Science and Technology news... :: View topic - American Slice of Petroleum Pie In 15 Years

Guest

On Jun 27, 8:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I know that some large ships at sea, including
oil freighters and some navy ships. use a heavy fuel oil that is about
the consistency of shoe polish at room temperature. It is preheated
but also emulsified with about 5% water, which helps moderate heat in
the giant pistons in the marine diesels these ships are powered on.
The compression ratios are daunting, and when the emulsion is injected
into the compression cycle, the water is instantly converted to steam
which provides some of the energy but more importantly atomizes and
scatters the oil particles so it can burn properly. Since most motor
oils are detergent(emulsion) and have about 2-5% water in them, it
seems that a medium-sized diesel engine could be adapted to a similar
process. Over the years motor oil viscosities have been dropping, and
I use the old 0W-30 oil from my Prius and the 5W-30 from my Hyundai in
the fuel for my diesel service truck, blended with my B5 Biodiesel at
about 5% by volume, prefiltered with a large coffee filter. No dirty
smoke it seems to burn just fine.-Jitney

Yes, used oil still can burn fine,
the used oil burner I had simply injects an air stream
to mix the dirty oil with enough air to make a good flame.
and mostly you can>t see any smoke at all either except
maybe an occasional puff on startup.

I don>t think it will catch on that fast though and really
I believe we need to find alternatives and there are so
many way even humans can make energy going about
the daily stuff we do.
We would make a great dent in burning oil pretty easy
if anything we moved or even walked on harnessed
that energy instead of never even realizing it is there.

Humans are the best machines in the world.
we are the most efficient of anything known.
We make the highest efficient burning engine look
like it is a gigantic 100 ft high campfire only warming a hotdog
If everyone walking on the sidewalk in New York
were producing even 1 tenthousanth of a watt with each step.
There would be a "few" watts being created for New York
:)
Some day will hopefully never have to burn it at all.
The world will be human powered.
except maybe still in very remote locations.

:)
and BTW:
thanks for your response also.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
A good source for this stuff if you don>t have a repair shop is behind
auto parts stores. By law, most places that sell new motor oil are
required by law to accept used oil. But when people bring it in, the
clerk will more often than not tell the customer that their tank is
full. This is almost always a lie, they just don>t want the hassle,
and collection services charge them to haul it away then turn around
and sell it at a big profit. So many customers leave it in jugs behind
the store, you can just scoop it up when you drive by. Summer is a
good time to save it for next winter.-Jitney

Guest

On Jun 23, 7:25 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]Not difficult to notice that everyone attacks the idea of "cars on
water". All this in spite that in many cases of "gas-guzzlers" such a
conversion into "cars on water" can save users even up to 75% costs of
fuel, and that conversion of just an ordinary car into a "car on
water" can be done on "do it itself" principles by almost every
advanced hobbyist who has prototyping capabilities.

So why there is so much negativity about these cars. Well, we have oil
companies, all their employees, and all their share holders who would
loose a lot when everyone uses "cars on water" instead of present "gas-
guzzlers". We also have scientists who would loose sources of
lucrative research contracts when every car burns only around 5 l/
100km, instead of present over 20 l/100km. We also have car
manufacturers who could NOT come up every year with a new version of a
car which is supposedly "better" somehow from previous versions, and
sell this new car - as people would be happy with their old ones. And
so-on, so-on. Practically it turns out that the idea of "cars on
water" would too much "rock the boat" in order to obtain any official
support.

So the only way of appreciating thse "cars on water" is to convert
ordinary cars into "cars on water" on the "do it yourself" principle.
Then, instead of listening to theoretical arguments of the "arm chair"
scientists, such "do it yourself" people can experience in person that
these cars actually DO save fuel, that they do NOT emit so much
pollution as ordinary cars, that they have much better performance
than the ordinary cars, etc., etc.

I prepared a description as to how convert your own ordinary car into
a "car on water" on a free principle of "do it yourself". A hobbyist
who did such a conversion claims that it cost him only around 50
dollars. The principle of this conversion is described in part #H of
my web page "free_energy.htm" - update on 23 June 2008 or later.
Unfortunately, someone in google sabotaged my profile from this group,
so that when I try to provide the address of my web sites which have
this web page, I am unable to save this thread with such a link. So
the only way to find my web page is to type inwww.google.comthe key
words "Jan Pajak free_energy.htm" (but without quotes) and then run
the web page "free_energy.htm" which google finds and indicates.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. Reders probably noticed that I already privided a descriptive
information on these "cars on water" on another similar thread, the
address of which also seems to be baned here (so I also cannot provide
here a link to it). It appears that for some reasons only a criticism
of these cars is permited on this group.
[/quote]
No credible scientific basis for these claims. It>s not that there are
not good non-mainstream ideas out there, its just that this isn>t one
of them.-Jitney

Guest

[quote]You keep doing that. Claiming some guy was wrong. Of course it carries
the implicit 'you are right'. Yet every time I present the math you go
silent. You are a hack.
[/quote]
All he can do is repost the boilerplate.

Bret Cahill

Guest

[quote]I don>t get the either/or false dichotomy between drilling for more
oil vs. alternative energy. We can do both.

I>m not saying all drilling should cease, just that drilling will help
very little if at all.

When you consider we won>t get a drop of oil from any new discoveries
until about the time China and India have economies the same size as
the U. S. and by then production will have already dropped
significantly.

In other words we>ll _already_ be living on a small fraction of what
we use today and a new population "equillibrium" will probably have
_already_ occurred.

There is no credible scenario where drilling for more oil now will
make any significant difference in most Americans' lives. In fact,
drilling for oil is sucking a lot of resources and labor from our only
real hope of survival, sustainables.

The best we can do is tax petroleum and rebate the money to make the
transition as civilized as possible.

Bret Cahill

"The search for gold has impoverished more European countries . . ."

-- DeTocqueville

As a professional geologist and oilfield professional for over twenty
years, I can tell you that your ideas about the amount of oil in the
ground and offshore are rather ignorant. Brazil became self-sufficient
in energy with discoveries off its outer continental shelf.
[/quote]
Brazil is bio fuel -- vast regions planted with sugar.

[quote]The OCS is
in international waters, and anyone can drill for it. The question is
not whether the oil will be drilled for; it will. The question is
whether we or other nations with offshore drilling capability will get
the oil.
[/quote]
The _real_ question is whether that>s either a short term or long term
solution for most consumers.

The answer is it is neither.

Even if we completely forget about AGW as most have.

Bret Cahill

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Jun 27, 4:07 am, jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote] It is not too early to think about the home heating oil season this
winter, it is going to break the budget for many households. I believe
that with some simple modifications, a home burner system could be
converted to a partial or complete replacement of home heating oil to
used motor oil.
[/quote]
Well, that>s are a lot of things you can do with cars as stop-gap
energy measures.
But with used motor oil, there>s but more ecnomical things you can
do than
convert it make into a fuel. Since the viscosity is higher than
fuel
because it is has to absorb heat, rather than release heat.

[quote] The viscosity is higher, this could be lowered by pre-heating and/or
blending with heating oil. The burner would most likely need
modification. Sources of oil include one>s own oil changes, local auto
service shops, and auto supply stores. In many jurisdictions, places
that sell motor oil are required to collect used motor oil that is
brought in by customers and others. Since they have to pay to have it
hauled away, they>ll often tell you their tank is full whether it is
or not, so many customers will leave their oil containers behind the
store, near the dumpster, etc. Just pick it up and save it for the
winter, the store may even give out of their tank if you ask. Does
anyody out there have any experience with this, are there conversion
kits for it? Please advise.

The same oil could be sprayed over coal to control dusting, water is
frequently used for this purpose but adds nothing to the energy
content, and is net endothermic.

Finally, there seems to be a way that a modified diesel could be run
on used motor oil, preheating and bigger injectors, with real high
compression would give an acceptably clean burn. An experience out
there would be appreciated.-Jitney[/quote]

Fred Weiss · Guest

On Jun 28, 1:41 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
[quote]Fred Weiss wrote:

You know, it is not as if these "peak oil" characters haven>t cried
wolf before.

What does this posturing have to do with crunching numbers?
[/quote]
That there is *obviously* something fundamentally wrong with the way
that they "crunch numbers". They are not just wrong - they are
*chronically and consistently* wrong. But they always posture as if
*this time* they got it right.

[quote]"Peak oil: a catastrophist cult" - Vaclav Smil

The guy is a hack. Where are his numbers?
[/quote]
Where is your understanding of basic economics?

Presumably Shawn Tully of Fortune Magazine is also "a hack",

"Why oil prices will tank"

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/tully_oil_bust.fortune/index.htm

Do you have even an inkling of a clue as to why Jevons was wrong about
coal - just as Malthus was about food? And yet they both were very
meticulous about "crunching the numbers" - and in fact *given their
premises*, they were correct. They both just overlooked a few things -
a few vital things - which weren>t included in the numbers they
crunched.

[quote]Of course if it were the case that oil production was falling, we can
thank the enviroNazis for that. It is not an inherent limitation - and
certainly not when new technology for extraction and production is
factored in.

Yea sure Fred, always some bogyman to blame, so therefor...
[/quote]
So therefore, maybe you should "crunch the numbers" as to how much
production has been capped or completely closed off- in Alaska,
offshore, etc. But *those* numbers you and the other "Peak Oilers"
don>t look at or you cavalierly dismiss as "too little", forgetting
that new discoveries don>t have to replace *all* of current reserves.
They just have to replace the reserves being depleted in current
fields. It is ignoring that simple fact which explains why - despite
all of the dire predictions - known reserves never seem to decline
*despite increasing worldwide demand*.

[quote]As for Brat>s Babble about China and India, there is historical
precedent for this kind of nonsense and from someone no less than the
distinguished 19th Cent economist William Stanley Jevons, who in 1865
predicted the depletion of coal.

You keep doing that. Claiming some guy was wrong. Of course it carries
the implicit 'you are right'. Yet every time I present the math you go
silent. You are a hack.
[/quote]
No, it>s you who is an ignoramus in economics.

And so you entirely miss the point. Jevons also "presented the math" -
as did Malthus - as did the Club of Rome - as do all of the
Doomsayers. Just, like you, they don>t grasp the economics.

[quote]http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3487

More oops.
[/quote]
From what I now call "theoildumb.com"

Fred Weiss

Fred Weiss · Guest

On Jun 28, 2:17 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:

[quote]...The air car is a joke and has been for many years.
[/quote]
Maybe.

But just remember that Lord Kelvin - surely no "hack" - pronounced
with great authority in 1895, "Heavier than air flying machines are
impossible." This was said just a mere 8 years before the Wright
Brothers historic flight.

At one time I imagine they thought that oil drilling in deep water or
in the Arctic would also be impossible.

You forget that "necessity is the mother of invention". And that
profit is its motivating force.

When that is not put into your "number crunching" you end up with
predictions like Jevon>s on coal or Malthus' on food - or, now, the
kind that you "peak oilers" are concocting.

Fred Weiss

Fred Weiss · Guest

On Jun 28, 4:34 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
[quote]Fred Weiss wrote:

Do you have even an inkling of a clue as to why Jevons was wrong about
coal - just as Malthus was about food? And yet they both were very
meticulous about "crunching the numbers" - and in fact *given their
premises*, they were correct. They both just overlooked a few things -
a few vital things - which weren>t included in the numbers they
crunched.

And that was???
[/quote]
That I have to tell you proves my point.

But, hey, this isn>t rocket science. You tell me. Why were Jevons and
Malthus proven wrong?

Fred Weiss

Guest

On Jun 28, 12:06 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 4:07 am, jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:

It is not too early to think about the home heating oil season this
winter, it is going to break the budget for many households. I believe
that with some simple modifications, a home burner system could be
converted to a partial or complete replacement of home heating oil to
used motor oil.

Well, that>s are a lot of things you can do with cars as stop-gap
energy measures.
But with used motor oil, there>s but more ecnomical things you can
do than
convert it make into a fuel. Since the viscosity is higher than
fuel
because it is has to absorb heat, rather than release heat.

The viscosity is higher, this could be lowered by pre-heating and/or
blending with heating oil. The burner would most likely need
modification. Sources of oil include one>s own oil changes, local auto
service shops, and auto supply stores. In many jurisdictions, places
that sell motor oil are required to collect used motor oil that is
brought in by customers and others. Since they have to pay to have it
hauled away, they>ll often tell you their tank is full whether it is
or not, so many customers will leave their oil containers behind the
store, near the dumpster, etc. Just pick it up and save it for the
winter, the store may even give out of their tank if you ask. Does
anyody out there have any experience with this, are there conversion
kits for it? Please advise.

The same oil could be sprayed over coal to control dusting, water is
frequently used for this purpose but adds nothing to the energy
content, and is net endothermic.

Finally, there seems to be a way that a modified diesel could be run
on used motor oil, preheating and bigger injectors, with real high
compression would give an acceptably clean burn. An experience out
there would be appreciated.-Jitney- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
It is basically a straight chain paraffinic hydrocarbon like home
heating oil, a higher molecular weight and somewhat higher viscosity.
On an external burner, one would have to take care that the spray
nozzle would atomize it properly for a good air/fuel mix, then it
should burn just fine. The straight stuff in winter would be too
thick, but I think up to 30% with home heating oil would work. Many
use that blend with used fryer oil and it works fine, and motor oil
has a lower viscosity than that...-Jitney

m II · Guest

Sylvia Else wrote:

[quote]2 = 1

[/quote]

Other than the multiplication by zero and it>s attendant problems, it>s
perfect.

Some nice ones here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invalid_proof

mike
--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.

http://improve-usenet.org/

Bret Cahill · Guest

[quote]Dimitrov
[/quote]
He>s not associated with any Russian energy companies is he?

Bret Cahill

Eeyore · Guest

News wrote:

[quote]"Don Kelly" wrote

More resonance crap. Somehow many believe that resonance increases or
concentrates energy. That is simply not true.

It clearly heats water.
[/quote]
Sure. If you add energy to water it warms. This much has been known since the
beginnings of man. The type of energy matters not one jot nor does it matter if
it>s resonating, sonic or whatever.

Graham

Guest

On Jun 28, 1:55 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]Les Cargill wrote:
So it>s more economic to have people
pulling rickshaws than to have motor transport?

Utterly fatuous statement.

Do you see any rickshaws in Europe ?

Graham
[/quote]
There was a guy here in Las Vegas in a funny hat that tried doing that
in the downtown last February. The Taxi Authority cops were on him
like white on rice, had him cuffed and stuffed into a van, and smashed
his rickshaw with sledgehammers. They had to protect the public from
low prices, and cheap energy I guess.-Jitney

Eeyore · Guest

Fred Weiss wrote:

[quote]"Jevons>s thesis was not that Britain>s coal reserves would soon be
exhausted but rather that the rapid growth of her population and
industry in the 19th century had produced a rate of increase (of
around 3.5 per cent per annum) in coal consumption which if maintained
for long must compel the extension of mining to poorer or deeper
seams, thereby greatly raising the cost of coal. To the extent that
Britain>s industrial position and progress depended on cheap coal it
was consequently bound to be adversely and seriously affected within
perhaps half a century."
[/quote]
Yet interestingly Britain>s reliance on 'home-grown' coal was determined largely by a single Prime Minister who was
determined to break the Coal Union(s). One Margaret Thatcher.

As a result unmined coal sits in the ground here with little chance of it ever being usefully recovered although I
did hear that there was talk of re-opening one mine somewhere.

Of course it can>t easily compete with cheap imported coal either you see.

Graham

Eeyore · Guest

"Mark M." wrote:

[quote]People live crowded together because of stupid land allocation systems, not
over-population.
[/quote]
No, they live together because towns and cities make sense. Instead of course
you plan on learning every skill in the book.

Graham


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 52, 53, 54 Next
Page 2 of 54