Ethanol Powered Aircraft

Jose wrote:
You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit
"send."
;-)

Nope. From the moment I hit "reply".

Actually, some particle accelerators used hamsters to clean the tunnels.

Jose

Huh? Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters
to clean.

I must have missed something.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:47:01 -0500, Emily
wrote:

Jose wrote:
You have to admit, you had that one coming, from the moment you hit
"send."
;-)

Nope. From the moment I hit "reply".

Actually, some particle accelerators used hamsters to clean the tunnels.

Jose

Huh? Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters
to clean.

I must have missed something.

Give the hamsters a couple of generations in the tunnels.

Don

Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters to clean.

They dragged some sort of brush behind them, and were trained to run
through the tunnels. I don't know which one, I think it was in Europe.

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

Jose wrote:
Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters to
clean.

They dragged some sort of brush behind them, and were trained to run
through the tunnels. I don't know which one, I think it was in Europe.

Jose
We must be talking about different kinds of accelerator tunnels. Last
one I was in was like 10 feet high by 10 feet wide.

Particle accelerator tunnels are a little too large for hamsters to clean.

Thinking a bit more, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean the tunnel in which
the accelerator lies, I mean the tunnel (or tube), inside the
accelerator, in which the particles actually travel.

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

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Jose" wrote

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

Nah, moles in the reactors will not do any good. They are just small
rodents.

Anyway, moles in reactors would be quickly killed from all of the
radiation.

g


No... They'd mutate into Molezilla

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote

No... They'd mutate into Molezilla

Well, Superman had a problem overcoming Kryptonyte, so I wonder if Molezilla
has a problem with Grubenyte?
g
--
Jim in NC

No... They'd mutate into Molezilla

At first I read that as "Molezerilla", but that would be pretty cheezy.

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

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:04:03 GMT, Jose
wrote:
Besides the repulsive words that follow

Awh, gee, I'm not ****in' politically correct... That just breaks my
****in' heart...

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?

Hmmm... The way you describe it, it must really suck to live up there
in Connecticut... I can understand it though -- It must suck having to
live around so many Damn Yankees...

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

The simple solutions aren't.

And sometimes the complicated solutions aren't needed... There's
probably two ways to solve this problem... One is to just nuke the
whole ****in' Middle East... The other is to make their product
virtually worthless... As enticing as the first method might be, I
would prefer the second so that they have longer to contemplate how
they screwed up... Hell, we can always go back to the first way...

Grumman-581 wrote:
And sometimes the complicated solutions aren't needed... There's
probably two ways to solve this problem... One is to just nuke the
whole ****in' Middle East... The other is to make their product
virtually worthless... As enticing as the first method might be, I
would prefer the second so that they have longer to contemplate how
they screwed up... Hell, we can always go back to the first way...

Their product will never be worthless. Its energy potential as a
fuel not whithstanding, it will always been needed and desired
as a product for lubricants, plastics, medicines, a zillion
differnt chemicals and lots of other stuff.

Petroleum is also the most efficient way to power an engine for
aircraft for a number of reasons.... and especially small aircraft
because of their size and weight limitations.

Hydrogen/nuclear/solar/whatever powered aircraft may one day
be a reality... but long after these other technologies have
been successfully used in automobiles - why are by far the
largest mass consumers of petro fuels on the planet. In fact,
once petroleum is replaced in vehicles the proce of fuel
JET ot AVGAS will go down accordingly.