Camping Stove

you know? said:

On Thu, 6 May 2004 17:30:42 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It'd be good to burn vegetable oil for its ubiquity as
well as its environmental credentials.

Didn't I read that it took more energy to make biodiesel
than it contained?

What, you mean conservation of energy really is true?
Entropy is actually increasing?

Gosh, and tehre I was thinking the physicists were just
having a laugh.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In "]news:[email hidden],
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 6 May 2004 17:30:42 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It'd be good to burn vegetable oil for its ubiquity as
well as its environmental credentials.

Didn't I read that it took more energy to make biodiesel
than it contained?

Quite possibly.

But they were bullshitting propagandists who said so.

The propagandists on my side say there's an 84% energy yield
on it from their studies. Which is not dissimilar to the 84%
energy yield from petrodiesel. Just that the biodiesel does
it inna carbon-neutral stylee, and the petrodiesel doesn't.
See www.biodiesel.org for details: I may be a few per cent
out with my figures but they're in the right ballpark.

A

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Didn't I read that it took more energy to make biodiesel
than it contained?

Possibly, but if you're into the home brewed version using
recycled frying oil then at least you can recoup some of
those energy losses by using it to make some nice chips or
a deep fried Mars bar (oops, Scottish upbringing coming
out there).

I have given serious consideration to making my own fuel
from recycled frying oil but the Aussie govt. has just
announced plans to tax it like other fuel (making the whole
exercise rather pointless financially) and the idea of
making it in the garage might not appeal to the owner of our
rented house :-(

Graeme

"Mark South" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

But you're right, C&E do not appear to require a warrant,
or even reasonable suspicion.

When I ran my own business (IT contracting) and knew many
other people in the same position, the one concern we had
was stuffing up a VAT return. Inland Revenue just send
you nasty letters for a while before they do anything,
C&E can knock your front door down just because they feel
like it (or at least that's the level of respect they
seemed to command).

Graeme

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Quoted message said:

Didn't I read that it took more energy to make biodiesel
than it contained?

Quoted message said:

Quite possibly. But they were bullshitting propagandists
who said so.

Quite plausible.

Quoted message said:

The propagandists on my side say there's an 84% energy
yield on it from their studies.

Are you sure it's not 85% of energy yield, with 88% of
serious energy released?

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

[email hidden] (Nick Kew) wrote in news:ft8rm1-2e8.ln1
@webthing.com:

Quoted message said:

n its natural state, the land devoted to growing biodiesel
will be covered in vegetation, and absorbing CO2. When
growing for man to burn, the same is true. Except that
burning it then re-releases the CO2. So you've just
neutralised land that *should* be making a positive
contribution - which is not so very different overall to
burning fossils but leaving todays plants to grow instead.

It may be complete bollocks, but is the cutting down of the
vegetation not compensated for by the increased CO2
absorbtion of younger, faster growing plants as opposed to
older, slower growing ones? I seem to remember some company
(Andrex?) using that in some advertising blurb about being a
green company and replanting trees some years back (which
makes me think it is more likely than not to be nonsense).

Graeme

In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Bates said:

was illegal, but distilling by freezing off the water
was not (or

Loophole closed some years ago. And freeze distilation makes
it very tricky to remove the methanol, so it's iffy health-
wize as well.

ian

Colin Blackburn said:

The problem for us in the UK is that home distilling is
illegal and anyone posting here saying they did it
would probably have a swift visit from Customs and
Excise who seem to have more right to enter your house
than the police.

I've never looked into this but my trusty A level chemistry
teacher (Hello Mr. Jones) told us that distilling by boiling
off the ethanol was illegal, but distilling by freezing off
the water was not (or maybe it was freezing off the
ethanol). Whichever way round it is, he reckoned that
distilling by lowering the temperature was legal.

I've never needed to check the legality out for myself.

Love and C2H5OH from Rich x

--
Young Musician of the Year 2004 was a fiddle

On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:55 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten

() said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Bates said:

was illegal, but distilling by freezing off the water was
not (or

Loophole closed some years ago. And freeze distilation
makes it very tricky to remove the methanol, so it's iffy
health-wize as well.

Methanol isn't that much of an issue in freeze distillation.
Distillation doesn't create methanol but it does concentrate
it. If a bottle of wine contains 2mg methanol and you
condense the bottle down to 1 glass, you will still only be
drinking the same amount of methanol, so the headache will
be the same. The only time to worry about it is when you're
using a pot still or reflux column as the first runnings are
comparatively very high in methanol.

Have a look at homedistiller.orgmethanol.htmOpen ↗

--
Matt K Dunedin, NZ

Just zis Guy said:

Not only do I know the laws of thermodynamics, I can
actually sing them!

You could try it if you like but you'd far better notta!

Another F&S fan. 🙂

Mike K Smith [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Another F&S fan. 🙂

Filbert & Sullivan?

Jon

In "]news:[email hidden],
Nick Kew <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Ambrose
Nankivell"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Didn't I read that it took more energy to make biodiesel
than it contained?

Quite possibly.

But they were bullshitting propagandists who said so.

The propagandists on my side say there's an 84% energy
yield on it from their studies. Which is not dissimilar
to the 84% energy yield from petrodiesel. Just that the
biodiesel does it inna carbon-neutral stylee,

Bzzt, big red herring there.

In its natural state, the land devoted to growing
biodiesel will be covered in vegetation, and absorbing
CO2. When growing for man to burn, the same is true.
Except that burning it then re-releases the
CO2.So you've just neutralised land that *should* be
making a positive contribution - which is not so very
different overall to burning fossils but leaving
todays plants to grow instead.

I don't quite understand how land can make a positive
contribution to being a carbon sink except for turning the
soil into a carbon sink, and presumably that runs the risk
of liberating quite a lot of methane from the rotting
vegetation as well, which may be a gain in terms of CO2
levels, but hardly in terms of greenhouse gases.

Presumably soil also has an output role to play in the
carbon cycle as not all the world's carbon has dissappeared
into soil and coal (although of course a fair proportion did
upon the invention of the tree, but since then, AIUI CO2
levels haven't changed much)

Quoted message said:

Creative accounting is all about conveniently hiding
things like that.

But it's fairly safe to assume that cultivated land will
also be producing products that are turned into carbon
dioxide somehow, except for trees that eventually end up
as landfill.

A