HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

In article , Bill Funk
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:12:18 -0800, Ken Lucke
wrote:

More likely steel-jacketed, teflon coated, pierce anything cartridges....

Nope. First two clips (10mm, S&W 1076) are loaded with Silvertip
Glasers (or equivalent) 3 up then 4 hydroshocks to follow. In-chamber
round is always a Silvertip Glaser (or equivalent). Third & fourth
clips are hydroshocks & fmj [respecitvely], just in case.

I'm not interested in penetrating car doors, I'm interested in putting
the bad guy down. Permanently. I'll take glasers or the equivalent
any day for doing that at the close range I'm probably ever going to
need them at. I've seen the difference in body damage one can make.
Longer range, I'd have time to switch clips while ducking behind
something.

Are you planning on taking on the Triad all by yourself?

Naw, I'd need at leat one more clip for that =;^)

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

Ron Hunter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

(Note: to make "E85" you need near 100% Ethanol (or rather 0% water in
the ethanol). As much water as possible needs to be removed.
Dewatering the ethanol requires Zeolite or similar materials. Having
a "denaturing" agent (gasoline) in the ethanol will ruin the zeolite.)

I have a set of drawings to make a high efficiency still ... will
yield about 85% ethanol.


What's the other 15%?

Mostly water.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Dave Martindale wrote:
Ron Hunter writes:


I have a set of drawings to make a high efficiency still ... will yield
about 85% ethanol.


What's the other 15%?


Water, and traces of other volatiles in the original feedstock. The
boiling point of water isn't that much above ethanol, and there's a lot
more water than ethanol in the raw fermented input, so at temperatures
where all the ethanol evaporates, a substantial amount of water also
evaporates. Condenser temperatures that condense the ethanol also
condense most of the water vapour. So there's always some water in the
output of a still.

The design of the still for which I have drawings has a "high" temp
condensor at the bottom to condense out water and methanol, and a
separate condensor at the top, separated, to condense out the ethanol.
A thermostat in the top section controls the water flow rate to keep the
upper chamber at the ethanol condensing temperature.

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/
(note: some statments on the site are a bit whacky).

Basically the cold coil water comes in the top section and is coiled
somewhat tightly so the upper section is cooler. That water, now warmed
up a little is then circulated to the bottom section coils in a less
dense configuration. There are also glass marbles in the lower section
to stabilize the temperature there and to provide a lot of surface area
for condensation.

The ethanol remains in gas state in the lower section as it is too hot
for ethanol to condense. It's too cool for water vapour and methanol in
the lower section, it condenses on the coils and marbles... the ethanol
vapour rises throgh a small opening into the cool upper chamber. (very
small amounts of condensed ethanol might fall back into the lower
chamber, but evaporate and make their way up top again. Most of the
ethanol is trapped there and let out into the ethanol container.

A small amount of water vapour does make its way into the upper chamber
and of course, being quite cooler than the lower chamber it condenses
there and is mixed with the ethanol.

Per the website where I got the plans, the ethanol output can be as good
as 90%. (180 proof).

Methanol (and other poisons) can be separated at the bottom water
leveler and then used as part of the evaporator (boiler) fuel to cook
the mash. Methanol is not good for auto engines, even flex-fuel
engines. It is also what makes moonshine dangerous. Moonshiners make
ethanol and when they screw up, they make methanol.

If you take the output of your still and distill it again, you can
increase the ethanol percentage somewhat, but you can never completely
get rid of the water by distilling no matter how many passes you use.
So the water has to be removed by some other means.

Yep.

I haven't built this thing yet although a plumber friend will do all the
copper soldering for me to make sure that it is as well made as
possible. The problem is that it is painful to licence in Canada for
the purpose of homemade fuel making as the government assumes you're a
moonshiner. Just having the still is an offence without a licence and a
government locked ethanol collector. Reasoning with these people is a
waste of time.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

William Graham wrote:


If you mix 85% alcohol and 15% water with air in the right proportions, will
it explode in a combustion chamber? If not, then how does a garage still
remove that water?

It will run a car with 15% water, but the mixture of water and ethanol
is corrosive due to the oxygen disolved in the water. That's why as
much water as possible needs to be removed.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:50:28 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
Martindale) wrote:


Ron Hunter writes:


I have a set of drawings to make a high efficiency still ... will yield
about 85% ethanol.

What's the other 15%?

Water, and traces of other volatiles in the original feedstock. The
boiling point of water isn't that much above ethanol, and there's a lot
more water than ethanol in the raw fermented input, so at temperatures
where all the ethanol evaporates, a substantial amount of water also
evaporates. Condenser temperatures that condense the ethanol also
condense most of the water vapour. So there's always some water in the
output of a still.


The boiling point of ethanol is 172.76° F, at sea level.
It's not hard at all to regulate liquids that well that it will remain
below 212°F.
The impurities aren't so much water as solvents, fusel oil, and
methanol.

Most of those are trapped in the lower section and extracted. The
ethanol stage is better than 99% ethanol + water.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

William Graham wrote:


Makes a libertarian like me want to set up one of your stills and work it
24/7 even if I just flushed its output down the toilet.....(which I would
probably have to do, since I can't drink the stuff.....It interferes with a
couple of my diabetes medications.)

I believe I've sent you this link before Bill:
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/

The drawings and build instructions were about $30.

You will need and ATF licence but that doesn't cost much and in the US
they assume that if you get a licence for a stated purpose (fuel) that
that's what it's for. Here in Canada you are assumed to be evilly
making moonshine.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

William Graham wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

(Note: to make "E85" you need near 100% Ethanol (or rather 0% water in
the ethanol). As much water as possible needs to be removed. Dewatering
the ethanol requires Zeolite or similar materials. Having a "denaturing"
agent (gasoline) in the ethanol will ruin the zeolite.)

I have a set of drawings to make a high efficiency still ... will yield
about 85% ethanol.

Cheers,
Alan


How many gallons can your still make over a 16 hour period, Alan?

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/

Will tell you. A few batches on a given day will keep you running for a
couple weeks. You will need a flex-fuel car (E85) and don't forget to
add the gasoline to the mix (15% (by volume I believe)).

At this scale it is a batch process. If you do it right you use waste
heat from batch 1 to pre-heat batch 2 (post fermented batches), and
waste heat from batch 2 to pre-heat batch 3 and so on. A 40 gallon
"batch" of fermented mash will take about 1 - 2 hours to process and
produce about 4 - 5 gallons of ethanol. YMMV as it depends on what the
mash source is and how well it fermented. The "waste" mash can be fed
to pigs or cattle; possibly used as a fertilizer.

As a feedstock for the mash find local breweries/wineries and take away
their "leavings" and bad batches of beer/wine. This will need little or
no fermenting.

Farmers molasses (that hasn't had the sugar removed)
Rotten, spoiled, wasted fruit and "sweet" veggies (local markets,
restaurants, etc.)
(Corn, carrots, and other high sugar veggies).
You'll need yeasts to start the fermenting too...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Ron Hunter wrote:

Good question. There is a significant difference between producing 1
liter/day, and producing 10 gallons. The liter would be enough for
drinking purposes, but inadequate for use as a motor fuel.

A batch of fermeted mash is typically 10 - 15% ethanol. And you get
pretty much all of it out. More mash, more ethanol.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , acl
wrote:

jeremy wrote:
mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars.
Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal
and smaller overall size.

So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size?


Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just
some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take
high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever
start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue
for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I
want METAL around me. The more the better.

Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one?

From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in
Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a
firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the
difference in outcomes.

Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on
the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor
vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles
(and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a
tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle
with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle
in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength
(literally).


Aren't the lighter bodies designed to use crumple zones to reduce the
forces of impact upon the passengers by
absorbing the impact as opposed to the driver feeling 100% of the
impact (which would result in a higher percentage of injury) while
using a firm, non-flexible body on their car? Newer cars seem to have
better crash test ratings than older, not-so flexible cars.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:25:13 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

In addition, the armed citizen still acts as the best limit to the abuse
of citizens by the government.

Eh? So if taxes go up too much, you march on Washington waving
handguns? Or if your local sheriff gets above himself, you shoot
him? What on earth are you talking about?

yes, both have happened, and it is eXACTLY what was intended.