From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:20:12 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Citizenship silliness.  Re: e$: crypto-expatriatism (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199809101750.MAA04560@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <v0311070eb21dc3620425@[206.189.103.244]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 12:50 PM -0500 9/10/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>> 	No.
>
>Ok, then what would be a suitable test in your view?
>
>It seems to me that after reviewing your comments this would be sufficient.
>We have a small pool of fuel that is on fire, we spray water on it and
>monitor the behaviour. We then create another similar pool and spary water
>w/ detergent in it and note any differences.

	Well, we used to dump 1000-3000 gallons of waste fuels into a pit,
but I'd guess a decent size bucket or tray would work.

	We had a smaller pit about 5x3 feet.

	I'd also suggest using a water extinguisher, the kind you can
refill/recharge yourself. There are some out there, the big silver kind
where you can unscrew the top and fill with your liquid of choice, then
presurize with  a tire pump. As an aside, one _could_ fill these with a
combination of gasoline and a gelling agent to make a short range flame
thrower, not that that would be a smart or safe thing to do (really, there
wouldn't be much to keep the flame from wandering back up inside the
cylinder, and haveing it explode in your hands would make it very hard to
type...).

	Also, I know from experience it IS possible to put out a gasoline
fire with straight water. You dump enough on, and it cools the liquid down
to the point where combustion is not possible.

	It can take a bit of doing, but in the case of a car or light
truck, we are talking no more than 10 or 20 gallons of fuel, tops.

>> 	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.
>
>Actualy it's to keep the water from forming 'beads' because of differences
>in density. The surface tension of water is much higher than most fuels so
>if you put a little water in a lot of fuel you don't want it to bead. This

	As I said, I know "just a bit" about this. I know that we would
often get the bubbles from the detergent/water combo floating on top of
everything, assisting in preventing a reflash by keeping a blanket between
the air and the fuel/water.

>As to water floating on top of gasoline, it won't for any lentgh of time
>greater than a fraction of a second, detergent or no detergent.

	The longer it takes, the better it works.


>> 	Actually, by using solar heating/cooling techiques instead of
>> (ineffecient) conversion to electicity, you can save MUCH more energy.
>
>I have several friends who are as fanatical about this technology as you
>seem to be. I find it interesting that in 20 years of playing with it they
>are still in the red.

	A "friend" of my fathers has been heating his home with it longer
than I've known him, and that's about 20 years. Had his investment returned
a LONG time ago.

>The proof is in the pudding.

	As with many things, it's the implementation, not just the
underlying technology.

>> 	I don't see how, you just get it up there inside the orbit of the
>> earth, and let gravity do the rest.
>
>If it was ONLY that simple. When you leave the Earth you have the Earths
>orbital momental (and it is considerable). I'll refer you to:

	Ok, like I said, "I don't see how". I hadn't considered all the
angles, but then, I don't play with rockets much.

	My father didn't like me playing with fire, so it wasn't an option
as a child.

>Because I'm way to lazy today to want to delve in to triple-integrals and
>such.

	I doubt I'd understand the math at this point. One of my failings.

>> 	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.
>
>If there is any alternative that will fulfill the requirements and doesn't
>require the arbitrary collateral damage then it isn't worth it, period. If

	I'll go that far.

>for no other reason than the ethical responsibility to pass on the world as
>undamaged as possible to the next generation. (another oversite in current
>economic thought that I find makes it unusable)

	Well, there's damaged, and there's damaged.

>Actualy natural gas isn't any more flamable than gasoline or alcohol. What
>makes it safer is the gas diffuses in the air much faster than either
>alcohol or gasoline. In fact, in an accident I'd rather have a gas involved
>than a liquid because of this. I've seen several natural gas fires and they
>burn a yellow-orange (course they could be putting something in there
>besides the odorant to cause this).

	Question, when you said that there we'd need more land under
production than we have available to produce enough CHO3 (IIRC) to replace
oil, was that using current corn/soybean as a base material, or was that
considering higher biomass stuff such as Hemp &etc. As well, where was that
number from?

	I really do think that the best option is massively diversified
energy sources, with each working in their places.

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.