X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.234] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3076326 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:29:30 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.198.234; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f6so368978rvb.7 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:28:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=ZkaS1YMCvCZCm3nZ2ECZ1aMsa863t7JX9FlNCFsXu74=; b=iyiD+toocpDFI5eHEQ542sCyHTvqY9iHCe2Gasp3ftV6XL87OuW1TYyYM/iZWgqk8P bL5CYBzcNUdaZp63MN14m8T9+GG9aTeKPWwBGhaNokUcDjhLHkvVXBT820eC3l8k4tif prE1bcdRynkZ33ea79so1IT/U7FFwnuBfP9Vs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=t4AM+hJAuytYvWXBgZGHI2jB8l8yA7gTwVT0aGu92wEg7bpnZk2aFULifByf4TW38Y 8CM7nz6ytzxYgTh+Ep9FmMoHoQrwyPepIPfIckYxnC2Af8dv0LlDWpZMR+cAkK8wPwgL AYKJvYgcfiUm5OeXnNfnIht1p6WGom4yzuWbE= Received: by 10.140.226.13 with SMTP id y13mr647662rvg.2.1218720527150; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.41.18 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1b4b137c0808140628w4a3e60d5p16cab739a6b17cf5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:28:47 -0400 From: "Tracy Crook" Sender: rwstracy@gmail.com To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: MoGas In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_104023_18048056.1218720527145" References: X-Google-Sender-Auth: 78ee1179c923c6cf ------=_Part_104023_18048056.1218720527145 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Really ticks you off doesn't it. Using our tax dollars to support this insanity. (As if that's something new :>) George wrote: "I read an article I found somewhere that Corn actually produces more alcohol (per bushel) than any other crop, for instance sugar cane produces about 1/3 rd less." You've been getting your reading material from some very suspect sources (Corn Farming Weelky? :>). This is scientifically verifiable BS. Sugarcane is about 8 times more efficient that corn. It's so good that the US Gov. is "protecting" us by banning imports of Brasilian ethanol. Just not fair competition for corn farmers. Must change subjects, I'll flunk my 3'rd class physical due to high blood pressure. Tracy On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 8:56 AM, wrote: > I'm not Charlie either, but my brother-in-law Dave in Standish MI now > receives a Gov. check because he agreed to commit some of his corn for > ethanol use from his dairy farm, how is this helping????? David Cook RV6A > Rotary ( WARNING!!!!!!! DO NOT USE TIGHT-SEAL FROM AIRCRAFT SPRUCE FOR > SENDER COVERS ON FUEL TANKS, MOGAS WILL DISSOLVE & LEAK ) Re-sealing both > tanks now, any suggestions as to what gskt. sealer (not permanent) to use? > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: "Al Gietzen" > > > I'm not Charlie but in my opinion, corn is one of the worst due to > > competition w/ food consumers. > > ------------- > > > > I'm not Charlie either, but in my opinion corn is the worst because it is > a > > no-gainer - meaning it takes as much energy (+- depending on data source) > to > > produce the corn and make the ethanol as you get back from the ethanol. > And > > burning ethanol still puts CO2 into the atmosphere. If it weren't for the > > > heavy lobbying (read campaign contributions and other perks for > politicians) > > by the major grain companies (ADM, Cargil, etc.) over the past decade or > > more; who are now making big bucks producing the stuff from corn with > > government subsidies - there would not be a corn/ethanol program in this > > country. > > > > Making ethanol from sugar cane, as they do in Brazil, makes some sense. > > They are achieving energy out/energy in of greater than 8 : 1 in the > newer > > plants. > > > > Al G > > > > > > > > -- > > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > ------=_Part_104023_18048056.1218720527145 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Really ticks you off doesn't it.   Using our tax dollars to support this insanity.  (As if that's something new :>)
 
George wrote:
"I read an article I found somewhere that Corn actually produces more alcohol (per bushel) than any other crop, for instance sugar cane produces about 1/3 rd less."
 
 You've been getting your reading material from some very suspect sources (Corn Farming Weelky? :>).  This is scientifically verifiable BS.  Sugarcane is about 8 times more efficient that corn.  It's so good that the US Gov.  is "protecting" us by banning imports of Brasilian ethanol.  Just not fair competition for corn farmers.   
 
Must change subjects, I'll flunk my 3'rd class physical due to high blood pressure.
 
Tracy 

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 8:56 AM, <hoursaway1@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm not Charlie either, but my brother-in-law Dave in Standish MI now receives a Gov. check because he agreed to commit some of his corn for ethanol use from his dairy farm, how is this helping????? David Cook  RV6A Rotary  ( WARNING!!!!!!!  DO NOT USE TIGHT-SEAL FROM AIRCRAFT SPRUCE FOR SENDER COVERS ON FUEL TANKS, MOGAS WILL DISSOLVE & LEAK )  Re-sealing both tanks now, any suggestions as to what gskt. sealer (not permanent) to use?
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Al Gietzen" <ALVentures@cox.net>

> I'm not Charlie but in my opinion, corn is one of the worst due to
> competition w/ food consumers.
> -------------
>
> I'm not Charlie either, but in my opinion corn is the worst because it is a
> no-gainer - meaning it takes as much energy (+- depending on data source) to
> produce the corn and make the ethanol as you get back from the ethanol. And
> burning ethanol still puts CO2 into the atmosphere. If it weren't for the
> heavy lobbying (read campaign contributions and other perks for politicians)
> by the major grain companies (ADM, Cargil, etc.) over the past decade or
> more; who are now making big bucks producing the stuff from corn with
> government subsidies - there would not be a corn/ethanol program in this
> country.
>
> Making ethanol from sugar cane, as they do in Brazil, makes some sense.
> They are achieving energy out/energy in of greater than 8 : 1 in the newer
> plants.
>
> Al G
>
>
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html

------=_Part_104023_18048056.1218720527145--