Re: More VW Diesel Knee-Slappers
 

"The underside of the boiler and shows the burner. The burner is of
vaporizing design (like a Coleman Camp Stove) which means the heat of
the burner fire is used to vaporize the liquid fuel prior to it being
mixed with air for burning. Kerosene from the main fuel tank is pumped
to 140 pounds pressure for delivery to the burner. It is fed into a
vaporizing coil located just above the burner grate where the liquid
changes to vapor. The vapor is then directed through a nozzle and into a
venturi mixing tube where it eventually makes its way to the underside
of the burner grate. Passing through holes in the grate the air-fuel
mixture burns on the surface of the grate. A small pilot continuously
burns to serve as the ignition source for the main burner. The pilot is
also a vaporizing design like the main burner but it uses white gas at
25 pounds pressure as its fuel source. The main burner is automatically
fired depending on the steam pressure in the boiler. As you've probably
guessed, there is no ignition key for a Stanley but rather a Blow Torch
serves as the "key" to starting a Stanley! Once the pilot is lit a
Stanley is always ready to drive."
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~wilhelmr/stanphot.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

DaveW wrote:
>
> I think Stanley Steamers run on gasoline or some other petroleum
> distillate. They did NOT run on coal.
>
> The one Jay Leno brought to the Chrysler Performance West Spring Fling
> in Woodley Park a few years ago certainly used liquid fuel. He claimed
> to have gotten it up to 85mph, but had to stop every 25 miles...for water!
>
> Regards,
>
> DAve

Re: More VW Diesel Knee-Slappers
 

"Handywired" <handywired@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040606153155.02211.00000592@mb-m28.aol.com...
> > she also helped destroy the nuclear
> >power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been
> >good
> >for the country!
>
> Oh man. Just what we need. More nuc'ular power plants generating waste
so bad
> that they have to try to figure out how to communicate in sign language
to the
> cockroaches who will inherit the Earth after we get done f$^#%ing it up.
They
> have those pylon thingies with the pictographs at the nuc'ular waste dumps
so
> that 100,000 years from now, when the stuff is still too toxic to be
around,
> the poor future bastards will know who to blame for the fiasco... US!
Oh, and
> yeah... we know how to engineer structures to last 100,00+ years. Trust
us, of
> course we do. Let's just bury the stuff in a great big hole. Truuuust us
they
> say.
>
> One nuc'ular power plant "lets go" and entire geographical REGIONS are
> uninhabitable (uh, Chernobyl?). I could literally have to lose my home
and
> land (best case) if Hanford ever has a problem, for example. That is
--------.
> And saying that they have redundant safety systems, etc, is -------- too.
So
> do 747's.

God damn, you can recite all that left-wing anti-nuke crap in one sitting?
I'm friggin' impressed!

I like this propaganda better: "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car
than from the American nuclear power industry." (Unfortunately, for you the
latter is TRUE!)

Re: More VW Diesel Knee-Slappers
 

"Handywired" <handywired@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040606153155.02211.00000592@mb-m28.aol.com...
> > she also helped destroy the nuclear
> >power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been
> >good
> >for the country!
>
> Oh man. Just what we need. More nuc'ular power plants generating waste
so bad
> that they have to try to figure out how to communicate in sign language
to the
> cockroaches who will inherit the Earth after we get done f$^#%ing it up.
They
> have those pylon thingies with the pictographs at the nuc'ular waste dumps
so
> that 100,000 years from now, when the stuff is still too toxic to be
around,
> the poor future bastards will know who to blame for the fiasco... US!
Oh, and
> yeah... we know how to engineer structures to last 100,00+ years. Trust
us, of
> course we do. Let's just bury the stuff in a great big hole. Truuuust us
they
> say.
>
> One nuc'ular power plant "lets go" and entire geographical REGIONS are
> uninhabitable (uh, Chernobyl?). I could literally have to lose my home
and
> land (best case) if Hanford ever has a problem, for example. That is
--------.
> And saying that they have redundant safety systems, etc, is -------- too.
So
> do 747's.

God damn, you can recite all that left-wing anti-nuke crap in one sitting?
I'm friggin' impressed!

I like this propaganda better: "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car
than from the American nuclear power industry." (Unfortunately, for you the
latter is TRUE!)

Re: More VW Diesel Knee-Slappers
 

"Handywired" <handywired@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040606153155.02211.00000592@mb-m28.aol.com...
> > she also helped destroy the nuclear
> >power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been
> >good
> >for the country!
>
> Oh man. Just what we need. More nuc'ular power plants generating waste
so bad
> that they have to try to figure out how to communicate in sign language
to the
> cockroaches who will inherit the Earth after we get done f$^#%ing it up.
They
> have those pylon thingies with the pictographs at the nuc'ular waste dumps
so
> that 100,000 years from now, when the stuff is still too toxic to be
around,
> the poor future bastards will know who to blame for the fiasco... US!
Oh, and
> yeah... we know how to engineer structures to last 100,00+ years. Trust
us, of
> course we do. Let's just bury the stuff in a great big hole. Truuuust us
they
> say.
>
> One nuc'ular power plant "lets go" and entire geographical REGIONS are
> uninhabitable (uh, Chernobyl?). I could literally have to lose my home
and
> land (best case) if Hanford ever has a problem, for example. That is
--------.
> And saying that they have redundant safety systems, etc, is -------- too.
So
> do 747's.

God damn, you can recite all that left-wing anti-nuke crap in one sitting?
I'm friggin' impressed!

I like this propaganda better: "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car
than from the American nuclear power industry." (Unfortunately, for you the
latter is TRUE!)

Re: More VW Diesel Knee-Slappers
 

"Handywired" <handywired@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040606153155.02211.00000592@mb-m28.aol.com...
> > she also helped destroy the nuclear
> >power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been
> >good
> >for the country!
>
> Oh man. Just what we need. More nuc'ular power plants generating waste
so bad
> that they have to try to figure out how to communicate in sign language
to the
> cockroaches who will inherit the Earth after we get done f$^#%ing it up.
They
> have those pylon thingies with the pictographs at the nuc'ular waste dumps
so
> that 100,000 years from now, when the stuff is still too toxic to be
around,
> the poor future bastards will know who to blame for the fiasco... US!
Oh, and
> yeah... we know how to engineer structures to last 100,00+ years. Trust
us, of
> course we do. Let's just bury the stuff in a great big hole. Truuuust us
they
> say.
>
> One nuc'ular power plant "lets go" and entire geographical REGIONS are
> uninhabitable (uh, Chernobyl?). I could literally have to lose my home
and
> land (best case) if Hanford ever has a problem, for example. That is
--------.
> And saying that they have redundant safety systems, etc, is -------- too.
So
> do 747's.

God damn, you can recite all that left-wing anti-nuke crap in one sitting?
I'm friggin' impressed!

I like this propaganda better: "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car
than from the American nuclear power industry." (Unfortunately, for you the
latter is TRUE!)

Re: More VW Diesel Knee-Slappers
 

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, DaveW wrote:

>
> I think Stanley Steamers run on gasoline or some other petroleum
> distillate. They did NOT run on coal.
>
> The one Jay Leno brought to the Chrysler Performance West Spring Fling
> in Woodley Park a few years ago certainly used liquid fuel. He claimed
> to have gotten it up to 85mph, but had to stop every 25 miles...for water!

Legend has it that no one ever found out how fast a Stanley Steamer could
go flat out because, at speed, the floor pan produced a ground effect and
the damned things would get airborne.

YMMV.

Re: More VW Diesel Knee-Slappers
 

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, DaveW wrote:

>
> I think Stanley Steamers run on gasoline or some other petroleum
> distillate. They did NOT run on coal.
>
> The one Jay Leno brought to the Chrysler Performance West Spring Fling
> in Woodley Park a few years ago certainly used liquid fuel. He claimed
> to have gotten it up to 85mph, but had to stop every 25 miles...for water!

Legend has it that no one ever found out how fast a Stanley Steamer could
go flat out because, at speed, the floor pan produced a ground effect and
the damned things would get airborne.

YMMV.

Re: More VW Diesel Knee-Slappers
 

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, DaveW wrote:

>
> I think Stanley Steamers run on gasoline or some other petroleum
> distillate. They did NOT run on coal.
>
> The one Jay Leno brought to the Chrysler Performance West Spring Fling
> in Woodley Park a few years ago certainly used liquid fuel. He claimed
> to have gotten it up to 85mph, but had to stop every 25 miles...for water!

Legend has it that no one ever found out how fast a Stanley Steamer could
go flat out because, at speed, the floor pan produced a ground effect and
the damned things would get airborne.

YMMV.

Re: More VW Diesel Knee-Slappers
 

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, DaveW wrote:

>
> I think Stanley Steamers run on gasoline or some other petroleum
> distillate. They did NOT run on coal.
>
> The one Jay Leno brought to the Chrysler Performance West Spring Fling
> in Woodley Park a few years ago certainly used liquid fuel. He claimed
> to have gotten it up to 85mph, but had to stop every 25 miles...for water!

Legend has it that no one ever found out how fast a Stanley Steamer could
go flat out because, at speed, the floor pan produced a ground effect and
the damned things would get airborne.

YMMV.

Re: More VW Diesel Knee-Slappers
 

"Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.remove@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:ca1vuo11at6@enews3.newsguy.com...
> God damn, you can recite all that left-wing anti-nuke crap in one sitting?
> I'm friggin' impressed!
>
> I like this propaganda better: "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car
> than from the American nuclear power industry." (Unfortunately, for you
the
> latter is TRUE!)

I'm sorry, but I just can't let ignorant -------- pass, especially when
you have to
put some sort of backhanded liberal vs. conservative spin on it. Thousands
of uranium miners who by definition were employed by the American Nuclear
Power industry have died of cancer as a direct result of their employment
activities.
It happened, it's history. Current mining safety practices are much better,
but this does
not change the past.
Bottom line: Can failsafe plants be designed? Absolutely yes, but I am
not sure the
industry is capable of profitably executing such a design. When I see an
industry
that is willing to not only run plants beyond their design life, but to
request a 20% over
design limit power output on said same plants I worry.

Jeff, 25 miles from Vermont Yankee.