It's happening! Um... sort of.

On Tue, 27 May 2014 20:54:10 -0400, Radey wrote:

Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:31:46 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 15:09:53 -0400, Radey wrote:

John B. writes:

On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.

snip

What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
my grandfather did.

I'll be the food you eat, even in Thailand, was grown and transported
with a lot more fossil fuel than your grandfather's was.

True enough. It used to be buffalo carts but that died out when an
easier method came along. And it damnedly hard to grow stuff in
Bangkok although my wife does raise some spices in pots.

But of course the buffalo are ruminates and this emit methane so cut
20 buffalo out of the equation and add one 40 ton truck :-)

That only works if you are still only transporting the goods the same
distance, instead of tens or hundreds of times as far, as is actually
the case.

John points out the fossil fuels invested in tilling, sowing,
harvesting, and general work (moving something from where it is
to where you need it) about the farm. Phil notices the fuel used to
transport farm products from here to there, work that got a bit of a
boost from coal powered trains, and really took off in our oil age.

There is another way fossil fuel fills our bowls -- a hundred years or
so there was a world market in nitrates mined from fossil guano
deposits. These were used as fertilizer and industrial feedstocks,
mostly for munitions. Thanks to Fritz Haber, we now use vastly more
"fixed" nitrogen converted from the atmosphere, which is as close to a
limitless supply as anyone could imagine. All that need be added is
hydrogen and energy, both supplied today by natural gas.

(Would that there were such a reservoir of phosphorus.)

A clever person who wanted to reduce fossil fuel use could do worse than
to demonstrate a solar powered ammonia plant, because we'll have quite a
hard time learning to do without ammonia. I imagine it would have to
work on a "make hay as the sun shines" basis, meaning that much larger
equipment would have to be used for the same yearly yield as a fossil
fueled plant. Which is why living without fossil fuel is so much harder
than it appears; you need more investment in equipment than might first
be imagined.

I wonder about solar powered fertilizer plants. There are some pretty
large gas lines going into some of the plants I've seen :-)

Making that equipment without fossil fuels would be quite a neat trick:
The day I see a wind farm or solar field being built, installed, and
maintained only with energy derived from sun or wind is the day I'll
believe in fossil-free industrial production.

Easy, when I lived in Riverside CA you could buy a fertilizer which
was residue from sewage processing plants. It smelled very much like a
wet dog and made the grass really strive for altitude :-)

At one time, certainly in the 1950's, and likely later, the Chinese
and the Japanese collected sewage from houses to use for fertilizer...
the weak point seems to be that this encourages the spread of
hepatitis....

(perhaps a solar sewage sterilizer?)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Wed, 28 May 2014 07:01:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/27/2014 9:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 06:39:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/26/2014 7:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 10:41:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/26/2014 7:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2014 22:51:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/25/2014 4:20 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've wondered a bit about the commercial airplane effect. It seems to
me that the incremental effect of one passenger is negligible. IOW, if
one person chooses not to buy a ticket, the plane will fly anyway with
one more empty seat (assuming all else is equal). The fuel saving would
seem to be negligible.

Actually, air travel is one area where empty seats do save a
considerable amount of fuel - far more than is the case with
ground-based transport.

Explain, please. It looks like 750,000 pounds is a reasonable value for
a large airliner's total weight. One potential passenger who stayed
home reduces that by far less than 0.1%. How much fuel is actually saved?

Large aircraft calculate takeoff weight dependant on the empty
aircraft weight, the weight of cargo and the distance that they have
to fly. This gives them their gross weight for take off.

A 747-400, I believe, can carry something like 500,000 pounds of fuel
and something like 189,000 pounds of cargo, and has a maximum gross
weight for take off of 987,000 lbs. if we deduct the total fuel and
cargo weight we get an empty weight of something like 300,000 lbs.

Now suppose that our flight required 4 hours of flight time and we are
only carrying 90,000 lbs of cargo. To make this mission we will
require less power to maintain cruising speed because the airplane is
lighter. If we load maximum cargo and fuel, right up to the maximum
permitted weight for take off then the fuel consumption will be much
higher.

The actual calculation for max gross weight for take off is a bit more
complicated as runway lengths as well as altitude and temperature and
even dew point is also taken into consideration.

I understand that lower weight implies less fuel use by the plane. My
question was whether a one-passenger reduction (by a conscientious
objector to air travel who skips a flight) makes any significant - or
even detectable - difference. I suspect that unless a flight is
canceled, the fuel use is essentially the same; and that many people
must cancel their tickets to get a flight canceled.

I doubt that the addition or subreacti0n of one person, say 0.09% of
the cargo load, would have a measurable effect. As I said elsewhere a
bit more frequent washing would likely have a larger effect.

But, I believe that airlines must fly their routes and schedules
whether loaded or empty. I don't remember where I read that but I
think it is part of being granted a route.

Then we have to wonder about the alternatives, assuming those folks did
need to get to where the flight was going. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...t_of_transport
it seems like air travel generates between 0.18 - 0.24 kg CO2 per
passenger mile. Cars, perhaps 0.35; long-distance buses perhaps 0.08,
and trains about 0.19 kg/passenger-mile.

If those figures are correct, then replacing one's air travel with
anything other than a bus trip could be a net loss.

(Walking or bicycling would be much more benign, of course; but then,
nobody considers bicycling and air travel to be realistic competitors
for the same journey.)

Or perhaps a sailing vessel.
"In 1850, with seven vessels taking part and large amounts of money
riding on the outcome. The vessel "Samuel Russel" took 109 days to
reach San Francisco from New York, shortening the existing record by
eleven days, and creating a sensation that was hard to overcome."


But, I believe that airlines must fly their routes and schedules
whether loaded or empty.

Because that plane will be needed for a different flight at
the destination later that day or tomorrow. Long ago there
were some ridiculously cheap flights on eerily empty planes
at odd times due to that plane shuffle. The system still has
to get planes into the right places every day, they just
manage it better now.

Yes, true. But I was referring to a "route". I think I remember a
discussion of airlines fighting over a "route" from Australia to
California which seemed to entail permission from the U.S. and as part
of the agreement the airline was required to fly on an agreed upon
schedule..

There's no human activity that some regulator at a desk in
an office far away cannot make less efficient, less
productive, less rewarding. It's what they do.

I don't really agree with that, especially in this application. I make
a reservation to fly somewhere next month, Tuesday. To attend the
wedding you my great niece Cindy. The Big Day rolls around and Hot
Dam! The airlines decided that they wouldn't fly that day :-(

Nor would I agree in principal. A mate, told me about a bloke who was
told by the Australian Embassy, in Bangkok, that they weren't there to
solve HIS problems, that their main function was to facilitate the
relationship between Thailand and Australia and therefore servicing
all the Australians who wandered in off the street was actually making
there time less productive and less efficient.

(Strange, but true :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On 5/28/2014 6:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 20:54:10 -0400, Radey wrote:

Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:31:46 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 15:09:53 -0400, Radey wrote:

John B. writes:

On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.

snip

What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
my grandfather did.

I'll be the food you eat, even in Thailand, was grown and transported
with a lot more fossil fuel than your grandfather's was.

True enough. It used to be buffalo carts but that died out when an
easier method came along. And it damnedly hard to grow stuff in
Bangkok although my wife does raise some spices in pots.

But of course the buffalo are ruminates and this emit methane so cut
20 buffalo out of the equation and add one 40 ton truck :-)

That only works if you are still only transporting the goods the same
distance, instead of tens or hundreds of times as far, as is actually
the case.

John points out the fossil fuels invested in tilling, sowing,
harvesting, and general work (moving something from where it is
to where you need it) about the farm. Phil notices the fuel used to
transport farm products from here to there, work that got a bit of a
boost from coal powered trains, and really took off in our oil age.

There is another way fossil fuel fills our bowls -- a hundred years or
so there was a world market in nitrates mined from fossil guano
deposits. These were used as fertilizer and industrial feedstocks,
mostly for munitions. Thanks to Fritz Haber, we now use vastly more
"fixed" nitrogen converted from the atmosphere, which is as close to a
limitless supply as anyone could imagine. All that need be added is
hydrogen and energy, both supplied today by natural gas.

(Would that there were such a reservoir of phosphorus.)

A clever person who wanted to reduce fossil fuel use could do worse than
to demonstrate a solar powered ammonia plant, because we'll have quite a
hard time learning to do without ammonia. I imagine it would have to
work on a "make hay as the sun shines" basis, meaning that much larger
equipment would have to be used for the same yearly yield as a fossil
fueled plant. Which is why living without fossil fuel is so much harder
than it appears; you need more investment in equipment than might first
be imagined.

I wonder about solar powered fertilizer plants. There are some pretty
large gas lines going into some of the plants I've seen :-)

Making that equipment without fossil fuels would be quite a neat trick:
The day I see a wind farm or solar field being built, installed, and
maintained only with energy derived from sun or wind is the day I'll
believe in fossil-free industrial production.

Easy, when I lived in Riverside CA you could buy a fertilizer which
was residue from sewage processing plants. It smelled very much like a
wet dog and made the grass really strive for altitude :-)

At one time, certainly in the 1950's, and likely later, the Chinese
and the Japanese collected sewage from houses to use for fertilizer...
the weak point seems to be that this encourages the spread of
hepatitis....

(perhaps a solar sewage sterilizer?)

Woo hoo a local product:
http://milorganite.com/

Young people think they invented recycling. Milorganite
dates to 1926.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 29 May 2014 07:27:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/28/2014 6:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 20:54:10 -0400, Radey wrote:

Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:31:46 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 15:09:53 -0400, Radey wrote:

John B. writes:

On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.

snip

What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
my grandfather did.

I'll be the food you eat, even in Thailand, was grown and transported
with a lot more fossil fuel than your grandfather's was.

True enough. It used to be buffalo carts but that died out when an
easier method came along. And it damnedly hard to grow stuff in
Bangkok although my wife does raise some spices in pots.

But of course the buffalo are ruminates and this emit methane so cut
20 buffalo out of the equation and add one 40 ton truck :-)

That only works if you are still only transporting the goods the same
distance, instead of tens or hundreds of times as far, as is actually
the case.

John points out the fossil fuels invested in tilling, sowing,
harvesting, and general work (moving something from where it is
to where you need it) about the farm. Phil notices the fuel used to
transport farm products from here to there, work that got a bit of a
boost from coal powered trains, and really took off in our oil age.

There is another way fossil fuel fills our bowls -- a hundred years or
so there was a world market in nitrates mined from fossil guano
deposits. These were used as fertilizer and industrial feedstocks,
mostly for munitions. Thanks to Fritz Haber, we now use vastly more
"fixed" nitrogen converted from the atmosphere, which is as close to a
limitless supply as anyone could imagine. All that need be added is
hydrogen and energy, both supplied today by natural gas.

(Would that there were such a reservoir of phosphorus.)

A clever person who wanted to reduce fossil fuel use could do worse than
to demonstrate a solar powered ammonia plant, because we'll have quite a
hard time learning to do without ammonia. I imagine it would have to
work on a "make hay as the sun shines" basis, meaning that much larger
equipment would have to be used for the same yearly yield as a fossil
fueled plant. Which is why living without fossil fuel is so much harder
than it appears; you need more investment in equipment than might first
be imagined.

I wonder about solar powered fertilizer plants. There are some pretty
large gas lines going into some of the plants I've seen :-)

Making that equipment without fossil fuels would be quite a neat trick:
The day I see a wind farm or solar field being built, installed, and
maintained only with energy derived from sun or wind is the day I'll
believe in fossil-free industrial production.

Easy, when I lived in Riverside CA you could buy a fertilizer which
was residue from sewage processing plants. It smelled very much like a
wet dog and made the grass really strive for altitude :-)

At one time, certainly in the 1950's, and likely later, the Chinese
and the Japanese collected sewage from houses to use for fertilizer...
the weak point seems to be that this encourages the spread of
hepatitis....

(perhaps a solar sewage sterilizer?)

Woo hoo a local product:
http://milorganite.com/

Young people think they invented recycling. Milorganite
dates to 1926.

Actually, I believe, the raw product dates back a few more years :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On 5/29/2014 8:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 07:27:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/28/2014 6:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 20:54:10 -0400, Radey wrote:

Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:31:46 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 15:09:53 -0400, Radey wrote:

John B. writes:

On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.

snip

What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
my grandfather did.

I'll be the food you eat, even in Thailand, was grown and transported
with a lot more fossil fuel than your grandfather's was.

True enough. It used to be buffalo carts but that died out when an
easier method came along. And it damnedly hard to grow stuff in
Bangkok although my wife does raise some spices in pots.

But of course the buffalo are ruminates and this emit methane so cut
20 buffalo out of the equation and add one 40 ton truck :-)

That only works if you are still only transporting the goods the same
distance, instead of tens or hundreds of times as far, as is actually
the case.

John points out the fossil fuels invested in tilling, sowing,
harvesting, and general work (moving something from where it is
to where you need it) about the farm. Phil notices the fuel used to
transport farm products from here to there, work that got a bit of a
boost from coal powered trains, and really took off in our oil age.

There is another way fossil fuel fills our bowls -- a hundred years or
so there was a world market in nitrates mined from fossil guano
deposits. These were used as fertilizer and industrial feedstocks,
mostly for munitions. Thanks to Fritz Haber, we now use vastly more
"fixed" nitrogen converted from the atmosphere, which is as close to a
limitless supply as anyone could imagine. All that need be added is
hydrogen and energy, both supplied today by natural gas.

(Would that there were such a reservoir of phosphorus.)

A clever person who wanted to reduce fossil fuel use could do worse than
to demonstrate a solar powered ammonia plant, because we'll have quite a
hard time learning to do without ammonia. I imagine it would have to
work on a "make hay as the sun shines" basis, meaning that much larger
equipment would have to be used for the same yearly yield as a fossil
fueled plant. Which is why living without fossil fuel is so much harder
than it appears; you need more investment in equipment than might first
be imagined.

I wonder about solar powered fertilizer plants. There are some pretty
large gas lines going into some of the plants I've seen :-)

Making that equipment without fossil fuels would be quite a neat trick:
The day I see a wind farm or solar field being built, installed, and
maintained only with energy derived from sun or wind is the day I'll
believe in fossil-free industrial production.

Easy, when I lived in Riverside CA you could buy a fertilizer which
was residue from sewage processing plants. It smelled very much like a
wet dog and made the grass really strive for altitude :-)

At one time, certainly in the 1950's, and likely later, the Chinese
and the Japanese collected sewage from houses to use for fertilizer...
the weak point seems to be that this encourages the spread of
hepatitis....

(perhaps a solar sewage sterilizer?)

Woo hoo a local product:
http://milorganite.com/

Young people think they invented recycling. Milorganite
dates to 1926.

Actually, I believe, the raw product dates back a few more years :-)


The innovation was in getting other people to pay for it!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 04:25:16 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Wed, 28 May 2014
07:57:25 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 01:39:34 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 25 May 2014
22:51:30 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 5/25/2014 4:20 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've wondered a bit about the commercial airplane effect. It seems to
me that the incremental effect of one passenger is negligible. IOW, if
one person chooses not to buy a ticket, the plane will fly anyway with
one more empty seat (assuming all else is equal). The fuel saving would
seem to be negligible.

Actually, air travel is one area where empty seats do save a
considerable amount of fuel - far more than is the case with
ground-based transport.

Explain, please. It looks like 750,000 pounds is a reasonable value for
a large airliner's total weight. One potential passenger who stayed
home reduces that by far less than 0.1%. How much fuel is actually saved?

On a long-haul flight (taking a transatlantic flight as typical
"long-haul), about twice the weight of the passenger and their luggage
will be saved in fuel. It used to be more (about 25% more in a 747),
but modern aircraft are slightly more fuel efficient.
It varies rather, depending on aircraft type, load factor (the first
few passengers don't cost as much in fuel as the last few, for
example, as fuel consumption graphs curve upwards more steeply with
increased weight*, rather than being a straight line), cruising
altitude, and even where on the aircraft the passengers are (or would
have been) loaded, but it's a fair approximation of the average
saving.

So if we take as an average a passenger + baggage weight of 100Kg
probably a touch conservative, these days), the average fuel cost on a
transatlantic light is going to be in the region of 248.75 litres,
based on Jet A1 having a density of 0.804kg/L.

You may think that's insignificant - but it would keep my car in fuel
for a couple of years.

*This steepening upward curve kicks up heavily at high load factors,
so much so that it nearly caught out the first "Black Buck" raid by a
lone Vulcan during the Falklands war - since in-flight refueling had
only just been restored to the aircraft, the fuel burn/load graphs
hadn't been updated to take account of any gross aircraft weight
greater than maximum take-off weight minus climb-out fuel burn, which
is much less that the maximum flyable weight of an aircraft with a
full payload and full fuel tanks (operational flexibility is taken
into account at the design stage, meaning you can trade payload
against fuel load as necessary). They were literally off the end of
the graph after each tanking, and although they tried to estimate it,
they fell short by about the capacity of a whole Victor tanker - and
that was just the difference between an educated guess (by experienced
Vulcan pilots, in-flight refueling specialists, and flight engineers)
and the reality.
As a result, the records for both the heaviest and lightest airborne
weights of a Vulcan ever recorded were on that same flight, the
heaviest just after tanking each time on the way out, and the lightest
just as they were preparing to ditch when the recovery Victor tanker
rolled out of it's joining turn just ahead of them - it really was
that close ("nothing on the gauge but the makers name" springs to
mind), and even the "long shot" Victor that gave them their final
tanking before run-in to the target gave them fuel they needed
themselves, and had to be recovered by another tanker which was
scrambled to meet them (thanks to some quick thinking, tank dipping,
and back-of-an-envelope calculations on the returning fleet of Victor
tankers back at Ascension Island).
All complicated by the need to maintain radio silence, of course.

While I don't doubt your story it seems almost unbelievable.
Apparently the U.S. was taking all that into consideration long before
the British discovered it as the B-52's used a system of reduced fuel
loads for take off, to allow for heavy bomb loads, coupled with
refueling almost as soon as they reached altitude in 1972, to my
knowledge, and probably as far back as the B-47 days.

The problem is that the exact fuel burn curve is different for every
airframe and engine combination, and the Vulcan had not had any
in-flight refueling capability since it's earliest days - and when it
DID have it, it was intended to be used in combination with a single,
high yield bomb or missile, of relatively light weight, where even
brim-full tanks would give something like 8 or 9 tons lower gross
weight, and with the earlier, slightly less powerful (and more
economical) engines, not the Olympus 301s as fitted to all of the

But the fuel use to gross weight equation is common to all aircraft
and the Vulcan people must have know about it. After all a jet burns a
vast amount of fuel just to get off the ground and to cruising
altitude - which admittedly combines gross weight and operation in
denser air, but still...

So not only was there no current data on what the fuel consumption at
that loading would be, there never had been any.

Perhaps not but certainly the effects of full fuel loads combined with
large bomb loads must have been known.

No Vulcan had EVER flown with a 21,000lb bomb load and full fuel tanks
(and a Dash-10 Radar jamming pod - another addition made purely for
the Black Back missions) until 31st April 1982, the date of the first
Black Buck raid (well, it was about 4 am on the 1st of May when they
hit their target).

While I don't doubt your statement it does seem strange that fuel
consumption versus gross weight tests were not flown during the
initial testing of the aircraft so that at least an educated guess
could have been made about what the effects of a 10 ton bomb load and
a heavy fuel load would be.

And there was never any comparable aircraft type to derive data from -
the "tin triangle" was and is unique in it's configuration - and so
the discovery that it's fuel consumption rose quite so steeply with
that last few thousand pounds of gross weight could not have been
easily predicted except by test flying in that configuration, which
was not something that there was time to do under the circumstances.
They'd only refueled a Vulcan from a Victor successfully within the
previous two weeks (after a desperate race to reinstate the in-flight
refueling system), so the crews were only just qualified for the task
in time. Conducting test flights to establish precise fuel burn rates
was simply never considered - they just projected from what data they
had, which seemed perfectly reasonable at the time.

I can't comment on British practice but I was in the U.S.A.F. F-111b
test program and fuel consumption use versus various gross loadings as
well as various external configurations was flown so at least an
educated guess of what will be the effect of adding some new device
could be made.

The testing time was so short that they rigged a jump-seat for an
in-flight refueling instructor to ride along on the raid, as the
pilots had so little experience of it, and the risk of them being
unable to tank in unknown weather was deemed to be too high a risk to
take.
In the words of Bob Tuxford AFC (the captain of the (reserve)
long-shot final tanker:
"We were flying in towering cumulous clouds, at night, your visual
references for formating on the aircraft in front are reduced,
therefore with the turbulence, the distracting lightning, St Elmo's
Fire all around the cockpit windows, the whole process of achieving a
stable contact and maintaining it for long enough to get the fuel on
becomes much more difficult."

But this wasn't a new discovery, for God's sake. The U.S. had been
flying in air refueling, since 1948 - 49, 30 years before Black Buck
and the British had known about it since Cobham plc. was formed in
1934 as " Flight Refueling Limited".

In fact Bob Tuxford had to exchange roles with the other Victor on the
final outbound leg of BB1, as they'd broken their refueling probe
taking fuel from his Victor, which meant he could only take fuel from
the other Victor, not give it to them, and.the fourth completed
mission (BB6 - 3 & 4 were scrubbed) had to divert to Brazil for
internment, owing to breaking it's refueling probe during it's
recovery tanking.

Breaking a probe is not something unique to the British use of the
system. The U.S. has broken a number also :-)

It should be noted that the Black Buck raids are still the longest
bombing missions ever conducted from a single fixed base - longer
missions conducted since have all had the benefit of forward
positioned tankers, and some have not even returned to their base of
origin. So it's not all that surprising that it was something of a
learning experience for all concerned.
The important thing is that they knew it was a learning experience, so
noted the fuel remaining in the returning Tanker fleet was below
expected reserves (well, what are reserves for?), did the sums, and
knew to launch additional recovery tankers.
So it worked, but it took 18 sorties by 12 tankers to get 1 Vulcan
over the target, where they were expecting 16 sorties. by the same 12
tankers.

There is a lot of information on-line about the raids, as well as in
the book "Vulcan 607" by Rowland White, but you can't beat speaking
directly to those involved.

Not to demean the action as it set a record for long range bombing
flights but I very much doubt that the level of ignorance in the RAF
was as high as seems to be claimed. My guess was that the mission
planners had a very good idea of how much weight could be carried at
what gross load and planned the mission accordingly as well the
approximate drag of any added devices. After all the first attempt was
successful.

The wiki report mentions 7 BB missions and while several had aircraft
problems only the first seemed to have had fuel problems. And the much
mentioned account of adding a chemical toilet... I worked on the B-29
and B-50's and their chemical toilet" weighed all of, say 10 lbs. :-)
Hardly worth mentioning when one is hauling around 10 tons of bombs.

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 04:29:28 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Wed, 28 May 2014
08:13:38 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 01:46:15 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
07:23:09 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 14:49:51 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

John B. wrote:
:On Sun, 25 May 2014 01:18:06 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

:John B. wrote:
::On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
::wrote:
:
::On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:16:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
:: On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
:: wrote:
:: On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:: On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
::
:: We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
:: ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
:: And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
:: about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
:: carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
:: theirs.
::
:: Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?
::
:: Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.
::
:: What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
:: my grandfather did.
::
::The point is: "We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use" (i.e.
::using progressively *less* our grandparents did).
:
::I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't
::the amount of fossil fuel an individual uses it is the number of
::individuals that are using the fossil fuel.
:
::As I said, I'm not using any more fossil fuel than my grandfather.
:
:You said that, I don't believe you.

:Why ever not?

How many times you flown in a jet airplane? How much of your stuff
crosses an ocean to get to you? how much plastic do you have? Per
capita fossil fuel use is rising.

Yes, it probably is. But I might mention that flying on a scheduled
flight does not add to the amount of fossil fuel burned as the flight
is going with or without me.

Yes it does, by rather a lot.
Less if you are a "no show", because the fuel to carry you will have
already been uplifted (and that is even more than your own weight and
that of your baggage), but still significant, even if you just don't
show up.

I'm not so sure. To the best of my knowledge the airlines use a
"standard human" for weight and balance calculations, which is (I
believe 170 lbs) so passenger weights are not exact. I'm not sure
about passenger baggage but I would guess that it is done the same
way.

Although what you are saying is certainly how it is done, I'm not so
surer that results are as exact as you say it is.

Back in the Korean war days Operations used to hand out a fuel load
depending on winds aloft, bomb load, distance and (perhaps) the phase
of the moon. The crews did their pre-flight and then returned to Ops
for a final briefing and it was not unusual for the Aircraft Commander
to say something like, "My wife just had a baby - stick another 200
gallons in the center wing tank". Something like 1,400 lbs more fuel
didn't seem to bother them :-)

Economy isn't an issue on combat operations unless you are at the
absolute limit of range.

But it is.

The max gross load for takeoff is a determining factor - a short
flight can carry a larger bomb load, and that is how a mission is
planned. Start with the distance, weight and expected winds aloft and
that gives you a minimum fuel load. Then juggle the bomb load,
adjusted fuel load and max gross weight until the figures match.

And if you aren't the one paying for it, the only time you can have
too much fuel is if you're on fire!

Nope. Too much fuel and you won't clear the air field fence on take
off. Not so common on jet aircraft but with propeller driven machines
it was something to think about :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 05:12:19 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Wed, 28 May 2014
09:02:33 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 02:06:05 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:23:45 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 21:39:15 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sun, 25 May 2014
13:23:57 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 24 May 2014 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 3:43:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:16:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

sniped

The point was to enforce my thesis that anything concrete done about
global warming that effects the electorate is going to be political
suicide. At least for a U.S. politician.

I guess that's the problem of having so much reliance on political
campaigns funded by hydrocarbon related industries.

It isn't just energy related contributions. It is corn farmers, the
cotton growers, the sugar producers, the defense companies, everyone
gets in the act.

But after all, we are just emulating our once colonial masters with
their "rotten boroughs" :-)

more snipped


Dancing around and waving hands in the air isn't going to accomplish
anything.

China emits about 26.4% of the world's CO2 production. If the U.S.
refused to buy Chinese goods it would probably decrease that figure by
30 - 40% (we are their 2nd largest trading partner).
Think it will ever happen?

Could easily tariff the trade to cover the cost of mitigating the
carbon use.

Do you mean that a tariff will reduce the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere? Or just to make it more palatable?
"Yes, yes, we know that those dirty Chinese are mucking up the
atmosphere but we are punishing them by putting a tariff on their
goods sold here"

If it raises the price to be higher than that of goods made using low
or zero carbon methods, then people will buy those instead.
Or the Chinese will adopt the low/zero carbon manufacturing methods to
avoid the tariffs (although there's still the carbon cost of getting
the goods from manufacturer to end user, which would of course have to
be subject to the same tariffs).

I wonder whether a tariff on Chinese goods would have any effect on
the amount of U.S. debt the Chinese are prepared to accept. At the
present the Chinese are the third largest holder of U.S. public debt
and the largest foreign entity.

My guess is that rather then a tariff the government might be more
inclined to provide free shipping :-)


The U.S. is the second largest emitter of CO2. Can we reduce that?

Technically we can, but it would probably be political suicide for any
political party that attempted it.

It will soon reach the point where it will be political suicide NOT
to.

It will? And there is no controversy about global warming? Everyone is
a true believer and will gladly give up his gas guzzling behemoth for
a bicycle?

Face it, apart from a few oil company shills (and those gullible
enough to believe them), anthropomorphic global warming is accepted as
proven fact by the entire scientific community.

Is it only the oil companies? I have never paid much attention as the
great, unwashed, public is so intent on ignoring the whole thing that
I have very pessimistic views of the whole question.

Example:
Coca-Cola apparently has testified that they use 1.9 million metric
tons of CO2 annually.... has there been a decrease in the amount of
carbonated drinks sold recently? That volume is approximately equal to
the CO2 produced from 213,265,306 gallons (U.S.) of gasoline.

Even a casual investigation of automobile use indicates that auto use
is very much a factor of finances. Looking at any developing country
shows a very distinct association of worker's wages and internal
combustion power usage. First the sandals, then the bicycle, next the
scooter and finally the NEW CAR! In fact one doesn't have to scrabble
around in the jungle to discover that. In about 1960 I had an English
bloke, from Newcastle, working for me. He was a time served machinist
and had immigrated and said that when he went back home to see his mum
that none of the lads, down tha pub, would believe that he actually
owned a car in America.

Some 86% of U.S. homes have air conditioning (in 1973 47%), 60% cook
with electricity, 66% have a dishwasher, 81% have a clothes drier,
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?...0/HUDNo.10-138

The largest producer of CO2 is not the transportation industry it is
buildings:

In 2004, total emissions from residential
and commercial buildings were 2236
million metric tons of CO2, or 39% of
total U.S. CO2 emissions, more than
either the transportation or industry

(Transportation is 33% and Industry is 29%)

So they're all in the same ballpark.
But transport is the one that it's easiest to do something about, and
certainly the one that is easiest to limit the growth of.

Over the next 25 years, CO2 emissions
from buildings are projected to grow
faster than any other sector, with
emissions from commercial buildings
projected to grow the fastest, 1.8% a
year through 2030
www.usgbc.org/

Time for some stringent building codes then.

I see no evidence at all of a positive effort to actually reduce CO2
emissions.

Depends where you look.
I got my photovoltaic panels through a scheme which provided them
free, with the installer gaining the "feed in" payment that the
government pays to clean energy producers - I just get the free
electricity.
Power companies here are required to pay into a fund that insulates
homes and supplies low energy lightbulbs, in proportion to their
carbon use - this is what funds those photovoltaic panels as well.
And you can't go far in the UK without encountering a wind farm, and
the offshore ones are springing up as fast as they can build them.
All home sales are required to have an environmental audit provided to
the purchaser, so that buyers can get an idea of how much power a
house will need to keep it heated.
Other countries in Europe have even more stringent measures.

(Yes, yes, I know. they sell hybrid cars, but is that really an effort
to reduce carbon emersions? Or just a method of selling more cars?)

Well, we tax fuel much more heavily in Europe too, and pay a higher
vehicle tax on "gas guzzlers", with the bands determined by CO2 per km
figures.
But I suspect that's largely been hijacked by the automotive industry
as a way of selling more cars, as any really environmental scheme
would simply re-engine the ones we already have with more efficient
power plants (building a car has a very high environmental cost, which
even a massive efficiency improvement would take a decade or more to
pay back).


I suggest that all the futzing about with transportation is simply a
rationalization of the problem:

In 1950 the world population was 2,556,000,053
in 2000 6,082,966,429
in 2020(estimated) 7,584,821,144

The U.N. says that the population growth in the 20th century was about
400% while carbon emissions increased about 12 times.And if you have
been in a developing country for a while this seems reasonable.

I can remember when the usual house in Thailand had a 40 watt light
bulb in most rooms and people were careful about turning them off when
they went out of the room. Now every house on my street has an air
conditioner, and a fridge, and a T.V., perhaps more than 1, and a
computer, and...

When we opened the Singapore Office all the Singaporean employees rode
the bus to work. when we closed the office some twenty years later,
they all had cars.

It used to be that Thai workers either walked to work, or rode a
bicycle. Now they ride their motorcycles. The number of registered
motorcycles in Thailand outnumbers cars and pickups.

In short, as a country develops the citizens are no longer satisfied
to squat over a campfire and cook meat on a stick. They want the
benefits of civilization.

And population growth is usually greatest in the less developed areas
(it has been said, due to the lack of TV) so much of the increase is
going to be those who contribute the largest increase per capita of
carbon emission.

So is the U.K.'s (for example) reduction in carbon emissions of some
25% going to have an effect on the increase in the vast increase in
number of people using fossil fuels?

(perhaps a ruling, "No automobiles for those East of Calais)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 17:08:39 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Wed, 28 May 2014
09:11:57 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 02:32:25 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:36:49 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 22:09:17 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Frank Krygowski considered Fri, 23 May 2014
18:37:46 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:


Additional CO2 into the atmosphere cannot possibly be a net benefit to
the environment.

One main reason I like fracking is that it produces economic incentives
to burn natural gas instead of coal. That substitution greatly reduces
CO2.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...30751849503848

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Not quite, but close.
My car runs mostly on veggie oil, most of it used.
snipped
Re used vegetable oil?

Can you buy it easily? I ask as here used veggie oil isn't sold, at
least you can't go to McDonalds and get a tin or two as it apparently
goes to some large buyer, but for what use I can't imagine.

We do have diesel fuel that is a blend of diesel and palm oil though.

Ah yes, slash and burn a load of rain forest to produce some
bio-diesel, that'll really help.

Whatever are you talking about?

Palm oil comes from palm tree nuts - they harvest the nuts, not cut
down the trees. And what is the difference between some wilderness
area and a well planned and nurtured plantation?

The rate of deforestation that is going on worldwide to create those
monocultures is driving many entire ecosystems to extinction.

And if you really can't tell the difference between a monoculture and
a rainforest, and the relative benefits of the immense biodiversity of
the rainforest, then it's not even worth trying to discuss it with
you. You might as well concrete the lot and grow your precious oil
palm trees in pots as have your "well planned and nurtured
plantation".

Ah well, blame it on the English who, I believe, may well have been
the forerunners in the deforesting race, not only at home with the
building of the Royal Navy, but abroad with the earlier buying up yew
wood..

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 06:56:31 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Wed, 04 Jun 2014
08:56:10 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 04:29:28 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Wed, 28 May 2014
08:13:38 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 01:46:15 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
07:23:09 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 14:49:51 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

John B. wrote:
:On Sun, 25 May 2014 01:18:06 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

:John B. wrote:
::On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
::wrote:
:
::On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:16:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
:: On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
:: wrote:
:: On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:: On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
::
:: We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
:: ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
:: And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
:: about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
:: carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
:: theirs.
::
:: Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?
::
:: Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.
::
:: What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
:: my grandfather did.
::
::The point is: "We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use" (i.e.
::using progressively *less* our grandparents did).
:
::I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't
::the amount of fossil fuel an individual uses it is the number of
::individuals that are using the fossil fuel.
:
::As I said, I'm not using any more fossil fuel than my grandfather.
:
:You said that, I don't believe you.

:Why ever not?

How many times you flown in a jet airplane? How much of your stuff
crosses an ocean to get to you? how much plastic do you have? Per
capita fossil fuel use is rising.

Yes, it probably is. But I might mention that flying on a scheduled
flight does not add to the amount of fossil fuel burned as the flight
is going with or without me.

Yes it does, by rather a lot.
Less if you are a "no show", because the fuel to carry you will have
already been uplifted (and that is even more than your own weight and
that of your baggage), but still significant, even if you just don't
show up.

I'm not so sure. To the best of my knowledge the airlines use a
"standard human" for weight and balance calculations, which is (I
believe 170 lbs) so passenger weights are not exact. I'm not sure
about passenger baggage but I would guess that it is done the same
way.

Although what you are saying is certainly how it is done, I'm not so
surer that results are as exact as you say it is.

Back in the Korean war days Operations used to hand out a fuel load
depending on winds aloft, bomb load, distance and (perhaps) the phase
of the moon. The crews did their pre-flight and then returned to Ops
for a final briefing and it was not unusual for the Aircraft Commander
to say something like, "My wife just had a baby - stick another 200
gallons in the center wing tank". Something like 1,400 lbs more fuel
didn't seem to bother them :-)

Economy isn't an issue on combat operations unless you are at the
absolute limit of range.

But it is.

The max gross load for takeoff is a determining factor - a short
flight can carry a larger bomb load, and that is how a mission is
planned. Start with the distance, weight and expected winds aloft and
that gives you a minimum fuel load. Then juggle the bomb load,
adjusted fuel load and max gross weight until the figures match.

Or you start with MTOW (which will almost always be lower than max
gross weight, as max gross assumes an infinite runway at sea level),
work out how much of that needs to be fuel to get to the target, add a
bit "for the wife and kids", and see how much remains for payload.
If that is more than max payload, add fuel for operational flexibility
and additional reserve.
Or you start with a particular weapon and delivery aircraft, and
calculate the maximum range over which you can deliver it, then look
to see if any valid targets are within range (taking met into account,
of course).

There are lots of ways to skin that cat.
But none of the above include tanking, which allows you to have an
aircraft which is heavier at altitude than it was on the ground.

Actually a normal B-52 mission loads sufficient fuel to get the
aircraft off the ground and to altitude (and of course a little more),
which allows a big weapons load, then meets the tanker to top off the
tanks perhaps an hour after take off. Then it is hidi-ho and across
the ocean we go :-)

And if you aren't the one paying for it, the only time you can have
too much fuel is if you're on fire!

Nope. Too much fuel and you won't clear the air field fence on take
off. Not so common on jet aircraft but with propeller driven machines
it was something to think about :-)

OK, insert "in the air" to the old saying., after "fuel".
I suppose Black Buck 1 was the mission which proved that old adage
wrong!

My guess was that they had to replace all the seat cushions as they a
had a little round hole bitten out of them :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)