant.

	Like I said, I wasn't too sure on the last one.

>> 	Also, you ignored, or didn't see the "mix of" statement. Oil CAN be
>> replaced, and should be. There are plenty of ways to replace the energy
>
>Absolutely, I want to replace it. I want to replace it with something that
>is renewable, won't have the ecological impact of the others, won't squeeze
>the small countries out, etc. If it requires killing a single salamander
>then it's the wrong choice simply to make a profit.

	I don't mind killing a salamander or 100, but I don't want my
electric supply, and it's attendant costs to be dependent on ONE
technology, or source of supply.

>> for clean air as much as the next guy, and I guess trees are kinda nice to
>> look at, but I'd like to see far more diversity in energy sources, and
>> investigation into more long term, renewable sources.
>I love trees.

	I like desks, decks, houses, tables, chairs, etc.

	Oh, and altho it's not the most Green solution, we heated my
parents last home (3000 sq. feet in central Missouri) entirely with wood
for 5 or 6 years. Took about 2 cords per year IIRC. Not for everyone tho'.

>The problem is that there aren't that many renewable resources that won't
>break the bank or create a have/have-not situation that would be rife with
>conflict potential.

	We already have the have/have not situatiuon.

>> 	Actually it looks like something that could be made in a factory.
>> Take a methane source (sewage, rotting plant matter) pump it into really
>> cold water under pressure, and blam.
>
>You need pressure as well. But yes, this is a possibility as well. I

	I said "cold water under pressure".

>haven't seen the energy costs on this approach. The largest producers of
>methane on the planet are cows. Perhaps we should shove a hose up the hinney
>of all the cows...:)

	Factory farms, just add some sort of methane collector.

>> 	Depends on what you want it to replace. The one of the largest uses
>> of oil is in the transportation sector, and "they" have been pushing
>> Natural Gas there for years to little effect.
>
>Absolutely, there is a hurdle to jump. One of the main issues with the
>traditional natural gas deposits are that they are expensive because of the
>drilling requirements, non-renewable, and not evenly distributed to
>potential users. Something deep-ocean clathrates and potentialy your
>industrial process idea don't have.

	I think there is also this issue that NG doesn't "burn" when the
tank cracks, it "explodes", and when it does burn, it is very similar to
alcohol in that it doesn't have much of a flame.

petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.