bio in cold weather

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Sorry but....

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning and health threat from cosmic rays). Some conspiracists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions.[77] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[78] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[79]
The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays.[80] At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.[81]

Hmm aluminium for reflecting radiation....?? OK lets assume it does. Why didn't the Russians go?

2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

Did I say anything about that?

3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

Or that?

4. The Apollo 16 crew could not have survived a big solar flare firing out when they were on their way to the Moon. They would have been fried.

Or even that?
 
Hmm aluminium for reflecting radiation....?? OK lets assume it does. Why didn't the Russians go?



Did I say anything about that?
?

No sorry - it was a cut n paste from another website

did we / didn't we go to the moon is never ever going to be answered as me or you ain't going anytime soon!!! plus would I want to?? nar no atmosphere :p
 
Hmm aluminium for reflecting radiation....?? OK lets assume it does. Why didn't the Russians go?


and my question was - why didn't they go

think I've found that out anyway from another site - it's becuase 1 bloke died and he was the brains behind the operation in Russia, and also they blew up most of their own equipment and so money ran out
 
lol, good reading there, for what was a relatively simple question!!!
now then ,bio rocket fuel.
liquid oxygen and kerosene is used, so dont see why not, aint there an airline running bio fuelled jets about these days?
 
I started running my 300 tdi on bio yesterday. I was a bit concerned about the cold weather so I added cold flow 350. It might be an expensive option, I don't know. It adds less than 5p a litre on the cost of making your bio and I'm a beginner, so happy to pay that if it works. I kept a jar of bio outside near the car last night. - 6 here this morning and this is how it looked in the jar.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1355408249.508364.jpg

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1355408265.841167.jpg

No solids in there, so looks good so far. Car started no worse than it does on regular diesel in the cold. Just stuttered for a second after firing, then was fine. The car actually seems to pull better on bio.
 
No solids in there, so looks good so far. Car started no worse than it does on regular diesel in the cold. Just stuttered for a second after firing, then was fine. The car actually seems to pull better on bio.

Well made Bio will have a higher calorific value than pump diesel so yes you should feel it pull more, also better MPG and quieter running
 
I started running my 300 tdi on bio yesterday. I was a bit concerned about the cold weather so I added cold flow 350. It might be an expensive option, I don't know. It adds less than 5p a litre on the cost of making your bio and I'm a beginner, so happy to pay that if it works. I kept a jar of pee outside near the car last night. - 6 here this morning and this is how it looked in the jar.

View attachment 38957

View attachment 38958

No solids in there, so looks good so far. Car started no worse than it does on regular diesel in the cold. Just stuttered for a second after firing, then was fine. The car actually seems to pull better on bio.


:D Edited cos It amused me :D
 
When I used to do forestry work up North and in Scotland we always added anti-wax or a gallon of petrol to every tankful.Stops waxing and makes starting easier.Cleans injectors too! I woud think it is a good idea to do similar wit bio or dino fuel if you tthink it will get very far below freezing, although I am not sure if modern engines like petrol?
 
When I used to do forestry work up North and in Scotland we always added anti-wax or a gallon of petrol to every tankful.Stops waxing and makes starting easier.Cleans injectors too! I woud think it is a good idea to do similar wit bio or dino fuel if you tthink it will get very far below freezing, although I am not sure if modern engines like petrol?

Makes no difference what age the engine is you have to ba careful about the amount!

Mercs have a note in the handbooks about putting petrol in BMW no longer put it in the book but they used too
 
Back
Top