Re: Citizenship silliness. Re: e$: crypto-expatriatism (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 11:46:40 -0500
> From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
> Subject: Re: Citizenship silliness.  Re: e$: crypto-expatriatism (fwd)

> >That'll work for gasoline because soap and gasoline are soluble. I doubt it
> >would work very well for alcohol but once I get this mess with the tree
> >straightened out I'll do a little backyard experiment.
> >
> >What I had in mind was to pour some alcohol on the concrete drive way and
> >light it. Then use a waterbottle with a water/soap mix. Do you think that
> >would be a suitable simulation?
> 
> 	No.

Ok, then what would be a suitable test in your view?

It seems to me that after reviewing your comments this would be sufficient.
We have a small pool of fuel that is on fire, we spray water on it and
monitor the behaviour. We then create another similar pool and spary water
w/ detergent in it and note any differences.

> 	The point of using the detergent has nothing to do with it's
> solubility in gasoline/kerosene (I have much more experience with JP5 than
> gas, and JP5 is basically a high grade kerosene/diesel), but rather it is
> there to break up the water tension & allow the water to "float" on top of
> the gas/oil/whatever.

Actualy it's to keep the water from forming 'beads' because of differences
in density. The surface tension of water is much higher than most fuels so
if you put a little water in a lot of fuel you don't want it to bead. This
is analogouse to why you put your injector cleaner in *before* the gas so
that the difference in density won't effect the thoroughness of the mixing.
You can do the same sort of thing at home with cooking oil, water, and
detergent.

As to water floating on top of gasoline, it won't for any lentgh of time
greater than a fraction of a second, detergent or no detergent.

> 	Actually, by using solar heating/cooling techiques instead of
> (ineffecient) conversion to electicity, you can save MUCH more energy.

I have several friends who are as fanatical about this technology as you
seem to be. I find it interesting that in 20 years of playing with it they
are still in the red.

The proof is in the pudding.

> 	I don't see how, you just get it up there inside the orbit of the
> earth, and let gravity do the rest.

If it was ONLY that simple. When you leave the Earth you have the Earths
orbital momental (and it is considerable). I'll refer you to:

Classical Mechanics (2nd ed)
HC Corben, P. Stehle
ISBN 0-486-68063-0 (Dover)
$10.95

Introduction to Space Dynamics
WT Thomson
ISBN 0-486-65113-4 (Dover)
$8.00

Because I'm way to lazy today to want to delve in to triple-integrals and
such.

> 	I don't mind killing a salamander or 100, but I don't want my
> electric supply, and it's attendant costs to be dependent on ONE
> technology, or source of supply.

If there is any alternative that will fulfill the requirements and doesn't
require the arbitrary collateral damage then it isn't worth it, period. If
for no other reason than the ethical responsibility to pass on the world as
undamaged as possible to the next generation. (another oversite in current
economic thought that I find makes it unusable)

> 	We already have the have/have not situatiuon.

True, but only because the current energy sources are located in specific
geographic areas.

> 	I think there is also this issue that NG doesn't "burn" when the
> tank cracks, it "explodes", and when it does burn, it is very similar to
> alcohol in that it doesn't have much of a flame.

Actualy natural gas isn't any more flamable than gasoline or alcohol. What
makes it safer is the gas diffuses in the air much faster than either
alcohol or gasoline. In fact, in an accident I'd rather have a gas involved
than a liquid because of this. I've seen several natural gas fires and they
burn a yellow-orange (course they could be putting something in there
besides the odorant to cause this).


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 12:50 PM -0500 9/10/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>> 	No.
>
>Ok, then what would be a suitable test in your view?
>
>It seems to me that after reviewing your comments this would be sufficient.
>We have a small pool of fuel that is on fire, we spray water on it and
>monitor the behaviour. We then create another similar pool and spary water
>w/ detergent in it and note any differences.

	Well, we used to dump 1000-3000 gallons of waste fuels into a pit,
but I'd guess a decent size bucket or tray would work.

	We had a smaller pit about 5x3 feet.

	I'd also suggest using a water extinguisher, the kind you can
refill/recharge yourself. There are some out there, the big silver kind
where you can unscrew the top and fill with your liquid of choice, then
presurize with  a tire pump. As an aside, one _could_ fill these with a
combination of gasoline and a gelling agent to make a short range flame
thrower, not that that would be a smart or safe thing to do (really, there
wouldn't be much to keep the flame from wandering back up inside the
cylinder, and haveing it explode in your hands would make it very hard to
type...).

	Also, I know from experience it IS possible to put out a gasoline
fire with straight water. You dump enough on, and it cools the liquid down
to the point where combustion is not possible.

	It can take a bit of doing, but in the case of a car or light
truck, we are talking no more than 10 or 20 gallons of fuel, tops.

>> 	The point of using the detergent has nothing to do with it's
>> solubility in gasoline/kerosene (I have much more experience with JP5 than
>> gas, and JP5 is basically a high grade kerosene/diesel), but rather it is
>> there to break up the water tension & allow the water to "float" on top of
>> the gas/oil/whatever.
>
>Actualy it's to keep the water from forming 'beads' because of differences
>in density. The surface tension of water is much higher than most fuels so
>if you put a little water in a lot of fuel you don't want it to bead. This

	As I said, I know "just a bit" about this. I know that we would
often get the bubbles from the detergent/water combo floating on top of
everything, assisting in preventing a reflash by keeping a blanket between
the air and the fuel/water.

>As to water floating on top of gasoline, it won't for any lentgh of time
>greater than a fraction of a second, detergent or no detergent.

	The longer it takes, the better it works.


>> 	Actually, by using solar heating/cooling techiques instead of
>> (ineffecient) conversion to electicity, you can save MUCH more energy.
>
>I have several friends who are as fanatical about this technology as you
>seem to be. I find it interesting that in 20 years of playing with it they
>are still in the red.

	A "friend" of my fathers has been heating his home with it longer
than I've known him, and that's about 20 years. Had his investment returned
a LONG time ago.

>The proof is in the pudding.

	As with many things, it's the implementation, not just the
underlying technology.

>> 	I don't see how, you just get it up there inside the orbit of the
>> earth, and let gravity do the rest.
>
>If it was ONLY that simple. When you leave the Earth you have the Earths
>orbital momental (and it is considerable). I'll refer you to:

	Ok, like I said, "I don't see how". I hadn't considered all the
angles, but then, I don't play with rockets much.

	My father didn't like me playing with fire, so it wasn't an option
as a child.

>Because I'm way to lazy today to want to delve in to triple-integrals and
>such.

	I doubt I'd understand the math at this point. One of my failings.

>> 	I don't mind killing a salamander or 100, but I don't want my
>> electric supply, and it's attendant costs to be dependent on ONE
>> technology, or source of supply.
>
>If there is any alternative that will fulfill the requirements and doesn't
>require the arbitrary collateral damage then it isn't worth it, period. If

	I'll go that far.

>for no other reason than the ethical responsibility to pass on the world as
>undamaged as possible to the next generation. (another oversite in current
>economic thought that I find makes it unusable)

	Well, there's damaged, and there's damaged.

>Actualy natural gas isn't any more flamable than gasoline or alcohol. What
>makes it safer is the gas diffuses in the air much faster than either
>alcohol or gasoline. In fact, in an accident I'd rather have a gas involved
>than a liquid because of this. I've seen several natural gas fires and they
>burn a yellow-orange (course they could be putting something in there
>besides the odorant to cause this).

	Question, when you said that there we'd need more land under
production than we have available to produce enough CHO3 (IIRC) to replace
oil, was that using current corn/soybean as a base material, or was that
considering higher biomass stuff such as Hemp &etc. As well, where was that
number from?

	I really do think that the best option is massively diversified
energy sources, with each working in their places.

petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.

At 6:11 PM -0500 9/10/98, Michael Motyka wrote:
>I'm -almost- ready to admit defeat and move on.
>
>> Did you see the part where I mention that I am (a) an ex-marine,
>IMHO Marines burn just like the rest of us wimps. They just don't scream
>as much.

	Yeah, but the part you cut was about being afraid of fire. I am
not, I respect it, but it doesn't frighten me.

>> You ever seen 3000 gallons of jet fuel burn,
>AOED the biggest fire I've seen was the fire here in CA last month. 6-8
>Million tires. Nobody had the balls to put that one out. At peak 1000X
>your jet fuel deal. Scary. Very.

	Yeah, but the 3000 gals. of waste fuel was deliberate, for training.

	Burning tires really suck. Almost impossible to get water, or any
coolant down into where the fire is burning, and the heating of the rubber
gives of some really noxious fumes.

>> 5 gals. of burning gasoline is NOT a problem.
>ISASI ( it sure as shit is ) if you're wearing it on your back.
>> 5 Gals. cooking off in a sealed container IS a problem.
>FYI 5 ounces mixed with compressed air in a metal container could easily
>be fatal.

	If you read my original post again, I talk about this very problem.

>> Fuck you.
>Yes, yes, PTMYT ( pleased to meet you too ).

	You suggested that I belong on AOL. I say again, Fuck You.

>Remember, shit draws flies. There'll just be more geniuses asking how to

	This is cypherpunks, we talk about what we want. Ask Tim.

>make noncryptographic devices. I would enjoy some crypto-tech talk.

	Ok, how about using fires as a source of entropy?

>Found any cool primitive polynomials lately? Got a good block cipher
>with a 4096 bit block size and an even bigger key space? Got some time
>to donate to actually put together some good HW/SW systems?

	Nope, not right now.

petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.

Happy Fourth of July! and how did this thread start?

Petro wrote:
> 
>         I'd also suggest using a water extinguisher, the kind you can
> refill/recharge yourself. There are some out there, the big silver kind
> where you can unscrew the top and fill with your liquid of choice, then
> presurize with  a tire pump. As an aside, one _could_ fill these with a
> combination of gasoline and a gelling agent to make a short range flame
> thrower, not that that would be a smart or safe thing to do (really, there
> wouldn't be much to keep the flame from wandering back up inside the
> cylinder, and haveing it explode in your hands would make it very hard to
> type...).
> 
Actually these things are usually inverted so that the liquid is fed out
from the bottom so the hose probably won't act like a fuse. At least
until the liquid runs out and there is a combustible pathway into the
container. If you try this one could you get someone to videotape it
from a safe distance? It would make a great AVI for an 'anarchists on
the web' site.

At least mention nitrogen or helium. 
But COMPRESSED_AIR + GASOLINE? 
Are you one nut short of a matched pair? 
Gasoline scares the hell out of me. It should you.
You don't live anywhere near me do you?
You should try baking bread instead.
Don't you think this conversation should be continued on some AOL forum? 

egads,
Mike

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <35F83878.62D5@lsil.com>, on 09/10/98 
   at 01:37 PM, Michael Motyka <mmotyka@lsil.com> said:

>Don't you think this conversation should be continued on some AOL forum? 

You mean this *isn't* an AOL forum!?!

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.openpgp.net
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: For a good time, call 1-800-3IBMOS2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNfg+go9Co1n+aLhhAQF24wP/bYFcSg3fUVtiQ2X4EQ6jYCZkTXpnAJb7
oHfyxvrDfYMjjGHs0H8yMQOyVF5XMarBtO9gLE/QAFUm0gIIzv6bi9shvVy+WjI4
hSqCdVewtTi1X7luW/njHEpg3VbnP9TiLthmG/lKZskIfRPDD1vqMi5PNH2OG/8e
PCtephoQxmo=
=wbUW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 3:37 PM -0500 9/10/98, Michael Motyka wrote:
>Happy Fourth of July! and how did this thread start?
>Petro wrote:
>>         I'd also suggest using a water extinguisher, the kind you can
>> refill/recharge yourself. There are some out there, the big silver kind
>> where you can unscrew the top and fill with your liquid of choice, then
>> presurize with  a tire pump. As an aside, one _could_ fill these with a
>> combination of gasoline and a gelling agent to make a short range flame
>> thrower, not that that would be a smart or safe thing to do (really, there
>> wouldn't be much to keep the flame from wandering back up inside the
>> cylinder, and haveing it explode in your hands would make it very hard to
>> type...).
>Actually these things are usually inverted so that the liquid is fed out
>from the bottom so the hose probably won't act like a fuse. At least

	Some are, some aren't. depends on the age.

>until the liquid runs out and there is a combustible pathway into the
>container. If you try this one could you get someone to videotape it
>from a safe distance? It would make a great AVI for an 'anarchists on
>the web' site.

	Ummm, I live in the middle of Chicago, I don't think it's going to
be anytime soon.

>At least mention nitrogen or helium.

	Yeah, but it's harder to get than Air, which can be done with a
bicycle pump.

>But COMPRESSED_AIR + GASOLINE?
>Are you one nut short of a matched pair?
>Gasoline scares the hell out of me. It should you.

	Did you see the part where I mention that I am (a) an ex-marine,
and that (b) whilst in the Marine Corpse I was in Aircraft Firefighting and
Rescue? You ever seen 3000 gallons of jet fuel burn, and it was your job to
get up close and personal with a fire hose.

	5 gals. of burning gasoline is NOT a problem. 5 Gals. cooking off
in a sealed container IS a problem.

>You don't live anywhere near me do you?

	You live in S.F. right?

>You should try baking bread instead.

	Boring.

>Don't you think this conversation should be continued on some AOL forum?

	Fuck you.

petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.

I'm -almost- ready to admit defeat and move on.

> Did you see the part where I mention that I am (a) an ex-marine,
IMHO Marines burn just like the rest of us wimps. They just don't scream
as much.

> You ever seen 3000 gallons of jet fuel burn,
AOED the biggest fire I've seen was the fire here in CA last month. 6-8
Million tires. Nobody had the balls to put that one out. At peak 1000X
your jet fuel deal. Scary. Very.

> 5 gals. of burning gasoline is NOT a problem. 
ISASI ( it sure as shit is ) if you're wearing it on your back. 

> 5 Gals. cooking off in a sealed container IS a problem.
FYI 5 ounces mixed with compressed air in a metal container could easily
be fatal.

> Fuck you.
Yes, yes, PTMYT ( pleased to meet you too ).

Remember, shit draws flies. There'll just be more geniuses asking how to
make noncryptographic devices. I would enjoy some crypto-tech talk.
Found any cool primitive polynomials lately? Got a good block cipher
with a 4096 bit block size and an even bigger key space? Got some time
to donate to actually put together some good HW/SW systems?

Mike