Ethanol Powered Aircraft

Bret Ludwig wrote:

If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
before blathering off like that.

As far as aviation goes, the first and foremost totally unnecessary
and wasteful expenditure of money to fly is the delta between aviation
fuel and the fuel every other engine runs on. If you are flying on
$5/gallon avgas, 2/5ths of your fuel budget is wasted. Light aircraft
must run on generally available, non-aviation-specific fuels as a
matter of principle more than the actual cost. There is no solid
technical reason why aircraft flying at the speeds and altitudes light
aircraft most all spend their time at need an exotic and specially
toxic fuel, which is why banishment of avgas will please me. If we were
flying P-51s or Connies at FL 400 the argument for low-RVP fuels with
octane ratings based on different procedures than R+M/2 would make
engineering sense.


oh...So... since YOU don't fly any of these aircraft, the fuel they
use should banned. And you could care less whether they fly or not...
Who cares if most flight schools use airplanes that burn this fuel.
You are knee-jerkingly ignorant of the facts and that is a sad
comentary.

Sheesh... GA doesn't need anymore enemies... hopefully you are not
a pilot.

ktbr wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
before blathering off like that.

Tell you what fellow, *you* are the one who needs an education!

The 1002 Area of ANWR is 1.5 *million* acres, and the amount of
that which is going to be affected with exploration and possible
production of oil... is 1.5 *million* acres. Even with your
limited education you'll recognize that as slightly bigger than
anything you can even imagine.

Oh, and *you* have almost certainly never been to ANWR if you
think all it is is "frozen tundra"! Some people (those with a
bit more knowledge than you) are aware that frozen tundra is
some pretty awesome landscape.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:19:12 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote in :

The 1002 Area of ANWR is 1.5 *million* acres, and the amount of
that which is going to be affected with exploration and possible
production of oil... is 1.5 *million* acres. Even with your
limited education you'll recognize that as slightly bigger than
anything you can even imagine.

Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

The point is, it's a short term fix anyway. If the oil gets so scarce
a small quantity is needed truly at any cost, then get it there. Not
now. Let oil go high enough to get alternatives capitalized, with a
price floor if necessary, lest the Saudis pull the rug out from under
the billion dollar investments needed.

On 16 Aug 2006 11:13:08 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:
The point is, it's a short term fix anyway. If the oil gets so scarce
a small quantity is needed truly at any cost, then get it there. Not
now. Let oil go high enough to get alternatives capitalized, with a
price floor if necessary, lest the Saudis pull the rug out from under
the billion dollar investments needed.

I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
make hydrogen... Once we no longer need the oil from the Middle East,
the rich camel ****in' Bedoins can go back to being what they have
been throughout history -- POOR camel ****in' Bedoins... Without the
money from the oil, terrorism will not be able to be financed...
Problem solved...

Fusion reactors use hydrogen as fuel to make helium plus energy. It is
almost impossible to "make" hydrogen, although you can liberate it from a
compound (i.e. electrolysis of water).

Jim



I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
make hydrogen...

I think that we need to develop fusion reactors so that we can cheaply
make hydrogen... Once we no longer need the oil from the Middle East...

Besides the repulsive words that follow, don't you think that a country
that can't educate itself, that still believes in gods and spirits, that
rejects evolution, and that believes taking shoes off and banning
toothpaste and fine wines on carry-on luggage keeps us safe, is not
really the right country to entrust bunches of nuclear reactors to?

Do you really think that terrorists who plan ten years ahead won't have
moles in the reactors?

The simple solutions aren't.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

Or to be more to the point, about 1/10th the size of all of
little ol' Texas itself. Obviously there aren't any ranches in
Texas anything near that size. The 1002 Area of ANWR absolutely
dwarfs the largest ranch in Texas. It dwarfs at least the two
largest ranches *combined*. I didn't try to see, but it is possible
that all ranches in Texas put together might actually equal the size
of the 1002 Area in ANWR...

Somewhat larger than a few states. About the size of West
Virginia, and larger than 9 states to be specific.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:42:47 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
Or to be more to the point, about 1/10th the size of all of
little ol' Texas itself. Obviously there aren't any ranches in
Texas anything near that size. The 1002 Area of ANWR absolutely
dwarfs the largest ranch in Texas. It dwarfs at least the two
largest ranches *combined*. I didn't try to see, but it is possible
that all ranches in Texas put together might actually equal the size
of the 1002 Area in ANWR...

Awh 'ell, if ya gonna bring *facts* into this conversation, I'm not
playin' anymore... grin

Next ya gonna tell me that I can't propagate the Texas stereotypes...
Hell, you might even try to claim that someplace other than Texas
knows how to do *real* BBQ...