In article , DejaVU says...

well now, reading a computer publication today i came across another
energy source...... methane.

This has been done for years in places like rural india.
A methane digester can provide cooking gas for several
families IIRC.

Also, at one time, the sewage pumps at Deer Island (boston
harbor) were fueled with methane gas produced on-site.
These are enormous flat radial engines made by, I think,
Nordberg.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 15 Jul 2003 11:51:50 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article ,
says...
... and feed the cooked cracked grain to the hogs. They'll mask the
smell.

(!)

Where did you grow up, anyway, Gary?
First it's exploding CO2 cartidges.
Then it's artillery-sized crossbows.

Now this. How to keep the revenue agents
in the dark...

I grew up in Kentucky, and migrated to North Georgia.
Both are areas with a strong tradition of partnership
between the preacher and the bootlegger to keep that
demon tax paid liquor at bay.

Gary

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:17:39 -0400, Jack Erbes
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:10:25 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:

snip
Yes, the website that I posted the url for talks about this. I forget
if it's a one time application fee or if you have to pay yearly.
Personally I don't think the federal government has the right to
regulate it :^). IIRC those laws didn't exist before prohibition, but
were left on the books after it's repeal. Probably for tax reasons.
I talked to the ABC board, or was it the ATF?, a few years ago about
this issue. The person I talked to me said that it was even illegal
to distill *water*! I couldn't believe that though it may be true.

Sheesh.


I don't have your post with a distilling link yet, maybe it was
http://homedistiller.org/ ?

Here's the link:

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com...uel/index.html

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:11:41 GMT, (Gary Coffman)
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:14:11 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
I figured as much. I find this drilling stuff interesting. I forget
who but someone was recalling some story about droping a wrench
"downhole". I never thought of that before. These deep holes it'd
probably take five minutes for it to hit bottom. I can't imagine what
it'd take to get it back out, big magnet and a long string....

Well, I may have mentioned dropping a wrench down a well. I did
it deliberately after the squib failed to work. We had a 2.5 gallon
shot down the well. One of our crews had been killed hoisting a
shot out of a well to replace a faulty squib, and I didn't want to
duplicate that event. So I walked over and dropped a crescent
wrench down the bore. It set off the shot very nicely.

The explosive is used to break up the rock to increase flow? What
kind of explosive was it that a wrench falling on it would set it
off???

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

In article ,
says...

Now this. How to keep the revenue agents
in the dark...

I grew up in Kentucky, and migrated to North Georgia.
Both are areas with a strong tradition of partnership
between the preacher and the bootlegger to keep that
demon tax paid liquor at bay.

LOL. And thence to upstate ny?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:21:51 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:11:41 GMT, (Gary Coffman)
wrote:
Well, I may have mentioned dropping a wrench down a well. I did
it deliberately after the squib failed to work. We had a 2.5 gallon
shot down the well. One of our crews had been killed hoisting a
shot out of a well to replace a faulty squib, and I didn't want to
duplicate that event. So I walked over and dropped a crescent
wrench down the bore. It set off the shot very nicely.

The explosive is used to break up the rock to increase flow?

Yes, the idea is to create a series of micro-fractures in the vicinity
of the hole to improve the infiltration of fluids.

What
kind of explosive was it that a wrench falling on it would set it
off???

Nitroglycerin. We used 2.5 gallon shots, prepackaged in tubes
kept in liquid nitrogen dewars on the truck. We'd take one out
of the truck and lower it down the hole while still frozen (the stuff
is pretty safe when frozen). Then we'd wait for it to thaw out and
fire the squib to detonate it.

But if the squib failed, you had a choice, raise the now warm
nitro back up to the top of the hole to fit a new squib, or drop
something down the hole and let the impact set it off. The one
time it happened to us, I dropped a wrench.

Gary

Did you recover the wrench when it came back up?

Bill K7NOM

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:17:54 GMT, Bill Janssen wrote:
Did you recover the wrench when it came back up?

No. I don't think much of it did come back up.

Gary

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:09:06 -0500, David L Peterson
wrote:


The only criteria is that it be easy to assemble from common
materials, capable of running an automotive generator (at the least)
and can be done with minimal tools, or simple machine tools. If it can
be scaled up for larger gennys/line shafts, that would be a plus.

Thanks in advance, let the fun begin.

Gunner

I'd have to say that If I found myself in that situation I would also
go the alcohol route. Here's a thought though. initailly if I were
unprepared I'd do like someone mentioned and run like a honda
generator on alcohol. But, if ou think about it modern high RPM
engines will wear out, they don't use babbit bearings, hard to upkeep
when you can't get new parts. I think ideal would be to revert to
something like an old hit and miss engine (prefereably a pair of them
so you w9ould still have power while working on one of them). With
modest tools you could keep them running indefinitely. Probably could
be made more efficient, adjust the compression ratio, maybe modern IC
driven ignition (could always keep the old magnito on hand).

Probably be easier to muffle the exhaust, an imprtant thing when you
don't want to advertise that you have power.

By the way, since we would be talking about a stationary power plant
you would want to go water cooled. Could circulate from the hopper or
water jacket for domestic hot water or help heat your mash.

Dave

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:20:17 GMT, (Gary Coffman)
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:17:54 GMT, Bill Janssen wrote:
Did you recover the wrench when it came back up?

No. I don't think much of it did come back up.

How much of a bang do you get at the top of the hole?

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:38:43 -0500, David L Peterson
wrote:

initailly if I were
unprepared I'd do like someone mentioned and run like a honda
generator on alcohol.

You from like, the valley :^)?

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:26:02 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
How much of a bang do you get at the top of the hole?

The wells were only into the Cypress sand, about 2300 feet. It wasn't terribly
loud, but there was a good jolt you'd feel through the ground when it detonated.

Gary

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:44:39 GMT, "R. Zimmerman"
wrote:
A waste of time if you already have a gasoline engine. The engine could be
adapted to run on all kinds of gaseous products such as coal gas or methane
from sewage/manure.
Better to make a gas producer than a boiler.
How hard would it be to make a solar flash boiler, for those of us in
the Southwest/South?
Gunner
Randy
"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
A thread came up a day or three ago, about building some sort of motor
to run a small generator or a belt to supply power to :stuff: in
either remote locations or in the event of a long term power failure.

A serious question to the group....in your individual opinions, does
anyone have any suggestions for a simply made from common materials,
with minimal machining, steam engine?

Boilers are another issue of course..and suggestions on that would be
nice as well.

Would it be possible to convert an internal combustion engine, for
example a VW engine, to run on steam?

Given the numbers of steamers here on RCM, and itinerant inventors,
somebody should have some ideas. Think of it as Junk Yard Wars.....

The only criteria is that it be easy to assemble from common
materials, capable of running an automotive generator (at the least)
and can be done with minimal tools, or simple machine tools. If it can
be scaled up for larger gennys/line shafts, that would be a plus.

Actually, I have been thonking about this since it first came up. A
mVW, or other small(sort of) *air cooled* engine, would be the best
base. Feedingh steam through the intake and outlet valves, while
venting through the spark plug hole. They could probbaly be easily
converted from a _4_ cycle to dual 2 cycle engine. Since the older
engines have the valves easily accessible, rigging something to open a
third (plug hole) valve, would be easier.

For thos who don't know, can't visualize it: 1)intake stroke (pull
in fuel air mix, down), 2)compression stroke with plug firing (up),
3)power stroke (down), 4) exhaust stroke (up). With steam, it would be
1)steam enters through intake manifold(power stroke, down), 2)exhaust
stroke (up) through sp hole & valve, 3)steam through exhaust manifold
(power, down), repeat of 2. POwer on every stroke, with nearly
simultaneous opposing power strokes.

Thanks in advance, let the fun begin.

Gunner

On 17 Jul 2003 17:40:33 -0700, (Walter Daniels)
wrote:

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:44:39 GMT, "R. Zimmerman"
wrote:
A waste of time if you already have a gasoline engine. The engine could be
adapted to run on all kinds of gaseous products such as coal gas or methane
from sewage/manure.
Better to make a gas producer than a boiler.
How hard would it be to make a solar flash boiler, for those of us in
the Southwest/South?
Gunner
Randy
"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
A thread came up a day or three ago, about building some sort of motor
to run a small generator or a belt to supply power to :stuff: in
either remote locations or in the event of a long term power failure.

A serious question to the group....in your individual opinions, does
anyone have any suggestions for a simply made from common materials,
with minimal machining, steam engine?

Boilers are another issue of course..and suggestions on that would be
nice as well.

Would it be possible to convert an internal combustion engine, for
example a VW engine, to run on steam?

Given the numbers of steamers here on RCM, and itinerant inventors,
somebody should have some ideas. Think of it as Junk Yard Wars.....

The only criteria is that it be easy to assemble from common
materials, capable of running an automotive generator (at the least)
and can be done with minimal tools, or simple machine tools. If it can
be scaled up for larger gennys/line shafts, that would be a plus.

Actually, I have been thonking about this since it first came up. A
mVW, or other small(sort of) *air cooled* engine, would be the best
base. Feedingh steam through the intake and outlet valves, while
venting through the spark plug hole. They could probbaly be easily
converted from a _4_ cycle to dual 2 cycle engine. Since the older
engines have the valves easily accessible, rigging something to open a
third (plug hole) valve, would be easier.

For thos who don't know, can't visualize it: 1)intake stroke (pull
in fuel air mix, down), 2)compression stroke with plug firing (up),
3)power stroke (down), 4) exhaust stroke (up). With steam, it would be
1)steam enters through intake manifold(power stroke, down), 2)exhaust
stroke (up) through sp hole & valve, 3)steam through exhaust manifold
(power, down), repeat of 2. POwer on every stroke, with nearly
simultaneous opposing power strokes.

Many years ago saw a book available on this subject from the old
Paladin Press catalog. Might have involved regrinding camshaft, but
from memory could do a simple conversion just by altering the timing
by removing the timing chain, rotating the engine or the camshaft by a
varying number of degrees and replacing the chain.

However, don't know how efficient it would be. How large a boiler do
you envision, providing how much steam at what pressure? A small 5
horsepower boiler that will produce steam at, say, 100 PSI isn't all
that small, requires fairly constant observation to keep the fuel and
water up, and may not provide more than a couple of horsepower from an
converted engine.

You also have to provide lubrication with steam cylinder oil.

Old steam traction engines looked large and impressive, but from
memory only developed 15 to 20 horsepower on the average.










Thanks in advance, let the fun begin.

Gunner


"_Magna est veritas et praevalebit"_
(Truth is mighty and will prevail).

erniegalts
[Australia]
[misc.survivalism]

"David L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:09:06 -0500, David L Peterson
wrote:


The only criteria is that it be easy to assemble from common
materials, capable of running an automotive generator (at the least)
and can be done with minimal tools, or simple machine tools. If it can
be scaled up for larger gennys/line shafts, that would be a plus.

Thanks in advance, let the fun begin.

Gunner

I'd have to say that If I found myself in that situation I would also
go the alcohol route. Here's a thought though. initailly if I were
unprepared I'd do like someone mentioned and run like a honda
generator on alcohol. But, if ou think about it modern high RPM
engines will wear out, they don't use babbit bearings, hard to upkeep
when you can't get new parts. I think ideal would be to revert to
something like an old hit and miss engine (prefereably a pair of them
so you w9ould still have power while working on one of them). With
modest tools you could keep them running indefinitely. Probably could
be made more efficient, adjust the compression ratio, maybe modern IC
driven ignition (could always keep the old magnito on hand).

The old magneto or point distributor would be the way to go. I would want to
stay away from any type of electronic ignition system. We are talking
survival here and if it came to nuclear weapons then everything with an
electronic ignition wouldn't work. Also it wouldn't help to go down to the
parts store, because the magnetic flux would have ruined all the new parts
sitting on the shelf. Any pre 1972 car with points would quit when the blast
went off, but all you would have to do is restart the engine. Anything newer
would need a tow truck to get it home. Assuming you could find a tow truck
that still ran.
I ran into a guy who had a real survivalist mentality and all his cars and
trucks were diesels. He also said he had 13,000 gallons of heating oil
stored up to run them on. Said he topped off his tanks every year in the
spring when heating oil prices went down.
I have been wondering how hard it would be to make a press to get oil from
corn or beans to use for fuel in a diesel engine? Any one ever try this?

Richard W.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:12:06 -0700, "Richard W."
wrote:


"David L Peterson" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:09:06 -0500, David L Peterson
wrote:


The only criteria is that it be easy to assemble from common
materials, capable of running an automotive generator (at the least)
and can be done with minimal tools, or simple machine tools. If it can
be scaled up for larger gennys/line shafts, that would be a plus.

Thanks in advance, let the fun begin.

Gunner

I'd have to say that If I found myself in that situation I would also
go the alcohol route. Here's a thought though. initailly if I were
unprepared I'd do like someone mentioned and run like a honda
generator on alcohol. But, if ou think about it modern high RPM
engines will wear out, they don't use babbit bearings, hard to upkeep
when you can't get new parts. I think ideal would be to revert to
something like an old hit and miss engine (prefereably a pair of them
so you w9ould still have power while working on one of them). With
modest tools you could keep them running indefinitely. Probably could
be made more efficient, adjust the compression ratio, maybe modern IC
driven ignition (could always keep the old magnito on hand).

The old magneto or point distributor would be the way to go. I would want to
stay away from any type of electronic ignition system. We are talking
survival here and if it came to nuclear weapons then everything with an
electronic ignition wouldn't work. Also it wouldn't help to go down to the
parts store, because the magnetic flux would have ruined all the new parts
sitting on the shelf. Any pre 1972 car with points would quit when the blast
went off, but all you would have to do is restart the engine. Anything newer
would need a tow truck to get it home. Assuming you could find a tow truck
that still ran.

I'm thinking that if I was close enough for this to be a problem I
wouldn't be worrying about power for very long. Actually, I'm not
certain, but I'm thinking that using a power transistor driven by the
points to drive the coil (I've seen schematics of this kind of thing
for a hotter spark) would be robust enough to survive. What blows?
Any diode type junction rectify the too much power and blow? you just
talking normal nuclear bombs or EMP weapons? I'm not sure any coils
or condensors would survive an EMP event. Anyone know the details of
this stuff?

Richard W.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:17:47 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:


"Walter Daniels" wrote in message
om...

Actually, I have been thonking about this since it first came up. A
mVW, or other small(sort of) *air cooled* engine, would be the best
base. Feedingh steam through the intake and outlet valves, while
venting through the spark plug hole.

The intake valve is facing the wrong way so this scheme would only work
for very low steam pressures. Think about it; the valve spring would have
to be strong enough to hold the intake valve shut against steam pressure.
That is why most such schemes put steam into the spark plug hole. Either
way, you really have to do some design work on the intake valve problem to
make a practical engine, not as easy as just changing the cam.

I'm pretty sure you could ever get the engine to be a two stroke
without regrinding the camshaft no matter which way you do it. The
timing just isn't right. Intake opens on a downstroke while the
exhaust opens on an upstroke. You can switch this around but they'd
one would always be wrong.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:20:51 -0500, David L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:12:06 -0700, "Richard W."
wrote:
The old magneto or point distributor would be the way to go. I would want to
stay away from any type of electronic ignition system. We are talking
survival here and if it came to nuclear weapons then everything with an
electronic ignition wouldn't work. Also it wouldn't help to go down to the
parts store, because the magnetic flux would have ruined all the new parts
sitting on the shelf. Any pre 1972 car with points would quit when the blast
went off, but all you would have to do is restart the engine. Anything newer
would need a tow truck to get it home. Assuming you could find a tow truck
that still ran.

I'm thinking that if I was close enough for this to be a problem I
wouldn't be worrying about power for very long. Actually, I'm not
certain, but I'm thinking that using a power transistor driven by the
points to drive the coil (I've seen schematics of this kind of thing
for a hotter spark) would be robust enough to survive. What blows?
Any diode type junction rectify the too much power and blow? you just
talking normal nuclear bombs or EMP weapons? I'm not sure any coils
or condensors would survive an EMP event. Anyone know the details of
this stuff?

EMP is the induced surge that causes a static crash in an AM radio
when there is a nearby lightning strike (or other high current arc event).
If the lightning strike is very nearby, the EMP will induce a surge on any
long exposed wiring (antenna) large enough to possibly puncture solid
state device junctions.

Just think of nuclear EMP (NEMP) as a very large lightning bolt.
If a 1 MT device is detonated nearby, the NEMP will be similar, though
on the order of about 10 times larger, to an ordinary nearby lightning
strike. For ground bursts and low altitude bursts, the destructive
magnitude NEMP effects will be limited to a radius not much larger
than the blast radius, so worrying about NEMP effects is pretty much
moot.

However, a high altitude burst is a bit different. Because the mean
free path of the Compton electrons generated by the detonation
is *much* longer at high altitudes, the magnitude of the pulse
only decreases inversely linearly with distance instead of inverely
to the square of distance (line coupling instead of point coupling).
That means much longer range effects are possible. In other words,
a detonation at a 200 km altitude will produce NEMP effects on the
ground similar to those of a low altitude or ground burst device of
similar magnitude 1.41 km away.

Still, the receiving antenna (exposed wiring) has to have enough
capture area to gather significant energy from the NEMP. The Navy
operates (or did operate in 1988) a NEMP simulator to test whole
ship naval electronic systems. The ARRL (amateur radio organization)
got permission to test some typical amateur radio installations in the
simulator. They found damage to the front ends of HF transceivers
when connected to 80 m halfwave dipole antennas (about 136 feet),
but no damage at all to handheld transceivers and auto mounted
VHF mobile rigs when the exposed wiring lengths did not exceed
1 meter.

What this says to us is that unless the equipment is connected to
exposed wiring of significant length, the chance of damage, outside
the blast radius of the generating detonation, is slight. The scare stories
about every auto, and every stored electronic auto part, being destroyed
by NEMP are just scare stories based on ignorance of the physics of
NEMP (and electromagnetic waves in general).

Note, though, that the possibility of damage to the power grid, and the
telecommunications networks, is very real. That's because they have
a huge amount of exposed wiring to act as antennas, so their capture
area for the NEMP energy is also huge. So they have to take extraordinary
measures to protect connected equipment against EMP. These measures
include wiring practices, use of single point grounds, gas discharge shunt
protectors, etc.

None of that is a concern for electronics which is not connected to exposed
wiring which can form an antenna with a large capture area, however. It simply
intercepts too little energy from the pulse to do any damage.

Gary

"Richard W." wrote:

"David L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:09:06 -0500, David L Peterson
wrote:


The only criteria is that it be easy to assemble from common
materials, capable of running an automotive generator (at the least)
and can be done with minimal tools, or simple machine tools. If it can
be scaled up for larger gennys/line shafts, that would be a plus.

Thanks in advance, let the fun begin.

Gunner

I'd have to say that If I found myself in that situation I would also
go the alcohol route. Here's a thought though. initailly if I were
unprepared I'd do like someone mentioned and run like a honda
generator on alcohol. But, if ou think about it modern high RPM
engines will wear out, they don't use babbit bearings, hard to upkeep
when you can't get new parts. I think ideal would be to revert to
something like an old hit and miss engine (prefereably a pair of them
so you w9ould still have power while working on one of them). With
modest tools you could keep them running indefinitely. Probably could
be made more efficient, adjust the compression ratio, maybe modern IC
driven ignition (could always keep the old magnito on hand).

The old magneto or point distributor would be the way to go. I would want to
stay away from any type of electronic ignition system. We are talking
survival here and if it came to nuclear weapons then everything with an
electronic ignition wouldn't work. Also it wouldn't help to go down to the
parts store, because the magnetic flux would have ruined all the new parts
sitting on the shelf. Any pre 1972 car with points would quit when the blast
went off, but all you would have to do is restart the engine. Anything newer
would need a tow truck to get it home. Assuming you could find a tow truck
that still ran.
I ran into a guy who had a real survivalist mentality and all his cars and
trucks were diesels. He also said he had 13,000 gallons of heating oil
stored up to run them on. Said he topped off his tanks every year in the
spring when heating oil prices went down.
I have been wondering how hard it would be to make a press to get oil from
corn or beans to use for fuel in a diesel engine? Any one ever try this?

Richard W.

For corn or sunflower oil - ask the French - they grow millions of acres of the
plants for cooking oil. I think plenty use it in their cars, as most of France
uses diesel, not petrol in cars. They don't tax it like we do

There have been reports in the press and on TV of folk in South Wales using
waste cooking oil mixed with their diesel. It was found out by the exhaust
smell! The tax authorities are NOT amused, and there was talk of the people
being prosecuted for tax evasion..

Dave.

In article ,
says...

... The ARRL (amateur radio organization)
got permission to test some typical amateur radio installations in the
simulator. They found damage to the front ends of HF transceivers
when connected to 80 m halfwave dipole antennas (about 136 feet),
but no damage at all to handheld transceivers and auto mounted
VHF mobile rigs when the exposed wiring lengths did not exceed
1 meter.

Which means your rig is safe as long as the 80 m dipole
is disconnected when not in use.

Note, though, that the possibility of damage to the power grid, and the
telecommunications networks, is very real. That's because they have
a huge amount of exposed wiring to act as antennas, so their capture
area for the NEMP energy is also huge. So they have to take extraordinary
measures to protect connected equipment against EMP. These measures
include wiring practices, use of single point grounds, gas discharge shunt
protectors, etc.

None of that is a concern for electronics which is not connected to exposed
wiring which can form an antenna with a large capture area, however. It simply
intercepts too little energy from the pulse to do any damage.

Ah. But then, isn't most consumer electonics connected to the
power lines? And as such, susceptible to common-mode signals
arriving on them? Granted there will be a lot of attenuation
on the incoming service entrance, but there's a lot more than
40 meters of wire hooked up to any house that you pick at
random, for the most part.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gary Coffman wrote:

Note, though, that the possibility of damage to the power grid, and the
telecommunications networks, is very real. That's because they have
a huge amount of exposed wiring to act as antennas, so their capture
area for the NEMP energy is also huge. So they have to take extraordinary
measures to protect connected equipment against EMP. These measures
include wiring practices, use of single point grounds, gas discharge shunt
protectors, etc.

I even wonder if it's an issue with the power grid. It's designed
to recover from a direct lightning strike. Your point about the
capture area is well taken, but I'd like to see a simulation before
I'd assume that an NEMP would do permanent damage.

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:17:47 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:


"Walter Daniels" wrote in message
om...

Actually, I have been thonking about this since it first came up. A
mVW, or other small(sort of) *air cooled* engine, would be the best
base. Feedingh steam through the intake and outlet valves, while
venting through the spark plug hole.

The intake valve is facing the wrong way so this scheme would only
work
for very low steam pressures. Think about it; the valve spring would
have
to be strong enough to hold the intake valve shut against steam pressure.
That is why most such schemes put steam into the spark plug hole. Either
way, you really have to do some design work on the intake valve problem
to
make a practical engine, not as easy as just changing the cam.

I'm pretty sure you could ever get the engine to be a two stroke
without regrinding the camshaft no matter which way you do it. The
timing just isn't right. Intake opens on a downstroke while the
exhaust opens on an upstroke. You can switch this around but they'd
one would always be wrong.

Change the timing sprocket to 1-to-1, only use the exhaust valve, use
the exhaust manifold exactly the way it was intended, and you have fixed
much of THAT problem, but you are still left with the intake valve
situation; neither of the existing valves is really suitable for that job
because they are designed to hold pressure INSIDE the cylinder, not hold it
out. Perhaps an electrically-operated valve connected to the spark plug
hole?

Vaughn

Vaughn

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk
email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:25:02 -0700, Jim Stewart wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote:

Note, though, that the possibility of damage to the power grid, and the
telecommunications networks, is very real. That's because they have
a huge amount of exposed wiring to act as antennas, so their capture
area for the NEMP energy is also huge. So they have to take extraordinary
measures to protect connected equipment against EMP. These measures
include wiring practices, use of single point grounds, gas discharge shunt
protectors, etc.

I even wonder if it's an issue with the power grid. It's designed
to recover from a direct lightning strike. Your point about the
capture area is well taken, but I'd like to see a simulation before
I'd assume that an NEMP would do permanent damage.

The grid is designed to be tolerant of lightning strikes. But a 200 km
altitude NEMP detonation would cause the grid to face the equivalent
of *simultaneous* lightning strikes every 1.4 km along its length. I don't
think the grid is up to handling *that* level of surge gracefully.

Gary

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:47:48 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:17:47 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:


"Walter Daniels" wrote in message
. com...

Actually, I have been thonking about this since it first came up. A
mVW, or other small(sort of) *air cooled* engine, would be the best
base. Feedingh steam through the intake and outlet valves, while
venting through the spark plug hole.

The intake valve is facing the wrong way so this scheme would only work
for very low steam pressures. Think about it; the valve spring would have
to be strong enough to hold the intake valve shut against steam pressure.
That is why most such schemes put steam into the spark plug hole. Either
way, you really have to do some design work on the intake valve problem to
make a practical engine, not as easy as just changing the cam.

I'm pretty sure you could ever get the engine to be a two stroke
without regrinding the camshaft no matter which way you do it. The
timing just isn't right. Intake opens on a downstroke while the
exhaust opens on an upstroke. You can switch this around but they'd
one would always be wrong.

John

There are two ways of doing this (and I've done one of them and it
worked):
1. change the crank to cam ratio from 2:1 to 1:1. Easiest is to do
this on a chain driven cam and replace the sprockets and chain. I've
seen plans for doing this conversion to a straicht six engine, they
just put normal old sprockets (both the same size) on the crank and
cam and connect them with a chain. You are right in that the timing
isn't quite right and that the valves are not going to be open long
enough to take advantage of the full stroke of the engine and you will
incur some pumping losses. That said, it would run, and for a
conversion you could do to an old engine in an afternoon with probably
minimal (or no) machine tools I'd say it fits the bill of what gunner
was asking for pretty well.
2. Do what I did with my little Briggs 3.5hp when I converted it,
just weld anothe set of lobes opposite the existing lobes on the
camshaft (a cardboard template helps), clean it up best you can, put
it back in, and just like that you have a steam engine. This will
make much better use of the full stroke of the engine so if you did a
good job of making your additional lobes this thing can run pretty
well.

Valves, not a problem. If we are talking about a home built
powereplant after the fall of civilization you won't have a nice burn
center to go to after your boiler explodes. For this reason I'm
thinking it would be best to shoot for a rather low pressure system.
I know in the early days of locomotives some were run at very low
pressures, might not be the worst of ideas. since the idea was an
easy conversion I'd say leave the valve train alone and run it as is.

Dave

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:47:49 GMT, (Gary Coffman) wrote:



The grid is designed to be tolerant of lightning strikes. But a 200 km
altitude NEMP detonation would cause the grid to face the equivalent
of *simultaneous* lightning strikes every 1.4 km along its length. I don't
think the grid is up to handling *that* level of surge gracefully.

Gary

Given that every insulator on pylons and poles has an attached spark gap, I
see no particular reason why there should be permanent damage. YMMV :-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:25:02 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Gary Coffman wrote:

Note, though, that the possibility of damage to the power grid, and the
telecommunications networks, is very real. That's because they have
a huge amount of exposed wiring to act as antennas, so their capture
area for the NEMP energy is also huge. So they have to take extraordinary
measures to protect connected equipment against EMP. These measures
include wiring practices, use of single point grounds, gas discharge shunt
protectors, etc.

I even wonder if it's an issue with the power grid. It's designed
to recover from a direct lightning strike. Your point about the
capture area is well taken, but I'd like to see a simulation before
I'd assume that an NEMP would do permanent damage.

That was my thought. I have a surge protector on my computer that has
survived numerous lighting strikes that have blown out other
protectors used by roommates (mine is APC, really like it). Is an EMP
going to put more energy or higher voltage into the power lines than a
direct lightning strike?

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:17:42 +0000 (UTC), spitfire2
wrote:

For corn or sunflower oil - ask the French - they grow millions of acres of the
plants for cooking oil. I think plenty use it in their cars, as most of France
uses diesel, not petrol in cars. They don't tax it like we do

There have been reports in the press and on TV of folk in South Wales using
waste cooking oil mixed with their diesel. It was found out by the exhaust
smell! The tax authorities are NOT amused, and there was talk of the people
being prosecuted for tax evasion..

Yea, why does gas cost $4/gal in England? It ain't because their
crude oil costs are higher. Walked into a shop in Ireland once
looking for a NiMH charger, my 60Hz unit fried on the stepped down
50Hz power. Got into a huge discussion about the "value added" tax
after I was shocked at how high it was. I said to him, "You know
that's why America started the revolution". He ended up not charging
me any tax. I came away with the feeling that there's a lot of that
going around.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:37:58 +0100, Mark Rand wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:47:49 GMT, (Gary Coffman) wrote:

The grid is designed to be tolerant of lightning strikes. But a 200 km
altitude NEMP detonation would cause the grid to face the equivalent
of *simultaneous* lightning strikes every 1.4 km along its length. I don't
think the grid is up to handling *that* level of surge gracefully.

Gary

Given that every insulator on pylons and poles has an attached spark gap, I
see no particular reason why there should be permanent damage. YMMV :-)

It isn't a matter of permanent damage to the wires and insulators. The surge
is so pervasive that it trips out grid breakers and interties all over the network.
In the 1950s, the US conducted a high altitude nuclear test in the Pacific. It
knocked out the electrical and phone systems in Hawaii. Fortunately there
was virtually no solid state equipment connected to the grid in those days,
so it was more of a nuisance than a serious matter in terms of damaged
electronic equipment.

Gary

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:33:06 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
That was my thought. I have a surge protector on my computer that has
survived numerous lighting strikes that have blown out other
protectors used by roommates (mine is APC, really like it). Is an EMP
going to put more energy or higher voltage into the power lines than a
direct lightning strike?

The NEMP has a quicker risetime than a lightning strike. That means
a lot of surge protectors won't clamp the surge quickly enough to avoid
damage to solid state equipment. There are NEMP rated gas discharge
protectors, but I doubt any ordinary computer surge protectors use them.

Polyphaser is one manufacturer of NEMP rated surge protectors. They
have to be installed correctly, or they won't be effective. The plug in the
wall power strips with surge protectors inside won't do against common
mode surge. They have too high an impedance thanks to the cord sets.

The surge protectors have to be permanently mounted on an entrance
bulkhead, called a ground window, where every conductor in or out of
the protected area must pass, and be suppressed to the bulkhead. This
keeps all conductors in the protected area at the same potential (plus or
minus operating potentials) during a surge event. With no potential
difference, no damaging currents can be forced through the equipment.
It is a very simple concept, but it must be strictly followed. Even one
conductor which bypasses the ground window can undo all the protection
it offers.

Gary

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:39:14 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
Yea, why does gas cost $4/gal in England? It ain't because their
crude oil costs are higher. Walked into a shop in Ireland once
looking for a NiMH charger, my 60Hz unit fried on the stepped down
50Hz power. Got into a huge discussion about the "value added" tax
after I was shocked at how high it was. I said to him, "You know
that's why America started the revolution". He ended up not charging
me any tax. I came away with the feeling that there's a lot of that
going around.

VAT (sales tax) isn't the problem. At least it is a fair tax. The problem is
that instead of using it to replace other less fair forms of taxation, they
levy every other sort of tax too. So they wind up grossly overtaxed
compared to the US.

(Those of us who consider the US to be grossly overtaxed find
the level of European taxation to be simply unbelieveable.)

Gary

Yea, why does gas cost $4/gal in England? It ain't because their
crude oil costs are higher.

To pay for their "free" health care.
--

Ron Thompson
On the Beautiful Mississippi Gulf Coast
USA

http://www.plansandprojects.com

Where did everyone go? Oh, yeah.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/castinghobby/
Y'all come, ya hear?
*******

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:54:59 -0400, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:39:14 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:
SNIP

Yea, why does gas cost $4/gal in England? It ain't because their
crude oil costs are higher. Walked into a shop in Ireland once
looking for a NiMH charger, my 60Hz unit fried on the stepped down
50Hz power. Got into a huge discussion about the "value added" tax
after I was shocked at how high it was. I said to him, "You know
that's why America started the revolution". He ended up not charging
me any tax. I came away with the feeling that there's a lot of that
going around.

Ah, for the good old days, when we could blame our exorbitant taxes on
England!

You can say that again, time for a second revolution me thinks.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 16:12:35 GMT, (Gary Coffman)
wrote:

VAT (sales tax) isn't the problem. At least it is a fair tax. The problem is
that instead of using it to replace other less fair forms of taxation, they
levy every other sort of tax too. So they wind up grossly overtaxed
compared to the US.

(Those of us who consider the US to be grossly overtaxed find
the level of European taxation to be simply unbelieveable.)

Unbelieveable is the least of it. What I find outrageous is all the
hidden taxes, which I think you were alluding to. When I pay "X"
dollars ofr "X" product how much of that price is tax? Who knows.
Vote for me when I run for president and we'll end all the hidden tax
crap.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:32:29 -0500, "Ron Thompson"
wrote:

Yea, why does gas cost $4/gal in England? It ain't because their
crude oil costs are higher.

To pay for their "free" health care.

Yea, that and all the other free things socialism provides.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 16:12:35 GMT, (Gary Coffman)
wrote:

VAT (sales tax) isn't the problem. At least it is a fair tax. The problem
is
that instead of using it to replace other less fair forms of taxation,
they
levy every other sort of tax too. So they wind up grossly overtaxed
compared to the US.

(Those of us who consider the US to be grossly overtaxed find
the level of European taxation to be simply unbelieveable.)

Unbelieveable is the least of it. What I find outrageous is all the
hidden taxes, which I think you were alluding to. When I pay "X"
dollars ofr "X" product how much of that price is tax? Who knows.
Vote for me when I run for president and we'll end all the hidden tax
crap.

For a real eye-opener, John, take a look at the taxes (income, corporate,
value-added or equivalent) of the US and our major trading partners, which
are mostly advanced economies. You'll find that our total taxes are so close
to theirs, overall, that you'll probably be shocked. Finland, France, Italy,
and one or two others are quite a bit higher than us, but most are fairly
close. Even China has almost the same basic tax structure and percentages
overall.

(BTW, to figure out where we are without a VAT, consider that our state and
local sales taxes are close to the same thing, although much lower in
percentage. Italy's VAT is the highest or close to it, at something like
22%. Most of Europe is under 20%. China is 17%. But here's the kicker: When
you have a VAT and your trading partner doesn't, like the US, your VAT
amounts to an export subsidy that you don't have to declare. If this is
confusing, I'll explain.)

Then take a look at all of those countries with really low taxes, and think
about how much it's done for them. They're mostly the Third-World ****pots
where you may get one good meal a day and where economic opportunity means a
chance to set up a roadside stand selling exotic roadkill. g

This tax business may require further thought, after all...

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...
You can say that again, time for a second revolution me thinks.

Gonna mobilize an RCM revolutionist party?

"Mr. President, that group of old folks is outside shaking their canes
again" :-P

Tim

--
In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!"
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 04:36:43 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

(BTW, to figure out where we are without a VAT, consider that our state and
local sales taxes are close to the same thing, although much lower in
percentage. Italy's VAT is the highest or close to it, at something like
22%. Most of Europe is under 20%. China is 17%. But here's the kicker: When
you have a VAT and your trading partner doesn't, like the US, your VAT
amounts to an export subsidy that you don't have to declare. If this is
confusing, I'll explain.)

What you're saying is the the exporting country looses revenue because
it's taxes are not in the production of the item but in it's sale, a
tax not collected since it was not a retail sale?

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:57:03 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:


It covers how to make the still, how to operate it, I think how to
mash various materials, all sorts of things including if you can drink
the stuff. Apparantly he's really into it and has been since the
70's. He uses a reflux column and gets 190 proof with one run. Again
heat control is important so you would have to figure some system out
if you wanted to use a wood fire or such. He also goes into
converting cars to run on ethanol.

There's a plethora of sources for stills already made if you're just
looking for something to drink :^). Me, I was just interested because
you need it to make fulminate :^).

at least on the small scale, combine the two...use the waste steam to
heat the mash (like we did in chemistry classes lo those many years
ago...)...which helps save on the condensation and re cycle costs.

if you are not using a high grade grain for your mash (in which case,
it's recycled as animal food) then the spent mash might be sun dried
for fuel use...

ck
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)

Gunner wrote in message . ..

snip
Would it be possible to convert an internal combustion engine, for
example a VW engine, to run on steam?
snip

Here is an example of a conversion:

http://www.pcez.com/~artemis/NWSSBste.htm