{ASSD} Al Steiner needs expertise
Uther Pendragon
reference 'cause my newsreader keeps threads alphabetised in the order of
the first (uncurlied, in this case) order.
Al Steiner <stein...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello to all,
> I've received many, many requests since finishing Aftermath in 2001 for a
> sequel to the story, most specifically, a sequel that picks up some years
> later with the next generation. I'm not making any promises as of yet, but
> lets say I've worked myself around to start thinking over the details of
> such a story. I have a loose plot in mind and I'm trying to compose some
> notes and details for what I'm thinking. I know there are many people out
> there more knowledgeable on certain things than myself so I'm turning to the
> ASSD crowd to answer a few questions for me.
> How feasible is it to run a modern internal combustion engine - say a light
> truck or automobile or even a two-stroke engine - on alcohol. The survivors
> would be able to grow grain and distill their own booze. Could they make
> high-proof grain alcohol and use it to power pre-existing engines? Or are
> too many modifications necessary for a now-primitive society to utilize such
> a tactic?
In the first place, distilling to that proof is one hard job. In the
second, the engine would need some modification, and would gum up
frequently. Remember that repairs would have to be:
1) Without a source of parts -- except canibalized other engines.
2) Require skilled experts. Mechanics.
3) Have to be done on cars fairly old right now. (Modern autos are too
dependent on things like imbedded electronics.)
Put 2 and 3 together. You'd need somebody who was well-experienced with
old cars as well as skilled and ingenious *now*. How old is he today?
How old will he be then?
> Another question. Electricity. Could a generator hooked up to an
> intermittant source such as a windmill or windmills be used to power a high
> usuage device such as a freezer compressor? Specifically, what I had in
> mind was a well-insulated, underground freezer that could used to preserve
> meat through hot months. This would mean the compressor would not have to
> run all that often, but there is no means to store the electricity. We'll
> assume a fairly steady wind of 10-30 mph, but it would occasionally die out
> for a day or two, or even a wee at a time. Before it is mentioned,
> hydroelectric is unfeasable since the water source would be too far away and
> even the water flow is somewhat intermittant.
Again, I'm always dubious about post-holocaust technology. Today, we can
send off for the parts.
One possibility, if everything else works, is a storage of mechanical
energy. I've seen it suggested as pumped water for hydro-power; seems
like that wouldn't work where you're thinking of. Could the elecrticity,
or just the windmill, be used to winch stones up a height, and then those
stones fall pulling a rope which ran the -- or another -- generator.
Still sounds like a *lot* of effort. People post-holocaust would be
struggling to grow enough to feed themselves. (Plows you could pull by
horses, even horses themselves, would be scarce. Plenty of scrap steel
around, how much of it could be worked with primitive tools? Who do we
know today who could work steel with primitive tools?)
What's wrong with fire-dried meat? Smoked meat?
--
Uther Pendragon FAQs http://www.nyx.net/~anon584c
anon...@nyx.net fiqshn http://www.asstr.org/~Uther_Pendragon
Doug Taylor
wrote:
>> Another question. Electricity. Could a generator hooked up to an
>> intermittant source such as a windmill or windmills be used to power a high
>> usuage device such as a freezer compressor? Specifically, what I had in
>> mind was a well-insulated, underground freezer that could used to preserve
>> meat through hot months. This would mean the compressor would not have to
>> run all that often, but there is no means to store the electricity. We'll
>> assume a fairly steady wind of 10-30 mph, but it would occasionally die out
>> for a day or two, or even a wee at a time. Before it is mentioned,
>> hydroelectric is unfeasable since the water source would be too far away and
>> even the water flow is somewhat intermittant.
>
There was a technology that was in use up until the middle of the last
century that could be used. The Ice House, basically Ice was cut
during winter and transported into an underground chamber and used to
keep the temperature lower. Remember about 2 metres down, the
temperature is reasonably stable, staying at around the annual
average.
As to the engine problem, I suppose you could have a geriatric
Brazilian mechanic to hand, they use Alcohol extensively as a fuel. I
would disagree about the difficulties of distilling alcohol to a high
enough proof for fuel, again it is an ancient technology, in use long
before the industrial revolution.
Why not consider external combustion engines i.e. the steam engine.
Highly polluting maybe but I doubt whether that would be of concern in
post apocolyptic world.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>The first piece of expertise is to use the curlies. I've killed the
My thought on Al's fuel question was 'methane'/'methanol'--methane's a
lot easier to make than high-proof alcohol, and an agri-society would
have the raw material.
>> Another question. Electricity. Could a generator hooked up to an
>> intermittant source such as a windmill or windmills be used to power a high
>> usuage device such as a freezer compressor? Specifically, what I had in
>> mind was a well-insulated, underground freezer that could used to preserve
>> meat through hot months. This would mean the compressor would not have to
>> run all that often, but there is no means to store the electricity. We'll
>> assume a fairly steady wind of 10-30 mph, but it would occasionally die out
>> for a day or two, or even a wee at a time. Before it is mentioned,
>> hydroelectric is unfeasable since the water source would be too far away and
>> even the water flow is somewhat intermittant.
>
>Again, I'm always dubious about post-holocaust technology. Today, we can
>send off for the parts.
>
>One possibility, if everything else works, is a storage of mechanical
>energy. I've seen it suggested as pumped water for hydro-power; seems
>like that wouldn't work where you're thinking of. Could the elecrticity,
>or just the windmill, be used to winch stones up a height, and then those
>stones fall pulling a rope which ran the -- or another -- generator.
>
>Still sounds like a *lot* of effort. People post-holocaust would be
>struggling to grow enough to feed themselves. (Plows you could pull by
>horses, even horses themselves, would be scarce. Plenty of scrap steel
>around, how much of it could be worked with primitive tools? Who do we
>know today who could work steel with primitive tools?)
>
>What's wrong with fire-dried meat? Smoked meat?
Strikes me that this would be a helluva good thread in alt.callahans;
I've seen most of these topics covered there at one time or another.
But of course for Al's purposes, the fuel/engine question and the
wind-generation question don't have to be solved fully--just enough
for some plausibility in his fiction.
--
-denny-
Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans
Girl Friday
"Denny Wheeler" <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:h1bm60t93qfbve342...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> >> How feasible is it to run a modern internal combustion engine - say a
light
> >> truck or automobile or even a two-stroke engine - on alcohol. The
survivors
> >> would be able to grow grain and distill their own booze. Could they
make
> >> high-proof grain alcohol and use it to power pre-existing engines? Or
are
> >> too many modifications necessary for a now-primitive society to utilize
such
> >> a tactic?
<snip>
> My thought on Al's fuel question was 'methane'/'methanol'--methane's a
> lot easier to make than high-proof alcohol, and an agri-society would
> have the raw material.
I have a thought. I don't know if it's a valid one because my own memory is
spotty. Back in the 1970s during the gas crisis, my father modified our
family car to burn wood as a fuel source. Yes, that's correct - a wood
burning car. I don't remember a lot of how it worked (I was at most 9 years
old at the time) but he put a 55 gallon drum on the back that held the wood
as it burned, the fumes went through all types of other bizarre additions
before they made it to the engine.
You wouldn't believe how often we got pulled over by the police wanting to
know what the heck was going on with our car, but the darn thing worked. I'm
sorry I can't remember more of the *how*. It may be something worth
investigating though.
cmsix
<snip>
light
> > truck or automobile or even a two-stroke engine - on alcohol. The
survivors
> > would be able to grow grain and distill their own booze. Could they
make
> > high-proof grain alcohol and use it to power pre-existing engines? Or
are
> > too many modifications necessary for a now-primitive society to utilize
such
> > a tactic?
Making modern day automobiles that have electronic fuel injection run on
alcohol would be very difficult. On the other hand, making older models that
use carburetors is not very difficult at all.
The biggest difference is that alcohol contains some oxygen. This means that
the engine needs a fuel/air mixture that contains more fuel. I said more
fuel, not less air. The speed of gasoline engines is controlled by the
amount of air the are allowed via the throttle and the carburetor mixes in
fuel to match the amount of air that is allowed in. Changing the fuel
mixture is done with a nearly trivial modification to the size of the
"jets." This change will give you an engine that will run but some of the
niceties that you expect in your everyday car will be more difficult, for
example, idling will not be as smooth.
I'm not very familiar with distilling alcohol but I know that it is possible
to distill alcohol "at home" that can be used to power automobile engines.
Another real problem with using alcohol is its tendency to "acquire" water,
especially in very humid conditions.
The largest problem with using alcohol for fuel in and engine that was
designed to run on gasoline is ending up with a mixture that is too "lean"
and burning parts such as valves or piston tops.
Of course windmills can power a freezer. Drive east from Los Angeles on
I-10. Getting wind to make electricity is not the problem. Whether or not
there were any windmills left after the disaster is up to you.
You've pointed out that you might not be able to store the electricity. For
this job you don't need to store electricity, you need to keep heat from
your frozen food. Putting it underground gives you a head start but you will
still need good insulation.
I don't know if you are familiar with the "walk-in" freezers that were once
common in grocery stores. The older ones were fairly easy to disassemble and
re-assemble. After they are down to their operating temperature they could
maintain it for a day or two as long as the door isn't opened. Putting
something like that underground where the ambient temperature is lower
anyway could only increase the length of time they could keep the meat
without electricity.
Scale is one of the things I'm wondering about. How many people are you
thinking about supporting and how many of them have any knowledge of how
previous technology worked? How much and what exactly can be saved from
before.
I have hands on experience with making automobile engines run on alcohol. I
don't have any experience with distilling the alcohol.
I have disassembled and re-assembled a couple of walk-in freezers but I'm
not familiar with the specifics of how much power they use. I seem to
remember that the refrigeration units run less than half of the time.
One portable welding machine, modified to run on alcohol could furnish all
the power needed to run a lot of refrigeration units during a "no wind"
emergency.
In my opinion, availability of "spare parts" is of more concern to people
who are not depending on them for their life. If it comes down to "fixing
what's broke" or starving, a good handyman will find a way. I would.
If you think I can help in any way I'll be more than happy to try. I have a
vested interest. I wasn't one of those that wrote asking for a sequel but I
would be happier than a pig in shit to see it pop up.
cmsix
cmsix
"Girl Friday" <girl_fr...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:106mfas...@corp.supernews.com...
I've read about this too. I think it was used during WWII in some places.
cmsix
>
> Friday
> http://www.asstr.org/~Girl_Friday/
>
>
>
Al Steiner
proof alcohol is not hard, despite the poster who claimed it was. If a
bunch of hillbillies can make everclear, which is close to pure alcohol, I'm
sure a bunch of post-comet survivors could do so as well. If I'm hearing
correctly, it sounds like the alcohol WILL run vehicles, but only older
vehicles and only with some inherent problems. Keep the suggestions
coming.... please.
But first, a few more details of what I'm thinking. Let me know if I'm off
base in any way.
In the society I'm envisioning, sixteen years will have gone by since we
last heard from our comet survivors. In that time, they've settled in and
stabilized and built. Horses will be the primary means of transport but
when they do need to use vehicles or engines, I want them to be able to do
that if possible. That's where the alcohol fueling comes in. They will
still have aircraft, but its been sixteen years. Is the jet fuel the
aircraft burn still good?
In the sixteen years that have gone by, they will have had time to construct
any manner of things. Windmills equipped with pre-existing generators are
just one thing. I'm also envisioning a dammed stream and a reservoir for
drinking water and an aqueduct to transport the water for consumption by the
town and, most importantly, for irrigation of farmland. The El Dorado Hills
community will be roughly 1000 to 1500 people (they've been breeding like
mad since we left them), and their main focus will be farming and
agriculture. They will grow grains, vegetables, and have fruit orchards.
They will have horses, cows, and chickens. The growing season, however,
will be short, since a new ice age is in the works, so food storage will be
a concern. I'm not a farmer, nor have I ever been one, so any help here
would be appreciated. How many people does a cow feed? When do you
slaughter them?
cmsix
"Al Steiner" <stein...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:106mkv4...@corp.supernews.com...
> cmsix gave me a good start on what I was looking for here. Making high
> proof alcohol is not hard, despite the poster who claimed it was. If a
> bunch of hillbillies can make everclear, which is close to pure alcohol,
I'm
> sure a bunch of post-comet survivors could do so as well. If I'm hearing
> correctly, it sounds like the alcohol WILL run vehicles, but only older
> vehicles and only with some inherent problems. Keep the suggestions
> coming.... please.
>
> But first, a few more details of what I'm thinking. Let me know if I'm
off
> base in any way.
>
> In the society I'm envisioning, sixteen years will have gone by since we
> last heard from our comet survivors. In that time, they've settled in and
> stabilized and built. Horses will be the primary means of transport but
> when they do need to use vehicles or engines, I want them to be able to do
> that if possible. That's where the alcohol fueling comes in. They will
> still have aircraft, but its been sixteen years. Is the jet fuel the
> aircraft burn still good?
Jet fuel is close to, if not exactly, kerosene. It is very stable but I'm
not sure exactly how long it last. I have a friend (I know that's hard to
believe.) that is a petroleum distributor. He is out of town toady but I'll
ask him for specifics on jet fuel when he gets home.
cmsix
fumunda cheeze
in existece, even though primitive, by today's standard at the time.
(Gosh, I remember when engines only has 2 valves per cylinder)
Gary
cmsix
Pleas tell me Jessica is still dead.
cmsix
tphile
cmsix wrote:
> "Al Steiner" <stein...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>In the society I'm envisioning, sixteen years will have gone by since we
>>last heard from our comet survivors. In that time, they've settled in and
>>stabilized and built. Horses will be the primary means of transport but
>>when they do need to use vehicles or engines, I want them to be able to do
>>that if possible. That's where the alcohol fueling comes in. They will
>>still have aircraft, but its been sixteen years. Is the jet fuel the
>>aircraft burn still good?
>
>
> Jet fuel is close to, if not exactly, kerosene. It is very stable but I'm
> not sure exactly how long it last. I have a friend (I know that's hard to
> believe.) that is a petroleum distributor. He is out of town toady but I'll
> ask him for specifics on jet fuel when he gets home.
>
> cmsix
and after sixteen years, what condition will they be in? Exposed to
weather, little or no maintenance. Who would be still qualified to
operate and work on them? What practial use would they be.
If anything the prop bi-planes of WWI and barnstorming days are more
usefull, easier to land in natural or short runways., crop dusting.
self defense, ariel surveys. The Spirit of St Louis may fly again.
F-16s won't fly on kerosene, Jet Fuel JP-4 is very specialized for the
task. you also need liquid oxygen, special lubricating oil and
hydraulic fluids.
tphile
Al Steiner
Hello to all,
I've received many, many requests since finishing Aftermath in 2001 for a
sequel to the story, most specifically, a sequel that picks up some years
later with the next generation. I'm not making any promises as of yet, but
lets say I've worked myself around to start thinking over the details of
such a story. I have a loose plot in mind and I'm trying to compose some
notes and details for what I'm thinking. I know there are many people out
there more knowledgeable on certain things than myself so I'm turning to the
ASSD crowd to answer a few questions for me.
How feasible is it to run a modern internal combustion engine - say a light
truck or automobile or even a two-stroke engine - on alcohol. The survivors
would be able to grow grain and distill their own booze. Could they make
high-proof grain alcohol and use it to power pre-existing engines? Or are
too many modifications necessary for a now-primitive society to utilize such
a tactic?
Another question. Electricity. Could a generator hooked up to an
intermittant source such as a windmill or windmills be used to power a high
usuage device such as a freezer compressor? Specifically, what I had in
mind was a well-insulated, underground freezer that could used to preserve
meat through hot months. This would mean the compressor would not have to
run all that often, but there is no means to store the electricity. We'll
assume a fairly steady wind of 10-30 mph, but it would occasionally die out
for a day or two, or even a wee at a time. Before it is mentioned,
hydroelectric is unfeasable since the water source would be too far away and
even the water flow is somewhat intermittant.
Those are my primary questions, I may have more as I develop more thoughts.
Come on ASSD people. Help me out here!
Al Steiner
And......
cmsix gave me a good start on what I was looking for here. Making high
proof alcohol is not hard, despite the poster who claimed it was. If a
bunch of hillbillies can make everclear, which is close to pure alcohol, I'm
sure a bunch of post-comet survivors could do so as well. If I'm hearing
correctly, it sounds like the alcohol WILL run vehicles, but only older
vehicles and only with some inherent problems. Keep the suggestions
coming.... please.
But first, a few more details of what I'm thinking. Let me know if I'm off
base in any way.
In the society I'm envisioning, sixteen years will have gone by since we
last heard from our comet survivors. In that time, they've settled in and
stabilized and built. Horses will be the primary means of transport but
when they do need to use vehicles or engines, I want them to be able to do
that if possible. That's where the alcohol fueling comes in. They will
still have aircraft, but its been sixteen years. Is the jet fuel the
aircraft burn still good?
In the sixteen years that have gone by, they will have had time to construct
cmsix
> Forgive me about the curlies. I have sinned. Here it is again.
>
> Hello to all,
>
> cmsix gave me a good start on what I was looking for here. Making high
> proof alcohol is not hard, despite the poster who claimed it was. If a
> bunch of hillbillies can make everclear, which is close to pure alcohol,
I'm
> sure a bunch of post-comet survivors could do so as well. If I'm hearing
> correctly, it sounds like the alcohol WILL run vehicles, but only older
> vehicles and only with some inherent problems. Keep the suggestions
> coming.... please.
>
Older is a relative thing as far as the vehicles go. I don't recall ever
seeing the year of Aftermath. Carbureators were still used on some
production cars and trucks in the eighties.
cmsix
<snip>
Tanstaafl
Also, I wonder what the current relationship with Auburn is? Did the
combined Garden Hill and El Dorado Hills communities ever make contact with
the new regime there.
So many question!
Lew
cmsix <cm...@cmsixDONTSPAMME.com> wrote in message
news:_QIac.10242$lt2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Brogan Wayfarer
wrote:
>The first piece of expertise is to use the curlies. I've killed the
Well, a freind of mine in Nebraska, that grows corn, recycles part of
the corn stalks (the section right next to where the ear grows out, is
full of sugar like sugar cane) to make "corn squeezins" alcohol that
he runs all of his farm equipment with. He has to put in an additive
to make it poisonous to drink to make ATF and IRS happy. It currently
requires a permit for the still. Alcohol produces a lot more
horsepower than gasoline, and it burns clean (just ask a race car
enthusiast).
>> Another question. Electricity. Could a generator hooked up to an
>> intermittant source such as a windmill or windmills be used to power a high
>> usuage device such as a freezer compressor? Specifically, what I had in
>> mind was a well-insulated, underground freezer that could used to preserve
>> meat through hot months. This would mean the compressor would not have to
>> run all that often, but there is no means to store the electricity. We'll
>> assume a fairly steady wind of 10-30 mph, but it would occasionally die out
>> for a day or two, or even a wee at a time. Before it is mentioned,
>> hydroelectric is unfeasable since the water source would be too far away and
>> even the water flow is somewhat intermittant.
>
There are ways to make rudimentary batteries if the compressors could
be made to run on DC pwer. Some parts of the country have enough wind
power to generate power full time, but I don't know about the area
that your story takes place.
>Again, I'm always dubious about post-holocaust technology. Today, we can
>send off for the parts.
>
Brogan
PS: Aftermath is such a great story, you need to submit it to someone
and try ro get them to make a movie out of it!
Vulgar Argot
wrote:
>The first piece of expertise is to use the curlies. I've killed the
>reference 'cause my newsreader keeps threads alphabetised in the order of
>the first (uncurlied, in this case) order.
I remember a product called gasohol from the 1970s, but a quick google
comes up with the fact that said product was always at least 90%
gasoline.
There's a product called E85 that is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline
which many American cars have been equipped to run on since 1988.
Methanol-based gasolines are labor-intensive to produce, toxic, and
corrosive. The emissions produce carcinogenic formaldehyde and have
ozone depleting properties far greater than petroleum fuels. They also
tend to eat away at the rubber bits that hold an engine together.
According to Eric Flint in _1633_, it's also possible to get modern
engines to run on naptha, a petroleum product that was used in
lanterns in the 17th century, but I don't know the details. I never
finished the book.
--Vulgar Argot
http://www.asstr.org/~VulgarArgot
--
"Vulgarity begins when imagination succumbs to the explicit."
--Doris Day
Gary Jordan
Great Googly Moogly!
I have good news and bad news. An enormous amount of research into these
subjects has been done, for a totally different story (1632 by Eric Flint).
Much of the research is available at Baen's Bar. Eric Flint made the same call
for assistance.
HIS story deals with several thousand contemporary rural Americans being
"teleported" in time, along with the town of Mannington, West Virginia (called
Grantville in the books), to the year 1632 in Thuringia, Germany. Questions
about alcohol as fuel, vehicle maintenance, etc. are answered there.
The bad news is that some of the questions aren't necessarily the "right"
questions. Never mind how many people can be fed by one cow, horse, or
sheep... how many acres of grass/feed/corn whatever does it take to feed each
critter for a year, beyond what humans must cultivate for themselves?
There's no new source of antibiotics, which are as important to animals as
humans. Gotta find a surviving Vet. And surviving pharmacists. And
herbalists.
Marijuana just became very important as an analgesic, and hemp as a fiber
source. Clothing lasts a finite time. Gotta relearn how to make cloth,
thread, etc.
Steam technology is far older than the others, but someone needs to know how to
put it together. Reclaiming a generator from a trashed power plant is possible,
but a motor or steam engine to turn it is much more difficult.
Millions of cars to salvage. Every one of them has a lead-acid battery. Window
glass for greenhouses. All that sheetmetal... gotta salvage it and store it in
a cold dry location.
Sugar. Better find beets or maple trees, cane sugar will be difficult to
import. Salt. Pepper. Spices.
Oh my! What about shoes? You don't just cobble up a pair in a month, and
softening leather for moccasans isn't a snap. Better salvage the "fine
Corynthian leather" from those Chryslers, as well.
Good luck.
Gary Jordan
"Old submariners never die--at least, not on the surface..."
<I>"This communicating of a man's self to his friend works two contrary
effects, for it redoubleth joys, and cutteth griefs in half." - Francis Bacon,
Essays </I>
RodR
Hi Al,
Interesting concept, I look forward to reading the sequel. I hope my
answers help.
> > I've received many, many requests since finishing Aftermath in 2001 for a
> > sequel to the story, most specifically, a sequel that picks up some years
> > later with the next generation. I'm not making any promises as of yet, but
> > lets say I've worked myself around to start thinking over the details of
> > such a story. I have a loose plot in mind and I'm trying to compose some
> > notes and details for what I'm thinking. I know there are many people out
> > there more knowledgeable on certain things than myself so I'm turning to the
> > ASSD crowd to answer a few questions for me.
>
> > How feasible is it to run a modern internal combustion engine - say a light
> > truck or automobile or even a two-stroke engine - on alcohol. The survivors
> > would be able to grow grain and distill their own booze. Could they make
> > high-proof grain alcohol and use it to power pre-existing engines? Or are
> > too many modifications necessary for a now-primitive society to utilize such
> > a tactic?
I would be more inclined to try and extract the vegetable oil from the
corn or other grains rather than distill the alcohol. A diesel engine
could be run on a refined veg oil. That would give you access to
tractors (mostly diesel) for the farming. Autos have been converted to
run on ethanol but as Uther also mentioned most modern autos are
highly electronics dependent.
I would look toward steam engines for electical power as well as
locomotive. Google on steam engines, I know there are clubs out there
that build them in various sizes.
>
> > Another question. Electricity. Could a generator hooked up to an
> > intermittant source such as a windmill or windmills be used to power a high
> > usuage device such as a freezer compressor? Specifically, what I had in
> > mind was a well-insulated, underground freezer that could used to preserve
> > meat through hot months. This would mean the compressor would not have to
> > run all that often, but there is no means to store the electricity. We'll
> > assume a fairly steady wind of 10-30 mph, but it would occasionally die out
> > for a day or two, or even a wee at a time. Before it is mentioned,
> > hydroelectric is unfeasable since the water source would be too far away and
> > even the water flow is somewhat intermittant.
As noted above, I would look to steam power for electricity, or
replace the electric motor all together with steam power.
You could build a windmill that could be coupled to the compressor as
well, no need for electricity at all. A windmill could also be used to
pump water from the wells you would need to irrigate your crops. The
first windmills were built for that purpose.
More questions to be answered, if not already answered:
What's the availability of salt for curing the meat instead of
freezing it? Humans survived for millenia on cured meats and dried
fruits.
Is there a blacksmith or someone that can learn fast? You're going to
need one.
How about a gunsmith? You'll soon need to convert to blackpowder and
ball firearms when the nitro-celulose gunpowder runs out.
Good luck,
Rod
>
tphile
Here is a usefull site
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/
you can find steam engines there as well.
Al,
what websites references are you already using?
tphile
Wiseguy
passenger cars from the mid 70's. When using diesel fuel these cars
got 2-3 times the fuel economy of their gasoline-powered counterparts
so they enjoyed a sudden rise in popularity. I recall being told at
the time that you can run a diesel engine on almost any suitably
combustible fluid including kerosene, gasohol, or plain old grain
alcohol. Never heard of anyone actually doing it, though.
-wg
Uther Pendragon <anon...@nyx.net> wrote in message news:<10807613...@irys.nyx.net>...
Gary Jordan
I mentioned your request to Alexis - she does primitive camping in Alaska, and
is knowledgeable in survival skills - especially in cold weather - and said,
"Actually, would you do this? If he posted it in ASSD, respond for me? Say
that you mentioned it to me, and if he's interested he could e-mail me about
it." mailto:alexisinalaska@aol.com
RealLifeDragon
First, in order to convert any grain into alcohol, you are going to need a good
supply of sugar. Grain by itself will not produce enough to ferment to the 10
to 12 per cent you need to begin the distilling process. Rough and dirty
figure is, you'll need about 5 lbs of sugar for each bushel of corn, barley,
wheat, oats, rye, etc.
If you can get that, then the rest is fairly easy. You start by mixing the
grain and sugar with water and monitor the temperature with a wine thermometer.
In the setting they were in, I'm sure someone was making wine, so that should
not be a big problem.
Once the temperture reaches the point that it shows it ready, you will be at 10
to 12 per cent alcohol content.
Then you will need a heat source to bring the mash mixture to a slow boil. To
capture the steam that produces, you will need a tight fitting lid to what ever
you are boiling it in. To the top of that, you will need to attach a funnel,
upside down to direct the steam into the coiled metal tubing. Copper is best.
That will, of course, exit to a collection pot, sealed to prevent evaporation.
For each distilling process, you raise the alcohol content 100%,i.e., 10 to 20,
20 to 40, 40 to 80, etc. You are going to need a lot of grain and sugar to
distill enough alcohol to run vehicles.
Converting the older vehicles that do not have the electronic ignitions
systems, is not much of a problem. The ones that had the old plugs and points
with a carburator will be the ones that work the best. The timing can be
adjusted. Of course you will want to eliminate the mufflers on all of them.
They just consume energy.
The alcohol will burn a lot cleaner than the gasoline, so pollution will not be
much of a problem. The storage will me much more of a problem. The gas tanks
will need to be air tight to eliminate evaporation, which is much greater than
gasoline.
One thing you might consider. It was listed in another post. The drainage
from the storage of any stalked plant will produce an alcohol by-product. You
could start with that and distill it to make the process shorter, at least
shorter after the stalks ferment.
Hope this helps. My kin ran their cars on distilled alcohol during WWII whent
they had rationed gasoline. They didn't have a problem finding fuel, it was
the rationed tires that was the real problem.
RLD
iconoclast
<snipping lots>
> How feasible is it to run a modern internal combustion engine -
> say a light truck or automobile or even a two-stroke engine - on
> alcohol. The survivors would be able to grow grain and distill
> their own booze. Could they make high-proof grain alcohol and
> use it to power pre-existing engines? Or are too many
> modifications necessary for a now-primitive society to utilize
> such a tactic?
As others have noted the real problem is with the advanced
electronics and fuel injection used in modern internal combustion
engines. One solution would be to use only simple engines, either two
stroke or four stroke, though I have a feeling that a two stroke
engine such as is used in dirt bikes or outboard motors would need
too much oil mixed in the fuel to be a feasible solution. So that
leaves diesel engines, which can be run without modification on a
variety of fuels, or simple gasolines engines. Many European auto
brands come with diesel engines, which are much more popular in
Europe than in North America, so scavenging old VW or Mercedes
diesels would be the way to go. Another alternative which is much
more fuel friendly is a motorcycle with an uncomplicated twin piston
four stroke engine such as a Harley or a dirt bike. In terms of being
a people mover the motorcycle can't be beat for fuel economy, which
is obviously going to be critical in a subsistence society. The use
of sidecars or trike conversions or trailers also allows extra
passenger or freight haulage. The problem with all of these is that
even using an alternative fuel there is a nontrivial cost to create
that fuel, both in terms of the resources used for the plant which
makes the fuel and the resources used in the fuel itself. The US
Department of Energy has some answers on their (very minimal)
alternative fuels site _http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuels.html
> In the sixteen years that have gone by, they will have had time
> to construct any manner of things. Windmills equipped with
> pre-existing generators are just one thing. I'm also
> envisioning a dammed stream and a reservoir for drinking water
> and an aqueduct to transport the water for consumption by the
> town and, most importantly, for irrigation of farmland. The El
> Dorado Hills community will be roughly 1000 to 1500 people
> (they've been breeding like mad since we left them), and their
> main focus will be farming and agriculture. They will grow
> grains, vegetables, and have fruit orchards. They will have
> horses, cows, and chickens. The growing season, however, will
> be short, since a new ice age is in the works, so food storage
> will be a concern. I'm not a farmer, nor have I ever been one,
> so any help here would be appreciated. How many people does a
> cow feed? When do you slaughter them?
The major problems in food production are yield and harvesting. First
they have to get non-GM grains for seed, since most GM foods will not
produce self-germinating seeds. This will automatically reduce the
yield benefits of the crops, since that's what GM foods are designed
for. Fertilizer? Not available unless you find a stock of it
somewhere. The fallback position is manure (animal and night soil) or
compost, both of which require larger amounts of labour to process
and distribute than chemical fertilizers. Insecticides and
herbicides, same thing unless you find a stock in some warehouse.
Weeding becomes (again) very labour intensive and you will have to
accept a much greater degree of loss of crops to insects and vermin.
When you finally get to harvest your reduced crop it's going to be
much harder than now. If you can't find machinery such as harvesters
and the fuel to keep them running (or convert them to horse-drawn
use) then it's back to technology you can produce, like scythes. In
any case the yield per acre will be much reduced and at a higher cost
of labour input.
For most things think about the situation in the western world before
the industrial revolution. In your story the survivors have all of
the books and knowledge to recreate a modern world. What they lack is
the manpower and skills to create the tools to make the tools to make
even some modern machinery. Without a large group (a town of 1,500 is
just not big enough by itself) they cannot hope to make even a small
production facility much less a factory, especially when the real
priority has to be producing and storing enough food.
A rough rule of thumb which applied to preindustrial Europe and to
third world countries today, even China which is rapidly trying to
break into the first world, is that the farmers and service workers
form about 80% of the total population. Not because they want to be
but because that's what it takes to support a nonfarming class of
workers in preindustrial societies.
In the books by Eric Flint which others have mentioned there were
about 3,000 modern survivors, but they had a whole continent of
farmers and skilled tradesmen to provide the labour for producing the
essentials, and a large supply of unskilled workers who could be
trained into becoming production workers who could eventually build
the tools to make the tools to expand their lifestyle.
Just my thoughts. I'm fascinated by the problem but I see no quick
fix.
Iconoclast
kreisthorn
at
shaw
dot
ca
FranzKafka79
> "Girl Friday" <girl_fr...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:106mfas...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
(snipped)
> > Back in the 1970s during the gas crisis, my father modified our
> > family car to burn wood as a fuel source. Yes, that's correct - a wood
> > burning car.
(snipped)
>
> I've read about this too. I think it was used during WWII in some places.
>
> cmsix
>
Yes it was used in Germany in WWII and also in the time after war,
perhaps to early fifties, I was not born yet, but my Grandpa told me.
Have a nice day.
FranzKafka79
smilodon
cmsix <cm...@cmsixDONTSPAMME.com> wrote in message
news:qXHac.10157$lt2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> news:106mfas...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Denny Wheeler" <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote in message
> > news:h1bm60t93qfbve342...@4ax.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> is
> > spotty. Back in the 1970s during the gas crisis, my father modified our
> > family car to burn wood as a fuel source. Yes, that's correct - a wood
> > burning car. I don't remember a lot of how it worked (I was at most 9
> years
> > old at the time) but he put a 55 gallon drum on the back that held the
> wood
> > as it burned, the fumes went through all types of other bizarre
additions
> > before they made it to the engine.
> >
> > You wouldn't believe how often we got pulled over by the police wanting
to
> > know what the heck was going on with our car, but the darn thing worked.
> I'm
> > sorry I can't remember more of the *how*. It may be something worth
> > investigating though.
>
> I've read about this too. I think it was used during WWII in some places.
>
> cmsix
It was used extensively in German-occupied France. They also used coal gas,
alcohol and methanol. The important thing is that i/c engines then were a
lot simpler and used carburettors rather than fuel injection. A modern car
would die of shock as so many of them have been engineered to reduce
emissions and extract maximum fuel economy. Big old lumps from the '40s and
50's would be much more forgiving. Alternatively, something made in the
former USSR would probably be robust enough one of the old Lada Niva jeeps
springs to mind.
As for the electricity thing, might there not be a case for a simple
steam-powered generator? There should be enough bits lying around to fashion
such. My pa-in-law, for one, would have no trouble making one. He built a
scale steam traction engine from scratch. So, someone like him, who spent
his career metal-bashing could certainly improvise something. Steam drives a
piston driving a flywheel etc. With a little more sophistication it could
drive a turbine, although that might be more tricky to make.
smilodon
Tim Merrigan
Vulgar Argot wrote:
I haven't read Mr. Flint's books, in fact I've only just heard about
them here in the last couple days. But, my understanding is that
naphtha is essentially a naturally occurring petroleum product roughly
equivalent to gasoline. Basically very very light crude. I don't know
of any in the United States, though I've heard (in "The Prize" by Danial
Yergin) that Seneca oil, in Pennsylvania, was light enough to burn as it
came out of the ground.
I have to admit that I haven read "Aftermath", so I don't know anything,
beyond what's been said here, about it.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Tim Merrigan
smilodon
> cmsix gave me a good start on what I was looking for here. Making high
> proof alcohol is not hard, despite the poster who claimed it was. If a
> bunch of hillbillies can make everclear, which is close to pure alcohol,
I'm
> sure a bunch of post-comet survivors could do so as well. If I'm hearing
> correctly, it sounds like the alcohol WILL run vehicles, but only older
> vehicles and only with some inherent problems. Keep the suggestions
> coming.... please.
>
> But first, a few more details of what I'm thinking. Let me know if I'm
off
> base in any way.
>
> In the society I'm envisioning, sixteen years will have gone by since we
> last heard from our comet survivors. In that time, they've settled in and
> stabilized and built. Horses will be the primary means of transport but
> when they do need to use vehicles or engines, I want them to be able to do
> that if possible. That's where the alcohol fueling comes in. They will
> still have aircraft, but its been sixteen years. Is the jet fuel the
> aircraft burn still good?
The biggest fuel problem would be contamination by water. A larger problem
is the sophistication of the aircraft and its avionic systems. Maintenance
and spares would be a really big issue. Again, something more primitive with
a wood/doped canvas construction would be easier or even something like a
microlite with an i/c engine that could also be persuaded to run on alcohol.
To keep a modern aircaft flying, you would need a minimum of three areas of
expertise - engines, electronics and airframes. Someone suggested an old
bi-plane. That could work with an engines specialist and a good carpenter!
>
> In the sixteen years that have gone by, they will have had time to
construct
> any manner of things. Windmills equipped with pre-existing generators are
> just one thing. I'm also envisioning a dammed stream and a reservoir for
> drinking water and an aqueduct to transport the water for consumption by
the
> town and, most importantly, for irrigation of farmland. The El Dorado
Hills
> community will be roughly 1000 to 1500 people (they've been breeding like
> mad since we left them), and their main focus will be farming and
> agriculture. They will grow grains, vegetables, and have fruit orchards.
> They will have horses, cows, and chickens. The growing season, however,
> will be short, since a new ice age is in the works, so food storage will
be
> a concern. I'm not a farmer, nor have I ever been one, so any help here
> would be appreciated. How many people does a cow feed? When do you
> slaughter them?
The main problem for cattle is fodder. It does depend upon the breed but,
mostly, beef is slaughtered after a minimum of two years. Some breeds grow a
lot more slowly and they wouldn't have the steroids to make them bulk up
quickly. Slaughtering too early would be very wasteful with more resources
and energy being consumed than gained. They could grow winter crops like
kale and beets for fodder but would have to gather a lot of hay to keep the
herd alive. Pigs and goats are easier to keep and pigs can be slaughtered
after six to nine months, keeping only the breeding herd alive. They can
also be fed on the human food waste. My uncle was a pig-farmer and he always
said you could use every part of a pig except the squeal! Goats can provide
milk and are almost self-sufficient.
Hope this helps
smilodon
Tim Merrigan
source of moving water, would be a water wheel.
Also, what are you picturing in the way of windmills? Unless you
already have one in the area I doubt any, or all, of your characters
could build one of the modern wind turbine generators. On the other
hand it shouldn't be that difficult to build an old style "sail" windmill.
But both those options would probably be more efficiently used directly
for their rotary energy, then to generate electricity. (If you need a
reserve of relatively readily accessible power, you could use the
windmill to pump water into a reservoir for the water wheel.)
Also, while the lead acid batterys from cars will hold you for a while,
you might also look into leiden jars, though I don't remember off hand
whether they're actually batteries of capacitors.
You mentioned up thread that your characters had, among other things,
orchards. You _do_ realize that after sixteen years, depending on what
trees they planted, they might be just getting their first crops from them.
Are you far enough south that you can grow flax (for linen) or cotton,
or are you going to have to depend on hemp and wool? Does anyone know
how to make paper? Or parchment?
Koala2
> wind-generation question don't have to be solved fully--just enough
> for some plausibility in his fiction.
If the know how ist there it shouldnt be to difficult to build a
simple (huge) lead based Wet Battery
Koala2
> spotty. Back in the 1970s during the gas crisis, my father modified our
> family car to burn wood as a fuel source. Yes, that's correct - a wood
> burning car. I don't remember a lot of how it worked (I was at most 9 years
> old at the time) but he put a 55 gallon drum on the back that held the wood
> as it burned, the fumes went through all types of other bizarre additions
> before they made it to the engine.
>
> You wouldn't believe how often we got pulled over by the police wanting to
> know what the heck was going on with our car, but the darn thing worked. I'm
> sorry I can't remember more of the *how*. It may be something worth
> investigating though.
Yes this has to work, my grandfather used a VW Beetle running on Wood
after WWII here in Germany
Doug Taylor
wrote:
In Europe Carburretors were still used in production cars until the
mid 90s. Most trucks run on diesel and so have direct injection.
>
>cmsix
>
>
><snip>
>
Allison George
<stein...@hotmail.com> wrote:
WOW, something I actually know something about!!! Before I moved back
up north I spent several years working in materials acquisition for
Coca-Cola down in Atlanta. We bought and sold all kinds of
agricultural futures to minimize production costs. It was pretty
esoteric stuff. Anyway, I did a lot of work in this area as well as
research into basic commodities. I also remember a bunch of stuff
from freshman chemistry (whoa, is that a number of years ago) that may
or may not be helpful. In addition, you might want to read Paul
Theroux's "The Mosquito Coast;" he covers a bunch of techno stuff like
you want to do in your book. I can't remember all of it as I read it
about ten years ago.
>Forgive me about the curlies. I have sinned. Here it is again.
>
>How feasible is it to run a modern internal combustion engine - say a light
>truck or automobile or even a two-stroke engine - on alcohol. The survivors
>would be able to grow grain and distill their own booze. Could they make
>high-proof grain alcohol and use it to power pre-existing engines? Or are
>too many modifications necessary for a now-primitive society to utilize such
>a tactic?
>
Yes you can do it. A number people have already noted that Brazil
does basically this today. Another way to go is to produce biodesal
fuel from soybeans. This is also being done today and may not require
as much energy to produce as does alcohol distillation.
>Another question. Electricity. Could a generator hooked up to an
>intermittant source such as a windmill or windmills be used to power a high
>usuage device such as a freezer compressor?
I think that this is covered in the Theroux book. It is possible.
ciao,
Allison
Rick Pikul
wise...@hotmail.com says...
> I'm no expert, but I do have distant memories of diesel-powered
> passenger cars from the mid 70's. When using diesel fuel these cars
> got 2-3 times the fuel economy of their gasoline-powered counterparts
> so they enjoyed a sudden rise in popularity. I recall being told at
> the time that you can run a diesel engine on almost any suitably
> combustible fluid including kerosene, gasohol, or plain old grain
> alcohol. Never heard of anyone actually doing it, though.
Quite a few do it, using seed oils: The buzzword is bio-diesel,
and it is actually a better fuel than refined diesel oil, (although it
really came into use for tax reasons, you don't pay fuel taxes when you
buy cooking oil).
--
Phoenix
Hecate
<stein...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How feasible is it to run a modern internal combustion engine - say a light
>truck or automobile or even a two-stroke engine - on alcohol. The survivors
>would be able to grow grain and distill their own booze. Could they make
>high-proof grain alcohol and use it to power pre-existing engines? Or are
>too many modifications necessary for a now-primitive society to utilize such
>a tactic?
>
>Another question. Electricity. Could a generator hooked up to an
>intermittant source such as a windmill or windmills be used to power a high
>usuage device such as a freezer compressor? Specifically, what I had in
>mind was a well-insulated, underground freezer that could used to preserve
>meat through hot months. This would mean the compressor would not have to
>run all that often, but there is no means to store the electricity. We'll
>assume a fairly steady wind of 10-30 mph, but it would occasionally die out
>for a day or two, or even a wee at a time. Before it is mentioned,
>hydroelectric is unfeasable since the water source would be too far away and
>even the water flow is somewhat intermittant.
>
Lots of people have already given you plenty of answers to those
questions. I haven't read Aftermath (never really had the time, though
it's on my list of things to do as everyone says how good it is).
But, I'd like to make one suggestion. I don't what range of
specialties your characters have, but if you;'re looking to produce
fuel etc., from biomass, you should make one a biochemist. There are
a lot of things you can do with plant and animal enzymes and so forth
that don't require high tech labs or anything like it. Plus, any
halfway decent biochemist would be able to produce simple drugs like
aspirin from scratch.
--
Hecate
Hec...@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Leonard Jensen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Uther Pendragon" <anon...@nyx.net>
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.d
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: {ASSD} Al Steiner needs expertise
>
> > How feasible is it to run a modern internal combustion engine - say a
light
> > truck or automobile or even a two-stroke engine - on alcohol. The
survivors
> > would be able to grow grain and distill their own booze. Could they
make
> > high-proof grain alcohol and use it to power pre-existing engines? Or
are
> > too many modifications necessary for a now-primitive society to utilize
such
> > a tactic?
>
> In the first place, distilling to that proof is one hard job. In the
> second, the engine would need some modification, and would gum up
> frequently. Remember that repairs would have to be:
> 1) Without a source of parts -- except canibalized other engines.
> 2) Require skilled experts. Mechanics.
> 3) Have to be done on cars fairly old right now. (Modern autos are too
> dependent on things like imbedded electronics.)
> Put 2 and 3 together. You'd need somebody who was well-experienced with
> old cars as well as skilled and ingenious *now*. How old is he today?
> How old will he be then?
>
Running an internal combustion engine on alcohol is not THAT difficult. Many
modern race
cars run on alcohol because of its higher octane, which allows higher
compression ratios.
CART and Indy cars run on alcohol for that reason, with turbocharger
pressures quite high.
The conversion from gas to alcohol for a street car to run at all requires
rejetting the carburator,
but more important for reliability is replacing the rubber bits and pieces
in the older cars with
neoprene rubber so that it does not react with the alcohol fuel.
Most newer cars now have done the rubber replacement in order to work with
the "oxygenated"
fuel sold in places like California. The carb has been replaced with
electronic fuel injection and the
"rejetting" is done by reprogramming the fuel injection memory chip.
Consider what level of technology your group will be able to achieve. If you
don't know these things,
will your characters? How might they find out? Consider reading from the
Science Fiction genre
as these problems have been researched by far more knowledgable people than
I. You might enjoy
or get ideas from _Lucifer's Hammer_ by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.
often, but there is no means to store the electricity. We'll
> > assume a fairly steady wind of 10-30 mph, but it would occasionally die
out
> > for a day or two, or even a wee at a time. Before it is mentioned,
> > hydroelectric is unfeasable since the water source would be too far away
and
> > even the water flow is somewhat intermittant.
>
> Again, I'm always dubious about post-holocaust technology. Today, we can
> send off for the parts.
>
Consider the "OLD" technologies such as steam power. A steam powerd
compressor
running an amonia cycle refrigeration system could be assembled from
junkyard
components. Perhaps easier might be the absorbtion refrigeration cycle. That
works
with an open flame and no compressor at all. You might consider looking
these things
up on _how things work_ which is a web site. I don't know the URL offhand.
> One possibility, if everything else works, is a storage of mechanical
> energy. I've seen it suggested as pumped water for hydro-power; seems
> like that wouldn't work where you're thinking of. Could the elecrticity,
> or just the windmill, be used to winch stones up a height, and then those
> stones fall pulling a rope which ran the -- or another -- generator.
>
> Still sounds like a *lot* of effort. People post-holocaust would be
> struggling to grow enough to feed themselves. (Plows you could pull by
> horses, even horses themselves, would be scarce. Plenty of scrap steel
> around, how much of it could be worked with primitive tools? Who do we
> know today who could work steel with primitive tools?)
>
> What's wrong with fire-dried meat? Smoked meat?
>
Quite right - look at how the western settlers did things. You know that
worked.
Even steam power needed machine tools like mills and lathes to turn and
machine
the machinery that we today take for granted. Don't forget the little things
like
a ready sourse of lubrication oil and grease. I suspect that your characters
do not
have a handy oil well. If they did, I would want to build a small refinery
and
alcohol conversion would not be an issue.
I have not read your story, so no I have no way of knowing.
tphile
cmsix wrote:
> Pleas tell me Jessica is still dead.
>
> cmsix
>
>
Yes, Please tell us Jessica is NOT going to be in it.
Al, as a Lucifers Hammer fan, I really enjoyed Aftermath.
I liked how you plotted out the survivalist details
and the matriarchy spin was an interesting and logical idea.
and you did a good job avoiding the pandering cliches.
but imho the weakest part was Jessica.
She ended up looking to much like a plot device, she shifted
from villian to hero to villian for no apparent reason other
than you needed a convenient adversary.
just my two cents
tphile
Katzmarek
It actually runs on coal gas, (Methane) extracted from the carbonised
wood, (wood coke) The engine has to be jetted especially to enable it
run. Here, they were called charcoal burners and were quite common
during the war.
The gas has to be purified of contaminants in some way, that would
account for the 'additions' you mention.
An internal combustion engine will run on a variety of fuels actually,
providing the carburators are modified to cope with the different
conbustive qualities. Early 'Diesel type' compression-ignition engines
ran on Kerosine (Parafin). They were called 'Koertings' and smoked
prodigiously.
Ethanol, distilled from licquer, was a panic method of providing Avgas
to the Luftwaffe's Reich Defence aircraft. However it seriously
shortened the life of the engine. Methanol and water had been used as
a boost for aeroplane engines for years anyway. Even with sodium
cooling to the exhaust valves, it will fry the engine eventually.
Don
Tesseract
...
> The biggest fuel problem would be contamination by water. A larger problem
> is the sophistication of the aircraft and its avionic systems. Maintenance
> and spares would be a really big issue. Again, something more primitive with
> a wood/doped canvas construction would be easier or even something like a
> microlite with an i/c engine that could also be persuaded to run on alcohol.
> To keep a modern aircaft flying, you would need a minimum of three areas of
> expertise - engines, electronics and airframes. Someone suggested an old
> bi-plane. That could work with an engines specialist and a good carpenter!
I keep hearing stories about DC3s being held together with bailing
wire. I think that was the last commercial sized plane that was so
robust.
--
Tesseract
dotB
> proof alcohol is not hard, despite the poster who claimed it was. If a
> bunch of hillbillies can make everclear, which is close to pure alcohol, I'm
> sure a bunch of post-comet survivors could do so as well. If I'm hearing
> correctly, it sounds like the alcohol WILL run vehicles, but only older
> vehicles and only with some inherent problems. Keep the suggestions
> coming.... please.
>
> base in any way.
>
> In the society I'm envisioning, sixteen years will have gone by since we
> last heard from our comet survivors. In that time, they've settled in and
> stabilized and built. Horses will be the primary means of transport but
> when they do need to use vehicles or engines, I want them to be able to do
> that if possible. That's where the alcohol fueling comes in. They will
> still have aircraft, but its been sixteen years. Is the jet fuel the
> aircraft burn still good?
>
> any manner of things. Windmills equipped with pre-existing generators are
> just one thing. I'm also envisioning a dammed stream and a reservoir for
> drinking water and an aqueduct to transport the water for consumption by the
> town and, most importantly, for irrigation of farmland. The El Dorado Hills
> community will be roughly 1000 to 1500 people (they've been breeding like
> mad since we left them), and their main focus will be farming and
> agriculture. They will grow grains, vegetables, and have fruit orchards.
> They will have horses, cows, and chickens. The growing season, however,
> will be short, since a new ice age is in the works, so food storage will be
> a concern. I'm not a farmer, nor have I ever been one, so any help here
> would be appreciated. How many people does a cow feed? When do you
> slaughter them?
Subsistence technology:
Let's start with food - the basic problem is provision of essential
nutrients, in other words a balanced diet. Gardening will provide you
with vegetables and fruits, plus some proteins. Remember that you'll
probably need horses or oxen for transport and haulage until you get
some form of reliable power and although there's prejudice against it
horse flesh is a good source of protein. When it comes to animal
protein however the conversion of raw material (hay, grain, etc.) into
food stuff the beef animal is a poor choice but as a milk producer it
tops the line. Both horses and cows breed slowly, one colt or calf per
year. A pig gains weight much faster and has a higher yield of protein
per pound of intake and a sow can have three litters a year, with a
yield of perhaps eight piglets per litter in less than perfect
conditions. A goat can scavenge most any vegetable matter into food
and can be used as a milk source and often has two kids per year
(Milk, butter, cheese, meat etc.). A sheep while more picky than a
goat yields wool, often one to two lambs each year. Chickens, ducks,
geese and turkeys can give eggs and meat plus they are useful as
‘relative free range' animals. Don't forget vermin control - cats ,
ferrets etc for small vermin - dogs for herding and protection from
wild predators etc.
If you want cold storage, I wouldn't go to refrigeration - use an old
fashioned ice house and use sawdust as insulation. You just build a
shed with double walls up to two feet apart and fill with sawdust,
wood shavings, anything that is slow to decay and high in air space
between fibres for insulation. Make sure there is drainage for melt
water so it won't get the insulation layer wet. You cut the ice and
stack it in the ice house in winter, surrounding the ice with sawdust
and store your perishables in the empty space so that as the ice melts
it keeps it cold.
Both flax seed and rapeseed (or Canola) will provide oil if pressed.
Rapeseed is a form of mustard and is far easier to grow with a larger
yield, but flax stalks can be processed to provide fibres which can be
processed into thread and woven into linen. The oil from either plant
can be used for lamp-oil, lubrication, etc. Rapeseed oil is also
edible. Almost any animal fat can also provide lubrication if it is
rendered out of the raw form simply by heating and separating it, or
by using lye, a rough soap can be produced.
Most modern fuels degrade if they stand for any length of time unless
they are treated with conditioners and kept cool. Also modern oils
degrade into a varnish if left to sit because of loss of the volatile
portions. Also most of them contain additives that are somewhat
hygroscopic and the degradation is brought on by the inclusion of the
water. Any vehicle that had sat for long would need to be dismantled
and cleaned before it could be run and all the electrical components
would be suspect it they had sat for long. Diesel would be the
preferable route, burning some of that rapeseed oil.
Obtaining the sugars to produce enough alcohol for fuel would be
difficult, however methane is produce easily from animal waste and can
be used in place of propane for powering vehicles. I'd check on the
power difference, you might need to experiment with that or find a
good conversion formula.
As I've said e-mail if you have other questions, I have a very broad
scope of experience and while I may not know the answers off hand, I
usually know who to ask to get the answers I don't know.
.B
Uther Pendragon
First, Denny said (to paraphrase) that you don't need a solution,
all you need is something plausible. Well, those aren't the
rules by which I'm playing. (And, anyway, some things are more
plausible to some of us than they are to others.)
When you compare a post-holocaust society with past conditions,
you get several advantages and several disadvantages.
Advantages:
1 You have one shitload of scrap/supplies.
You have already-refined steel, copper, lead, and *aluminum*.
And every grocery store you can reach is piled high with glass
and plastic containers; never mind the contents, do you know how
much effort you save by having ready-made containers? And a
library.
2 You have the *idea* of horse collars, candles, soap,
spinning wheels, scythes, and chimneys. You have the germ theory
of disease.
Disadvantages:
1 Your supplies are inappropriate for the level of technology
you need. I mentioned, as others have, electronic-ignition cars.
For that matter, you would find most of your scrap steel
unworkable in a village-smithy type forge. When the rubber tires
run out -- and they won't last forever even in storage --
tractors can run on steel wheels. The first ones did. But
making the steel wheels is one more task. Where is the nearest
grain mill?
2 You lack most of the skills you need for that level of
technology, as well. You know that spinning wheels would be
useful. Who among you can operate one? Who among you has ever
built one? And those lacks contribute to each other, for the
skilled spinners could tell the wheel-makers what their first
products lack in comparison with the spinning wheels they are
used to.
Your modern doctor is much more effective than the 19th-century
general practitioner, but how effective is he when his pharmacy
is (used up / past its expiration date)?
Soap can be made from fat and ashes; but who among you knows how?
And who among you is used to that sort of soap? Assuming horses
were really available in the numbers you'd need, training horses
to pull plows is a non-trivial task.
3 Your people are unused to and have lost all genetic
adaptations to those conditions. Al talks about breeding like
rabbits. Sure, especially when contraceptives are mostly
unavailable. But you'd also have a huge infant-mortality rate
and a significant child-bearing mortality rate.
You'd have some protection from infectious diseases because
you're isolated from most of humanity -- what little is left.
But sooner or later a pandemic would sweep through the community.
4 The population base would be too small to support all sorts
of things. Sure, *most* of the consumption of earlier times was
produced right there, but not quite all.
- = -
One problem I have with all sorts of survival-community
literature is that the numbers don't add up.
Modern agriculture uses seed which is produced thus: Two strains
of one species are grown pure separately. Then they are
crossbred for one generation. That hybrid is sold for seed.
Once the hybrid seed is used up (or gets too old to work) the
second generation seed will be much less productive. Enough land
will still support enough people, but plowing each acre of that
land will take one hell of a lot more effort than it does today.
And who can guess what is the expected productivity? You don't
really find out that your yield-per-acre is 40% of what it had
been, and -- therefore -- you need to farm 2 1/2 times as much
land per person as you had been farming. What you find out is
that you *should* have planted 2 1/2 times as much land as you
did last year. Somebody starves.
And, when starvation comes, who guarantees that enough seed is
kept for next year's planting? And how much of the new breed --
actually a new variety of old breeds -- of seed is enough?
Anyway, most of the labor has to be spent on agriculture. But
agriculture, itself, needs tools. And making those tools
involves finding out how to make those tools.
Another huge labor-sink involves children. They have to be cared
for, at least minimally. They have to be educated. They have to
be carried for nine months before birth, and pregnant women are
less productive agricultural workers than non-pregnant women are
-- especially when those pregnant women have been raised with
modern comforts. Then, when you've invested all those people-
hours in them, *some* of those children are going to die. A hell
of a lot more will die than do than under current conditions.
When the adults are working themselves to exhaustion every day,
when the crop is clearly going to be insufficient, do you teach
the six-year-olds to read? Or do you teach them to weed?
Count all these together, and you start seeing assignments for
170% of the adult population.
--
Uther Pendragon FAQs http://www.nyx.net/~anon584c
anon...@nyx.net fiqshn http://www.asstr.org/~Uther_Pendragon
David
wrote:
> But you'd also have a huge infant-mortality rate
> and a significant child-bearing mortality rate.
The number one thing we did to lower this and disease is to stop
shitting in the drinking water.
David
wrote:
> The population base
Another source of info would be Science Fiction Colonization
literature. Among other things, they speculate on what the minimum
population of genetically unique individuals is needed. The most
common number I've seen is 140, 70 men, 70 women, only one child per
couple, at least three children per woman. Marriage? Hah! Not when
you must have generations of controlled breeding.
Another thing in common is resources. On another planet, you have to
go and find ores. There are big differences as comet survivors would
have junkyards full of metal.
Power could be hard, could be easy. How avail are generators? All
motors are generators. Jerry and Larry in their book, Lucifers
Hammer, had the Nuclear plants still operating. They have really
strong shells over them that can take a 747 flying into them so they'd
survive. Then it's a matter of running things. What do you do when
the computers start to fail? People can be very resourcefull when
pressed.
16 years is enough time for some type of MFG plants to be restored to
operation. So you might actually have good paper, soap, and other
common implements, depending on what you decide would survive and if
the process could be modified for the new reality. I have not read
aftermath so I don't know who the leaders are. The right leaders can
lead civilzation to something that isn't quite so primative as the
1700's but not as advanced as today. It would be quite the mix. See
it as a horse back civilization with GPS (assuming the sats stay up
for 20 years or more (another research point))
Those leaders would find power, then work on support for that power,
then support for the support, etc. How? what do you get when you
cross an elephant with a rhino... Elifino
Bitter arguements in the beginning would be common. You would also
have to feel free to abandon plans mid stream to take advantage of a
great find. Search teams... Lots of them. Sixteen years later, they
would be fewer but still needed probably. Map making if nothing else.
Refridgeration.. we'd actually have that. Go see Mother earth news
for it. Not all require electricity. The early survivors that raid
the libraries for survival books would do better than others because
they'd get step by step instructions to build the various things
people want.
Radio.... This would exist immediately afterward and expand. What
kind of gove would come about because of it? A receiver for it can be
hand powered (they do that in africa now and it works very well)
Just keep in mind that different communities of people would have
different levels of tech. One may have a surplus of clean water cause
they can filter it and barter it for clothing from a community that
has little water but found a way to modify and operate a nearby cloth
plant.
Tim Merrigan
sending it again.
Tim Merrigan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Tim Merrigan
David wrote:
> Power could be hard, could be easy. How avail are generators? All
> motors are generators. Jerry and Larry in their book, Lucifers
> Hammer, had the Nuclear plants still operating. They have really
> strong shells over them that can take a 747 flying into them so they'd
> survive. Then it's a matter of running things. What do you do when
> the computers start to fail? People can be very resourcefull when
> pressed.
I have some problems with the nuclear power plants continuing to
operate. While the plant itself might well survive, the reactor has to
be actively maintained, and the infrastructure around it would almost
certainly be wiped out. As to computers, did the collision cause an
EMP, if so most of them would stop working immediately, also most are
attached to the infrastructure, for power, at least, and for
interconnectivity. The internet isn't going to work if most or all of
the fiberoptic cable and telephone lines are down, even if the servers
survive.
cmsix
> Let me take a second hack at this.
>
> First, Denny said (to paraphrase) that you don't need a solution,
> all you need is something plausible. Well, those aren't the
> rules by which I'm playing. (And, anyway, some things are more
> plausible to some of us than they are to others.)
>
> When you compare a post-holocaust society with past conditions,
> you get several advantages and several disadvantages.
>
>
> Advantages:
>
> 1 You have one shitload of scrap/supplies.
> You have already-refined steel, copper, lead, and *aluminum*.
> And every grocery store you can reach is piled high with glass
> and plastic containers; never mind the contents, do you know how
> much effort you save by having ready-made containers? And a
> library.
>
> 2 You have the *idea* of horse collars, candles, soap,
> spinning wheels, scythes, and chimneys. You have the germ theory
> of disease.
>
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> 1 Your supplies are inappropriate for the level of technology
> you need. I mentioned, as others have, electronic-ignition cars.
Nit to pick here. It isn't electronic-ignition that is problematic. Simply
using electronic ignition is often simpler than the "old fashioned" points
and condesner type of ignition or magnetos. Electronic fuel injection is the
complication when using fues other than refined petrolemm
> For that matter, you would find most of your scrap steel
> unworkable in a village-smithy type forge. When the rubber tires
> run out -- and they won't last forever even in storage --
> tractors can run on steel wheels. The first ones did. But
> making the steel wheels is one more task. Where is the nearest
> grain mill?
Believe it or not, grain mills come in many different sizes and it would not
be strange at all to be able to find smaller units. I know of some small
farms in my area that have small mills.
>
> 2 You lack most of the skills you need for that level of
> technology, as well. You know that spinning wheels would be
> useful. Who among you can operate one? Who among you has ever
> built one? And those lacks contribute to each other, for the
> skilled spinners could tell the wheel-makers what their first
> products lack in comparison with the spinning wheels they are
> used to.
>
> Your modern doctor is much more effective than the 19th-century
> general practitioner, but how effective is he when his pharmacy
> is (used up / past its expiration date)?
>
> Soap can be made from fat and ashes; but who among you knows how?
> And who among you is used to that sort of soap? Assuming horses
> were really available in the numbers you'd need, training horses
> to pull plows is a non-trivial task.
Training horses to do anything is a non-trivial task. Horses are much
stupider than most people realize. In fact they can't even be trusted not to
eat themselves to death unless there only food is hay or from grazing.
Horses that are kept in stalls have even been known to harm themselves by
"cribbing" or by eating their bedding if certain types of bedding is used.
cmsix
<snip>
David
wrote:
> I have some problems with the nuclear power plants continuing to
> operate. While the plant itself might well survive, the reactor has to
> be actively maintained, and the infrastructure around it would almost
> certainly be wiped out. As to computers, did the collision cause an
> EMP, if so most of them would stop working immediately, also most are
> attached to the infrastructure, for power, at least, and for
> interconnectivity. The internet isn't going to work if most or all of
> the fiberoptic cable and telephone lines are down, even if the servers
> survive.
>
Never underestimate the ingenuity of people when they are really
pressed for it.
David
wrote:
> Training horses to do anything is a non-trivial task. Horses are much
> stupider than most people realize. In fact they can't even be trusted not to
> eat themselves to death unless there only food is hay or from grazing.
> Horses that are kept in stalls have even been known to harm themselves by
> "cribbing" or by eating their bedding if certain types of bedding is used.
>
Mountain bikes, here we come. They may be easier than horses for some
things. Which leaves rubber problems but since this would be a rather
strong need, they would find a way. And if Al doesn't know how they
would create it, he could always use an "its a state secret" plot
device.
Uther Pendragon
> 16 years is enough time for some type of MFG plants to be restored to
> operation. So you might actually have good paper, soap, and other
> common implements, depending on what you decide would survive and if
> the process could be modified for the new reality. I have not read
> aftermath so I don't know who the leaders are. The right leaders can
> lead civilzation to something that isn't quite so primative as the
> 1700's but not as advanced as today. It would be quite the mix. See
> it as a horse back civilization with GPS (assuming the sats stay up
> for 20 years or more (another research point))
Manufacturing plantS?????
First you would have to find the plant, then figure out how to operate the
machinery, and how to FIX the machinery. And how to power the machiery
without an electricity grid.
That's for one plant. What is the nearest paper plant to your house?
Denny is fairly close to one, I'd guess. Probably none between the
Rockies and the Missisippi. Then you'd need the raw materials, not only
the massive stuff but the stuff you use small amounts of.
But this assumes incredible numbers of people.
Katzmarek
For an engine to run efficiently, and we are talking around 35%
optimum energy efficiency, the combustion and the expansion of gasses
necessary for a motor to run, must be patterned. In essence, this
means that a petrol engine ignites the fuel/air charge momentarily
before the piston reaches TDC. Additives retard combustion and allow
the gradual release of energy making better use of the fuel throughout
the progress of the piston to BDC.
Alcohol/air will explode instantly when ignited, (detonation) unless
retarded by some means. Water was the original choice and also had the
added benefit of cooling the cylinder head and valves. Detonation is
known as 'knocking' in motorhead jargon. Detonation will eventually
wreck an engine. The intense release of heat energy will increase
wear.
High performance engines using alcohol fuel radically retard ignition
timing so detonation occurs while the piston is on its downward
stroke. This enables the greater release of heat of this fuel to be
used effectively. This accounts for the impressive flames that often
are emitted from the exhaust, particularly on overrun. When the
throttle is closed some detonation occurs in the exhaust manifold as
inertia continues to turn the motor over pumping fuel right through.
The heat in the headers is enough to cause auto-detonation.
Even with nitride-coated valve faces, methanol will cook the motor
eventually. A dragster, and an Indycar for that matter, generally run
new engine blocks every race. That is an exceptable cost in
motorsport, but a wee bit impractical for everyday use.
Don
cmsix
> David <Da...@notachance.com> wrote:
>
> > 16 years is enough time for some type of MFG plants to be restored to
> > operation. So you might actually have good paper, soap, and other
> > common implements, depending on what you decide would survive and if
> > the process could be modified for the new reality. I have not read
> > aftermath so I don't know who the leaders are. The right leaders can
> > lead civilzation to something that isn't quite so primative as the
> > 1700's but not as advanced as today. It would be quite the mix. See
> > it as a horse back civilization with GPS (assuming the sats stay up
> > for 20 years or more (another research point))
>
> Manufacturing plantS?????
>
> First you would have to find the plant, then figure out how to operate the
> machinery, and how to FIX the machinery. And how to power the machiery
> without an electricity grid.
>
> That's for one plant. What is the nearest paper plant to your house?
> Denny is fairly close to one, I'd guess. Probably none between the
> Rockies and the Missisippi. Then you'd need the raw materials, not only
> the massive stuff but the stuff you use small amounts of.
My Dear Uther:
It's apparent that you don't know where the paper mills are.
Be that as it may there is no possibility that a few men can get a modern
day paper mill going if most of them didn't work there before it was closed.
I assume that it would be the same for most large manufacturing plants that
might be left over.
An old time canning plant might be coaxed back into operation. For instance,
if the pinto beans could be procured, the Ranch Style Bean plant in Ft Worth
might be put back into production with eight or nine mechanically inclined
people. Of course they would soon run out of the materials for the cans.
With the group of people that were left from Aftermath, it is doubtful that
they could get a large scale plant of any type going, even if they could
find one and could make good use of what it made.
There best hope is to try and cobble together a much smaller scale operation
with whatever they can glean or salvage
cmsix
cmsix
"David" <Da...@notachance.com> wrote in message
news:9oDUIVRddqTc-pn2-RL9dqrWi867i@orion...
Horses have a number of advantage over mountain bikes in a survival
situation like this. They can reproduce, they grow their own tires and they
can pull a plow. They can serve as an emergency food supply that comes
wrapped in the makings of a coat or other type of garment and so on.
Better than horses would be mules. They are a good bit smarter and can work
harder. One of their main advantages is that they won't let an unskilled
operator work them to death. When a mule gets too tired to work it stops
untill it isn't too tired anymore.
They also naturally produce and excellent ointment for chapped lips.
cmsix
>
>
>
cmsix
"Katzmarek" <katz...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:28af3b5.04040...@posting.google.com...
Detonation is best avoided by using the proper ignition timing for the fuel
in use and this timing is easily adjusted. Additional horsepower can be
gained by using a different grind on the camshaft, unfortunately this is not
easily adjusted and relatively little research has been done to arrive at an
optimal cam profile for burning alcohol in a utility type vehicle.
Also, I see many people saying that alcohol is a cleaner burning fuel. It
may be cleaner burning but it stinks, irritates the eyes and mucus membranes
and it will give you a headache in a heartbeat.
cmsix
>
> Don
David
wrote:
> Manufacturing plantS?????
>
> First you would have to find the plant, then figure out how to operate the
> machinery, and how to FIX the machinery. And how to power the machiery
> without an electricity grid.
don't think huge. Think small. Most of them are small, thus, you
could live within a few miles of dozens and not even know it. I once
spent a week sweating (mid summer, it was very hot that week) in a
place that made all kinds of plastic dodads for various clients. The
whole place couldn't have been bigger than 3000 square feet. And they
didn't make just one item but dozens of different items. Places like
this that don't do plastic would be where to start, not those monster
size plants with guard gates.
As for electricity, there are at least five or ten ways to get some.
Next, DESIRE... people will want it, and want it BAD, VERY BAD. There
for, they will find ways of making wire drawing machines (one of the
very important inventions of the past) to make motors and generators.
Generating at least SOME electricity will be high on the todo list.
By sixteen years later, it will be around. Maybe not the style we
have now but it will be around. At first, pumping water, running
radio's (our desire for info will not go away with a comet hit),
running a few light bulbs at night till they run out of them. (And I
do think someone can figure out how to make small runs of them)
Sixteen years later, I could easily see an inn that has some, not
many, electric lights with a radio tuned to some ham station that
isn't local. no electric heat, no driers, no AC, but a fridge, yes.
The generation and distribution would be local, not conviently
comming down a wire from somewhere else.
Where there is a will, there is a way. Evidently, I have far stronger
faith in the human ability to adapt than many here.
David
wrote:
> For an engine to run eff
Too much focus on engine's here....
but the after fall of civilization topic is a good one.
My thoughts of end of world...
Medicine...
Even without the drugs, we know alot. Especially germ theory and boil
your water. Not shitting in your drinking water contributed more to
our life span increase than any other medical thing.
Electricity.
You guys keep picturing the 1850's or something... not a chance. We
know electricities uses and want it. Radio's in the suggested senario
would be setup within weeks. Radio would be the PRIMARY news source
of the world. The generate the electricity somewhere and wire it
places model would be toast. Instead, the communities would make
their own. We are headed that way now as there are few places to
build plants without protesters (NIMBY, not in my back yard). Small
neighborhood ones are being considered today.
Water
Clean water would cause wars. This is nearly true today without the
comet.
Wire
No one mentioned this one... it was one of the more important
inventions of the past. After supplies get thin, someone would have
to figure out how this is done
paper
With in a few years, we would need to find ways to make it with
equipment left lying around.
Search Teams
many Many of these in the begining, all well armed. Later, they would
be info gatherers, mappers, etc. Those that attempt to preserve books
would do better than those that didn't. Mission, find anything that
looks useful one day, even if that day isn't soon. Then hoard it.
Breeding...
Science Fiction writers and others have been attempting to figure out
what the smallest number of colonist would be to be able to start a
viable colony on another planet. The general concensus is 140
genetically unique individuals. Seventy men and seventy women. If you
assume some pocket of humans somewhere is nearly that small, then they
might practice the other part of the equation... Generations of
carefully controlled breeding. The Doctors would pick your mates
based on traits etc. You would never have more than one child from
one mate. All women would be REQUIRED to have at least three
children. Then the breeding gets complicated as you don't let cousins
breed, assuming this doesn't get so complicated that you can't figure
out who the cousins are. Marriage in this situation is kind of
pointless.
If that pocket doesn't do this, then there are the genetic
deformities, etc.
Goods
Making closable cans (best preservation method we have), making
furnature, making utensiles, making, you name it.... after sixteen
years, this would settle down and the various communities that survive
would specialize in things. I like to think that the assembly line
idea would survive as it is much easier than the master craftsman
system of centuries past.
Farming
Hydroponics and dirt. Hydro for diversity and the quanities of food
you could grow in a small area (LA could feed itself with hydroponics
on building roofs) I don't think this tech would be out of reach.
making pipes would be needed after 2 decades (see wire above) They
would extend the growing season too. Protecting it might be hard.
Any search team that found seeds.... lets just say the rewards would
be fun (in out repeat)
Glass
We want windows. We'd find a way to make them. Especially if we want
more green houses
Heating
would we stick with wood for this? Maybe not.
clothes
Someone mentioned spinning wheels... here is a primary reason for
making a small plant work. It is well worth the effort to make cloth
with machines, even if you have to run them slow.
Elizabet A. Collins
> According to Eric Flint in _1633_, it's also possible to get modern
> engines to run on naptha, a petroleum product that was used in
> lanterns in the 17th century, but I don't know the details. I never
> finished the book.
I managed to read both 1632 and 1633 without picking up many of the
details of the technology. I do know that Mr. Flint runs a forum on
Baen's Bar (http://bar.baen.com/) called "1632 Tech Manual" where he
collects reader suggestions on technologies that might be feasible. I
don't know if that information is archived anywhere.
--
E.
suzee
>
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 02:39:49 UTC, katz...@excite.com (Katzmarek)
> wrote:
>
> > For an engine to run eff
>
> Too much focus on engine's here....
Because Al specifically asked about them. The rest is additional, which
I presume he's done some research/thinking about.
suzee
sex, please
suzee <suz...@imbris.com> wrote in message news:<406EA6FE...@imbris.com>...
sex, please
"cmsix" <cm...@cmsixDONTSPAMME.com> wrote in message news:<pxpbc.12236$Dv2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
cmsix
If you are adding your comments to the messages you are replying to, you are
doing it in such a way that I cannot tell what your comments are. The most
commone way of adding comments is to make sure that no > or >> appear to the
left of what you added. Another way, albeit not as well liked by most, is to
put your comments at the top of the message. This is called "top posting"
and it is not the preferred way to do things but it is better than replying
and saying nothing at all.
Please don't take this as a rebuke. We we welcome comments here, at least I
do and I'm pretty sure that most everyone else does too. If you are having
trouble figuring out how to reply, try to squeeze in a request for help.
Someone will try.
cmsix
Gary Jordan
I *knew* being a major Eric Flint fan would come in handy somehow.
Some of the research has been gathered into articles published in the
"Grantville Gazzette," which is a Baen-published, *paid* fanzine for the
1632/1633/1634 Universe (AKA The Assitti Shards Universe). For example, a
discussion of Ham Radios and Morse Code because long range voice radio is more
difficult. It includes a discussion of crystal radios.
There's also a "The Official 1632 Fan Site" at http://www.1632.org/ that keeps
some of the articles (and fan fic).
The anthology "Ring of Fire" containing both pros and (former) amateurs has
short stories that deal with overcoming various problems, like telephones. One
story, "To Dye For," has aging Hippy "Stoner" (a pharmacy school drop-out)
figuring out how to make colorfast dyes, and coal-tar medicines, and so on.
Baen's policy WRT copying the e-book seems to be "Fine, as long as you don't
charge for it." As it happens, I have everything so far published in the 1632
series as e-books. E-mail me. (You'll get hooked and buy the dead-tree edition.
I have those, too.)
There's a *lot* of research at Baen's Bar, still available. There are
discussions of what machine shops and machine tools are capable of (and
incapable of).
Say this with me: "Thank goodness for shrink wrap." A lot of products will be
salvageable for a long time simply because they were encased in such.
Gary Jordan
"Old submariners never die--at least, not on the surface..."
<I>"This communicating of a man's self to his friend works two contrary
effects, for it redoubleth joys, and cutteth griefs in half." - Francis Bacon,
Essays </I>
David
wrote:
> There's a *lot* of research at Baen's Bar, still available. There are
> discussions of what machine shops and machine tools are capable of (and
> incapable of).
>
This makes a lot of sense... Jim Baen, Jerry Pournelle, and a bunch of
others were sitting around one day bemoaning the fact that the short
story publication places were drying up... so they did something
about it. Since civilization going bust is a rather common science
fiction theme, and as you see here, researching that is hard, that Jim
would make resources available for this makes a lot of sense. It is
my understand that most SF authors have at least as many pages of
notes as they do book. More for some genre's like military SF where
you need a book just to keep track of who is in them (200 characters
with uniques names, backgrounds, ranks, skills, attitudes, anyone?
And that doesn't count the tech)
David
Altan
> Baen's policy WRT copying the e-book seems to be "Fine, as long
> as you don't charge for it."
I know that is their policy for the books published in the free
library (which is why I check there regularly and download
everything, even if I don't read it yet), but are you sure the
same applies to the ones you have to pay for?
By the way, I am starting to like the e-book and reading on line.
I have taking Baen's web format, changed it a little bit to suit
my preferences, and am now using it as my standard e-book display
format. Not just Baen's books, but I also pour books from Project
Gutenberg in this format (using green rather than blue backgrounds).
I find this very convenient to read on-line.
A.
------------------------------
http://www.asstr.org/~altan/
------------------------------
Gary Jordan
>On 03 Apr 2004 22:58:47 GMT, pjc...@aol.come.to.bed (Gary Jordan) wrote:
>
>> Baen's policy WRT copying the e-book seems to be "Fine, as long
>> as you don't charge for it."
>
>I know that is their policy for the books published in the free
>library (which is why I check there regularly and download
>everything, even if I don't read it yet), but are you sure the
>same applies to the ones you have to pay for?
>
>By the way, I am starting to like the e-book and reading on line.
>I have taking Baen's web format, changed it a little bit to suit
>my preferences, and am now using it as my standard e-book display
>format. Not just Baen's books, but I also pour books from Project
>Gutenberg in this format (using green rather than blue backgrounds).
>I find this very convenient to read on-line.
Check out Alexis' site http://www.asstr.org/~Alexis_S/
or Selena's site http://www.asstr.org/~Selena_Jardine/
or any of the stories marked "new format" at http://www.asstr.org/~NIS/
Borrow inspiration from Baen, me? :)
Unicorn
light
> > truck or automobile or even a two-stroke engine - on alcohol. The
survivors
> > would be able to grow grain and distill their own booze. Could they
make
> > high-proof grain alcohol and use it to power pre-existing engines? Or
are
> > too many modifications necessary for a now-primitive society to utilize
such
> > a tactic?
Fairly well done to death in the posts I have read, and there are lots of
them, but I did see mention of wood burning. I think the correct answer is
charcoal burning. These usints where fitted quite extensively to vehicles
during the second world war, as an add in that hung on the back of the
vehicle. The worked, they were smokey, but they worked and got people from
place to place.
>
> In the first place, distilling to that proof is one hard job. In the
> second, the engine would need some modification, and would gum up
> frequently. Remember that repairs would have to be:
> 1) Without a source of parts -- except canibalized other engines.
Check out some of the recent media reports on what was happening in iraq
with mechanics modifying pistons and other motor parts to fit vehicles they
were never meant to fit. When it comes to automotive matters, the world is
full of mechanics that can keep a motor running woithout much more that care
and some bailing wire.
> 2) Require skilled experts. Mechanics.
> 3) Have to be done on cars fairly old right now. (Modern autos are too
> dependent on things like imbedded electronics.)
> Put 2 and 3 together. You'd need somebody who was well-experienced with
> old cars as well as skilled and ingenious *now*. How old is he today?
> How old will he be then?
You are jumping ahead of yourself a little, the types of motors you are
going to be using, are very very similar to those used on the humble
lawnmower or the pertable generator. Briggs & Stratton motors are still
manufactured in the US I think, and they still use natural aspiration. Well
the short of this, is anyone with expertise in 'current' small motors would
have no trouble working on older larger motors.
>
> > Another question. Electricity. Could a generator hooked up to an
> > intermittant source such as a windmill or windmills be used to power a
high
> > usuage device such as a freezer compressor? Specifically, what I had in
> > mind was a well-insulated, underground freezer that could used to
preserve
> > meat through hot months.
In the tread I have read much about ice houses and cutting ice. None of
this is necesary to operate a freezer. I would be hesidant to suggest that
the community base it's long term frozen storage on refrigerant gasses, they
are one of the first things that will cause problems with supply.
I would suggest that the use of humble ICE would be a prefered option, but
the ice can be made all year without refrigeration. To make Ice without
refrigeration, the watter to be frozen is placed in vate of brine, which are
manually agitated. The agitation is sufficient to cause the brine to cool
below freezing and the ice to freeze. Most train shipping was for using
ice made in this manner until the middle of the 20th century.
This would mean the compressor would not have to
> > run all that often, but there is no means to store the electricity.
We'll
> > assume a fairly steady wind of 10-30 mph, but it would occasionally die
out
> > for a day or two, or even a wee at a time. Before it is mentioned,
> > hydroelectric is unfeasable since the water source would be too far away
and
> > even the water flow is somewhat intermittant.
Electrical generation, is a basic process, it was orininally 'fdiscovered
some 400 years ago, so the technology to run a basic generator and keep it
running would exist for a long time post comet, simplyt using scavenged
copper wire.
You mentioned animals, orchards etc. a couple of suggestions......
The location and climate would not be very agreeable to beef, but without
the people and with the cooling of the times, I would think that the
Canadian elk would be moving south out of the freezing north and that with
out civilisation providing obstacles, that the populations would have
exploded somewhat.
The shallow cold seas off your new west coast would be a huge and very
viable fishing ground. Perhaps you should be looking to fish as a primary
source of animal protein in the diet.
Horses, historically not used for pulling anything much when strength or
stamina were required. Oxen have always been the choice, even the American
pioneers tended to use oxen to pull their prairie schooners, even if John
Wayne spent a life time convincing everyone that it was really horses.
Horses tended to be too weak and lacking in stamina for the job on a day in
and day out basis.
Medicine, you have a doctor if I recall the story. Add a bio chemist and
most basic medicines would be available, no antibiotics, but then by the
close of the 21st century they will probable be a dying commodity anyway.
I saw much mention of paper, although I am not quite sure why it would be
all that important. Very little is actually written down in a small
community situation.
My thoughts
Uni
Doug Taylor
wrote:
>Medicine, you have a doctor if I recall the story. Add a bio chemist and
>most basic medicines would be available, no antibiotics, but then by the
>close of the 21st century they will probable be a dying commodity anyway.
Speaking as a one time biochemist, you would be better off with a
herbalist, even the simplest of medicines require a well equipped lab
and a supply of raw materials.
Take Asprin for example, would you rather manufacture that or prepare
an infusion of the bark of the white willow (salix Alba), of course
that probably doesn't grow in your area as it likes the climate of the
South of England. But a person skilled in Native American Herbal
treatments would be indispensible.
all....@is.invalid
>"cmsix" <cm...@cmsixDONTSPAMME.com> wrote in message news:<qXHac.10157$lt2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> "Girl Friday" <girl_fr...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:106mfas...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>
>(snipped)
>
>> > Back in the 1970s during the gas crisis, my father modified our
>> > family car to burn wood as a fuel source. Yes, that's correct - a wood
>> > burning car.
>
>(snipped)
>>
>> I've read about this too. I think it was used during WWII in some places.
>>
>> cmsix
>>
>
>Yes it was used in Germany in WWII and also in the time after war,
>perhaps to early fifties, I was not born yet, but my Grandpa told me.
>
They were used in Finland as well. If you burn wood in reduced
oxygen, what do you get? Right, carbon monoxide, among other
inflammable gases, which go to burn in a combustion engine.
Not very efficient, but sure beats walking.
Kultsi
--
kullervo*nurmi at pp*inet*fi --- URL http://personal.inet.fi/cool/kultsi/
"Hand me those electrocardial stimulators, nurse!"
"What?"
"The *jumper cables*, you fool!" --Afterlife
Hecate
wrote:
>Electrical generation, is a basic process, it was orininally 'fdiscovered
>some 400 years ago, so the technology to run a basic generator and keep it
>running would exist for a long time post comet, simplyt using scavenged
>copper wire.
>
I beg to differ, in that workable batteries were found in at least one
pyramid...
--
Hecate
Hec...@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Hecate
<Doug.Ta...@taymade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Speaking as a one time biochemist, you would be better off with a
>herbalist, even the simplest of medicines require a well equipped lab
>and a supply of raw materials.
>
>Take Asprin for example, would you rather manufacture that or prepare
>an infusion of the bark of the white willow (salix Alba), of course
>that probably doesn't grow in your area as it likes the climate of the
>South of England. But a person skilled in Native American Herbal
>treatments would be indispensible.
>
Speaking as another one time biochemist, making aspirin is a doddle.
And a biochemist would be useful with or without a lab. Lots of stuff
you can do with glass tubes and metal, available everywhere. Plus, an
understanding of how use the little beasties otherwise known as
bacteria would be invaluable.
Tesseract
> > > How feasible is it to run a modern internal combustion engine - say a
>
> Check out some of the recent media reports on what was happening in iraq
> with mechanics modifying pistons and other motor parts to fit vehicles they
> were never meant to fit. When it comes to automotive matters, the world is
> full of mechanics that can keep a motor running woithout much more that care
> and some bailing wire.
> > 2) Require skilled experts. Mechanics.
> > 3) Have to be done on cars fairly old right now. (Modern autos are too
> > dependent on things like imbedded electronics.)
> > Put 2 and 3 together. You'd need somebody who was well-experienced with
> > old cars as well as skilled and ingenious *now*. How old is he today?
> > How old will he be then?
>
> You are jumping ahead of yourself a little, the types of motors you are
> going to be using, are very very similar to those used on the humble
> lawnmower or the pertable generator. Briggs & Stratton motors are still
> manufactured in the US I think, and they still use natural aspiration. Well
> the short of this, is anyone with expertise in 'current' small motors would
> have no trouble working on older larger motors.
But if you can only find newer larger motors you need to understand
how the electronic stuff works. And anything that uses integrated
circuit chips is not repairable at the chip level. Things with
independent components are much more repairable.
...
>
> Medicine, you have a doctor if I recall the story. Add a bio chemist and
> most basic medicines would be available, no antibiotics, but then by the
> close of the 21st century they will probable be a dying commodity anyway.
Some basic antibiotics such as penicillin should be simple enough to
make if you know what you're doing. The major breakthrough wasn't
making it but recognizing what was there.
>
> I saw much mention of paper, although I am not quite sure why it would be
> all that important. Very little is actually written down in a small
> community situation.
It isn't that hard to make paper but, without our modern plants, it
would be small scale so would be a bit scarce. Now, consider all of
our uses of paper that have nothing to do with ink.
--
Tesseract
Doug Taylor
>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:30:08 +0100, Doug Taylor
><Doug.Ta...@taymade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Speaking as a one time biochemist, you would be better off with a
>>herbalist, even the simplest of medicines require a well equipped lab
>>and a supply of raw materials.
>>
>>Take Asprin for example, would you rather manufacture that or prepare
>>an infusion of the bark of the white willow (salix Alba), of course
>>that probably doesn't grow in your area as it likes the climate of the
>>South of England. But a person skilled in Native American Herbal
>>treatments would be indispensible.
What are your starting materials Acetic acid is easy, but salicylic
acid. Many pharmaceuticals are plant originated, so I would
concentrate on those. I would agree that microbial knowledge would be
useful. particularly in making antibiotics.
Uther Pendragon
> Medicine...
> Even without the drugs, we know alot. Especially germ theory and
> boil your water. Not shitting in your drinking water contributed
> more to our life span increase than any other medical thing.
Certainly. But it contributed *early*. How many of us have
never been treated with antibiotics? Survivors wouldn't have
Medieval death rates, (the average age of marriage for males was
higher than the average age of death). But they wouldn't have
anything like late 20th century Western death rates, either.
> Water
>
> Clean water would cause wars. This is nearly true today without
> the comet.
Not in a survival situation, except for invasions. Modern S.
California wants the Feds to pay for shipping water from N.
California. In a cometary-survivor situation, boiling water to
kill the germs would be easier than shipping it for one mile.
> paper
>
> Within a few years, we would need to find ways to make it with
> equipment left lying around.
Descriptions of how people made paper in early years are fairly
common. It would require a bunch of experimentation, and
ripping out some plastic screens from windows, but it shouldn't
be hard to come up with a low-tech system. OTOH, that paper
would cost a lot of man-hours; we wouldn't waste it the way we do
now.
Breeding...
> Science Fiction writers and others have been attempting to figure
> out what the smallest number of colonist would be to be able to
> start a viable colony on another planet. The general concensus
> is 140 genetically unique individuals. Seventy men and seventy
> women. If you assume some pocket of humans somewhere is nearly
> that small, then they might practice the other part of the
> equation...
This assumes that the gene pool you bring with you will never be
replenished -- or, at least -- will not be replenished for dozens
of generations. A survivor group probably would assume that they
could recruit new blood within a few generations.
> Generations of carefully controlled breeding. The Doctors would
> pick your mates based on traits etc. You would never have more
> than one child from one mate. All women would be REQUIRED to
> have at least three children. Then the breeding gets complicated
> as you don't let cousins breed, assuming this doesn't get so
> complicated that you can't figure out who the cousins are.
> Marriage in this situation is kind of pointless.
I'm dubious of this model even in the postulated conditions.
You need a couple who have (ideally) *no* ancestors in common.
But everybody has two parents, four grandparents, eight great-
grands, etc. Passing them around guarantees nothing.
> If that pocket doesn't do this, then there are the genetic
> deformities, etc.
But WHEN? With the same set of grandparents, a person has 1
chance in 16 of getting two copies of whatever harmful recessive
one of those grandparents are carrying. With the same set of
great grandparents (but not otherwise connected), each harmful
recessive has 1 chance in 64 of doubling. [If he has N ancestors
of that generation, then his chance of having two copies of a
particular gene is 1 in 2^N.]
If each of the original settlers carries 6 harmful recessives
and they are all different, then interbreeding of first cousins
would cause 48/64 (=3/4) chance of the child expressing the
harmful recessive. Second cousins interbreeding would result in
3/8 chance of expressing the harmful recessive.
(This doesn't represent what happens in current society, 'cause
it assumes that *ALL* the ancestors of the particular generation
are the same. Presently, only two -- only one in some cases --
are the same.)
With 64 original settlers, you'd have everyone in the sixth
generation descended from all of them. Suddenly, in the seventh
generation, a given child would have about one chance in ten of
expressing a harmful mutation. This is a high risk factor, too
high by present standards. It probably would be one of the
lesser risks to children in that way of life.
This assumes, unrealistically, that (1) the survivors aren't
related by blood, and (2) that they all have the same number of
children. It also doesn't allow for newcomers (immigrating/being
captured) into the community.
And, of course, once inbreeding causes harmful recessives to be
expressed, then those expressing them are removed from the gene
pool. Which means fewer (although not a *lot* fewer harmful
recessives in the next generation.
> Goods
>
> Making closable cans (best preservation method we have), making
> furnature, making utensiles, making, you name it.... after sixteen
> years, this would settle down and the various communities that survive
> would specialize in things. I like to think that the assembly line
> idea would survive as it is much easier than the master craftsman
> system of centuries past.
This assumes the recovery of a HUGE, CHEAP, transportation
network.
> Glass
>
> We want windows. We'd find a way to make them. Especially if we
> want
> more green houses
We'd need some way of remelting and reforming glass. But there'd
be enough scrap glass for the forseeable future.
> clothes
>
> Someone mentioned spinning wheels... here is a primary reason for
> making a small plant work. It is well worth the effort to make
> cloth with machines, even if you have to run them slow.
Spinning wheels make thread; looms turn the thread into cloth.
These are different operations. Assuming that the community --
Al is picturing a community, not an international society -- has
weaving and spinning factories within easy reach, they would
still have to be set up for the fibers they have available. I'd
think wool would be available within most of the USA; cotton
would be only available in some locations. Linen would be
doable, but it would require a longer period for learning.
Uther Pendragon
> Also, while the lead acid batterys from cars will hold you for a
> while, you might also look into leiden jars, though I don't
> remember off hand whether they're actually batteries of
> capacitors.
Leyden jars are capacitors, and not very good ones.
Uther Pendragon
>> But of course for Al's purposes, the fuel/engine question and the
>> wind-generation question don't have to be solved fully--just enough
>> for some plausibility in his fiction.
>
> If the know how ist there it shouldnt be to difficult to build a
> simple (huge) lead based Wet Battery
No need. You presumably have *lot's* of cars (in bad shape) within
reasonable range. Use their batteries. As a matter of fact, what we
now call "a battery" was originally called "a cell." "Battery" (from
the word for a bunch of artilery pieces) was the name for a group of
cells.
Use the batteries in parallel for generating lots of current or in series
for generating a higher voltage.
Gary Jordan
I can't let that one stand. There is a very good article in the Grantville
Gazette about what exactly it took to produce penicillin in *usable*
quantities. The folks in 1632 opted to go for chloramphenicol because it was
within their available tech. That and sulfa drugs.
Chloramphenicol was a wonder drug that had a side effect of producing 1 in
20,000 fatalities in children. That was deemed unacceptable and the drug was
shelved, but in a survival situation, 20K to 1 seems like damned good odds. And
it is much, much, MUCH easier to produce than the 'cillins.
>> I saw much mention of paper, although I am not quite sure why it would be
>> all that important. Very little is actually written down in a small
>> community situation.
But oh, how they'll miss toilet paper...
>It isn't that hard to make paper but, without our modern plants, it
>would be small scale so would be a bit scarce. Now, consider all of
>our uses of paper that have nothing to do with ink.
Best bet is if surviving communities pool resources and knowledge. Salvage the
salvageable, especially books. The folks in Aftermath were in the early
position of fighting over supplies that were canned or preserved or found in
train cars - they weren't yet producing food or domesticating animals.
Al has to transition from that to an agrarian society with tech support.
Tim Merrigan
Uther Pendragon wrote:
> "David" <Da...@notachance.com> wrote:
>
Don't forget that there are also positive recessives, that you might
want to breed for.
> > Goods
> >
> > Making closable cans (best preservation method we have), making
> > furnature, making utensiles, making, you name it.... after sixteen
> > years, this would settle down and the various communities that survive
> > would specialize in things. I like to think that the assembly line
> > idea would survive as it is much easier than the master craftsman
> > system of centuries past.
>
> This assumes the recovery of a HUGE, CHEAP, transportation
> network.
If there are a fair number of people in the community there will be a
fair combination of skills, not all realized before the comet, as they
would have been hobbies or things the person happened to know but never
had any need for. And I strongly suspect crofting is much more likely
than factories because the infrastructure is gone.
> > clothes
> >
> > Someone mentioned spinning wheels... here is a primary reason for
> > making a small plant work. It is well worth the effort to make
> > cloth with machines, even if you have to run them slow.
>
> Spinning wheels make thread; looms turn the thread into cloth.
> These are different operations. Assuming that the community --
> Al is picturing a community, not an international society -- has
> weaving and spinning factories within easy reach, they would
> still have to be set up for the fibers they have available. I'd
> think wool would be available within most of the USA; cotton
> would be only available in some locations. Linen would be
> doable, but it would require a longer period for learning.
Think spindles, rather than spinning wheels, they're both easer to make
and easer to use. They can be used any time the spinner has a free
moment, and once established, almost without thought. Also looms don't
have to be either big or fancy (ribbon looms for instance), though for
the level of community we seem to be picturing, something like a Navaho
rug loom would work about best. There are several designs, most of
which can be found in libraries, and you might even have a skilled
hobbiest among your survivors.
Most of the suggestions I've seen here seem to me to be altogether too
high tech.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Tim Merrigan
dotB
> cmsix gave me a good start on what I was looking for here. Making high
> proof alcohol is not hard, despite the poster who claimed it was. If a
> bunch of hillbillies can make everclear, which is close to pure alcohol, I'm
> sure a bunch of post-comet survivors could do so as well. If I'm hearing
> correctly, it sounds like the alcohol WILL run vehicles, but only older
> vehicles and only with some inherent problems. Keep the suggestions
> coming.... please.
>
> But first, a few more details of what I'm thinking. Let me know if I'm off
> base in any way.
>
> In the society I'm envisioning, sixteen years will have gone by since we
> last heard from our comet survivors. In that time, they've settled in and
> stabilized and built. Horses will be the primary means of transport but
> when they do need to use vehicles or engines, I want them to be able to do
> that if possible. That's where the alcohol fueling comes in. They will
> still have aircraft, but its been sixteen years. Is the jet fuel the
> aircraft burn still good?
>
> In the sixteen years that have gone by, they will have had time to construct
> any manner of things. Windmills equipped with pre-existing generators are
> just one thing. I'm also envisioning a dammed stream and a reservoir for
> drinking water and an aqueduct to transport the water for consumption by the
> town and, most importantly, for irrigation of farmland. The El Dorado Hills
> community will be roughly 1000 to 1500 people (they've been breeding like
> mad since we left them), and their main focus will be farming and
> agriculture. They will grow grains, vegetables, and have fruit orchards.
> They will have horses, cows, and chickens. The growing season, however,
> will be short, since a new ice age is in the works, so food storage will be
> a concern. I'm not a farmer, nor have I ever been one, so any help here
> would be appreciated. How many people does a cow feed? When do you
> slaughter them?
Al, when it comes to farming and animal husbandry, I think you need a
few books - one would be "Homesteaders Handbook" - Israel & Slay -
ISBN 0-913978-01-9. If nothing else, I'd recommend that this and a
few books like it could be found in the library of your survivalist
community.
There were also a very common series of books put out by AUDELS in the
1930- 50 eras which covered many trades when they were much simpler.
In the last few months I've picked up AUDELS books on automotive
mechanics, carpentry, diesel mechanics, electrical design and
electronic devices so they're still around. I think they could be used
to illustrate the basic principles needed to retrofit modern equipment
to simpler designs of course it would need an innovative genius to do
the job.
A few other useful titles would be "Practical Blacksmithing"
(Richardson) Library of Congress no. 77-94507 and a 1950's copy of
"Machinerys Handbook" by The Industrial Press - it contains tables,
formulas and specifications that any engineer needs.
Unicorn
Uni
Unicorn
> But oh, how they'll miss toilet paper...
>
> >It isn't that hard to make paper but, without our modern plants, it
> >would be small scale so would be a bit scarce. Now, consider all of
> >our uses of paper that have nothing to do with ink.
>
Now lets consider the uses that relate to survival situations.
Uni
cmsix
"Unicorn" <Som...@Somewhere.net> wrote in message
> I bow to your superior knowledge
>
> Uni
>
>
I'd like to bow to her tits myself but I don't think she'd let me. Maybe if
she had a whip handy and was bored.
I did make her ass bounce once but it isn't what you're thinking.
cmsix
Hecate
wrote:
>I bow to your superior knowledge
>
>Uni
>
LOL!!
Hecate
<Doug.Ta...@taymade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:49:24 +0100, Hecate <hec...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:30:08 +0100, Doug Taylor
>><Doug.Ta...@taymade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Speaking as a one time biochemist, you would be better off with a
>>>herbalist, even the simplest of medicines require a well equipped lab
>>>and a supply of raw materials.
>>>
>>>Take Asprin for example, would you rather manufacture that or prepare
>>>an infusion of the bark of the white willow (salix Alba), of course
>>>that probably doesn't grow in your area as it likes the climate of the
>>>South of England. But a person skilled in Native American Herbal
>>>treatments would be indispensible.
>
>What are your starting materials Acetic acid is easy, but salicylic
>acid. Many pharmaceuticals are plant originated, so I would
>concentrate on those. I would agree that microbial knowledge would be
>useful. particularly in making antibiotics.
>
It would depend on how disastrous was the disaster, but any lab
surviving would have supplies of both acetic and salicylic. Which
would be a start.
I agree, though, not something to be relied upon, more a stopgap.
A biochemist would be more likely, I feel, to be able to refine
plant-based pharms and reduce the incidence of toxins from those
plants. Obvious candidates like digitalis for example.
And microbes would be fun - not just as pharms, but for food
production and so forth.
Hecate
wrote:
>>Some basic antibiotics such as penicillin should be simple enough to
>>make if you know what you're doing. The major breakthrough wasn't
>>making it but recognizing what was there.
>
>I can't let that one stand. There is a very good article in the Grantville
>Gazette about what exactly it took to produce penicillin in *usable*
>quantities. The folks in 1632 opted to go for chloramphenicol because it was
>within their available tech. That and sulfa drugs.
>
>Chloramphenicol was a wonder drug that had a side effect of producing 1 in
>20,000 fatalities in children. That was deemed unacceptable and the drug was
>shelved, but in a survival situation, 20K to 1 seems like damned good odds. And
>it is much, much, MUCH easier to produce than the 'cillins.
>
Not necessarily. First, you make cheese...
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> A biochemist would be more likely, I feel, to be able to refine
> plant-based pharms and reduce the incidence of toxins from those
> plants.
Would a person who synthasnises and refines illegal drugs have the
right skill set to do this?
> And microbes would be fun - not just as pharms, but for food
> production and so forth.
Yeast would be the prime one. If you have brewers yeast you can
produce etholol, and if you have a still you can produce spirits.
Spirits are usefull as an antiseptic, fule and an emergency
anaesthetic.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Hecate
<dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Hecate <hec...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> A biochemist would be more likely, I feel, to be able to refine
>> plant-based pharms and reduce the incidence of toxins from those
>> plants.
>
>Would a person who synthasnises and refines illegal drugs have the
>right skill set to do this?
I doubt it. Most drug synthesizers are just told to mix a, b and c in
the right quantities or got their recipes off the Internet. I doubt
most of them could spell pharmaceutical let alone make any.
David
about it... yes, you could shave the old way. Bet most women would
just give up once the decent shaving creme supply got used up.
Hello hairy women.
David
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> On 08 Apr 2004 09:29:55 +1000, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
[...]
> >Would a person who synthasnises and refines illegal drugs have the
> >right skill set to do this?
>
> I doubt it. Most drug synthesizers are just told to mix a, b and c in
> the right quantities or got their recipes off the Internet.
So something like a lab technision.
> I doubt most of them could spell pharmaceutical let alone make any.
Both Opiates and Cocain are usefull medisins in the right contexts.
Though I expect that the most usefull drug would be asprin, if the
people live in the right envirment to extract it from willow bark (Is
this correct) then it could be a very usefull drug indeed.
suzee
>
> Hecate <hec...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
> > On 08 Apr 2004 09:29:55 +1000, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> > <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >Would a person who synthasnises and refines illegal drugs have the
> > >right skill set to do this?
> >
> > I doubt it. Most drug synthesizers are just told to mix a, b and c in
> > the right quantities or got their recipes off the Internet.
>
> So something like a lab technision.
>
> > I doubt most of them could spell pharmaceutical let alone make any.
>
> Both Opiates and Cocain are usefull medisins in the right contexts.
> Though I expect that the most usefull drug would be asprin, if the
> people live in the right envirment to extract it from willow bark (Is
> this correct) then it could be a very usefull drug indeed.
Why bother to extract it? Just make tea, same with many of the other
herbal medicines.
suzee
cmsix
"? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:m365cae...@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> Hecate <hec...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
> > On 08 Apr 2004 09:29:55 +1000, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> > <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >Would a person who synthasnises and refines illegal drugs have the
> > >right skill set to do this?
> >
> > I doubt it. Most drug synthesizers are just told to mix a, b and c in
> > the right quantities or got their recipes off the Internet.
>
> So something like a lab technision.
>
> > I doubt most of them could spell pharmaceutical let alone make any.
>
> Both Opiates and Cocain are usefull medisins in the right contexts.
> Though I expect that the most usefull drug would be asprin, if the
> people live in the right envirment to extract it from willow bark (Is
> this correct) then it could be a very usefull drug indeed.
According to Ayla, it can be administered as a tea, but I'd have to argue
about it being the most useful even though it might turn out to be the most
used. I suspect that some type of antibiotic would be the most useful and
I'll go out on a limb and say that penicillin would be the first one to try
for since I think it could be used by the largest percentage of people and
it is probably easiest to make.
I'm not saying it is easy to make but from what I remember about "Aftermath"
I think that there would probably be enough equipment and documentation
"left over" to get penicillin going.
cmsix
cmsix
"suzee" <suz...@imbris.com> wrote in message
news:4075F9F8...@imbris.com...
I should have read your reply before I made mine. If I had I'd have said
according to suzee and Ayla.
Chess
>
> suzee
Hecate
<dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Hecate <hec...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> On 08 Apr 2004 09:29:55 +1000, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
>> <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> >Would a person who synthasnises and refines illegal drugs have the
>> >right skill set to do this?
>>
>> I doubt it. Most drug synthesizers are just told to mix a, b and c in
>> the right quantities or got their recipes off the Internet.
>
>So something like a lab technision.
>
>> I doubt most of them could spell pharmaceutical let alone make any.
>
>Both Opiates and Cocain are usefull medisins in the right contexts.
>Though I expect that the most usefull drug would be asprin, if the
>people live in the right envirment to extract it from willow bark (Is
>this correct) then it could be a very usefull drug indeed.
I hope I didn't offend; I just realised I made a comment about
spelling ;-)
cmsix
"Hecate" <hec...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hm0c70h2o2qmk6tf5...@4ax.com...
I don't know about him but I wasn't offended. That doesn't mean I wouldn't
like to give you a light spanking for it though.
Chess
Hecate
wrote:
>> I hope I didn't offend; I just realised I made a comment about
>> spelling ;-)
>
>I don't know about him but I wasn't offended. That doesn't mean I wouldn't
>like to give you a light spanking for it though.
>
Mmmm, darlin' you sure know how to make a girl happy...
cmsix
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 02:35:40 GMT, "cmsix" <cm...@cmsixDONTSPAMME.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> I hope I didn't offend; I just realised I made a comment about
> >> spelling ;-)
> >
> >I don't know about him but I wasn't offended. That doesn't mean I
wouldn't
> >like to give you a light spanking for it though.
> >
> Mmmm, darlin' you sure know how to make a girl happy...
My behavior has changed as I've gotten older. Now I try to be more pleasant
and less threatening to women; less pleasant and more threatening to men. I
recommend it.
Chess
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 02:35:40 GMT, "cmsix" <cm...@cmsixDONTSPAMME.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> I hope I didn't offend; I just realised I made a comment about
> >> spelling ;-)
No offence taken.
cmsix
"? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:m3ekqwd...@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> Hecate <hec...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 02:35:40 GMT, "cmsix" <cm...@cmsixDONTSPAMME.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> I hope I didn't offend; I just realised I made a comment about
> > >> spelling ;-)
>
> No offence taken.
Sorry David, I'll try harder next time.
Chess
Denny Wheeler
<dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Hecate <hec...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 02:35:40 GMT, "cmsix" <cm...@cmsixDONTSPAMME.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> I hope I didn't offend; I just realised I made a comment about
>> >> spelling ;-)
>
>No offence taken.
Actually, it was Hecate who so spoke. But I suspect she also didn't
offend you. :)
--
-denny-
Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> Actually, it was Hecate who so spoke. But I suspect she also didn't
> offend you. :)
Well not today anyway.
Hecate
<dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Denny Wheeler <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> Actually, it was Hecate who so spoke. But I suspect she also didn't
>> offend you. :)
>
>Well not today anyway.
OK.I'll try harder next time ... ;-)
Finbar Saunders
thing that stuck in my mind was how the biggest problem with windmills
is NOT getting them to go fast, but how to slow them down.
You can't afford to let the varguaries of the wind gusts spin the
blades into the surrounding community.
The lecturer claimed that the type of windmill one sees in the
Mediterranian, with triangular cloth sails attached to the spokes, are
best at performing over a wide selection of different wind speeds.
They are self regulating as the sails deform as windspeed increases.
On a tack other than power supply -- what about the production of
medicines? Lichens and moss? back to old herbalists' knowledge?
The biggest problem with jumping back to (say) the equivalent of
medieval society is that our lifestyle is based upon myriad small
increments of knowledge that would be almost impossible to recreate
without access to a vast library or many, many more experts than the
residents of Al's townships would have.
How about the rise of 'witchcraft?' <grinning into the oncoming flames
:0)> When people are thrown upon the mercies of nature they often
resort to believing that nature is becoming personal.
I use the word witchcraft intentionally, rather than the more benign
Wicca. I would question the success of any technological advance in
the face of any residual theological beliefs.
One good thing that the flood might actually produce is a leaving
behind of the crazy dogmas of Christianity, Islam and Judaism which
managed to drag humanity into the mire of the last two millenia...
And, if the setting became too dissimilar to our own lifestyle, the
story loses much of its familiarity and intimacy.