18" front tire size?

[Jacobus De Bruyn]

The Mexican Oil Co Pemex managed to loose money this year. That will tell you something about govmnt effciency, especially in Latin America. Good luck, Hugo Chavez, it is going to be a disaster. Cuba still blames the US for its economic woes. And I d better not even mention Nigeria. I work for a state port authority, and it is a ridiculous, corrupt, stupid mess. We should outlaw government! I hope to retire in a year or so, hanging on. I see great possibilities in Solar energy, making hydrogen from seawater, in the deserts. Fossil stuff will eventually run out, and stinks too. There seems to be a problem with Nuclear waste, but it is an alternative until something cleaner pops up. If we don t find alternatives for oil, world commerce will eventually grind to a halt, since shipping becomes too expensive. No more underwear from China, or bananas from Costa Rica. A ten thousand ton ship travelling from Costa Rica to Germany and back, in abt four weeks time, burns one million dollars in heavy fuel already. If this trend continues, will we pay one dollar for one banana? Just wondering, Jacostarica.

[roncriswell@sbcglobal.net]

I'm with you on this one Jacosterica. All these people who are against any sane energy policy will cry like babies when everything stops to a standstill ..... because there is no effective energy policy in place. I sit at Hooters quite frequently ..... for ..... stimulation. Occasionally, I look away from from the stimulation and gaze at the freeway watching all the commerce moving by at great speed. It will all stop .... and maybe soon ........ if we as a country and a world don't address it. Why did we spend a half billion $$$ to go to Mars to look at rocks when we could have used the $$$ to address a much more pressing problem ..... energy. Iraq was about oil. It may get worse. Anybody ever see Mel Gibson's movie ...... Road Warrior? Criswell

On May 29, 2008, at 7:35 AM, Jacobus De Bruyn wrote: > The Mexican Oil Co Pemex managed to loose money this > year. That will tell you something about govmnt > effciency, especially in Latin America. Good luck, > Hugo Chavez, it is going to be a disaster. Cuba still > blames the US for its economic woes. And I d better > not even mention Nigeria. I work for a state port > authority, and it is a ridiculous, corrupt, stupid > mess. We should outlaw government! > I hope to retire in a year or so, hanging on. > > I see great possibilities in Solar energy, making > hydrogen from seawater, in the deserts. Fossil stuff > will eventually run out, and stinks too. There seems > to be a problem with Nuclear waste, but it is an > alternative until something cleaner pops up. > > If we don t find alternatives for oil, world commerce > will eventually grind to a halt, since shipping > becomes too expensive. No more underwear from China, > or bananas from Costa Rica. A ten thousand ton ship > travelling from Costa Rica to Germany and back, in abt > four weeks time, burns one million dollars in heavy > fuel already. If this trend continues, will we pay > one dollar for one banana? Just wondering, Jacostarica. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[albatrossklr]

Hermano Jacob, Are you converting la jirafa to run bunker oil? albatross who envy's your access to the bananas which will be too expensive soon --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Jacobus De Bruyn wrote:

> > The Mexican Oil Co Pemex managed to loose money this > year. That will tell you something about govmnt > effciency, especially in Latin America. Good luck, > Hugo Chavez, it is going to be a disaster. Cuba still > blames the US for its economic woes. And I d better > not even mention Nigeria. I work for a state port > authority, and it is a ridiculous, corrupt, stupid > mess. We should outlaw government! > I hope to retire in a year or so, hanging on. > > I see great possibilities in Solar energy, making > hydrogen from seawater, in the deserts. Fossil stuff > will eventually run out, and stinks too. There seems > to be a problem with Nuclear waste, but it is an > alternative until something cleaner pops up. > > If we don t find alternatives for oil, world commerce > will eventually grind to a halt, since shipping > becomes too expensive. No more underwear from China, > or bananas from Costa Rica. A ten thousand ton ship > travelling from Costa Rica to Germany and back, in abt > four weeks time, burns one million dollars in heavy > fuel already. If this trend continues, will we pay > one dollar for one banana? Just wondering, Jacostarica. >

[Gary LaRue]

----- Original Message ---- From: "roncriswell@..." roncriswell@...

>>Why did we spend a half billion

$$$ to go to Mars to look at rocks when we could have used the $$$ to address a much more pressing problem ..... energy. Ron; I wish I had the gumption to list all the things that we use every single day which are spinoff benefits from the space program, but it would probably max out the server. I used to argue with my father in law who felt that every penny was a waste, so I did some research on the subject. Even I, a science fiction buff since the sixties, was surprised at the benefits our society has reaped from those "wasted" dollars. I suggest you take a couple of hours and do a quick overview, but be prepared to be amazed. Leaving that aside, space is a treasure trove of power and resources. Power sattelites orbiting the earth or sun, beaming almost unlimited power down to us. The concerns of environmentalists *and I are one* can be addressed, it's just a question of design parameters and engineering. Mining the moon and asteoids can be done by minimal manpower or even fully automated. People have alread proposed business models, drawn up business plans and done preliminary engineering studies. All based on off-the-shelf technology we have today. How would it be to have several tons of noble metals splash down in the Indian Ocean, say for example, every day? How 'bout alloys, crystals or foamed metal that cannot be made under a gravity field? How 'bout tanks of extremely high vacuum for industrial use. When no longer useful, scrap the steel. How 'bout using resources harvested from space to build nuclear reactors in orbit? No scarring of Mother Earth, and portion of their power would be used to hold them in orbit. If anything happened they would shut down, which would cause them to drift away from the planet where they could do no harm to our species at all. Waste could be dropped into the sun where even the most rabid "enviroNazi" could not complain about long term storage. I could go on and on. What is stopping us? Basically, it boils down to "Da Guvmint" won't let these companies launch. The conspiricists (sp?) *and I aint one* paint dark pictures of why that is, but this I know. It is possible. It is doable with todays technology. Sooner or later, it WILL be done, it's just a question of what language the people doing it will speak. I think it will probably be Chinese, and I will probably live to see that day. Maybe not, but I am supremely confident that my children will. "It's raining soup up there, folks. Let's build soup bowls" C-y'all Lash Recent Activity * 13 New Members * 2 New PhotosVisit Your Group Y! Sports for TV Game Day Companion Live fantasy league & game stats on TV. Yahoo! News Kevin Sites Get coverage of world crises. Dog Groups on Yahoo! Groups Share pictures & stories about dogs. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[roncriswell@sbcglobal.net]

Oh I have no problem with the space program close by such as orbiting the earth or maybe colonizing the moon for who that hell would want to live there. I understand all the bennies we have received from the program close by. But I see no benefit from exploring Mars, Venus or whatever in the foreseeable future until we find a different propulsion system. If there are valuable minerals whatever there, there is no way we could harvest them in the foreseeable future. I could see that half billion better wasted by Congress on earth. Maybe we could send it to our friends in Libya, Egypt, or Pakistan (sarcasm) like we already do. Criswell

On May 30, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Gary LaRue wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "roncriswell@..." roncriswell@... > > >>Why did we spend a half billion > $$$ to go to Mars to look at rocks when we could have used the $$$ to > address a much more pressing problem ..... energy. > > Ron; > > I wish I had the gumption to list all the things that we use every > single day which are spinoff benefits from the space program, but > it would probably max out the server. I used to argue with my > father in law who felt that every penny was a waste, so I did some > research on the subject. Even I, a science fiction buff since the > sixties, was surprised at the benefits our society has reaped from > those "wasted" dollars. I suggest you take a couple of hours and > do a quick overview, but be prepared to be amazed. > > Leaving that aside, space is a treasure trove of power and > resources. Power sattelites orbiting the earth or sun, beaming > almost unlimited power down to us. The concerns of > environmentalists *and I are one* can be addressed, it's just a > question of design parameters and engineering. Mining the moon and > asteoids can be done by minimal manpower or even fully automated. > People have alread proposed business models, drawn up business > plans and done preliminary engineering studies. All based on off- > the-shelf technology we have today. How would it be to have > several tons of noble metals splash down in the Indian Ocean, say > for example, every day? How 'bout alloys, crystals or foamed metal > that cannot be made under a gravity field? How 'bout tanks of > extremely high vacuum for industrial use. When no longer useful, > scrap the steel. How 'bout using resources harvested from space to > build nuclear reactors in orbit? No scarring of > Mother Earth, and portion of their power would be used to hold them > in orbit. If anything happened they would shut down, which would > cause them to drift away from the planet where they could do no > harm to our species at all. Waste could be dropped into the sun > where even the most rabid "enviroNazi" could not complain about > long term storage. > > I could go on and on. What is stopping us? Basically, it boils > down to "Da Guvmint" won't let these companies launch. The > conspiricists (sp?) *and I aint one* paint dark pictures of why > that is, but this I know. It is possible. It is doable with > todays technology. Sooner or later, it WILL be done, it's just a > question of what language the people doing it will speak. I think > it will probably be Chinese, and I will probably live to see that > day. Maybe not, but I am supremely confident that my children will. > "It's raining soup up there, folks. Let's build soup bowls" > C-y'all > Lash > Recent Activity > * 13 > New Members > * 2 > New PhotosVisit Your Group > Y! Sports for TV > Game Day Companion > Live fantasy league > & game stats on TV. > Yahoo! News > Kevin Sites > Get coverage of > world crises. > Dog Groups > on Yahoo! Groups > Share pictures & > stories about dogs. > . > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jefferson Johnson]

The Chinese must not be that quiet about it if you found out (that is unless you are a Chinese uranium trading insider) Motojbj. On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Randall Marbach wrote:

> > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: d_m_plum > > To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:31:43 AM > Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Re: [NKLR] The Oil Shortage Problem > > >The only true long-term solution is nuclear energy. No other energy > > The only problem is ...... that the Chinese have quietly been cornering the > market on the world's uranium supplies... > > >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[E.L. Green]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Jefferson Johnson" wrote:

> > The Chinese must not be that quiet about it if you found out (that

is unless

> you are a Chinese uranium trading insider)

Nope, the Chinese haven't been quiet about it at all. They're planning to build over 75 pebble-bed reactors based on a South African design to replace some of the nasty coal-powered plants that currently are hazing over their country, and those reactors need uranium to fill them up. These plans have been widely publicized. BTW, the reason they're going pebble-bed is that, because of China's horrific safety record in other things, the maintenance requirements of regular light-water reactors simply doesn't appeal to them. (Pebble-bed reactors are gas-cooled rather than water-cooled and use a graphite moderator that's part of the pebble itself rather than a water moderator, and if properly designed are theoretically incapable of a Chernobyl-style meltdown). But this doesn't get much press, so I guess you could say that the Chinese are "quietly" collecting uranium. Just note that this is going to be a short-term problem. Uranium is a fairly common element and if the demand remains high long-term, more processing plants and mines will come online to meet the demand. Furthermore the uranium cycle isn't the only possible nuclear fission cycle that could be used for power plants, it's just the one we use due to current nuclear reactors being derived from military ones originally intended to create plutonium for bombs. The supply of fissionables available to us are sufficient to provide energy for a technological civilization for thousands of years, if we dare to do it -- something that is not true of any other form of energy currently available to us (solar and wind are nice, but don't have the energy density to maintain a technological civilization). -E

> > Motojbj. > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Randall Marbach > wrote: > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: d_m_plum > > > To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:31:43 AM > > Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Re: [NKLR] The Oil Shortage Problem > > > > >The only true long-term solution is nuclear energy. No other energy > > > > The only problem is ...... that the Chinese have quietly been

cornering the

> > market on the world's uranium supplies... > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >

[Ed Chait]

I'm finally going to have my extra front hub laced to an 18" rim and I need to know what size tire I can fit on the front. This is going to be a street tire, not DP. My choices in the tire I want are 90/90 H18, 100/90 H18, and 110/90 H18. Will the 110/90 fit? thanks for any feedback, ed A17