[at-l] RE: Trail-related engineering stuff

[shane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Shane Steinkamp)]

> >Ok, so where did you get your numbers?
>
> These kinds of places ---

Groovy.  I'll check it out when I have time.  I'm always willin' to
edumicate myself.  Thanks.

> A couple things to keep in mind - you can't mix metric and
> English units

Yeah.  I'm pretty clear on that...  ;)

> >But that number can changed depending on how the wood is
> >fired.
>
> Yup - but at best it would be 10% better.

Yeah, I actually reconsidered that after I had posted it...

> >You didn't address my first sentence either.  What about
> >the cost (on several levels) to produce the fuel in the
> >first place?
>
> Let's take just one level - energy.  The energy used to
> separate (crack) crude into the various components is less
> than the energy contained in those components. If memory
> serves, some of the byproducts are fed back into the
> system to provide the energy for the process.  Which means
> that the net energy gain from that process is positive by
> a large margin.  If that were not true, the whole business
> would slowly wind down and join the buggy whip business in
> obscurity.

I agree completely.  You have to take it a step further, though.  You're
giving us the CO2 numbers for burning the fuel itself.  What about the CO2
numbers (and other pollutants) for the PRODUCTION of that fuel?  Wood is the
only fuel in the list that has a net CO2 DECREASE during its production.
(Carbon cycle.)

In the case of alcohol distilled from grains, though, the story is even
worse.  That process does actually consume more energy that you actually get
out of the end product - which makes it the WORST of all the possibilities.

> >The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
> >concluded

> LOL!!! And that whole statement is largely political BS.

Maybe, but it bought me more time.  ;)

> Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide regardless of the source

Yeah, but there is also a 'too much' point somewhere...  I don't think
anybody knows where, but even YOU must admit that - even if the number is
astronomically high...

> Example - in the IPCC Technical Summary they flatly deny
> the existence of the Medieval Warm Period - something for
> which there's more than ample evidence.  That's the only
> way they could make the theory fit - to rewrite history.
> Many, many problems with the UN facts, methods and
> conclusions.

No doubt, but that's true of just about everything...  Rocket science
included.  ;)

> ALL calculations need to be checked.  Including mine.  <G>

Yeah, give me some time.  I have to break out the slide rule...

> Sounds like me - except it was my mother who took away my
> chemistry set after the home-made explosives almost took
> down the back porch.  Gee - I didn't know it was THAT
> powerful!!!

You broke rule #1:  Never mix explosives in a frame building.

> >Anyway, sorry if I don't have much else to do but poke
> >you with a stick...
>
> No sweat. As Ginny says - I have a real thick hide.

At least you don't have a thick head!  :0)

Shane