E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?

"Steve" > wrote in message
...

> > It will take some time to find out all the
> > problems with ethanol,
>
> You mean like the fact that its not REALLY carbon-neutral as is often
> claimed (unless you run your distillery with nuclear power maybe), the
> fact that producing enough to actually make a dent in oil consumption
> will cut into land available for food crop (all the while people are
> still starving), the fact that burning alcohol causes aldehyde emissions
> and no one really knows what massive quantities of aldehyde smog will
> do? Little things like that?

The Brasilian distilleries do not use nuclear power nor fossil fuel. That
would
be the normal American approach, perhaps, but is not viable to make this
sort
of project work.

The land utilization is a real problem. But we have masses of land that are
not
in cultivation. We would have to grow a crop that has better conversion to
alcohol
than corn, however. Sugar cane is good, but there may be better.

And there could be aldehyde emissions if the fuel is not properly burned and
catalytic converters applied. It need not be an issue. Don't you think
that aldehydes
can result from the burning of hydrocarbons? (They can!)

IMNSHO, the biggest issue that most of us 'feel' coming down the pike is
another
government subsidy sweetheard deal which leads to more waste, more greed,
etc with the
end user getting nothing but the shaft.

Alcohol has helped Brasil become more energy independent. There is no doubt
about it, but they MADE it work. Our government, hand in hand with
industry,
has the appalling record of being unable to make anything work for the
people.

* wrote:
> Joe Fischer > wrote in article
> >...
> > On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 08:09:51 -0500, Steve > wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > > Its an obvious and complete fictional statement by
> > >someone who has doubtfully ever turned a wrench on a mechanical device.
> >
> > Or a mechanic instructor with 60 years experience,
> > on ICEs up to 4000 horsepower. :-)
> >
>
> I also taught Vocational Automotive Technology for 10 years - mid-'70s to
> mid-'80s.
>
> In that time period, a lot of automotive electronics were introduced.
>
> If I had insisted on clinging to my old-timer training - points and
> condenser, for example - I would have been RIF'd with strong
> recommendations from my own trades advisory committee.
>
> "Sure, Bruce.....Just drop a wrench across those computer terminals and see
> if there's any juice going to that puppy!....."
>
>
> > >Anyone who believes supercharging requires MORE timing advance obviously
>
> > >doesn't have a stinking clue.
> >
> > Nobody said that, the Spider was supercharged,
> > the regular corvair was not, if there was some other
> > difference that required such a drastic change in
> > timing advance to have any pep at all, WHAT WAS IT?
> >
>
> I'll play your silly game......
>
> What you want to hear is......"The supercharged engine had a higher
> absolute manifold pressure - or less vacuum - reading which meant that the
> distributor in the supercharged engine could not rely on vacuum advance as
> the engine rpm increased, so you simply set the timing at total advance of
> 35° - but that's not exactly true.
>
> Setting total advance above 2000 rpm factors in both vacuum and mechanical
> advance.
>
> You also fail to mention that the engine with 8° BTDC timing was set at
> idle while the one with 35° BTDC timing SHOULD have been set above 2000
> rpm.
>
> You DIDN'T set it to 35° at idle?........DID YOU? That's NOT what the book
> says to do!
>
> Actually, either engine could have been set to the same 35° total advance
> above 2000 rpm.
>
> 34° to 38° total advance is rule of thumb for gasoline fueled engines -
> based on having the fuel burning at its peak just as the piston passes TDC
> and starts down the cylinder.

Yes, peak pressure at 15º ATDC is about optimum.

>
>
> > >> Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is
> > >> a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol.
> > >
> > >It contains almost twice as much energy per unit volume. How exactly
> > >does that make it a "dog?"
> >
> > It pings (ignites prematurely), with excessive
> > loss of power and spits out lots of particulates and
> > smoke.
> > One of the things that made removal of the
> > tetraethyl lead from gasoline was the use of ethanol
> > or other (non-lead) additives.
> >
>
> No-o-o-o......
>
> One of the things that made removal of lead possible was
> induction-hardening of the engine's valve seats.
>
> Ethanol does not replace lead, and - with rare exception - today's cars are
> designed and built to run on 87 octane "regular" gasoline, precluding the
> necessity for octane enhancements.
>
> MTBE - a derivative of methanol - along with methanol itself was added to
> gasoline as an oxygenator to assist in clean-burn - NOT to increase octane.
>
> Ethanol promoters are suggesting ethanol replace methanol for that purpose.
>
>
> Methanol is doing okay, but the politics of ethanol backers wants to see
> "home-grown" fuel additives.
>
>
>
>
> > It will take some time to find out all the
> > problems with ethanol, and make changes to the
> > engine, but it needs to be done, better now than
> > later.
> >
>
>
> But, so many of the problems with alcohol fuels ARE being discussed
> here.....
>
>
> It's just that YOU refuse to believe them.

"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>> Joe Fischer > wrote:
>>>>On 6 Sep 2006 17:20:14 -0700, "Mad Scientist Jr"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
>>>>>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline:
>>>>>
>>>>>For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end:
>>>>>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol
>>>>>vs
>>>>>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It isn't that simple, there can be more power
>>>>from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine
>>>>needs to be timed different and other changes made.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You cannot get more power from burning something which produces less
>>> energy.
>>> Unless you somehow repeal the laws of physics.
>>
>>First you have to understand the laws of physics. Power is the _rate_ of
>>delivery/production of energy, and is not subject to conservation like
>>energy is.
>
> True, but irrelevant.

No, it's not. The post to which you replied was about power, not energy.
And you made the statement that "you cannot get more power from burning
something which produces less energy"--that is just simply not a correct
statement. That's like saying that "you cannot go faster if you're not
capable of going further" or "you cannot make water flow faster if you do
not have more water to flow." All three statements are just simply not
true, since they all make the mistake of comparing a quantity and its rate
of generation. This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what power
is, and how it relates to a conserved quantity like energy. There have been
a lot of people in this discussion confusing power and total energy content.
Your post only served to further the confusion.

Eric Lucas

Mike Romain > wrote in
:

> The 'mileage' on these indy cars is plain crap. You keep comparing
> alcohol to alcohol. The main reason they use the low BTU alcohol is
> because water can put out a fire....
>
> Real life says when I use a mix of 15% ethanol in my Jeep engine, I get
> 100 miles 'LESS' per tank full of 'fuel' or about 30% less mileage than
> if I use real gasoline. I also lose all top end power.


Mike we have gone through your junk Jeep and other lies here before.
The facts of 20 years of use here of ethanol by large numbers of people
say you are full of it. Also where are you that it is a 15% blend anyway?
The vast majority of the country uses a 10% blend, 15 being the supposed
max before mods are required. (although some have used 85% with regular
eng.s and not had a problem. other than redused milage.)
Also only a fool gives results in miles per tank. Only MPG is the way
to accuratly tell a difference. To many variables on a per tank basis.
unless you just want to make it sound good for your misguided belief.
Lets just look at it logicly, if you threw away the ethanol at 15% and
say it contributed nothing, then the loss would be only 15%. Use you
head before you spit out stupid numbers like 30% less milage. KB



>
> I have tried adjusting the timing and the mix to no avail. I have
tried
> this because the garbage is going to be mandated into all gasoline soon
> to please the farmers.
>
> Are they going to offer 'me' a subsidy for that 100 miles per tank
> loss?? I doubt it.
>
> That kind of hit makes a large difference in vacation trips or even
just
> daily driving.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Joe Fischer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, OldNick > wrote:
>>
>> >I think Danny's comment is regarding gasoline and ethanol, not
>> >methanol and ethanol.
>>
>> [I had to change the text around because of the top posting]
>> Right, but unleaded gasoline has an octane rating
>> of 97 (better grade), and ethanol has an octane rating
>> of 113, so ___IF___ the timing and fuel:air ratio is
>> made ideal, then the engine will be quicker and
>> will produce more power.
>> For the Indy 500 cars they can also increase
>> the compression ratio even more, and if they are
>> turbocharged or supercharged, the ethanol should
>> work great.
>>
>> >And looking at the paragraph you quoted in a later post, they _may_
be
>> >dummies........
>>
>> That was sarcasm, and they already know that
>> 113 octane is better than 107.
>>
>> >"Ethanol produces more power, so we need less fuel", makes no
>> >sense.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. If the engine produces more
>> power, it may change the differential ratio, allowing better
>> mileage, but that remains to be seen.
>> Better mileage means less fuel for 500 miles.
>>
>> >If ethanol prodiced more _energy_ then we need that much less
>> >fuel to go the distance, provided we only use the same average power
>> >as before.
>>
>> But they may be able to take advantage of the extra
>> power in ways we know nothing about.
>>
>> >They use (x)thanol because it does allow more power than gasoline
>> >(AFAIK) but at the expense of fuel load / miles per gallon.
>>
>> Maybe we will know next June. These are the
>> mechanics that have been on the cutting edge of racing
>> technology for some time.
>> It is possible whoever wrote or edited the article
>> made an assumption of a relation between power and
>> mileage, but it can only be proven by next years race.
>>
>> >>On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>> > wrote:
>> >>>NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for
>> >>>the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher
>> >>>compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency,
>> >>>(and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might
>> >>>be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no
>> >>>way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs
>>
>> >On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:05:19 -0400, Joe Fischer
>> > wrote:
>> >> Ha ha, so the reason methanol has been used for
>> >>the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because
>> >>they are dummys? :-)
>> >>
>> >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/
>> >>
>> >>Joe Fischer
>



--
Thunder Snake #9
"Protect" your rights or "lose" them.

It's simple Kevin. The loss of top end power on a flying brick like my
CJ7 means the gas pedal has to be to the floor to try and hold 65 mph
instead of about 1/3 to 1/2 way to the floor. This translates to about
a 30% decrease in gas mileage.

I am unsure of the percent of ethanol in the mix because the pumps don't
state it and the cashier hasn't a clue.

I can normally run over 350 miles to a tank and suddenly I am out of gas
at about 250 miles which catches me by surprise. Hence the reference to
miles per tank.

My owners manual even states Not to use 'any' alcohol or ethanol mix and
cites a loss of performance as one symptom.

I just ran a tank of 'real' gas and did 50 miles in 4x4 low, then 210
miles in 2 high on rural stop and go 50 mph roads and used 60 liters
which is about 17 mpg. Fully loaded for camping also.

Mike

Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>
> Mike Romain > wrote in
> :
>
> > The 'mileage' on these indy cars is plain crap. You keep comparing
> > alcohol to alcohol. The main reason they use the low BTU alcohol is
> > because water can put out a fire....
> >
> > Real life says when I use a mix of 15% ethanol in my Jeep engine, I get
> > 100 miles 'LESS' per tank full of 'fuel' or about 30% less mileage than
> > if I use real gasoline. I also lose all top end power.
>
> Mike we have gone through your junk Jeep and other lies here before.
> The facts of 20 years of use here of ethanol by large numbers of people
> say you are full of it. Also where are you that it is a 15% blend anyway?
> The vast majority of the country uses a 10% blend, 15 being the supposed
> max before mods are required. (although some have used 85% with regular
> eng.s and not had a problem. other than redused milage.)
> Also only a fool gives results in miles per tank. Only MPG is the way
> to accuratly tell a difference. To many variables on a per tank basis.
> unless you just want to make it sound good for your misguided belief.
> Lets just look at it logicly, if you threw away the ethanol at 15% and
> say it contributed nothing, then the loss would be only 15%. Use you
> head before you spit out stupid numbers like 30% less milage. KB
>
> >
> > I have tried adjusting the timing and the mix to no avail. I have
> tried
> > this because the garbage is going to be mandated into all gasoline soon
> > to please the farmers.
> >
> > Are they going to offer 'me' a subsidy for that 100 miles per tank
> > loss?? I doubt it.
> >
> > That kind of hit makes a large difference in vacation trips or even
> just
> > daily driving.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> >
> > Joe Fischer wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, OldNick > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I think Danny's comment is regarding gasoline and ethanol, not
> >> >methanol and ethanol.
> >>
> >> [I had to change the text around because of the top posting]
> >> Right, but unleaded gasoline has an octane rating
> >> of 97 (better grade), and ethanol has an octane rating
> >> of 113, so ___IF___ the timing and fuel:air ratio is
> >> made ideal, then the engine will be quicker and
> >> will produce more power.
> >> For the Indy 500 cars they can also increase
> >> the compression ratio even more, and if they are
> >> turbocharged or supercharged, the ethanol should
> >> work great.
> >>
> >> >And looking at the paragraph you quoted in a later post, they _may_
> be
> >> >dummies........
> >>
> >> That was sarcasm, and they already know that
> >> 113 octane is better than 107.
> >>
> >> >"Ethanol produces more power, so we need less fuel", makes no
> >> >sense.
> >>
> >> Maybe, maybe not. If the engine produces more
> >> power, it may change the differential ratio, allowing better
> >> mileage, but that remains to be seen.
> >> Better mileage means less fuel for 500 miles.
> >>
> >> >If ethanol prodiced more _energy_ then we need that much less
> >> >fuel to go the distance, provided we only use the same average power
> >> >as before.
> >>
> >> But they may be able to take advantage of the extra
> >> power in ways we know nothing about.
> >>
> >> >They use (x)thanol because it does allow more power than gasoline
> >> >(AFAIK) but at the expense of fuel load / miles per gallon.
> >>
> >> Maybe we will know next June. These are the
> >> mechanics that have been on the cutting edge of racing
> >> technology for some time.
> >> It is possible whoever wrote or edited the article
> >> made an assumption of a relation between power and
> >> mileage, but it can only be proven by next years race.
> >>
> >> >>On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for
> >> >>>the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher
> >> >>>compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency,
> >> >>>(and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might
> >> >>>be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no
> >> >>>way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:05:19 -0400, Joe Fischer
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Ha ha, so the reason methanol has been used for
> >> >>the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because
> >> >>they are dummys? :-)
> >> >>
> >> >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/
> >> >>
> >> >>Joe Fischer
> >
>
> --
> Thunder Snake #9
> "Protect" your rights or "lose" them.

On Thu, "*" > wrote:

>Joe Fischer > wrote in article
>...
>> No doubt, in view of the fact that an ethanol group
>> put up a lot of money.
>>
>> But if ethanol jumps the octane by 6 or 8 points,
>> that means the timing can be advanced, and the same
>> engine will have more pep.
>
>If you believe a change in fuel from methanol to ethanol will result in
>IndyCar teams simply "....adjusting the timing....", then you ARE as dumb
>as many seem to think you are.....

I am even more dumb than that. :-)

I didn't mention all the things that innovative race
mechanics might do to adapt to, and to take advantage of,
the change to ethanol, because my arm was tired.

>You don't seem to understand the benefits of using an alcohol for racing
>fuel.......

Then it is better than the negative responses infer?

>......the ability - or, actually, necessity - to run much higher
>compression than gasoline - 16:1, 17:1 or more - resulting in more power.

More power is what is needed to rotate the wheels
quicker out of the turns.

>It is the mechanical compression, NOT the fuel that results in more
>horsepower when racing with alcohol fuels.

Almost any general statement can have arguments
against them, in this case that statement seems to neglect
the amount of mass in the cylinder and how much the
gases will expand before the exhaust valves open.

>.....a "softer" flame front than gasoline - a less-violent "explosion" in
>consumer terms - making it easier on internal engine components.

That sounds contrary to more power, but that seems
to have been the description of all higher octane fuels.

>.......cooler burning - again easier on engines, but actually mandated at
>Indy following the mid-'60s gasoline inferno that killed Eddie Sachs and
>Dave MacDonald........so, "idiots" or not, IndyCar technicians have little
>choice but to run an alcohol fuel.

Nobody suggested idiots, I was being sarcastic
about the negative opinion about ethanol relative to
gasoline.

>But, because it runs cooler and produces fewer BTU, it requires nearly
>twice as much alcohol as gasoline to produce the same amount of BTU - and
>it is BTU, or heat, that actually drives the internal combustion engine..

That remains to be seen, the best expert on heat energy,
specific heats of solids, liquids and gases, and latent heat of
fusion and vaporization, was Albert Einstein. :-)

Even a casual examination of the question of expansion
of gases in the cylinder would require exact data on the exact
constituents of the particular ethanol samples and the gasoline
it is compared to.

WWII aircraft use water injection for War Emergency
Power, and it was 50 percent alcohol to prevent it from freezing
at altitude. If it was used, the engine had to be removed and
inspected. Sometimes cylinders would blow off because of
the extra power.

>> I worked on a Corvair Spider in 1964 that somebody
>> had timed close to top dead center, and being it had a
>> supercharger, it had to be timed way before TDC, at
>> least 35 degrees, which is a lot.
>> The car was sluggish before timing it correctly,
>> and real peppy after.
>
>I'm sure when the IndyCar guys revert to mid-'60s Corvair technology,
>you'll be among the first to receive a telephone call.......

Do you think? :-)

>> There are lots of things good mentioned in the
>> article, and not much bad. It mentioned some smoke
>> when ethanol burns, so that will be better than methanol.
>>
>> Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is
>> a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol.
>
>Without ANY additives whatsoever, gasoline contains MORE BTU than either
>methanol or ethanol - which means there is MORE POWER in a gallon of
>gasoline than in an alcohol fuel.....plain and simple.

And BTU is not the only thing that determines
expansion and pressures of the different gas mixtures
along with the fuel-air ratios.

At least I admit I don't know the miles per gallon
the race cars will get after modification compared to now.

>Gasoline additives are there to help adapt gasoline to various conditions
>and climates, just as mixing gasoline in an E-85 mixture helps make an
>engine using ethanol much easier to start, warm up quicker, and avoid
>cold-running stumbling.

Gasoline is not real great either when the engine
is cold, people who have only driven fuel injected cars
may not know just how bad a carb car runs if the choke
doesn't work (and even if it does).

>In cooler climates, ethanol would be impractical without being mixed with
>gasoline.

Perhaps more trials will reveal that a small can
of diesel starting fluid and an automatic squirt when
starting will allow ethanol only use in cold weather.

Gasoline cars don't start too well at 20 below either.

I have faith in the innovative ability of mechanics,
the Megasquirt is very interesting, and I for one can't wait
to get a car running on E85, regardless of the price per
gallon or the gas mileage.

I spent the afternoon trying to get an ignition lock
rekeyed for an Alfa Romeo, and got behind in reading
the great responses from lurkers, thanks.

Joe Fischer

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> wrote:

>In .com>
> "Mad Scientist Jr" > writes:
>>I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol
>>produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount
>>of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of
>>E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about
>>118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of
>>gas.
>
>Just addressing this one point, using figures
>from Our Very Own Federal Gov't:
>
>Linkname: EPA - OTAQ - Fuel Economy Impact Analysis of RFG
> URL: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm

Here is a good stab at a start of doing the math to
consider specific heats and the chemical reactions,
but expansion ratios may be very significant to
the outcome of the change to ethanol.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...3604.Ch.r.html

Joe Fischer

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:27:24 -0400, Joe Fischer
> wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> wrote:
>>In .com>
>> "Mad Scientist Jr" > writes:
>>>I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol
>>>produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount
>>>of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of
>>>E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about
>>>118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of
>>>gas.
>>
>>Just addressing this one point, using figures
>>from Our Very Own Federal Gov't:
>>
>>Linkname: EPA - OTAQ - Fuel Economy Impact Analysis of RFG
>> URL: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm
>
> Here is a good stab at a start of doing the math to
>consider specific heats and the chemical reactions,
>but expansion ratios may be very significant to
>the outcome of the change to ethanol.
>
>http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...3604.Ch.r.html

Here is one more technical;

http://www.chm.davidson.edu/Chemistr...ometry/CH.html

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer > wrote in
:

Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV

26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in
sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.

http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html

Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.

How many gallons of your biofuels **** per acre per year?


http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_ar...prior_art.html
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html

"Bob" > wrote in :

Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV

26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in
sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.

http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html

Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.

How many gallons of your biofuels **** per acre per year?


http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_ar...prior_art.html
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html