It's a little amusing the responses contained in this thread regarding the
toxicity of methanol.
I am willing to bet that if the op was about using mineral spirits or
lacquer thinner, toxicity would nerver be mentioned.
Just dont drink your solvents or bath in them and you will be ok. :)
"RKG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Most of the directions I have seen for shellac flakes call to dissolve
> them in denatured alcohol. Is there a problem with using methyl hydrate.
> It is certainly cheaper and easier to find around here. I've tried it on
> some small stuff and don't see any difference immediately.
>
> Rick
Shellac thinner will be some sort of alcohol or mixture of
alcohols. I should think that you can ask LV what's in theirs
and they'd tell you.
Ethanol is the least toxic of the alcohols.
Methylated Spirits, methyl alcohol, methanol, and wood alcohol,
are all the same thing.
They will all disolve shellac, so will propyl and isopropyl alcohol
but that usually has too much water in it to be a good shellac
thinner.
--
FF
Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2004 11:31:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Methylated Spirits, methyl alcohol, methanol, and wood alcohol,
> >are all the same thing.
>
> I thought you didn't have methylated spirits in the USA ?
>
> Anyway, UK (and AFAIK, everywhere) methylated spirits is a mixture of
> four things - ethanol, methanol (about 1/3rd), purple dye and
pyridine
> (a stenching agent).
>
My mistake, I thought methylated spritis was a synomym for methanol.
It may no longer be available but from your description I daresay
methylated spritis may be very similar to what we used to use for
mimeograph copies. Though from what I remember of the odor it did
not have pyridine in it.
--
FF
...
> When I can get hold of it (friends in the lab trade) I use pure
> lab-grade ethanol. This is safer because of not having the methanol
in
> it, and it's much more pleasant to use as there's no pyridine.
However
> the paperwork to get it is frightening, and the suppliers don't
regard
> wood finishing as a suitable cause for supplying it.
>
In many states pure ethanol, well, almost pure it has some water
in it as does all ethanol once it is exposed to the air, is
available in liquor stores. It is pure enough for use as
shellac thinner and a number of folks prefer it for French
Polishing. No paperwork, it simply has state taxes accessed
on it that non-consumable alcohol mixtures do not.
--
FF
Xane T. wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2004 13:12:17 -0500, [email protected] (Roy Smith) wrote:
>
> >Denatured Alcohol is absolute ethanol with a little methanol added
to
> >it, to intentionally make it unfit to drink. Since you can't drink
> >it, the government isn't interested in taxing or controlling it, and
> >it's much more widely available than absolute. For most uses as an
> >industrial solvent (such as for disolving shelac), the little bit of
> >methanol doesn't really matter. If memory serves, the addition of
the
> >methanol also aids in the removal of the last bits of water during
the
> >distilation process.
>
> It's not always methanol. The bottle of Ace brand denatured alcohol
is
> denatured with both methanol and MEK, it's more poisonous than it
> needs to be. I think the Kleen Strip brand is the one that has only
> methanol to denature it.
ISTR that the brand with "SLX" on the label was denatured with methanol
only. I avoid anything with ketones because they are quite toxic as
well as more noisome. At one time sulphuric acid was used as a
denaturant. I remember an episode of "Untouchables" with Robert
Stack as Eliot Ness in which the villian was a chemist who had found
a way to 'renature' denatured alcohol. Assuming there was _some_
historical basis for that episode this may have been a referance
to using sulphuric acid as a denaturant.
>
> >What's sold in most drugstores as "rubbing alcohol" is isopropanol
> >(typically 70%, the rest is water). To the best of my knowlege,
it's
> >not toxic, at least in small quantities. The reason it's sold in
drug
> >stores is because it evaporates fast, so it makes a great cooling
> >rubdown.
>
All alcohols are toxic. Ethanol is just the least toxic, well maybe
some of the fancy alcohols used in mouthwash might be less toxic than
ethanol but I doubt it. Isopropynol is plenty toxic, you just do not
absorb enough through occaisional exposure to unbroken skin to be a
concern. I _think_ methanol is better absorbed through the skin, but
is less toxic when ethanol is also present, oddly enough.
In fact I'm pretty sure that all organic solvents and almost all
organic liquids, excepting some oils, are toxic. Certainly all
the common ones are *quite* toxic.
> ... Ethyl alcohol is also sold as 'rubbing alcohol', which I believe
> is also a form of denatured ethanol. The label I read at CVS last
> night had all sorts of odd ingredients in it other than ethyl
alcohol,
> in fact it looked /more/ poisonous than woodworking denatured stuff.
Quite often the ethyl alcohol (aka ethanol, aka grain alcohol) sold
for rubbing alcohol is denatured with methanol just like the denatured
alcohol sold for shellac thinner. The other stuff on the label may
well have been added to enhance it's effect when used for, well,
rubbing, or whatever you're supposed to do with it.
--
FF
Phil Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:59:33 +0000, Andy Dingley
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 13 Dec 2004 11:31:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>Methylated Spirits, methyl alcohol, methanol, and wood alcohol,
> >>are all the same thing.
>
> <snip>
>
> Filter the meths through a hollowed out half loaf of bread.
> Colour gone, pyride gone. Drinkable.
> Ask any seasoned hobo. A bottle of meths is a lot cheaper than
> anything in the bottle store.
Then some get so drunk they follow up by eating the bread.
Or so I heard.
--
FF
George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
> Pump gas for cars has been colored since I was
> little--yellow to red.
ISTR that Sohio gasoline in the 1970's was red, white, or blue
with 'white' being undyed unleaded, red was leaded regular and
blue was leaded premium.
> What color would they put in farm gas? (or
> maybe they didn't color it?) ... And why in
> hell would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?
Possibly because bread was more common or maybe because diatomaceous
earth would not work? Isn't DE is a physical filtrate that
will not remove dissolved substances.
> Are we
> talking about the 1920s? 30s? I know it was not true in the 40s.
> Maybe this coloring things has something to do with oil field areas a
> burnable fraction was actually pumped (and stolen).
>
Probably the story was from WWII when gasoline was rationed.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, RKG
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Around here (Southern Ontario) all the places I have checked carry
> methyl hydrate (basically methyl alcohol) instead of denatured alcohol
> (ethyl alcohol with a poison added so you can't drink it). I'ts
> labelled as a shellac thinner.
Look for a good pharmacy and ask for "rubbing alcohol compound".
Here in Saskatoon, Shoppers Drug Mart and London Drugs sell it in teeny
little 100 ml bottles at outrageous prices (about $4). I get 500 ml
bottles at a local independent pharmacy for about $5.
"United Pharmacists" brand, 95% Ethanol Anhydrous. DIN 00167630.
djb
In article <[email protected]>, Eddie Munster
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I too am in Souther Ontario and don't know what to use. When your
> certain either way, please speak up and let us know what you think. I
> can't find denatured alcohol anywhere. But I seem to recall that LV
> sells something called shellac thinner?
The LV stuff is denatured ethyl. I buy it when I can combine the
shipping costs with other stuff, but by itself it's too expensive.
As I posted earlier:
Rubbing Alcohol Compound, United Pharmacists brand, packaged by RW
Packaging (in Manitoba... No address but postal code is R2R 1V7). 95%
ethyl.
In article <[email protected]>, stoutman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> No problem with using methanol. Depending on your needs you might find it a
> better solvent than ethanol due to it's lower boiling point (evaporates
> faster). I'm not 100 % sure, but the solubility of the shellac flakes in
> methanol might be better than in ethanol.
In my small basement shop I prefer the smell of ethanol over methanol...
Mon, Dec 13, 2004, 10:42am [email protected] (RKG) wants
to know:
Most of the directions I have seen for shellac flakes call to dissolve
them in denatured alcohol. Is there a problem with using methyl hydrate.
It is certainly cheaper and easier to find around here. I've tried it on
some small stuff and don't see any difference immediately.
Comparing, I think I'd prefer to go with denatured alcohol.
http://www.syndel.com/msds/denatured_ethanol_msds.html
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/ME/methyl_hydrate.html
If, and when, I switch to using shellac tho, I'm going to do some
experimenting using ever-clear, instead.
JOAT
We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails.
- unknown
In article <[email protected]>, ted
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In Alberta up until 1969 (when I left) There was an official whom we
> called "Purple Charlie". He roamed the country checking every town and
> village for purple gas. He'd start at one end of the street with a
> large syringe with a rubber tube and check every gas tank. Farmers
> were allowed to use "purple" in farm work vehicles but not their cars.
> The fine was quite heavy. Farm gas was ordinary gas with purple dye
> added and was less costly, hence the fine.
I remember purple gas on Grampa's farm north of Winnipeg when I was a
kid. We ran it in the snowmobiles, but not in the car.
Xane T. wrote:
> It's not always methanol. The bottle of Ace brand denatured alcohol is
> denatured with both methanol and MEK, it's more poisonous than it
> needs to be. I think the Kleen Strip brand is the one that has only
> methanol to denature it.
Urk! What does MEK do to shellac? Nothing good, I would imagine.
That's vile stuff, but it sure is great for bonding styrene.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
In article <[email protected]>, Norman D. Crow wrote:
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Same system still in effect in all ag areas afaik.
>> One doson't want to be caught by the weigh station guys w/ long
>> haul/non-farm use farm diesel! They're pretty serious about
>> enforcement...
>
> Yep, they really want to know about that diesel fuel. I was still driving
> truck when that changeover came in the 90's. Wasn't just the weigh stations,
> they set up random checks all over PA just to see the color of your diesel
> fuel.
The rumor (urban ledgend?) that I heard was that they assume you've been
using farm fuel since you bought it. So they charge you back tax on whatever
the odometer says.
Norman D. Crow wrote:
> Yep, they really want to know about that diesel fuel. I was still driving
> truck when that changeover came in the 90's. Wasn't just the weigh
> stations, they set up random checks all over PA just to see the color of
> your diesel fuel.
I think they got over it because nobody bothered to try to sneak by anymore.
Nobody has ever looked at the color of my fuel that I recall. I started
driving in '97.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Hi Doug,
If you know of anyone who might be interested in distributing denatured ethanol in the GTA or other
parts of southern Ontario have them email me at woodpdg at sympaticodotca. JG
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, RKG <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Around here (Southern Ontario) all the places I have checked carry
> >methyl hydrate (basically methyl alcohol) instead of denatured alcohol
> >(ethyl alcohol with a poison added so you can't drink it). I'ts
> >labelled as a shellac thinner.
> >
> You're not the only person to have reported difficulty in finding denatured
> ethanol in Canada. Google-search this group on "denatured alcohol Canada" for
> more information -- it's been discussed here more than once.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Hi George,
Thanks for the heads-up but I have asked many, many clerks and managers in
paint/finishing stores why they do not carry it. For the most part they do not
know or care what they are selling. For those that do know, they tell me it is
consumer resistance to spending more for ethanol over methanol. When I bring up
the health concern they get that deer in the headlights look and then slink
away.
All it will take is a few stores to start carrying it and the rest will follow.
Cheers, JG
George wrote:
> Might want to first find out why denatured isn't sold regularly. Here the
> denaturing is to avoid excise tax on booze. Might come up against your
> "revenuers" if you tried. Given the deadl(ier) nature of methanol, I have
> to believe that there's some legal reason why it's what's available rather
> than ethanol.
>
> "JGS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hi Doug,
> > If you know of anyone who might be interested in distributing denatured
> ethanol in the GTA or other
> > parts of southern Ontario have them email me at woodpdg at sympaticodotca.
> JG
"Norman D. Crow" wrote:
...
> I don't know about the gas being colored, but I do know that in the early
> '50s, farmers got a tax break on gasoline for "farm" use, and you could get
> your farm tank filled by Agway, but you were NOT supposed to use it in your
> auto, motorcycle, etc. I don't know as there was any actual telltale
> connected with it, but I know Uncle never put it in any car, except maybe a
> couple gallons in an emergency if someone didn't put gas in while in town,
> and it might not make it to town.
Same system still in effect in all ag areas afaik.
Colored fuels came into being at least by the mid-50's (here in KS,
anyway). I'm not old enough to know prior to then just how far back it
actually goes. Multiple purposes--product indentification plus as in
the above example tax purposes. Farm diesel is still colered
differently from truck/pump/highway diesel as it is not subject to road
taxes (and, depending on local jurisdiction, perhaps other fees/taxes as
well). To best of my knowledge, there's so little farm gasoline these
days there is no off-road available (certainly not here, anyway). For
the old tractors and trucks, we buy pump gas, keep records of what is
off-road (local Co-op has key pumps so we have separate farm/non-farm
keys) and deduct the tax off the taxes when file.
One doson't want to be caught by the weigh station guys w/ long
haul/non-farm use farm diesel! They're pretty serious about
enforcement...
Ed Clarke wrote:
>
...
>
> The rumor (urban ledgend?) that I heard was that they assume you've been
> using farm fuel since you bought it. So they charge you back tax on whatever
> the odometer says.
Have no information on that...think it would be difficult to make that
stand up. I only farm, never drove commercially--well, did one trip w/ a
load of calves while in HS from LA to WY w/for local cattle hauler who
was in a bind one summer while I was in school...never again! :)
Silvan wrote:
>
> Norman D. Crow wrote:
>
> > Yep, they really want to know about that diesel fuel. I was still driving
> > truck when that changeover came in the 90's. Wasn't just the weigh
> > stations, they set up random checks all over PA just to see the color of
> > your diesel fuel.
>
> I think they got over it because nobody bothered to try to sneak by anymore.
> Nobody has ever looked at the color of my fuel that I recall. I started
> driving in '97.
That sounds reasonable to me...I suspect only in cases where they've
already got a renegade that they're looking for even more against or in
cases where there's information a particular outfit has been using
off-road fuel. There have been, over the years, a few instances where
ag distributors have been hit because their delivery units were left in
rural areas out here. W/ fuel prices the way they have been over recent
years, we don't leave the bulk tanks unlocked any more, either.... :(
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:131220041943592169%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, stoutman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > No problem with using methanol. Depending on your needs you might find
it a
> > better solvent than ethanol due to it's lower boiling point (evaporates
> > faster). I'm not 100 % sure, but the solubility of the shellac flakes
in
> > methanol might be better than in ethanol.
>
> In my small basement shop I prefer the smell of ethanol over methanol...
Not to mention, if the shop's small enough, you can learn the true meaning
of "blind drunk."
Might want to first find out why denatured isn't sold regularly. Here the
denaturing is to avoid excise tax on booze. Might come up against your
"revenuers" if you tried. Given the deadl(ier) nature of methanol, I have
to believe that there's some legal reason why it's what's available rather
than ethanol.
"JGS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi Doug,
> If you know of anyone who might be interested in distributing denatured
ethanol in the GTA or other
> parts of southern Ontario have them email me at woodpdg at sympaticodotca.
JG
Relative toxicity, and there are a lot of other things he's _not_ using, I'm
sure, which of course is not worthy of comment.
http://www.bazellracefuels.com/Methanol.htm Check that bit about the odor
threshold, and the ability to get a lethal dose from mucosa and through the
skin.
This is some truly bad sh*t, which does the same job as its less toxic
cousin(s), one of which is even available in "food grade."
"stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's a little amusing the responses contained in this thread regarding the
> toxicity of methanol.
>
> I am willing to bet that if the op was about using mineral spirits or
> lacquer thinner, toxicity would nerver be mentioned.
>
> Just dont drink your solvents or bath in them and you will be ok. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "RKG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Most of the directions I have seen for shellac flakes call to dissolve
> > them in denatured alcohol. Is there a problem with using methyl
hydrate.
> > It is certainly cheaper and easier to find around here. I've tried it
on
> > some small stuff and don't see any difference immediately.
> >
> > Rick
>
>
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 13 Dec 2004 11:31:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Methylated Spirits, methyl alcohol, methanol, and wood alcohol,
> >are all the same thing.
>
> I thought you didn't have methylated spirits in the USA ?
>
> Anyway, UK (and AFAIK, everywhere) methylated spirits is a mixture of
> four things - ethanol, methanol (about 1/3rd), purple dye and pyridine
> (a stenching agent).
>
The Canadian use of "methyl hydrate" was the original source of discussion.
By name it would seem it really is wood alcohol,
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/ME/methyl_hydrate.html which as we know is not
the same a methylated (denatured) spirits
http://www.birdbrand.co.uk/msds/Methylated%20Spirits.pdf. US doesn't add
the dye to our mix, but the residue of some of the dehydrating agents can be
tough on you, even in relatively small quantities.
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:30:03 -0500, Eddie Munster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I think the wood alcohol is poisonous and the grain alcohol is the
> >drinky kind.
>
> Ethanol, good stuff, sometimes called "grain alcohol".
>
Or Vodka....
Check the LD50, and it's not so benign either, though I have booked 0.36
that was still more or less upright.
95% is as good as it gets with ethanol, because the 95/5 azeotrope prevents
further distillation. Anything beyond has to be dried another way, some of
which are nastier than the methanol.
On 15 Dec 2004 13:12:17 -0500, [email protected] (Roy Smith) wrote:
>Denatured Alcohol is absolute ethanol with a little methanol added to
>it, to intentionally make it unfit to drink. Since you can't drink
>it, the government isn't interested in taxing or controlling it, and
>it's much more widely available than absolute. For most uses as an
>industrial solvent (such as for disolving shelac), the little bit of
>methanol doesn't really matter. If memory serves, the addition of the
>methanol also aids in the removal of the last bits of water during the
>distilation process.
It's not always methanol. The bottle of Ace brand denatured alcohol is
denatured with both methanol and MEK, it's more poisonous than it
needs to be. I think the Kleen Strip brand is the one that has only
methanol to denature it.
>What's sold in most drugstores as "rubbing alcohol" is isopropanol
>(typically 70%, the rest is water). To the best of my knowlege, it's
>not toxic, at least in small quantities. The reason it's sold in drug
>stores is because it evaporates fast, so it makes a great cooling
>rubdown.
Isopropyl rubbing alcohol can also come in 91% pure in the drugstore,
this is what I always buy since it's better for sterilizing things
than 70% is, plus I use it to keep the bubbles out of bar top epoxy
varnish. I've heard you can use isopropyl for shellac but it dries
slower and stays gummier longer (thus allowing more dust to settle on
it). Ethyl alcohol is also sold as 'rubbing alcohol', which I believe
is also a form of denatured ethanol. The label I read at CVS last
night had all sorts of odd ingredients in it other than ethyl alcohol,
in fact it looked /more/ poisonous than woodworking denatured stuff.
"Norman D. Crow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
To best of my knowledge, there's so little farm gasoline these
> > days there is no off-road available (certainly not here, anyway). For
> > the old tractors and trucks, we buy pump gas, keep records of what is
> > off-road (local Co-op has key pumps so we have separate farm/non-farm
> > keys) and deduct the tax off the taxes when file.
> >
> > One doson't want to be caught by the weigh station guys w/ long
> > haul/non-farm use farm diesel! They're pretty serious about
> > enforcement...
>
> Yep, they really want to know about that diesel fuel. I was still driving
> truck when that changeover came in the 90's. Wasn't just the weigh
stations,
> they set up random checks all over PA just to see the color of your diesel
> fuel.
>
The color in diesel is to distinguish high sulfur - illegal in commerce -
from low sulfur. Farm or any off-road use ok for high sulfur. You want to
use Uncle's roads, you follow his rules on fuel.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Prohibition was undoubtedly one of the stupidest
> laws in U.S. history and resulted in the establishment of a
> large criminal group and a huge crime wave.
Revisionist History at its best. The gangs were there before, they were
there after "the great experiment." Booze just provided a good source of
quick money above the gambling, prostitution and extortion which preceded
it, and the racketeering and drugs which followed.
I'm seeing a lot of "Indian" cigarettes around now that we're the second or
third highest tax state in the US. More casinos, too. Did the laws cause
the tribes, or just the tribe's corruption problems?
No problem but there are two issues you may want to consider.
1. Methyl hydrate (methanol or methyl alcohol) is significantly more toxic
than ethanol (ethyl hydrate?) or denatured alcohol. Be careful with the
fumes.
2. It has been reported that a shellac film made from a methanol solution
is slightly more brittle than that made from an ethanol solution. If this
is not a concern for your project, don't worry about it.
Good Luck.
"RKG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Most of the directions I have seen for shellac flakes call to dissolve
> them in denatured alcohol. Is there a problem with using methyl
> hydrate. It is certainly cheaper and easier to find around here. I've
> tried it on some small stuff and don't see any difference immediately.
>
> Rick
Phil Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:59:33 +0000, Andy Dingley
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On 13 Dec 2004 11:31:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Methylated Spirits, methyl alcohol, methanol, and wood alcohol,
>>>are all the same thing.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Filter the meths through a hollowed out half loaf of bread.
> Colour gone, pyride gone. Drinkable.
> Ask any seasoned hobo. A bottle of meths is a lot cheaper than
> anything in the bottle store.
>
That is so much BS! Drinkable, but not less toxic.
I too am in Souther Ontario and don't know what to use. When your
certain either way, please speak up and let us know what you think. I
can't find denatured alcohol anywhere. But I seem to recall that LV
sells something called shellac thinner?
John
RKG wrote:
> Most of the directions I have seen for shellac flakes call to dissolve
> them in denatured alcohol. Is there a problem with using methyl
> hydrate. It is certainly cheaper and easier to find around here. I've
> tried it on some small stuff and don't see any difference immediately.
>
> Rick
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:39:09 GMT, ted <[email protected]> wrote:
>In Alberta up until 1969 (when I left) There was an official whom we
>called "Purple Charlie". He roamed the country checking every town and
>village for purple gas. He'd start at one end of the street with a
>large syringe with a rubber tube and check every gas tank. Farmers
>were allowed to use "purple" in farm work vehicles but not their cars.
>The fine was quite heavy. Farm gas was ordinary gas with purple dye
>added and was less costly, hence the fine.
Diesel fuel for boats was (perhaps still is) dyed blue because
of differing tax rates.
GregP responds:
>
>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:39:09 GMT, ted <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In Alberta up until 1969 (when I left) There was an official whom we
>>called "Purple Charlie". He roamed the country checking every town and
>>village for purple gas. He'd start at one end of the street with a
>>large syringe with a rubber tube and check every gas tank. Farmers
>>were allowed to use "purple" in farm work vehicles but not their cars.
>>The fine was quite heavy. Farm gas was ordinary gas with purple dye
>>added and was less costly, hence the fine.
>
>
> Diesel fuel for boats was (perhaps still is) dyed blue because
> of differing tax rates.
When I was a kid, anyone who caught another person unscrewing a gas cap with a
syringe or hose in his hand was subject to one helluva tongue lashing at best.
In some cases, a but kicking ensued, and in others, it was a simple matter of
calling the cops.
Charlie Self
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
Charlie Self wrote:
> GregP responds:
>
>
>>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:39:09 GMT, ted <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In Alberta up until 1969 (when I left) There was an official whom we
>>>called "Purple Charlie". He roamed the country checking every town and
>>>village for purple gas. He'd start at one end of the street with a
>>>large syringe with a rubber tube and check every gas tank. Farmers
>>>were allowed to use "purple" in farm work vehicles but not their cars.
>>>The fine was quite heavy. Farm gas was ordinary gas with purple dye
>>>added and was less costly, hence the fine.
>>
>>
>>Diesel fuel for boats was (perhaps still is) dyed blue because
>>of differing tax rates.
>
>
> When I was a kid, anyone who caught another person unscrewing a gas cap with a
> syringe or hose in his hand was subject to one helluva tongue lashing at best.
> In some cases, a but kicking ensued, and in others, it was a simple matter of
> calling the cops.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
> respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
>
Yeah, I find it hard to believe that someone with a tube
would be unscrewing gas caps. Guess the Cannucks are
different. Just touching another person's car was
considered bad manners, but unscrewing a gas cap? In 1969,
I had a 1964 Chrysler 300 and never remember a person
touching it without asking permission. No body in the U.S.
would be checking gas in private cars without a search
warrant where I live.
I remember when I was in the military several of us were
walking down the street in New Haven CN in 1959 and stopped
to look at some rich kids Ferrari. Heck most of us had
never seen a Ferrari. Two seconds after we stopped to look
(no touching), we heard a yell, "Get away from the car.
And, we did, right quick.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Roy Smith) wrote:
>
>What's sold in most drugstores as "rubbing alcohol" is isopropanol
>(typically 70%, the rest is water). To the best of my knowlege, it's
>not toxic, at least in small quantities.
Yes, it is toxic, even in small quantities. In fact, in rats at least, it's
*more* toxic than methanol. The oral LD-50 (lethal dose to 50% of test
subjects) in rats is 5040mg/kg for isopropyl alchohol, and 5628 for methanol.
I believe that in humans it's not as hazardous as methanol is, but it
certainly is not something you want to ingest.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
No problem with using methanol. Depending on your needs you might find it a
better solvent than ethanol due to it's lower boiling point (evaporates
faster). I'm not 100 % sure, but the solubility of the shellac flakes in
methanol might be better than in ethanol.
"RKG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Most of the directions I have seen for shellac flakes call to dissolve
> them in denatured alcohol. Is there a problem with using methyl hydrate.
> It is certainly cheaper and easier to find around here. I've tried it on
> some small stuff and don't see any difference immediately.
>
> Rick
Mike Marlow wrote:
>"RKG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Most of the directions I have seen for shellac flakes call to dissolve
>>them in denatured alcohol. Is there a problem with using methyl
>>hydrate. It is certainly cheaper and easier to find around here. I've
>>tried it on some small stuff and don't see any difference immediately.
>>
>>Rick
>>
>>
>
>Hi Rick - don't know the real answer to your question because being the
>chemistry genius that I am, I have no idea what methyl hydrate is.
>Though... you really shouldn't have any trouble finding denatured alcohol
>just about anywhere. Ace Hardware carries it, as do just about all of the
>chain hardware and home centers. It's really not that expensive to buy a
>gallon of the stuff and keep it around. You might want to also try
>automotive refinishing supply houses. Those guys often sell chemicals like
>that a lot cheaper than the home centers.
>
>
Around here (Southern Ontario) all the places I have checked carry
methyl hydrate (basically methyl alcohol) instead of denatured alcohol
(ethyl alcohol with a poison added so you can't drink it). I'ts
labelled as a shellac thinner.
Rick
"RKG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Most of the directions I have seen for shellac flakes call to dissolve
> them in denatured alcohol. Is there a problem with using methyl
> hydrate. It is certainly cheaper and easier to find around here. I've
> tried it on some small stuff and don't see any difference immediately.
>
> Rick
Hi Rick - don't know the real answer to your question because being the
chemistry genius that I am, I have no idea what methyl hydrate is.
Though... you really shouldn't have any trouble finding denatured alcohol
just about anywhere. Ace Hardware carries it, as do just about all of the
chain hardware and home centers. It's really not that expensive to buy a
gallon of the stuff and keep it around. You might want to also try
automotive refinishing supply houses. Those guys often sell chemicals like
that a lot cheaper than the home centers.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
J. Clarke wrote:
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
>>Eddie Munster wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.
>>>
>>>As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
>>>I think it was to take out a red colourant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And why in hell
>>>
>>>
>>>>would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
>>>wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.
>>>
>>>Those were lean days.
>>>
>>
>>But cheating didn't bother her?
>
>
> Most people who lived through Prohibition and the Depression really don't
> give a damn what the government wants.
>
I think you missed the point. I assumed he was objecting to
my use of "Hell" so I was tweaking his moral values--object
to a swear/strong word but fraud.
Your comment seems to imply that to disagree and being a
scofflaw are the same. Most of the people I know that went
through the depression were law abiding whether or not they
agreed with various laws and policies.
While we are at it maybe some definitions are needed. The
depression was from 1930 to 1939, at least that's what my
references indicate. Going through the depression means to
me experiencing it in a meaningful way which means the
person would need to be old enough to be aware of what was
going on. I take that to mean that the person was born at
least by 1924 and to really experience it they would have
needed to be at least 15 by 1930 or born by 1915. Of
course, a great number of people didn't experience the
depression at all even though they were adults during the
period. It depends on the geographic area, the jobs they
held, and the social stratum they lived in.
Nonetheless, to imply that those born before 1915 generally
approved and practiced fraud is a bit outrageous.
Eddie Munster wrote:
> Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.
>
> As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
> I think it was to take out a red colourant.
>
>
>
> And why in hell
>
>> would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?
>
>
> Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
> wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.
>
> Those were lean days.
>
But cheating didn't bother her?
Hank Gillette wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Pump gas for cars has been colored since I was
>>little--yellow to red.
>
>
> Don't forget blue Sunoco.
>
Didn't forget. Just never saw Sunoco gas. Saw lots of Conoco, Shell,
76, etc. Never saw any color that wasn't some shade of red. Guess it
depends on what part of the country you live in.
Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.
As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
I think it was to take out a red colourant.
And why in hell
> would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?
Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.
Those were lean days.
I though this was about methanol? When was there a differentiation in
taxes between farm and non-farm methanol?
If you are really talking about gasoline, I think something got lost
in the translation or your grandfather was a bit dotty. Dyes are used
in diesel for tax differentiation purposes, but in gas? Something is
screwy about this. Pump gas for cars has been colored since I was
little--yellow to red. What color would they put in farm gas? (or
maybe they didn't color it?) If the bread took all the color out,
what would they use to make it red like regular pump gas? And why in
hell would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth? Are we
talking about the 1920s? 30s? I know it was not true in the 40s.
Maybe this coloring things has something to do with oil field areas a
burnable fraction was actually pumped (and stolen).
Eddie Munster wrote:
> But the bread does remove the dye put in there for taxation purposes.
> Farmers would do it to put farm gas in cars, or so im told by my
> grandfather....
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>> Phil Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:59:33 +0000, Andy Dingley
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 13 Dec 2004 11:31:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Methylated Spirits, methyl alcohol, methanol, and wood alcohol,
>>>>> are all the same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Filter the meths through a hollowed out half loaf of bread.
>>> Colour gone, pyride gone. Drinkable. Ask any seasoned hobo. A bottle
>>> of meths is a lot cheaper than
>>> anything in the bottle store.
>>>
>>
>> That is so much BS! Drinkable, but not less toxic.
>
>
Norman D. Crow wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>George E. Cawthon wrote:
>>
>>> Pump gas for cars has been colored since I was
>>>little--yellow to red.
>>
>>ISTR that Sohio gasoline in the 1970's was red, white, or blue
>>with 'white' being undyed unleaded, red was leaded regular and
>>blue was leaded premium.
>>
>>
>>>What color would they put in farm gas? (or
>>>maybe they didn't color it?) ... And why in
>>>hell would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?
>>
>>Possibly because bread was more common or maybe because diatomaceous
>>earth would not work? Isn't DE is a physical filtrate that
>>will not remove dissolved substances.
>>
>>
>>>Are we
>>>talking about the 1920s? 30s? I know it was not true in the 40s.
>>>Maybe this coloring things has something to do with oil field areas a
>>
>>>burnable fraction was actually pumped (and stolen).
>>>
>>
>>Probably the story was from WWII when gasoline was rationed.
>
>
> I don't know about the gas being colored, but I do know that in the early
> '50s, farmers got a tax break on gasoline for "farm" use, and you could get
> your farm tank filled by Agway, but you were NOT supposed to use it in your
> auto, motorcycle, etc. I don't know as there was any actual telltale
> connected with it, but I know Uncle never put it in any car, except maybe a
> couple gallons in an emergency if someone didn't put gas in while in town,
> and it might not make it to town.
>
That's the way I remember it.
Eddie Munster wrote:
> I too am in Souther Ontario and don't know what to use. When your
> certain either way, please speak up and let us know what you think. I
> can't find denatured alcohol anywhere. But I seem to recall that LV
> sells something called shellac thinner?
>
> John
>
> RKG wrote:
>
>> Most of the directions I have seen for shellac flakes call to
>> dissolve them in denatured alcohol. Is there a problem with using
>> methyl hydrate. It is certainly cheaper and easier to find around
>> here. I've tried it on some small stuff and don't see any difference
>> immediately.
>>
>> Rick
>
>
I'm trying both right now, as far as dissolving the flakes I see no
difference and both dry equally fast. The methyl hydrate appears to be
a little more toxic but compared to some of the other finishes we use
it's not bad. The LV website lists their shellac thinner as a mixture
of ethenol methenol - basically denatured alcohol. A 32 oz can
-slightly less than 1 L is 10.95 a 4 L jug of methyl hydrate at my local
home hardware is 7. less then 1/4 the price.
Rick
Methanol. I used to use Solox brand MetOH to thin and clean shellac
brushes and it worked great. Never started with the flakes so can't say
how that would work but as a thinner, no problem.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "RKG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Most of the directions I have seen for shellac flakes call to dissolve
>>them in denatured alcohol. Is there a problem with using methyl
>>hydrate. It is certainly cheaper and easier to find around here. I've
>>tried it on some small stuff and don't see any difference immediately.
>>
>>Rick
>
>
> Hi Rick - don't know the real answer to your question because being the
> chemistry genius that I am, I have no idea what methyl hydrate is.
> Though... you really shouldn't have any trouble finding denatured alcohol
> just about anywhere. Ace Hardware carries it, as do just about all of the
> chain hardware and home centers. It's really not that expensive to buy a
> gallon of the stuff and keep it around. You might want to also try
> automotive refinishing supply houses. Those guys often sell chemicals like
> that a lot cheaper than the home centers.
In article <[email protected]>, RKG <[email protected]> wrote:
>Around here (Southern Ontario) all the places I have checked carry
>methyl hydrate (basically methyl alcohol) instead of denatured alcohol
>(ethyl alcohol with a poison added so you can't drink it). I'ts
>labelled as a shellac thinner.
>
You're not the only person to have reported difficulty in finding denatured
ethanol in Canada. Google-search this group on "denatured alcohol Canada" for
more information -- it's been discussed here more than once.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On 13 Dec 2004 11:31:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>Methylated Spirits, methyl alcohol, methanol, and wood alcohol,
>are all the same thing.
I thought you didn't have methylated spirits in the USA ?
Anyway, UK (and AFAIK, everywhere) methylated spirits is a mixture of
four things - ethanol, methanol (about 1/3rd), purple dye and pyridine
(a stenching agent).
Purple dye will colour blonde shellac, but it's not too hard to find
undyed meths..
Pyridine stinks. I know methanol is a hazard, but it's actually the
pyridine that I find the most offensive part of working with meths.
Supposedly there have been pyridine-free meths blends, but AFAIK
they're not available in the UK at all these days. Given the toxicity
of meths and the risk of not having it "marked" in such a way, then I
can believe this. OTOH, pure methanol is easily available unstenched.
When I can get hold of it (friends in the lab trade) I use pure
lab-grade ethanol. This is safer because of not having the methanol in
it, and it's much more pleasant to use as there's no pyridine. However
the paperwork to get it is frightening, and the suppliers don't regard
wood finishing as a suitable cause for supplying it.
--
Smert' spamionam
Andy Dingley notes:
>When I can get hold of it (friends in the lab trade) I use pure
>lab-grade ethanol. This is safer because of not having the methanol in
>it, and it's much more pleasant to use as there's no pyridine. However
>the paperwork to get it is frightening, and the suppliers don't regard
>wood finishing as a suitable cause for supplying it.
Jeez. I just buy whatever the paint store has in stock. If it came down to it,
I could drive a few miles--Franklin, one county over is supposed to be one of
the centers of the bootleg booze production in the South. Pick up some second
run distilled stuff at nearly 200 proof. That should do 'er.
Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill
Charlie Self wrote:
> it, I could drive a few miles--Franklin, one county over is supposed to be
> one of the centers of the bootleg booze production in the South. Pick up
> some second run distilled stuff at nearly 200 proof. That should do 'er.
My distant relations have NO idea what you're talking about.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Silvan responds:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> it, I could drive a few miles--Franklin, one county over is supposed to be
>> one of the centers of the bootleg booze production in the South. Pick up
>> some second run distilled stuff at nearly 200 proof. That should do 'er.
>
>My distant relations have NO idea what you're talking about.
Just don't buy that bridge they keep trying to sell you.
Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill
Charlie Self wrote:
>>My distant relations have NO idea what you're talking about.
>
> Just don't buy that bridge they keep trying to sell you.
Sell? That would be illegal. They GIVE the stuff away. ;)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
On 15 Dec 2004 14:25:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Andy Dingley notes:
>
>>When I can get hold of it (friends in the lab trade) I use pure
>>lab-grade ethanol. This is safer because of not having the methanol in
>>it, and it's much more pleasant to use as there's no pyridine. However
>>the paperwork to get it is frightening, and the suppliers don't regard
>>wood finishing as a suitable cause for supplying it.
>
>Jeez. I just buy whatever the paint store has in stock. If it came down to it,
>I could drive a few miles--Franklin, one county over is supposed to be one of
>the centers of the bootleg booze production in the South. Pick up some second
>run distilled stuff at nearly 200 proof. That should do 'er.
>
>Charlie Self
>"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
>Churchill
Here in the US you can just pick up some Everclear at the liquor
store. Expensive as a solvent for shellac, but it gives great results.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
rcook5 notes:
>>Jeez. I just buy whatever the paint store has in stock. If it came down to
>it,
>>I could drive a few miles--Franklin, one county over is supposed to be one
>of
>>the centers of the bootleg booze production in the South. Pick up some
>second
>>run distilled stuff at nearly 200 proof. That should do 'er.
>>
>>Charlie Self
>>"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir
>Winston
>>Churchill
>
>Here in the US you can just pick up some Everclear at the liquor
>store. Expensive as a solvent for shellac, but it gives great results.
Yes, well when you do that, you're paying the Feds the current $44 or whatever
per gallon in booze tax.
Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill
Charlie Self wrote:
> rcook5 notes:
>
>>>Jeez. I just buy whatever the paint store has in stock. If it came down
>>>to
>>it,
>>>I could drive a few miles--Franklin, one county over is supposed to be
>>>one
>>of
>>>the centers of the bootleg booze production in the South. Pick up some
>>second
>>>run distilled stuff at nearly 200 proof. That should do 'er.
>>>
>>>Charlie Self
>>>"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir
>>Winston
>>>Churchill
>>
>>Here in the US you can just pick up some Everclear at the liquor
>>store. Expensive as a solvent for shellac, but it gives great results.
>
> Yes, well when you do that, you're paying the Feds the current $44 or
> whatever per gallon in booze tax.
I'm curious--anybody have any experiences to relate with Behlen's "Behkol",
which they sell as purpose-made for dissolving shellac flakes and which
appears to be ethanol denatured with isobutanol instead of methanol. They
charge a good deal more for it than one pays for regular denatured alcohol.
> Charlie Self
> "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir
> Winston Churchill
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On 15 Dec 2004 14:25:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Jeez. I just buy whatever the paint store has in stock
We have _huge_ taxes on retail drinkable alcohol. As a result,
"non-drinking" alcohol is very difficult to get hold of.
We also have practically no moonshine distilling. If you're so
inclined, you're more likely to be making strong cider or beer.
--
Smert' spamionam
Andy Dingley writes:
>On 15 Dec 2004 14:25:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>wrote:
>
>>Jeez. I just buy whatever the paint store has in stock
>
>We have _huge_ taxes on retail drinkable alcohol. As a result,
>"non-drinking" alcohol is very difficult to get hold of.
>
>We also have practically no moonshine distilling. If you're so
>inclined, you're more likely to be making strong cider or beer.
Well, nuts to that. I don't drink these days, but back in my boozing days, I
can recall hitting some white lightning that really lived up to its name. By
the 4th ounce or so, you thought you'd been hit by lightning. If you took
another ounce, you woke up wishing you would BE hit by lightning.
Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill
Charlie Self wrote:
> name. By the 4th ounce or so, you thought you'd been hit by lightning. If
> you took another ounce, you woke up wishing you would BE hit by lightning.
And the people who took the 5th ounce ended up in the mortuary. Good ol'
corn squeezin's.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
J. Clarke wrote:
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>George E. Cawthon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eddie Munster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
>>>>>I think it was to take out a red colourant.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And why in hell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
>>>>>wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.
>>>>>
>>>>>Those were lean days.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But cheating didn't bother her?
>>>
>>>
>>>Most people who lived through Prohibition and the Depression really don't
>>>give a damn what the government wants.
>>>
>>
>>I think you missed the point. I assumed he was objecting to
>>my use of "Hell" so I was tweaking his moral values--object
>>to a swear/strong word but fraud.
>>
>>Your comment seems to imply that to disagree and being a
>>scofflaw are the same. Most of the people I know that went
>>through the depression were law abiding whether or not they
>>agreed with various laws and policies.
>>
>>While we are at it maybe some definitions are needed. The
>>depression was from 1930 to 1939, at least that's what my
>>references indicate. Going through the depression means to
>>me experiencing it in a meaningful way which means the
>>person would need to be old enough to be aware of what was
>>going on. I take that to mean that the person was born at
>>least by 1924 and to really experience it they would have
>>needed to be at least 15 by 1930 or born by 1915. Of
>>course, a great number of people didn't experience the
>>depression at all even though they were adults during the
>>period. It depends on the geographic area, the jobs they
>>held, and the social stratum they lived in.
>>
>>Nonetheless, to imply that those born before 1915 generally
>>approved and practiced fraud is a bit outrageous.
>
>
> There were two overlapping events, Prohibition and the Depression. Note
> that I said "Prohibition and the Depression" not either/or.
>
Yeah, sorry I missed that addition of Prohibition. Always
like it when some one adds an extraneous point in the middle
of a discussion. But, the two didn't overlap much;
prohibition was from 1919 to 1933. So the overlap was only
3 years. Prohibition was undoubtedly one of the stupidest
laws in U.S. history and resulted in the establishment of a
large criminal group and a huge crime wave. Nonetheless,
I differ with your viewpoint. I'm rather thankful that I
grew were people were generally honest, law abiding, and
generally didn't defraud their fellow man.
Eddie Munster <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think the wood alcohol is poisonous and the grain alcohol is the
> drinky kind. I think I have seen it for sale in booze stores?
>
> Where does ethanol fit in?
There are many kinds of alcohol. From a chemical point of view, the
word "alcohol" describes a large class of chemical compounds
containing an OH group connected to a carbon atom. The three most
common alcohols most lay people hear about are methanol, ethanol, and
isopropanol.
What is commonly called "wood alchol" is methanol, and yes it is
poisonous, even in very small amounts.
Grain alcohol is ethanol. In large quantities, it too is poisonous,
as a few unfortunate college kids find out every year; chug a quart of
whisky and you'll probably be dead before the night is out.
Absolute ethanol (not to be confused with the Absolut brand of vodka)
is just very pure ethanol. This has no water in it (unlike vodka,
which is more or less half water, depending on the proof). It is
generally only available by special license to industrial customers.
There are also other extremely pure grades of ethanol (reagent grade,
spectroscopic grade, etc) which are increasingly more pure, and
increasingly more expensive.
Denatured Alcohol is absolute ethanol with a little methanol added to
it, to intentionally make it unfit to drink. Since you can't drink
it, the government isn't interested in taxing or controlling it, and
it's much more widely available than absolute. For most uses as an
industrial solvent (such as for disolving shelac), the little bit of
methanol doesn't really matter. If memory serves, the addition of the
methanol also aids in the removal of the last bits of water during the
distilation process.
What's sold in most drugstores as "rubbing alcohol" is isopropanol
(typically 70%, the rest is water). To the best of my knowlege, it's
not toxic, at least in small quantities. The reason it's sold in drug
stores is because it evaporates fast, so it makes a great cooling
rubdown.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
> >
> > Pump gas for cars has been colored since I was
> > little--yellow to red.
>
> ISTR that Sohio gasoline in the 1970's was red, white, or blue
> with 'white' being undyed unleaded, red was leaded regular and
> blue was leaded premium.
>
> > What color would they put in farm gas? (or
> > maybe they didn't color it?) ... And why in
> > hell would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?
>
> Possibly because bread was more common or maybe because diatomaceous
> earth would not work? Isn't DE is a physical filtrate that
> will not remove dissolved substances.
>
> > Are we
> > talking about the 1920s? 30s? I know it was not true in the 40s.
> > Maybe this coloring things has something to do with oil field areas a
>
> > burnable fraction was actually pumped (and stolen).
> >
> Probably the story was from WWII when gasoline was rationed.
I don't know about the gas being colored, but I do know that in the early
'50s, farmers got a tax break on gasoline for "farm" use, and you could get
your farm tank filled by Agway, but you were NOT supposed to use it in your
auto, motorcycle, etc. I don't know as there was any actual telltale
connected with it, but I know Uncle never put it in any car, except maybe a
couple gallons in an emergency if someone didn't put gas in while in town,
and it might not make it to town.
--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.
Norm Crow notes:
>> > Are we
>> > talking about the 1920s? 30s? I know it was not true in the 40s.
>> > Maybe this coloring things has something to do with oil field areas a
>>
>> > burnable fraction was actually pumped (and stolen).
>> >
>> Probably the story was from WWII when gasoline was rationed.
>
>I don't know about the gas being colored, but I do know that in the early
>'50s, farmers got a tax break on gasoline for "farm" use, and you could get
>your farm tank filled by Agway, but you were NOT supposed to use it in your
>auto, motorcycle, etc. I don't know as there was any actual telltale
>connected with it, but I know Uncle never put it in any car, except maybe a
>couple gallons in an emergency if someone didn't put gas in while in town,
>and it might not make it to town.
I know zip about colored gas, but farmers still get a break on fuel for the
tractors in the form of gas that is not taxed for road use. Basically, they pay
almost no taxes, which tends to knock at least 30 cents a gallon off. A few
farmers around here actually have fuel tanks on their farms, where they can
just run the tractor or other gear up to the tank. Diesel is available the same
way.
Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric
Hoffer
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> applications, etc. to determine most cost-effective practices...'tis
> absolutely a complete revolution to the 60 year old who spent 30 years
> as an engineer and came back to the farm after Dad died...
That's why 90% of farms are owned by Conglom-Ag isn't it? Seems to me
Farmer Brown can't afford all that big John Deere iron I see running out in
farm country. That stuff must be *expensive*. They want $1,200 for a li'l
ol' lawn mower.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> That's why 90% of farms are owned by Conglom-Ag isn't it?
>
> Actually, that's <not> true at all...in actuality, other than the
> corporate hog and chicken producers, most are still family-owned
> businesses...of course, they have gotten larger...
You know more about it than I do, surely, but it certainly looks to me like
what I said above is true. Driving through the rural Carolinas, for
example, it seems like just about every patch of dirt that doesn't have a
strip mall on it has a sign in the corner saying something like "This
Property Owned and Operated by Agri-Mega-Corp."
> (non-irrigated)). Today, assuming similar growing conditions, I'd
> <expect> near 80 to as much as 100. However, the recent spike in fuel
> costs is definitely a hit--I'm studying carefully what to do for next
> spring. Winter wheat, of course, is already in and up (and looking
> good, here, too!) :)
It also seems to me that efficiency or no, it must be much easier to go
broke than to turn a profit in that business. I guess that's true of any
business, but it just seems to me, as an outsider, like the deck is stacked
against farming all around. They want your land for strip malls and yuppie
gated golf communities, so they can get higher property taxes.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
George E. Cawthon wrote:
> The family farm, as an institution, generally passed away long ago.
> There are lots of gentleman farms, but I would hardly call those
> family farms.
The other weird thing about these rural North Carolina farming towns is you
drive in, and are greeted by a big sign that says "Bienvenido a Sometown,
NC. Población 1280." Then every other building has a Western Union
billboard on it, also in Spanish, and most of the downtown stores have
names like "El Mariachi Gordo" and such.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> That's not unique to NC, either...it is, of course, symptomatic of the
> large poultry and/or hog production facilities everywhere they exist.
Cotton too. Or hell, tobacco, apples, strawberries, basically everything.
Not peaches that I've noticed. I wonder why?
> Mexican. While there are some problems, <I> don't want the job(s)
> they're doing, and I'd say most are doing their best to make a place for
Yeah, that's a bit of a sticky thing there. They do jobs nobody wants, for
less money than anybody else would work for. It's almost a slave culture.
On the one hand, we can't exactly put them all in college and turn them
into the next generation of CEOs, but OTOH it's really not fair to keep an
entire population stuck doing scut work, and living in abject poverty in
grossly overcrowded conditions forever. It's really an ugly thing no
matter how you look at it.
Hard workers though. Damn hard workers. I find that they're generally good
and decent people just trying to make a living any way they can, who have
come here to escape abject poverty and perpetual unemployment. So that's
why it really sucks that they're stuck perpetually doing scut work. But
then, OTOH, the alternative is pretty scary too. Next they'll want to do
*my* job for 1/3 or less what I make.
I don't know what to do about it. I don't want to be seen as offering an
opinion one way or the other. I am merely making observations about how I
see the situation.
> <But>, these workers are <not> farmers and <not> representative of the
> general actual farm-resident population. I don't know of a single one
> who has gone into farming/ranching in the county on his own. Of course,
> a lot of that has to do with the high initial cost and the limited
> availability of sufficient land -- the entrance for a non-farm Caucasian
> would be almost as stiff a hurdle.
I've thought about getting into farming myself many times. It just seems
like an honest way to make a living, and it's an important job that most
people have gotten too good in their own minds to do. But you can't just
go buy a farm and start farming. It takes massive capital reserves. Land
is expensive, equipment is expensive, everything is expensive, and there's
the inevitable learning curve that guarantees the break-even point will be
many years in the future, if ever. It's a difficult proposition all
around. It's really hard to get into if it's not a family legacy thing.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Charlie Self wrote:
...
> I know zip about colored gas, but farmers still get a break on fuel for the
> tractors in the form of gas that is not taxed for road use. Basically, they pay
> almost no taxes, which tends to knock at least 30 cents a gallon off. A few
> farmers around here actually have fuel tanks on their farms, where they can
> just run the tractor or other gear up to the tank. Diesel is available the same
> way.
Don't know where you are, but all operations here have bulk tanks on
farm...at 200+ gal/tankful for a modern tractor, to do otherwise is
certainly impractical...as far as I know, all states require
identification of off-road fuel. It must be an area of quite small
farms for there to be any significant number of gasoline powered
equipments (even trucks) on a farm these days...out here in grains
(that's wheat, milo, corn, soybeans, some sunflowers) country, there
isn't anybody still using gasoline and, in fact, there aren't even any
equipments made w/ gasoline engines anymore (nor for 30 years or so, in
fact) that would be used here. There was a big switch to LP in the 60s,
then as equipment kept getting larger and larger, the reliability of
diesel plus price led to an almost complete switchover to diesel,
certainly by the 90s. A few folks keep one or two of the old small
tractors or trucks for around the place (as do I) for mowing and use
with bucket, etc., but there's so little gasoline on farm that I can't
get bulk delivery of it any longer, although do diesel and could LP
(although that's now driven mostly by residential demand for those who
aren't on a natural gas tap, not because there's sufficient equipment
usage by itself).
A "small" tractor here now is >100 hp...when I was a young(er)
whippersnapper in the 60s, when we got our first Case 930 the ~80 hp
beast seemed absolutely <huge>! Large tractors now are pushing 300 hp,
4-wheel drive articulated beasties. Now we do rowcrop cultivating w/
larger tractors than the largest made when I was growing up. Of course,
we went from four rows to 6, then 8, then 12, now 16 at 3 mph, then 4-5,
now pushing 8. I don't have it yet, but could put on GPS guidance and
start down the row maintaining inch accuracy and repeatibility from one
pass to the next. Planter now does actually count and place each seed
in the row within a fraction of an inch relative to the previous to
control seeding density. A combine has yield monitors tied to GPS to
monitor yield versus field area which can then automatically be
correlated to soil conditions, fertilizer and herbicide/insecticide
applications, etc. to determine most cost-effective practices...'tis
absolutely a complete revolution to the 60 year old who spent 30 years
as an engineer and came back to the farm after Dad died...
Duane Bozarth responds:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>...
>> I know zip about colored gas, but farmers still get a break on fuel for the
>> tractors in the form of gas that is not taxed for road use. Basically, they
>pay
>> almost no taxes, which tends to knock at least 30 cents a gallon off. A few
>> farmers around here actually have fuel tanks on their farms, where they can
>> just run the tractor or other gear up to the tank. Diesel is available the
>same
>> way.
>
>Don't know where you are, but all operations here have bulk tanks on
>farm...at 200+ gal/tankful for a modern tractor, to do otherwise is
>certainly impractical.
Most farms around here are small, probably under 300 acres, often much smaller.
The land is too cut up by forest and hills for them to be otherwise. A large
cattle operation might have land scattered over miles, but there will be other
farms and houses in the spaces.
Tractors around here tend to hold about what a car or light truck would hold.
The midwest monsters are not useful: they'd never get around the obstacles
efficiently.
I'd guess most of the more up-to-date operations use diesel.
Farming here consists of truck farms, small cattle operations, and dairy farms.
Obviously, some grains are grown, but most of it is corn for silage.
What you describe would make most Virginia farmers quit and for a factory job.
In fact, that's how many of them survived. Day job in a factory--or, in the
case of those like my father-in-law, the mines (just thinking about that
working environment gives me nightmares)--the rest of their time on the farm.
FIL did his mining long enough to pay for the acres he wanted, then went to
farming full time on less than 200 very hilly acres in western Virginia. His
place is in the mountains, so those articulated tractors would spend more time
tumbling down the hills than they would doing useful work.
Different strokes for different areas.
Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric
Hoffer
"Norman D. Crow" wrote:
...
> Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie. ...
Well, not necessarily... :)
I got an engineering degree when got out of high school (for complex
reasons relating to the state of farming in general and the particular
state of the family farm at the time) and spent 10 years in Lynchburg,
VA, and then another 25 or so in the Oak Ridge, TN, area so I know the
"hill country" there pretty well... :)
In TN, I serviced our line of online coal ash analyzers at mines and
prep plants all over coal country in TN, VA, WVA, and KY. I know most
of eastern KY and SW VA pretty darn well. We had fewer in WVA and most
TN mines were surface so I had less direct interaction there. I got to
know and like a tremendous number of miners over the years. It's a
great portion of the country. I always told others that sitting around
w/ the miners after shift was essentially the same as sitting around at
the Co-op elevator scales w/ the grain farmers or the sale barn w/ the
cattlemen--just a slightly different set of topics for each.... :)
My biggest complaint was that servicing of the analyzers was always left
for night shift when running gob and it never failed but to be a cold
rain or snow at 2 AM on the outside belt in KY in Feb... :( :)
There really is very little difference in the <farmers> themselves
between the regions, it's all in the crops and ground they're farming.
Out here where it only rains 18" or so a year, it is simply not possible
to grow most things that are grown back there and the yields of what
does grow are not sufficient on small acreages to make it. There are
still a number of smaller operations in central and eastern KS, OK, NE,
AR, etc., that look much more like what you're familiar with and where,
unfortunately, the economics are such that it does require a second (or
third) job. Here on the high plains, it has mostly been a case of the
second and third generations mergeing (sp?) two or more operations
together as the parents retire. In most cases in at least one of those
families all children will have left so there is no one else to take
over. It wasn't until Dad died that I decided to come back and that was
not planned ahead--I discovered when he passed very unexpectedly that I
had such emotional ties to the place I could not think of letting it
pass out of the family. Since my kids were all raised in VA and TN,
they have rememberances of their grandparents, but no real attachment--I
don't expect either of the boys will have the same realization when I'm
gone so at that point it probably will also be merged in w/ one or more
of the neighboring places and someone will probably put a town-farm on
the home place itself... :( I've a few more decent years, but certainly
in 10-15 I'll be thinking it's time to try to arrange for something not
<quite> so demanding... :)
Undoubtedly far more than you wanted to know... :)
Enjoyed the interaction, guys, thanks...
-dpb
"Norman D. Crow" wrote:
...
> NY dairy farm, about 200 acres, rolling hills, milking about 30-35 head.
Cousin's place was outside Bergen--enjoyed getting to know several of
the locals there over a number of summers...
> Uncle's first tractor was a Farmall Super A about 1950, later a Super C,
> biggest tractor he ever owned was a Super H. His son did move up to a
> Farmall 650, later a mid size Ford diesel, but nothing over 100HP. There
> were times a little more HP would have been "nice", but not necessary for
> day to day usage.
One major difference here was that it was settled so late and the open
country encouraged large-scale farming from the beginning. Our town
wasn't founded until 1888 when the railroad ended here before being
allowed to cross into the OK Territory. Grandad came out from central
KS in 1914 and started w/ mules, but got first tractors in the 20s.
Unfortunately I do not know what the very first was, but an early Twin
City was the first "large" one--it was about 30 hp I think. By the 30s
they used Cat Twenty-Two's for the flotation, one of which is still
operational (although I don't have it, sadly). I first drove the
Farmall M, then we got a 400 and 560. Our first big tractor was a Case
930 wheatland model. Grandpa bought a AC WD45 when he got older to have
something he could handle a little easier...it had the snap-coupler
system and we had so many implements for it that Dad upgraded it to a
D17 (about 50 hp, I think) when I was in high school. I did a <ton> of
row crop on it. When we went to six-row planters we got the first JD
4020. Dad then gradually stepped up over the years as it became
necessary to add acreage and as it became nearly impossible to get good
reliable help. He progressed through JD 4440, 4640, 4840s. I still
have the ('79) 4440 (w/ <4000 original hours) for the scoop and blade,
mowing around the place, etc.
Ba r r y wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:02:46 -0500, "Norman D. Crow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie.
>
> Flatland farmers understand "A developer wants to buy your land" quite
> well.
Certainly and issue around the larger cities/towns, not nearly as much
so in more rural areas...see my other post on demographics...our little
town is no farther to the south or east towards us now than it was when
I was in high school in the 60s. It has moved north by about 1 mile in
that time. The big expansion is the flood of trailers before there was
any county-wide zoning at all... :(
Duane Bozarth responds:
>> >Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie.
>>
>> Flatland farmers understand "A developer wants to buy your land" quite
>> well.
>
>Certainly and issue around the larger cities/towns, not nearly as much
>so in more rural areas...see my other post on demographics...our little
>town is no farther to the south or east towards us now than it was when
>I was in high school in the 60s. It has moved north by about 1 mile in
>that time. The big expansion is the flood of trailers before there was
>any county-wide zoning at all... :(
Consider yourself exceptionally fortunate. In the past 28 years, Bedford County
has almost doubled in population, and is one of Virginia's fastest growing
areas west of Charlottesville. I'm not at all sure there are many areas east of
C'ville that are gobbling farm space as rapidly.
Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric
Hoffer
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth responds:
>
> >> >Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie.
> >>
> >> Flatland farmers understand "A developer wants to buy your land" quite
> >> well.
> >
> >Certainly and issue around the larger cities/towns, not nearly as much
> >so in more rural areas...see my other post on demographics...our little
> >town is no farther to the south or east towards us now than it was when
> >I was in high school in the 60s. It has moved north by about 1 mile in
> >that time. The big expansion is the flood of trailers before there was
> >any county-wide zoning at all... :(
>
> Consider yourself exceptionally fortunate. In the past 28 years, Bedford County
> has almost doubled in population, and is one of Virginia's fastest growing
> areas west of Charlottesville. I'm not at all sure there are many areas east of
> C'ville that are gobbling farm space as rapidly.
>
That's too bad...I haven't been back to Lynchburg for almost 15 years
now...we lived in southwest end of Anderson County close to what was
(then) the new golf course. Love Beford County as well...tried to buy a
Civil War-vintage old plantation house just east of the Peak but the
owner had cut off all the land except for a teeny-tiny triangle right up
to the back porch and wouldn't negotiate 10 or so acres off in order to
be able to make something of the place...I've forgotten the number of
the road it was on, but was prime area. B&W was bought out by McDermott
and internal R&D didn't look too promising and my former boss called
from Oak Ridge starting a new consulting firm office at about that time
so never did negotiate anything rural of our own while in VA...
It's a mixed bag...the farm economy plus oil/gas reserves are almost
depleted here now have been so depressed that local economy is not at
all healthy. If we didn't have the community college we'd be one of the
80% of counties I was speaking of earlier. I do like not having a high
population density, I would like to see a more vibrant local economy
such as we had during the post war era through about the mid-70s...
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:02:46 -0500, "Norman D. Crow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie.
Flatland farmers understand "A developer wants to buy your land" quite
well.
Barry
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> Most farms around here are small, probably under 300 acres, often much
smaller.
> The land is too cut up by forest and hills for them to be otherwise. A
large
> cattle operation might have land scattered over miles, but there will be
other
> farms and houses in the spaces.
>
> Tractors around here tend to hold about what a car or light truck would
hold.
> The midwest monsters are not useful: they'd never get around the obstacles
> efficiently.
>
> I'd guess most of the more up-to-date operations use diesel.
>
> Farming here consists of truck farms, small cattle operations, and dairy
farms.
> Obviously, some grains are grown, but most of it is corn for silage.
>
<snip>
> Different strokes for different areas.
Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie. Western
NY dairy farm, about 200 acres, rolling hills, milking about 30-35 head.
Uncle's first tractor was a Farmall Super A about 1950, later a Super C,
biggest tractor he ever owned was a Super H. His son did move up to a
Farmall 650, later a mid size Ford diesel, but nothing over 100HP. There
were times a little more HP would have been "nice", but not necessary for
day to day usage.
--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.
Norm Crow responds:
>Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie. Western
>NY dairy farm, about 200 acres, rolling hills, milking about 30-35 head.
>Uncle's first tractor was a Farmall Super A about 1950, later a Super C,
>biggest tractor he ever owned was a Super H. His son did move up to a
>Farmall 650, later a mid size Ford diesel, but nothing over 100HP. There
>were times a little more HP would have been "nice", but not necessary for
>day to day usage.
I lived in south Wisconsin for a few months. Still dairy country, but no more
30-40-50 cows. More on the order of hundreds. Single corn fields were 200+
acres. I rented a farm house and barn on a larger place. The land was leased
out to a cattle farmer, who planted God alone knows how many acres in corn over
a countywide area. THhir operations in harvesting kept me awake for something
like 5 nights. I mean, they went for 24 hours a day, with 10 wheelers hauling
the corn to silos in a steady stream.
You don't see that around here, or in upstate NY...or any of New England. The
Northereastern fields are simply too cut up, so farm size is about what a field
size may be in the midwest flatlands. Rolling lands, really.
I had an uncle--by marriage--whose family had a farm that amounted to two
sections, up near Charlottesville. 1300 acres, IIRC. Sheep, cattle, chickens,
truck farming. The fields were made too small for huge tractors by dozens of
small streams, hills, minor ravines, similar features. Great place for a kid to
play if he could sneak away from chores and was smart enough to watch for
snakes. Besides, back then no one had huge tractors on today's scale.
I get a little nuttier than usual with too much exposure to flatlands. About
all I want for flat is the above area, the Virginia Piedmont. Absolutely
gorgeous country, almost as pretty as where I live now, in the foothills of the
Blue Ridge, but out of what is formally called "Piedmont".
Lots of woods. Lots of wood at rational prices. I'm going to check on some
local QS white oak next week. I'm told white oak, flat sawn, is in the two buck
range. I'm hoping the QS variety is not more than four bucks. I'll be really,
really happy if it's three bucks, but I doubt it.
Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric
Hoffer
Charlie Self wrote:
> You don't see that around here, or in upstate NY...or any of New England.
> The Northereastern fields are simply too cut up, so farm size is about
> what a field size may be in the midwest flatlands. Rolling lands, really.
Not around here, no, but you do see a little of that in Virginia. I ran
down into the far southeastern corner once, near the Great Dismal Swamp.
They had fields that gave me some inkling what it must be like out west.
Trees on the far side far enough away that you could see the curvature of
the earth in between.
I think I run through a fair amount of that in the Carolinas too, but they
have the good sense to hide it all with trees, so it doesn't unsettle the
hillbilly stomach so badly.
> I get a little nuttier than usual with too much exposure to flatlands.
Me too. Think about where I run. It's good running, but I'd go nuts if I
had to live there, I think. Some places you can see where the road is
going 15-20 miles ahead of you, with a big straight slash right down the
middle of the gently rolling Jummy forests. It just doesn't feel right
without those big green humps surrounding you
The only time I can tolerate flat is when there's an ocean at the far side
of it. I try not to look back the other way. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Charlie Self wrote:
...
> I get a little nuttier than usual with too much exposure to flatlands. About
> all I want for flat is the above area, the Virginia Piedmont. Absolutely
> gorgeous country, almost as pretty as where I live now, in the foothills of the
> Blue Ridge, but out of what is formally called "Piedmont".
...
It <is> pretty, I'll agree. I spent 10 years or so in the Lynchburg
area, then 25 in east TN.
I missed the flat country the whole time, however. I like seeing the
far horizon, but it (like anything else) isn't everybody's cup o' tea.
Duane Bozarth notes:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>...
>> I get a little nuttier than usual with too much exposure to flatlands.
>About
>> all I want for flat is the above area, the Virginia Piedmont. Absolutely
>> gorgeous country, almost as pretty as where I live now, in the foothills of
>the
>> Blue Ridge, but out of what is formally called "Piedmont".
>...
>
>It <is> pretty, I'll agree. I spent 10 years or so in the Lynchburg
>area, then 25 in east TN.
>
>I missed the flat country the whole time, however. I like seeing the
>far horizon, but it (like anything else) isn't everybody's cup o' tea.
True.
Lynchburg, AKA Falwellville, is about 30 miles east of here.
My wife likes it. I prefer Roanoke, 30 miles west.
Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric
Hoffer
Charlie Self wrote:
>
...
> Lynchburg, AKA Falwellville, is about 30 miles east of here.
Hard to believe today, but I'd never heard of the village painter's son
before I got there. Lynchburg certainly was a culture shock to a KS farm
boy right out of school to get to the "proper" behavior of The Old
Dominion... :)
> My wife likes it. I prefer Roanoke, 30 miles west.
Roanoke was far bigger than Lynchburg back then ('68) although that was
certainly far larger than where I came from, of course...never really
spent any time in Roanoke. Drove by to get to Blacksburg or to/from KS
when visiting is about all...
By the time we left, the influx of new hires by B&W and GE had diluted
the originals to the point it was no longer the totally closed society
it was when we arrived...
Overall, did enjoy our time there although I feel much more at home back
here now.
On 19 Dec 2004 10:02:21 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>
>What you describe would make most Virginia farmers quit and for a factory job.
>In fact, that's how many of them survived. Day job in a factory--or, in the
>case of those like my father-in-law, the mines (just thinking about that
>working environment gives me nightmares)--the rest of their time on the farm.
The majority of the farms in NYS are run by people with
other sources of income: there just ain't enough money
in it.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
...
> > ... It must be an area of quite small
> > farms for there to be any significant number of gasoline powered
> > equipments (even trucks) on a farm these days...
...
> I believe Charlie's in the same general region I am. Around here it's small
> farms mostly. The guy down the way grows a little bit of corn and other
> things and a lot of tobacco--best cigar-wrapper in the world--even the
> Cubans used to import it. Most of his equipment dates back to the '60s or
> earlier.
That's what I surmised...our 12 quarters (160 A/quarter for those where
things aren't all broken up into nice neat square sections) were well
above average for the county when I was growing up...now I'm one of the
smaller producers in the county, but at 60+ I'm not looking to expand
further...
Silvan wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> > applications, etc. to determine most cost-effective practices...'tis
> > absolutely a complete revolution to the 60 year old who spent 30 years
> > as an engineer and came back to the farm after Dad died...
>
> That's why 90% of farms are owned by Conglom-Ag isn't it?
Actually, that's <not> true at all...in actuality, other than the
corporate hog and chicken producers, most are still family-owned
businesses...of course, they have gotten larger...
> ... Seems to me
> Farmer Brown can't afford all that big John Deere iron I see running out in
> farm country. That stuff must be *expensive*. They want $1,200 for a li'l
> ol' lawn mower.
True...it takes more than 40A and a mule these days, particularly in
commodity crops...
However, it's like any other industry in some ways...the higher
productivity of the larger equipment and improved agronomics is the
key. Recall I mentioned in '63 I planted four rows at 3-1/2 mph. Now
it's 16 at about 7-1/4 mph. That's a diferrence of roughly a factor of
eight. That crop in '63 might have yielded 60 bu/acre (milo, dry land
(non-irrigated)). Today, assuming similar growing conditions, I'd
<expect> near 80 to as much as 100. However, the recent spike in fuel
costs is definitely a hit--I'm studying carefully what to do for next
spring. Winter wheat, of course, is already in and up (and looking
good, here, too!) :)
Silvan wrote:
>
...
> You know more about it than I do, surely, but it certainly looks to me like
> what I said above is true. Driving through the rural Carolinas, for
> example, it seems like just about every patch of dirt that doesn't have a
> strip mall on it has a sign in the corner saying something like "This
> Property Owned and Operated by Agri-Mega-Corp."
...
There are certainly local differences...and, yes, NC (and perhaps SC, I
don't know as much about it) are quite different from the midwest.
Corporate farms are, in fact, illegal in most of the high plains and
have been so for decades. It's getter harder to preserve these
regulations, but so far, they've managed to keep them at bay. As I
said, our major vertical integration here is w/ Seaboard and their type
w/ the hog farms. We do have some commercial dairy operations moving in
from CA owing to the regulation and expense they're running into there.
For the most part, they're much smaller operations than the hog
production, however. For what it's worth, other than the "close to end
market" argument, I've always thought the large hog operations in NC
were a bad idea. Out here where it's arid and there are areas which can
be far removed from residential areas it's tolerable but even here
they're not universally welcome. I, for one, would be pleased to see
Seaboard forced to diversify but it will never happen--it's the same as
WalMart--the consumer these days is only interested in the minimum cost,
despite their protestations otherwise. If costs rise, production will
go to those places where it is less regulated (read expensive).
> It also seems to me that efficiency or no, it must be much easier to go
> broke than to turn a profit in that business. I guess that's true of any
> business, but it just seems to me, as an outsider, like the deck is stacked
> against farming all around. They want your land for strip malls and yuppie
> gated golf communities, so they can get higher property taxes.
It's certainly an apt summary...out here on dry land, we figure on one
or two good years out of five, hopefully two others will be break-even
and the fifth is almost guaranteed to hurt...it takes excellent
management and cash flow (and an understanding banker) to survive. It
seems every year there's a raft of new challenges...this year it's
rocketing fuel prices and soybean Asian rust or the BSE panic to name
just a couple you've certainly heard of...
We fortunately don't have the population explosion here as in some
areas, but it is an issue indirectly. Population shifts have
concentrated power in the urban areas here as well so that the cities
dominant policy to the detriment of rural. Our state senator, for
example, has a district that represents 61 of the 105 counties and the
average geographical area of the western counties is significantly
larger than that of those farther east. Something like 80% of the
counties in the western two-thirds of the state are actually declining
in population. Only the half-dozen with a local community-college
and/or one of the packing plants are either growing or even holding
their own... :(
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:
...
> The family farm, as an institution, generally passed away long ago.
> There are lots of gentleman farms, but I would hardly call those
> family farms.
No, it has <not> passed away as an institution in the historic farming
areas...they family farm has certainly evolved,but it is every bit as
much a way of life as ever.
> Anyway, farms are a business whether family or corporation owned. If
> you don't know how to run a business you fail, no matter how hard you
> may work. A lot of so called farmers don't seem to understand that.
That is true although other than the last sentence doesn't fit with the
other two...
> I have to laugh everytime I hear about some poor guy and his wife
> losing the family farm because of the poor economy, government screw
> ups, or what have you. Usually it turns out that he owned it for only
> 5 years (not what most people envision as "the family farm") and that
> the guy really knew very little about farming or running a business.
> Another one of those "poor me, it's not my fault I failed."
There may be some of those, but there certainly have been a large number
of long term farm families that have not been able to make it over the
last 20 years. Much of this is certainly exacerbated by inconsistent
government policies to be polite. Remember the Carter grain embargoes
and the (1st) Bush crackdown to lower the high bread prices? Both of
those came after pleas to produce more for the export market which these
policies immediately killed...the resulting collapse of the grain
markets <did> force many failures. That's a <very> brief synopsis of a
complex issue but certainly that part of it played a significant role.
> Don't get the idea I am running down "the family farm." Successful
> farms are still around, but the owners learned and adapted to the
> business requirements of today. More power to them.
I'm going to insult you, but I don't mean it...obtw, please continue to
keep my food costs cheaper than anywhere else in the world... :(
Silvan wrote:
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
> > The family farm, as an institution, generally passed away long ago.
> > There are lots of gentleman farms, but I would hardly call those
> > family farms.
>
> The other weird thing about these rural North Carolina farming towns is you
> drive in, and are greeted by a big sign that says "Bienvenido a Sometown,
> NC. Población 1280." Then every other building has a Western Union
> billboard on it, also in Spanish, and most of the downtown stores have
> names like "El Mariachi Gordo" and such.
>
That's not unique to NC, either...it is, of course, symptomatic of the
large poultry and/or hog production facilities everywhere they exist.
National Beef (packing) is the largest employer in the county here by
far and in-town population here is also now majority non-Caucasian.
National started out in the 60's w/ SE Asian refugees, now is more
Mexican. While there are some problems, <I> don't want the job(s)
they're doing, and I'd say most are doing their best to make a place for
themselves and their families. I'll also give National credit for not
being a major violator of green card reg's, etc. The first-generation
Vietnamese, Laotions, etc., for the most part sent their kids off to
school and they either became local tradespeople, etc., or left the area
for other types of employment as do a majority of Caucasians young
people because there aren't sufficient other opportunites,
unfortunately. The Mexican traditions aren't so strong in that regard
so a major task is to get them to begin to become assimilated. I'm on
board of local Community College Foundation and various other ways we
are beginning to make such changes visible--enrollment is up, ESL
classes are <very> popular, many small businesses are becoming quite
successful and these individuals are becoming more involved in C of C,
civic clubs, etc.
<But>, these workers are <not> farmers and <not> representative of the
general actual farm-resident population. I don't know of a single one
who has gone into farming/ranching in the county on his own. Of course,
a lot of that has to do with the high initial cost and the limited
availability of sufficient land -- the entrance for a non-farm Caucasian
would be almost as stiff a hurdle.
Silvan wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
...
> > Mexican. While there are some problems, <I> don't want the job(s)
> > they're doing, and I'd say most are doing their best to make a place for
>
> Yeah, that's a bit of a sticky thing there. They do jobs nobody wants, for
> less money than anybody else would work for. It's almost a slave culture.
...
Some areas are much worse than others...we don't have the transient
field workers here that are the prime examples of what you're talking
about. While I'll not claim our local packer is lily-white and fully
enlightened, they also aren't nearly as manipulative as many I've heard
of. While they're demanding in terms of promptness, etc., the wages and
benefits are far from poverty level even for those on the kill floor and
opportunities to move up within are available...a little more foresight
in some areas could probably reduce their turnover significantly,
though, so I'm certainly not saying they're anyways close to perfect...
> Hard workers though. Damn hard workers. I find that they're generally good
> and decent people just trying to make a living any way they can, who have
> come here to escape abject poverty and perpetual unemployment. So that's
> why it really sucks that they're stuck perpetually doing scut work. But
> then, OTOH, the alternative is pretty scary too. Next they'll want to do
> *my* job for 1/3 or less what I make.
>
> I don't know what to do about it. I don't want to be seen as offering an
> opinion one way or the other. I am merely making observations about how I
> see the situation.
In general, I agree although there are significant numbers here that
<are> going to community college and the bulk of the kids are doing
pretty well in school...of course, intermediate sized communities can
assimilate easier than either very small ones overwhelmed or huge ones
who already have similar problems. In this area, they do have a decent
wage and the opportunity if they take it to make something better for
themselves and their kids. The only thing that really bothers me off is
that there are a significant number of illegals who don't go through the
system...that is a constant source of conflict within their community,
as well...
...
> I've thought about getting into farming myself many times. It just seems
> like an honest way to make a living, and it's an important job that most
> people have gotten too good in their own minds to do. But you can't just
> go buy a farm and start farming. It takes massive capital reserves. Land
> is expensive, equipment is expensive, everything is expensive, and there's
> the inevitable learning curve that guarantees the break-even point will be
> many years in the future, if ever. It's a difficult proposition all
> around. It's really hard to get into if it's not a family legacy thing.
If one were serious about that, there is education that can help with a
lot of the experience/knowledge thing. There are opportunities in areas
such as here to work for/with existing farmers who have no identified
family members to take over. It would be a sacrifice for a while, but
I'm aware of a number of these. Of course, there would be a <major>
shock in coming to the high plains from back there... :)
Silvan wrote:
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
>
>>>That's why 90% of farms are owned by Conglom-Ag isn't it?
>>
>>Actually, that's <not> true at all...in actuality, other than the
>>corporate hog and chicken producers, most are still family-owned
>>businesses...of course, they have gotten larger...
>
>
> You know more about it than I do, surely, but it certainly looks to me like
> what I said above is true. Driving through the rural Carolinas, for
> example, it seems like just about every patch of dirt that doesn't have a
> strip mall on it has a sign in the corner saying something like "This
> Property Owned and Operated by Agri-Mega-Corp."
>
>
>>(non-irrigated)). Today, assuming similar growing conditions, I'd
>><expect> near 80 to as much as 100. However, the recent spike in fuel
>>costs is definitely a hit--I'm studying carefully what to do for next
>>spring. Winter wheat, of course, is already in and up (and looking
>>good, here, too!) :)
>
>
> It also seems to me that efficiency or no, it must be much easier to go
> broke than to turn a profit in that business. I guess that's true of any
> business, but it just seems to me, as an outsider, like the deck is stacked
> against farming all around. They want your land for strip malls and yuppie
> gated golf communities, so they can get higher property taxes.
>
You are probably not that wrong, just in statistics. The number of
farms continues to drop and the size of farms continues to rise. So
big corporation farms in terms of acres, continues to increase, but
total numbers of farms also continues to decrease.
The family farm, as an institution, generally passed away long ago.
There are lots of gentleman farms, but I would hardly call those
family farms.
Anyway, farms are a business whether family or corporation owned. If
you don't know how to run a business you fail, no matter how hard you
may work. A lot of so called farmers don't seem to understand that.
I have to laugh everytime I hear about some poor guy and his wife
losing the family farm because of the poor economy, government screw
ups, or what have you. Usually it turns out that he owned it for only
5 years (not what most people envision as "the family farm") and that
the guy really knew very little about farming or running a business.
Another one of those "poor me, it's not my fault I failed."
Don't get the idea I am running down "the family farm." Successful
farms are still around, but the owners learned and adapted to the
business requirements of today. More power to them.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> ...
>> I know zip about colored gas, but farmers still get a break on fuel for
>> the tractors in the form of gas that is not taxed for road use.
>> Basically, they pay almost no taxes, which tends to knock at least 30
>> cents a gallon off. A few farmers around here actually have fuel tanks on
>> their farms, where they can just run the tractor or other gear up to the
>> tank. Diesel is available the same way.
>
> Don't know where you are, but all operations here have bulk tanks on
> farm...at 200+ gal/tankful for a modern tractor, to do otherwise is
> certainly impractical...as far as I know, all states require
> identification of off-road fuel. It must be an area of quite small
> farms for there to be any significant number of gasoline powered
> equipments (even trucks) on a farm these days...out here in grains
> (that's wheat, milo, corn, soybeans, some sunflowers) country, there
> isn't anybody still using gasoline and, in fact, there aren't even any
> equipments made w/ gasoline engines anymore (nor for 30 years or so, in
> fact) that would be used here. There was a big switch to LP in the 60s,
> then as equipment kept getting larger and larger, the reliability of
> diesel plus price led to an almost complete switchover to diesel,
> certainly by the 90s. A few folks keep one or two of the old small
> tractors or trucks for around the place (as do I) for mowing and use
> with bucket, etc., but there's so little gasoline on farm that I can't
> get bulk delivery of it any longer, although do diesel and could LP
> (although that's now driven mostly by residential demand for those who
> aren't on a natural gas tap, not because there's sufficient equipment
> usage by itself).
I believe Charlie's in the same general region I am. Around here it's small
farms mostly. The guy down the way grows a little bit of corn and other
things and a lot of tobacco--best cigar-wrapper in the world--even the
Cubans used to import it. Most of his equipment dates back to the '60s or
earlier.
>
> A "small" tractor here now is >100 hp...when I was a young(er)
> whippersnapper in the 60s, when we got our first Case 930 the ~80 hp
> beast seemed absolutely <huge>! Large tractors now are pushing 300 hp,
> 4-wheel drive articulated beasties. Now we do rowcrop cultivating w/
> larger tractors than the largest made when I was growing up. Of course,
> we went from four rows to 6, then 8, then 12, now 16 at 3 mph, then 4-5,
> now pushing 8. I don't have it yet, but could put on GPS guidance and
> start down the row maintaining inch accuracy and repeatibility from one
> pass to the next. Planter now does actually count and place each seed
> in the row within a fraction of an inch relative to the previous to
> control seeding density. A combine has yield monitors tied to GPS to
> monitor yield versus field area which can then automatically be
> correlated to soil conditions, fertilizer and herbicide/insecticide
> applications, etc. to determine most cost-effective practices...'tis
> absolutely a complete revolution to the 60 year old who spent 30 years
> as an engineer and came back to the farm after Dad died...
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> > applications, etc. to determine most cost-effective practices...'tis
> > absolutely a complete revolution to the 60 year old who spent 30 years
> > as an engineer and came back to the farm after Dad died...
>
> That's why 90% of farms are owned by Conglom-Ag isn't it? Seems to me
> Farmer Brown can't afford all that big John Deere iron I see running out
in
> farm country. That stuff must be *expensive*. They want $1,200 for a
li'l
> ol' lawn mower.
There's an old(very old) joke they like to tell at the tractor pulls about
some city slicker getting stuck, waking up a farmer for a tow, then telling
the farmer 'now be careful you don't damage my $15,000 Cadillac". The farmer
responds "Well, you can be damn sure I'm not going to damage my $80,000
tractor"!
--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.
Norm Crow writes:
>There's an old(very old) joke they like to tell at the tractor pulls about
>some city slicker getting stuck, waking up a farmer for a tow, then telling
>the farmer 'now be careful you don't damage my $15,000 Cadillac". The farmer
>responds "Well, you can be damn sure I'm not going to damage my $80,000
>tractor"!
Has to be waaaaaaaaaaaay old! When was the last time you heard of a 15K Caddy?
Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric
Hoffer
Charlie Self wrote:
>>telling the farmer 'now be careful you don't damage my $15,000 Cadillac".
>>The farmer responds "Well, you can be damn sure I'm not going to damage my
>>$80,000 tractor"!
>
> Has to be waaaaaaaaaaaay old! When was the last time you heard of a 15K
> Caddy?
Or an $80,000 tractor. Probably multiply this by 2.5 or so I'd say.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Silvan wrote:
>
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >>telling the farmer 'now be careful you don't damage my $15,000 Cadillac".
> >>The farmer responds "Well, you can be damn sure I'm not going to damage my
> >>$80,000 tractor"!
> >
> > Has to be waaaaaaaaaaaay old! When was the last time you heard of a 15K
> > Caddy?
>
> Or an $80,000 tractor. Probably multiply this by 2.5 or so I'd say.
There's such a wide selection of starting models plus options these days
it's essentially meaningless to put out "averages". Most would be in the
factor of 2 or less multipler a few, of course, can be even higher. A
major difference from olden days is the cost of implements owing to all
the enhanced features. A 12- to 16- row planter can push $100k.
The insurance/replacement value of my old '79 4440 is greater than it
cost new, of course, to put some perspective on $$...
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:55:30 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>farms mostly. The guy down the way grows a little bit of corn and other
>things and a lot of tobacco--best cigar-wrapper in the world--even the
>Cubans used to import it.
I was going to write "HEY! That's CT Valley Wrapper!", then I
realized it was you. <G>
Barry
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:20:00 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
>> That's not unique to NC, either...it is, of course, symptomatic of the
>> large poultry and/or hog production facilities everywhere they exist.
>
>Cotton too. Or hell, tobacco, apples, strawberries, basically everything.
>Not peaches that I've noticed. I wonder why?
>
>> Mexican. While there are some problems, <I> don't want the job(s)
>> they're doing, and I'd say most are doing their best to make a place for
>
>Yeah, that's a bit of a sticky thing there. They do jobs nobody wants, for
>less money than anybody else would work for. It's almost a slave culture.
>On the one hand, we can't exactly put them all in college and turn them
>into the next generation of CEOs, but OTOH it's really not fair to keep an
>entire population stuck doing scut work, and living in abject poverty in
>grossly overcrowded conditions forever. It's really an ugly thing no
>matter how you look at it.
Yeah, but their children tend to do a whole lot better. At least here
in Arizona it's the classic immigrant pattern. It's very rare for the
immigrants' children to become day laborers and dishwashers.
I think that's one of the major driving forces for the (mostly)
Mexican immigrants who have families here: A better life with more
opportunity for their children.
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
rcook5 responds:
>>On the one hand, we can't exactly put them all in college and turn them
>>into the next generation of CEOs, but OTOH it's really not fair to keep an
>>entire population stuck doing scut work, and living in abject poverty in
>>grossly overcrowded conditions forever. It's really an ugly thing no
>>matter how you look at it.
>
>Yeah, but their children tend to do a whole lot better. At least here
>in Arizona it's the classic immigrant pattern. It's very rare for the
>immigrants' children to become day laborers and dishwashers.
>
>I think that's one of the major driving forces for the (mostly)
>Mexican immigrants who have families here: A better life with more
>opportunity for their children.
I think in most instances that has been a large part of the driving force
behind all immigrants to the U.S. since...since the Pilgrims, really, even
though they were forced out of Europe for trying to ram their religious ideas
down others' throats.
Charlie Self
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:32:24 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> I think in most instances that has been a large part of the driving force
>> behind all immigrants to the U.S. since...since the Pilgrims, really, even
>> though they were forced out of Europe for trying to ram their religious
>ideas
>> down others' throats.
>>
>
>That's not even revisionist History, that's plain old bigoted crap!
>
Actually the pilgrims were the ramees, not the rammers.
They didn't become the ramees until after they set up in New England.
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
rcook5 responds:
>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> I think in most instances that has been a large part of the driving force
>>> behind all immigrants to the U.S. since...since the Pilgrims, really, even
>>> though they were forced out of Europe for trying to ram their religious
>>ideas
>>> down others' throats.
>>>
>>
>>That's not even revisionist History, that's plain old bigoted crap!
>>
>Actually the pilgrims were the ramees, not the rammers.
>They didn't become the ramees until after they set up in New England
Old George, with "bigoted"? Dear me. I'm a bigot.
The Pilgrims broke from the Anglican Church in an attempt to found their own
Catholic Church. In the process, they were not exactly polite, and things got a
wee bit rough under the British Monarchy (much of the idea the Puritans were
trying to get across involved democracy that, though religious, created a stir
of fear in the monarchy). They were pushy and none too bright about who they
went up against. Thus, onward to Holland in 1608, where they had a hard life
because of their oft expressed views, including the view that their way was the
only way, sort of a pre-Falwell "my way or hell" deal that tended to irk those
who didn't agree with them.
In that sense, they were, as you say, the "ramees." In fact, though, they were
insisting their view of Anglican and Catholic theological matters was the only
way, and making changes that worried those in power. Of course, viewing "their
way" as the only way is a common trait amongst religions, so this doesn't
really set them apart, then or now.
We have some slight degree of religious tolerance in this country, though not
nearly as great as we pretend. The Pilgrims had none...but weren't powerful
enough to enforce their way.
Charlie Self
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
[email protected] wrote:
> He's not always right, but which of us is?
Me. I'm always right.
Handed.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The puritans, including the pilgrims, were, by our lights, pretty
> unpleasant people. And certainly they became oppressive when they got
> the chance in the New World. But they weren't, in general, into
> oppressing anyone in England, for the simple reason they didn't have
> the power.
>
Substitute "Charlie" for "Pilgrims" and you've got something closer to
reality.
Your observations are historically more accurate, but you must realize that
anything or any one with which Charlie does not agree, regardless of
accuracy, is subject to the most foul attacks. He can't seem to shed his
antiestablishment bias even in the face of fact.
I'm sure you're referring, in your "unpleasant" remark, to the "government
vs. individual" conflict which is as old as civilization. Only thing that
kept people alive in the early years was acting in concert, but this meant
the individual had to sacrifice some of themselves to gain the protection of
the group. The rules were clearly enunciated, more or less democratically
derived, and, by the standards of Europe, where hanging,drawing and
quartering were still employed, the consequences were often fairly minor.
Yet, as always, when an individual sees no personal gain in following the
standards of society -or diminished threat, something we often disregard -
he acts selfishly, sometimes attempting to destroy the order and process
which protected and protects him.
Do you think the Puritan settlers - for the Pilgrims were much different -
were any different than the intolerant elitists who are trying to overturn
the US elections? Read Calvinist sermons and then Jesse Jackson, and
there's not a lot of difference.
On 23 Dec 2004 00:18:53 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>rcook5 responds:
>
>>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> I think in most instances that has been a large part of the driving force
>>>> behind all immigrants to the U.S. since...since the Pilgrims, really, even
>>>> though they were forced out of Europe for trying to ram their religious
>>>ideas
>>>> down others' throats.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's not even revisionist History, that's plain old bigoted crap!
>>>
>>Actually the pilgrims were the ramees, not the rammers.
>>They didn't become the ramees until after they set up in New England
>
>Old George, with "bigoted"? Dear me. I'm a bigot.
>
>The Pilgrims broke from the Anglican Church in an attempt to found their own
>Catholic Church.
"Catholic?" Not even in the sense of universal.
> In the process, they were not exactly polite,
They were anything but polite. They were the rump extremists in the
Puritan movement who would not make peace with the authorities.
> and things got a
>wee bit rough under the British Monarchy (much of the idea the Puritans were
>trying to get across involved democracy that, though religious, created a stir
>of fear in the monarchy).
They were, dare I say, a Royal pain in the a**?
> They were pushy and none too bright about who they
>went up against. Thus, onward to Holland in 1608, where they had a hard life
>because of their oft expressed views, including the view that their way was the
>only way, sort of a pre-Falwell "my way or hell" deal that tended to irk those
>who didn't agree with them.
All true. But they didn't actively try to overthrow the established
church or government. They would have been perfectly content to be
left alone to do things in their own way -- which included excoriating
anyone who didn't agree with them, including their nominal brethren.
Of course the idea of religious toleration was nothing if not novel in
early 17th Century England. The country was enmeshed in the religious
unrest -- and outright warfare -- which was sweeping Europe and
everyone had the horrible examples of Germany, France and Spain before
them. In those days you could make a pretty good case that not
conforming to the offical religion amounted to treason. Most people in
authority viewed it as subversive, at a minimum.
>In that sense, they were, as you say, the "ramees." In fact, though, they were
>insisting their view of Anglican and Catholic theological matters was the only
>way, and making changes that worried those in power. Of course, viewing "their
>way" as the only way is a common trait amongst religions, so this doesn't
>really set them apart, then or now.
The puritans, including the pilgrims, were, by our lights, pretty
unpleasant people. And certainly they became oppressive when they got
the chance in the New World. But they weren't, in general, into
oppressing anyone in England, for the simple reason they didn't have
the power.
>We have some slight degree of religious tolerance in this country, though not
>nearly as great as we pretend. The Pilgrims had none...but weren't powerful
>enough to enforce their way.
Exactly. And that's why your statement strikes me as incorrect.
Also keep in mind that the pilgrims represented only a tiny minority
even within the puritan movement. Puritanism was a broad intellectual
current in England at the time but only a very small number of those
of Puritan sympathies were ever extreme enough to become pilgrims.
>Charlie Self
>"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
>respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:25:23 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> The puritans, including the pilgrims, were, by our lights, pretty
>> unpleasant people. And certainly they became oppressive when they got
>> the chance in the New World. But they weren't, in general, into
>> oppressing anyone in England, for the simple reason they didn't have
>> the power.
>>
>
>Substitute "Charlie" for "Pilgrims" and you've got something closer to
>reality.
>
>Your observations are historically more accurate, but you must realize that
>anything or any one with which Charlie does not agree, regardless of
>accuracy, is subject to the most foul attacks. He can't seem to shed his
>antiestablishment bias even in the face of fact.
Actually I've found Charlie to be a pretty reasonable person whose
posts add a lot to this NG. I haven't seen anything of the behavior
your attribute to him.
He's not always right, but which of us is?
>
>I'm sure you're referring, in your "unpleasant" remark, to the "government
>vs. individual" conflict which is as old as civilization.
Your certaintity is misplaced.
I'm referring to the fact that most of us would have found puritans,
and especially the pilgrims, anything from annoying to infuriating to
be around.
> Only thing that
>kept people alive in the early years was acting in concert, but this meant
>the individual had to sacrifice some of themselves to gain the protection of
>the group. The rules were clearly enunciated, more or less democratically
>derived, and, by the standards of Europe, where hanging,drawing and
>quartering were still employed, the consequences were often fairly minor.
>Yet, as always, when an individual sees no personal gain in following the
>standards of society -or diminished threat, something we often disregard -
>he acts selfishly, sometimes attempting to destroy the order and process
>which protected and protects him.
>
>Do you think the Puritan settlers - for the Pilgrims were much different -
>were any different than the intolerant elitists who are trying to overturn
>the US elections? Read Calvinist sermons and then Jesse Jackson, and
>there's not a lot of difference.
Only if you're philsophically tone-deaf.
I don't know what your problem is, but you obviously have one. I am
not going to get into this with you, so feel free to read me out of
your particular Church of Absolute Knowledge.
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think in most instances that has been a large part of the driving force
> behind all immigrants to the U.S. since...since the Pilgrims, really, even
> though they were forced out of Europe for trying to ram their religious
ideas
> down others' throats.
>
That's not even revisionist History, that's plain old bigoted crap!
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" wrote:
> ...
>
>>The family farm, as an institution, generally passed away long ago.
>>There are lots of gentleman farms, but I would hardly call those
>>family farms.
>
>
> No, it has <not> passed away as an institution in the historic farming
> areas...they family farm has certainly evolved,but it is every bit as
> much a way of life as ever.
>
>
>>Anyway, farms are a business whether family or corporation owned. If
>>you don't know how to run a business you fail, no matter how hard you
>>may work. A lot of so called farmers don't seem to understand that.
>
>
> That is true although other than the last sentence doesn't fit with the
> other two...
>
>
>>I have to laugh everytime I hear about some poor guy and his wife
>>losing the family farm because of the poor economy, government screw
>>ups, or what have you. Usually it turns out that he owned it for only
>>5 years (not what most people envision as "the family farm") and that
>>the guy really knew very little about farming or running a business.
>>Another one of those "poor me, it's not my fault I failed."
>
>
> There may be some of those, but there certainly have been a large number
> of long term farm families that have not been able to make it over the
> last 20 years. Much of this is certainly exacerbated by inconsistent
> government policies to be polite. Remember the Carter grain embargoes
> and the (1st) Bush crackdown to lower the high bread prices? Both of
> those came after pleas to produce more for the export market which these
> policies immediately killed...the resulting collapse of the grain
> markets <did> force many failures. That's a <very> brief synopsis of a
> complex issue but certainly that part of it played a significant role.
>
>
>>Don't get the idea I am running down "the family farm." Successful
>>farms are still around, but the owners learned and adapted to the
>>business requirements of today. More power to them.
>
>
> I'm going to insult you, but I don't mean it...obtw, please continue to
> keep my food costs cheaper than anywhere else in the world... :(
I'm not going to intersperse my comments, it just gets too
hard to read. The family farm IS over as an institution.
that happened when people moved to the city. Sure there are
farms and sure their are family farms, but the numbers are a
fraction of what they once were. Just like there are damn
view hunter-gathers clans anymore. Very few people are
farmers relative to the number of people in the U.S. I
think the percentage at one time was close to 50 percent.
Farming is a business, period. People that have some
illusive dream about farming, go broke.
Ah yes, the farmer-government relationship. Farmers say
they want no government intervention, then do everything
they can to climb aboard the hand outs. Government screws
up almost every time they intervene whether it is about
grain, dairies, potatoes, sugar beets or whatever. Of
course, farmer coops/product promoter groups also screw up.
You didn't insult me. And now the food production thing.
Hell the earth was suppose to run out of food by now, but
your cheap food is still coming. Markets go up and markets
go down, the successful farmer has to pay attention and
hedge his bets even if that means getting into stock market
futures. Like I said, business, one part is making the
crop, the other is management. The guy I know that are
successful do both well. And if you have no idea of
economics, you WILL fail.
George E. Cawthon responds:
> The family farm IS over as an institution.
>that happened when people moved to the city. Sure there are
>farms and sure their are family farms, but the numbers are a
>fraction of what they once were.
Craft guilds killed 'em. That's when the big influx to the cities started.
>Ah yes, the farmer-government relationship. Farmers say
>they want no government intervention, then do everything
>they can to climb aboard the hand outs. Government screws
>up almost every time they intervene whether it is about
>grain, dairies, potatoes, sugar beets or whatever. Of
>course, farmer coops/product promoter groups also screw up.
Oh, I love the farmers around here. Almost all strong conservatives (whatever
that means in today's confused grouping). Strongly against welfare and msot
similar government programs. But suggest taking away their tobacco allotments
and price supports and whoooooweeeeeee!
Charlie Self
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> George E. Cawthon responds:
>
> > The family farm IS over as an institution.
> >that happened when people moved to the city. Sure there are
> >farms and sure their are family farms, but the numbers are a
> >fraction of what they once were.
That doesn't mean it's <over>, just a smaller absolute number...
Regarding farm policy...
One can't generalize entirely...as in any other area of public policy,
there are individuals in both the public and private sectors holding
opinions across the entire spectrum. The major problem now is quite
similar to other economic areas, there is no simple answer that will
solve all the problems w/o creating others. Part is public policy, part
is US self-reliance, part is present position and how to change that w/o
total disruption of a sizable segment of the overall economy, part is
the role in the continued balance of trade ...
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Same system still in effect in all ag areas afaik.
>
> Colored fuels came into being at least by the mid-50's (here in KS,
> anyway). I'm not old enough to know prior to then just how far back it
> actually goes. Multiple purposes--product indentification plus as in
> the above example tax purposes. Farm diesel is still colered
> differently from truck/pump/highway diesel as it is not subject to road
> taxes (and, depending on local jurisdiction, perhaps other fees/taxes as
> well). To best of my knowledge, there's so little farm gasoline these
> days there is no off-road available (certainly not here, anyway). For
> the old tractors and trucks, we buy pump gas, keep records of what is
> off-road (local Co-op has key pumps so we have separate farm/non-farm
> keys) and deduct the tax off the taxes when file.
>
> One doson't want to be caught by the weigh station guys w/ long
> haul/non-farm use farm diesel! They're pretty serious about
> enforcement...
Yep, they really want to know about that diesel fuel. I was still driving
truck when that changeover came in the 90's. Wasn't just the weigh stations,
they set up random checks all over PA just to see the color of your diesel
fuel.
--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> "Norman D. Crow" wrote:
> ...
>
>> I don't know about the gas being colored, but I do know that in the early
>> '50s, farmers got a tax break on gasoline for "farm" use, and you could
>> get your farm tank filled by Agway, but you were NOT supposed to use it
>> in your auto, motorcycle, etc. I don't know as there was any actual
>> telltale connected with it, but I know Uncle never put it in any car,
>> except maybe a couple gallons in an emergency if someone didn't put gas
>> in while in town, and it might not make it to town.
>
> Same system still in effect in all ag areas afaik.
>
> Colored fuels came into being at least by the mid-50's (here in KS,
> anyway). I'm not old enough to know prior to then just how far back it
> actually goes. Multiple purposes--product indentification plus as in
> the above example tax purposes. Farm diesel is still colered
> differently from truck/pump/highway diesel as it is not subject to road
> taxes (and, depending on local jurisdiction, perhaps other fees/taxes as
> well). To best of my knowledge, there's so little farm gasoline these
> days there is no off-road available (certainly not here, anyway). For
> the old tractors and trucks, we buy pump gas, keep records of what is
> off-road (local Co-op has key pumps so we have separate farm/non-farm
> keys) and deduct the tax off the taxes when file.
>
> One doson't want to be caught by the weigh station guys w/ long
> haul/non-farm use farm diesel! They're pretty serious about
> enforcement...
Another place colored fuel is used is aviation gasoline. 100/130 leaded is
green, 100 low-lead is blue. When you check the tank sump to make sure
there's no water, you also check the color of the gas to make sure it's
what the plane you're flying is supposed to use.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Norman D. Crow wrote:
>
> > Yep, they really want to know about that diesel fuel. I was still
driving
> > truck when that changeover came in the 90's. Wasn't just the weigh
> > stations, they set up random checks all over PA just to see the color of
> > your diesel fuel.
>
> I think they got over it because nobody bothered to try to sneak by
anymore.
> Nobody has ever looked at the color of my fuel that I recall. I started
> driving in '97.
Uncle Sam retired me in '97(type II diabetes on needles). Seems the big
switch was in early/mid 90's, and that's when they were checking.
--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.
George E. Cawthon wrote:
> Eddie Munster wrote:
>> Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.
>>
>> As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
>> I think it was to take out a red colourant.
>>
>>
>>
>> And why in hell
>>
>>> would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?
>>
>>
>> Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
>> wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.
>>
>> Those were lean days.
>>
>
> But cheating didn't bother her?
Most people who lived through Prohibition and the Depression really don't
give a damn what the government wants.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George E. Cawthon wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eddie Munster wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.
>>>>
>>>>As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
>>>>I think it was to take out a red colourant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And why in hell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
>>>>wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.
>>>>
>>>>Those were lean days.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But cheating didn't bother her?
>>
>>
>> Most people who lived through Prohibition and the Depression really don't
>> give a damn what the government wants.
>>
>
> I think you missed the point. I assumed he was objecting to
> my use of "Hell" so I was tweaking his moral values--object
> to a swear/strong word but fraud.
>
> Your comment seems to imply that to disagree and being a
> scofflaw are the same. Most of the people I know that went
> through the depression were law abiding whether or not they
> agreed with various laws and policies.
>
> While we are at it maybe some definitions are needed. The
> depression was from 1930 to 1939, at least that's what my
> references indicate. Going through the depression means to
> me experiencing it in a meaningful way which means the
> person would need to be old enough to be aware of what was
> going on. I take that to mean that the person was born at
> least by 1924 and to really experience it they would have
> needed to be at least 15 by 1930 or born by 1915. Of
> course, a great number of people didn't experience the
> depression at all even though they were adults during the
> period. It depends on the geographic area, the jobs they
> held, and the social stratum they lived in.
>
> Nonetheless, to imply that those born before 1915 generally
> approved and practiced fraud is a bit outrageous.
There were two overlapping events, Prohibition and the Depression. Note
that I said "Prohibition and the Depression" not either/or.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On 15 Dec 2004 08:04:30 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>In many states pure ethanol, well, almost pure it has some water
>in it as does all ethanol once it is exposed to the air, is
>available in liquor stores.
I've never seen "Everclear" or equivalent in the UK. I've never even
seen it in the USA - the last few times I've visited I've been on
quick trips in uptown urban areas, not prowling the bodegas.
If I could find Everclear locally I'd be using it, just for the
convenience - even with the taxes on it.
--
Smert' spamionam
George wrote:
> The college students can steal the 95% from Organic lab, like we did.
Unless it was spectrophotometric grade, which would be very expensive,
the other 5% might have included benzene.
For that matter, there are denatured alcohols sold for rubbing alcohol
and shellac thinner that are 95% ethanol.
--
FF
George wrote:
> Reagent grade stuff is pretty pure, believe me.
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > George wrote:
> > > The college students can steal the 95% from Organic lab, like we
did.
> >
> >
> > Unless it was spectrophotometric grade, which would be very
expensive,
> > the other 5% might have included benzene.
> >
> > For that matter, there are denatured alcohols sold for rubbing
alcohol
> > and shellac thinner that are 95% ethanol.
> >
When I was in college spectrophotometric grade was pretty pure
and therefor quite expensive. Reagent grade was contaminated with
benzene which was a non-issue because the benzene did not interfere
with typical organic chemistry class uses--which did not include
getting drunk.
That is what our professor told us. Maybe they just didn't want us
stealing the stuff. Or maybe your professors were social Darwinists...
--
FF
Andy Dingley wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:40:40 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
> >Reagent grade stuff is pretty pure, believe me.
>
> It has to be. There wouldn't be a chemistry undergrad left with
enough
> sight to read the exam paper overwise.
Non Sequitor.
AFAIK small doses of benzene do not cause blindness.
(e.g. check out the meaning of 'confabulation')
--
FF
George E. Cawthon wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Unless it was spectrophotometric grade, which would be very
expensive,
> > the other 5% might have included benzene.
> >
> > For that matter, there are denatured alcohols sold for rubbing
alcohol
> > and shellac thinner that are 95% ethanol.
> >
>
> Gees! The other 5 percent is WATER. You only get benzene (a trace)
> in the 100 percent because 100 percent is (or was) produced by
> distilling against benzene.
That makes sense, though I wouldn't count on all of the other 5% being
water.
--
FF
Andy Dingley responds:
>On 15 Dec 2004 08:04:30 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>In many states pure ethanol, well, almost pure it has some water
>>in it as does all ethanol once it is exposed to the air, is
>>available in liquor stores.
>
>I've never seen "Everclear" or equivalent in the UK. I've never even
>seen it in the USA - the last few times I've visited I've been on
>quick trips in uptown urban areas, not prowling the bodegas.
>
>If I could find Everclear locally I'd be using it, just for the
>convenience - even with the taxes on it.
Next time you hit Richmond or some other semi-Southern city, check out the
local ABC store. They'll have Everclear, though possibly not by that name.
Nasty stuff to drink by itself, though, unless you're already ripped. IIRC,
most of it goes into punch bowls for the unwary, often at church picnics.
Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill
Charlie Self wrote:
>>If I could find Everclear locally I'd be using it, just for the
>>convenience - even with the taxes on it.
>
> Next time you hit Richmond or some other semi-Southern city, check out the
> local ABC store. They'll have Everclear, though possibly not by that name.
Not anymore, I don't think. Could just be local, but I'm fairly sure it has
been banned statewide. After too many dumbass college students
accidentally committed suicide.
> Nasty stuff to drink by itself, though, unless you're already ripped.
> IIRC, most of it goes into punch bowls for the unwary, often at church
> picnics.
:)
None for me, thanks. I get pretty well hammered from three piss water
American beers. I think if I ever had a shot of Everclear, I'd go straight
for the coma.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
The college students can steal the 95% from Organic lab, like we did. They
don't need to pay the money. Gallon of it, can each of whatever Hi-C
juices were on the shelf to make up a 5-gallon Jerrycan worth, and off to
the dunes....
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >>If I could find Everclear locally I'd be using it, just for the
> >>convenience - even with the taxes on it.
> >
> > Next time you hit Richmond or some other semi-Southern city, check out
the
> > local ABC store. They'll have Everclear, though possibly not by that
name.
>
> Not anymore, I don't think. Could just be local, but I'm fairly sure it
has
> been banned statewide. After too many dumbass college students
> accidentally committed suicide.
Reagent grade stuff is pretty pure, believe me.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> George wrote:
> > The college students can steal the 95% from Organic lab, like we did.
>
>
> Unless it was spectrophotometric grade, which would be very expensive,
> the other 5% might have included benzene.
>
> For that matter, there are denatured alcohols sold for rubbing alcohol
> and shellac thinner that are 95% ethanol.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
Benzene is used to dehydrate and get higher percentage than the azeotropic
95/5.
If you want aliphatic only, makes sense to avoid benzene.
As there were no females, save nuns, (ok to date 'em, as long as you don't
get into the habit) at the school, we took our "jungle juice" on the road.
If the stuff hadn't been available, we would have distilled it on our own.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> George wrote:
> > Reagent grade stuff is pretty pure, believe me.
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > George wrote:
> > > > The college students can steal the 95% from Organic lab, like we
> did.
> > >
> > >
> > > Unless it was spectrophotometric grade, which would be very
> expensive,
> > > the other 5% might have included benzene.
> > >
> > > For that matter, there are denatured alcohols sold for rubbing
> alcohol
> > > and shellac thinner that are 95% ethanol.
> > >
>
> When I was in college spectrophotometric grade was pretty pure
> and therefor quite expensive. Reagent grade was contaminated with
> benzene which was a non-issue because the benzene did not interfere
> with typical organic chemistry class uses--which did not include
> getting drunk.
>
> That is what our professor told us. Maybe they just didn't want us
> stealing the stuff. Or maybe your professors were social Darwinists...
> --
>
> FF
>
[email protected] wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>>The college students can steal the 95% from Organic lab, like we did.
>
>
>
> Unless it was spectrophotometric grade, which would be very expensive,
> the other 5% might have included benzene.
>
> For that matter, there are denatured alcohols sold for rubbing alcohol
> and shellac thinner that are 95% ethanol.
>
Gees! The other 5 percent is WATER. You only get benzene (a trace)
in the 100 percent because 100 percent is (or was) produced by
distilling against benzene.
Silvan wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
>>>If I could find Everclear locally I'd be using it, just for the
>>>convenience - even with the taxes on it.
>>
>>Next time you hit Richmond or some other semi-Southern city, check out the
>>local ABC store. They'll have Everclear, though possibly not by that name.
>
>
> Not anymore, I don't think. Could just be local, but I'm fairly sure it has
> been banned statewide. After too many dumbass college students
> accidentally committed suicide.
>
Well, it's still available here in SC, at least as of Tuesday. Bit
of a drive farther than Richmond, but NC may still sell it.
Joe
>
>>Nasty stuff to drink by itself, though, unless you're already ripped.
>>IIRC, most of it goes into punch bowls for the unwary, often at church
>>picnics.
>
>
> :)
>
> None for me, thanks. I get pretty well hammered from three piss water
> American beers. I think if I ever had a shot of Everclear, I'd go straight
> for the coma.
>
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:17:08 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:40:40 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
>>Reagent grade stuff is pretty pure, believe me.
>
> It has to be. There wouldn't be a chemistry undergrad left with enough
> sight to read the exam paper overwise.
>
Dad was in the Navy, just missing the first Vietnam escalation.
The buddies he keeps in contact with were another Helo pilot, and the
ship's Dentist.
Guess which one had access to drinkable grain alchohol.
George wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Prohibition was undoubtedly one of the stupidest
>
>>laws in U.S. history and resulted in the establishment of a
>>large criminal group and a huge crime wave.
>
>
> Revisionist History at its best. The gangs were there before, they were
> there after "the great experiment." Booze just provided a good source of
> quick money above the gambling, prostitution and extortion which preceded
> it, and the racketeering and drugs which followed.
>
> I'm seeing a lot of "Indian" cigarettes around now that we're the second or
> third highest tax state in the US. More casinos, too. Did the laws cause
> the tribes, or just the tribe's corruption problems?
>
>
Yep booze provide the money to power "organized crime."
Wonder why it was not called "organized crime" before that?
Too far off topic to continue. Indian cigarettes are a
minor problem in the "Indian problem." Too bad Congress
never had the guts to straighten things out.
But the bread does remove the dye put in there for taxation purposes.
Farmers would do it to put farm gas in cars, or so im told by my
grandfather....
George E. Cawthon wrote:
> Phil Hansen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:59:33 +0000, Andy Dingley
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 13 Dec 2004 11:31:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Methylated Spirits, methyl alcohol, methanol, and wood alcohol,
>>>> are all the same thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Filter the meths through a hollowed out half loaf of bread.
>> Colour gone, pyride gone. Drinkable. Ask any seasoned hobo. A bottle
>> of meths is a lot cheaper than
>> anything in the bottle store.
>>
>
> That is so much BS! Drinkable, but not less toxic.
Ammonia can be used to clean after using shellac, not as pricey as
alcohol.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:40:37 -0600, Robert Galloway
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Methanol. I used to use Solox brand MetOH to thin and clean shellac
>brushes and it worked great. Never started with the flakes so can't say
>how that would work but as a thinner, no problem.
In article
<[email protected]>,
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pump gas for cars has been colored since I was
> little--yellow to red.
Don't forget blue Sunoco.
--
Hank Gillette
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:30:25 -0500, Hank Gillette
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article
><[email protected]>,
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Pump gas for cars has been colored since I was
>> little--yellow to red.
>
In Alberta up until 1969 (when I left) There was an official whom we
called "Purple Charlie". He roamed the country checking every town and
village for purple gas. He'd start at one end of the street with a
large syringe with a rubber tube and check every gas tank. Farmers
were allowed to use "purple" in farm work vehicles but not their cars.
The fine was quite heavy. Farm gas was ordinary gas with purple dye
added and was less costly, hence the fine.
Thanks for all the comments. Comments in general seemed to think it
would work fine so I used it with shellac flakes on a small cabinet I
built for my grandson, it works fine. I don't spray and as with any of
the solvents we use you take precautions.
Having worked in nuclear plants for 27 years and continually taking
safety courses, when I started woodworking after retiring my first
purchases included an air cleaner that hangs from the ceiling and gets
turned on whenever I am working in the shop, a dust collector and a dust
respirator. Once I started doing finishing I got a chemical respirator
and the cartridges get changed regularly.
Since my 25' x 25' shop is in the basement I'll spend the extra and use
the denatured alcohol LV sells in the winter when I can't really vent
the shop outside like I do in the warmer weather.
Rick
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:59:33 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 13 Dec 2004 11:31:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Methylated Spirits, methyl alcohol, methanol, and wood alcohol,
>>are all the same thing.
<snip>
Filter the meths through a hollowed out half loaf of bread.
Colour gone, pyride gone. Drinkable.
Ask any seasoned hobo. A bottle of meths is a lot cheaper than
anything in the bottle store.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:30:03 -0500, Eddie Munster
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I think the wood alcohol is poisonous and the grain alcohol is the
>drinky kind.
Ethanol, good stuff, sometimes called "grain alcohol".
Methanol, bad stuff, sometimes called "wood alcohol".
Eddie Munster <[email protected]> writes:
> I think the wood alcohol is poisonous and the grain alcohol is the
> drinky kind. I think I have seen it for sale in booze stores?
Wood alcohol is methanol.
>
> Where does ethanol fit in?
Thats the stuff in beer and wine. It would be the best solvent,
because it's not so very poisonous (after all it you drink...), but
because you can drink it it's loaded with a very heavy tax that makes
it very expensive if bought without any nasty stuff mixed in.
BTW: glycerine is also an alcohol..
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23