title: Shale gas

text: Dr James Verdon has published a critique of the data produced, and the variables that may affect the results.


title: Shale gas

text: Chemicals are added to the water to facilitate the underground fracturing process that releases natural gas. Fracturing fluid is primarily water and approximately 0.5% chemical additives (friction reducer, agents countering rust, agents killing microorganism). Since (depending on the size of the area) millions of liters of water are used, this means that hundreds of thousands of liters of chemicals are often injected into the subsurface. About 50% to 70% of the injected volume of contaminated water is recovered and stored in above-ground ponds to await removal by tanker. The remaining volume remains in the subsurface. Hydraulic fracturing opponents fear that it can lead to contamination of groundwater aquifers, though the industry deems this "highly unlikely". However, foul-smelling odors and heavy metals contaminating the local water supply above-ground have been reported.


title: Shale gas

text: Besides using water and industrial chemicals, it is also possible to frack shale gas with only liquified propane gas. This reduces the environmental degradation considerably. The method was invented by GasFrac, of Alberta, Canada.


title: Shale gas

text: A study published in May 2011 concluded that shale gas wells have seriously contaminated shallow groundwater supplies in northeastern Pennsylvania with flammable methane. However, the study does not discuss how pervasive such contamination might be in other areas drilled for shale gas.


title: Shale gas

text: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced 23 June 2011 that it will examine claims of water pollution related to hydraulic fracturing in Texas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Louisiana. On 8 December 2011, the EPA issued a draft finding which stated that groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming may be the result of fracking in the area. The EPA stated that the finding was specific to the area, where the fracking techniques differ from those used in other parts of the U.S. Doug Hock, a spokesman for the company which owns the gas field, said that it is unclear whether the contamination came from the fracking process. Wyoming's Governor Matt Mead called the EPA draft report "scientifically questionable" and stressed the need for additional testing. The Casper Star-Tribune also reported on 27 December 2011, that the EPA's sampling and testing procedures "didn’t follow their own protocol" according to Mike Purcell, the director of the Wyoming Water Development Commission.


title: Shale gas

text: A 2011 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that "The environmental impacts of shale development are challenging but manageable." The study addressed groundwater contamination, noting "There has been concern that these fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing fluid, but there is no evidence that this is occurring". This study blames known instances of methane contamination on a small number of sub-standard operations, and encourages the use of industry best practices to prevent such events from recurring.


title: Shale gas

text: In a report dated 25 July 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it had completed its testing of private drinking water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania. Data previously supplied to the agency by residents, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and Cabot Oil and Gas Exploration had indicated levels of arsenic, barium or manganese in well water at five homes at levels that could present a health concern. In response, water treatment systems that can reduce concentrations of those hazardous substances to acceptable levels at the tap were installed at affected homes. Based on the outcome of sampling after the treatment systems were installed, the EPA concluded that additional action by the Agency was not required.


title: Shale gas

text: A Duke University study of Blacklick Creek (Pennsylvania), carried out over two years, took samples from the creek upstream and down stream of the discharge point of Josephine Brine Treatment Facility. Radium levels in the sediment at the discharge point are around 200 times the amount upstream of the facility. The radium levels are "above regulated levels" and present the "danger of slow bio-accumulation" eventually in fish. The Duke study "is the first to use isotope hydrology to connect the dots between shale gas waste, treatment sites and discharge into drinking water supplies." The study recommended "independent monitoring and regulation" in the United States due to perceived deficiencies in self-regulation.


title: Shale gas

text: According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Water Act applies to surface stream discharges from shale gas wells:


title: Shale gas

text: Hydraulic fracturing routinely produces microseismic events much too small to be detected except by sensitive instruments. These microseismic events are often used to map the horizontal and vertical extent of the fracturing. However, as of late 2012, there have been three known instances worldwide of hydraulic fracturing, through induced seismicity, triggering quakes large enough to be felt by people.


title: Shale gas

text: On 26 April 2012, the Asahi Shimbun reported that United States Geological Survey scientists have been investigating the recent increase in the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquake in the midcontinent of the United States. Beginning in 2001, the average number of earthquakes occurring per year of magnitude 3 or greater increased significantly, culminating in a six-fold increase in 2011 over 20th century levels. A researcher in Center for Earthquake Research and Information of University of Memphis assumes water pushed back into the fault tends to cause earthquake by slippage of fault.


title: Shale gas

text: Over 109 small earthquakes (M 0.4–3.9) were detected during January 2011 to February 2012 in the Youngstown, Ohio area, where there were no known earthquakes in the past. These shocks were close to a deep fluid injection well. The 14 month seismicity included six felt earthquakes and culminated with a 3.9 shock on 31 December 2011. Among the 109 shocks, 12 events greater than M 1.8 were detected by regional network and accurately relocated, whereas 97 small earthquakes (0.4«1.8) were detected by the waveform correlation detector. Accurately located earthquakes were along a subsurface fault trending ENE-WSW—consistent with the focal mechanism of the main shock and occurred at depths 3.5–4.0 km in the Precambrian basement.


title: Shale gas

text: On 19 June 2012, the United States Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources held a hearing entitled, "Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies." Dr. Murray Hitzman, the Charles F. Fogarty Professor of Economic Geology in the Department of Geology and Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, CO testified that "About 35,000 hydraulically fractured shale gas wells exist in the United States. Only one case of felt seismicity in the United States has been described in which hydraulic fracturing for shale gas development is suspected, but not confirmed. Globally only one case of felt induced seismicity at Blackpool, England has been confirmed as being caused by hydraulic fracturing for shale gas development."


title: Shale gas

text: A comprehensive review of the public health effects of energy fuel cycles in Europe finds that coal causes 6 to 98 deaths per TWh (average 25 deaths per TWh), compared to natural gas’ 1 to 11 deaths per TWh (average 3 deaths per TWh). These numbers include both accidental deaths and pollution-related deaths. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous professions in the United States, resulting in between 20 and 40 deaths annually, compared to between 10 and 20 for oil and gas extraction. Worker accident risk is also far higher with coal than gas. In the United States, the oil and gas extraction industry is associated with one to two injuries per 100 workers each year. Coal mining, on the other hand, contributes to four injuries per 100 workers each year. Coal mines collapse, and can take down roads, water and gas lines, buildings and many lives with them.


title: Shale gas

text: Average damages from coal pollutants are two orders of magnitude larger than damages from natural gas. SO, NO, and particulate matter from coal plants create annual damages of $156 million per plant compared to $1.5 million per gas plant. Coal-fired power plants in the United States emit 17–40 times more SO emissions per MWh than natural gas, and 1–17 times as much NOx per MWh. Lifecycle CO emissions from coal plants are 1.8-2.3 times greater (per KWh) than natural gas emissions.


title: Shale gas

text: The air quality advantages of natural gas over coal have been borne out in Pennsylvania, according to studies by the RAND Corporation and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The shale boom in Pennsylvania has led to dramatically lower emissions of sulfur dioxide, fine particulates, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).


title: Shale gas

text: Physicist Richard A. Muller has said that the public health benefits from shale gas, by displacing harmful air pollution from coal, far outweigh its environmental costs. In a 2013 report for the Centre for Policy Studies, Muller wrote that air pollution, mostly from coal burning, kills over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world. The report states that "Environmentalists who oppose the development of shale gas and fracking are making a tragic mistake." In China, shale gas development is seen as a way to shift away from coal and decrease serious air pollution problems created by burning coal.


title: Shale gas

text: Shale gas development leads to a series of tiered socio-economic effects during boom conditions. These include both positive and negative aspects. Along with other forms of unconventional energy, shale oil and gas extraction has three direct initial aspects: increased labour demand (employment); income generation (higher wages); and disturbance to land and/or other economic activity, potentially resulting in compensation. Following these primary direct effects, the following secondary effects occur: in-migration (to meet labour demand), attracting temporary and/or permanent residents, Increased demand for goods and services; leading to increased indirect employment. The latter two of these can fuel each other in a circular relationship during boom conditions (i.e. increased demand for goods and services creates employment which increase demand for goods and services). These increases place strain on existing infrastructure. These conditions lead to tertiary socio-economic effects in the form of increased housing values; increased rental costs; construction of new dwellings (which may take time to be completed); demographic and cultural changes as new types of people move to the host region; changes to income distribution; potential for conflict; potential for increased substance abuse; and provision of new types of services. The reverse of these effects occurs over bust conditions, with a decline in primary effects leading to a decline in secondary effects and so on. However, the bust period of unconventional extraction may not be as severe as from conventional energy extraction. Due to the dispersed nature of the industry and ability to adjust drilling rates, there is debate in the literature as to how intense the bust phase is and how host communities can maintain social resilience during downturns.


title: Shale gas

text: Coal mining radically alters whole mountain and forest landscapes. Beyond the coal removed from the earth, large areas of forest are turned inside out and blackened with toxic and radioactive chemicals. There have been reclamation successes, but hundreds of thousands of acres of abandoned surface mines in the United States have not been reclaimed, and reclamation of certain terrain (including steep terrain) is nearly impossible.


title: Shale gas

text: Where coal exploration requires altering landscapes far beyond the area where the coal is, aboveground natural gas equipment takes up just one percent of the total surface land area from where gas will be extracted. The environmental impact of gas drilling has changed radically in recent years. Vertical wells into conventional formations used to take up one-fifth of the surface area above the resource, a twenty-fold higher impact than current horizontal drilling requires. A six-acre horizontal drill pad can thus extract gas from an underground area 1,000 acres in size.


title: Shale gas

text: The impact of natural gas on landscapes is even less and shorter in duration than the impact of wind turbines. The footprint of a shale gas derrick (3–5 acres) is only a little larger than the land area necessary for a single wind turbine. But it requires less concrete, stands one-third as tall, and is present for just 30 days instead of 20–30 years. Between 7 and 15 weeks are spent setting up the drill pad and completing the actual hydraulic fracture. At that point, the drill pad is removed, leaving behind a single garage-sized wellhead that remains for the lifetime of the well. A study published in 2015 on the Fayetteville Shale found that a mature gas field impacted about 2% of the land area and substantially increased edge habitat creation. Average land impact per well was 3 hectares (about 7 acres)


title: Shale gas

text: With coal mining, waste materials are piled at the surface of the mine, creating aboveground runoff that pollutes and alters the flow of regional streams. As rain percolates through waste piles, soluble components are dissolved in the runoff and cause elevated total dissolved solids (TDS) levels in local water bodies. Sulfates, calcium, carbonates and bicarbonates – the typical runoff products of coalmine waste materials – make water unusable for industry or agriculture and undrinkable for humans. Acid mine wastewater can drain into groundwater, causing significant contamination. Explosive blasting in a mine can cause groundwater to seep to lower-than-normal depths or connect two aquifers that were previously distinct, exposing both to contamination by mercury, lead, and other toxic heavy metals.


title: Shale gas

text: Contamination of surface waterways and groundwater with fracking fluids is problematic. Shale gas deposits are generally several thousand feet below ground. There have been instances of methane migration, improper treatment of recovered wastewater, and pollution via reinjection wells.


title: Shale gas

text: In most cases, the life-cycle water intensity and pollution associated with coal production and combustion far outweigh those related to shale gas production. Coal resource production requires at least twice as much water per million British thermal units compared to shale gas production. And while regions like Pennsylvania have experienced an absolute increase in water demand for energy production thanks to the shale boom, shale wells actually produce less than half the wastewater per unit of energy compared to conventional natural gas.


title: Shale gas

text: Coal-fired power plants consume two to five times as much water as natural gas plants. Where 520–1040 gallons of water are required per MWh of coal, gas-fired combined cycle power requires 130–500 gallons per MWh. The environmental impact of water consumption at the point of power generation depends on the type of power plant: plants either use evaporative cooling towers to release excess heat or discharge water to nearby rivers. Natural gas combined-cycle power (NGCC), which captures the exhaust heat generated by combusting natural gas to power a steam generator, are considered the most efficient large-scale thermal power plants. One study found that the life-cycle demand for water from coal power in Texas could be more than halved by switching the fleet to NGCC.


title: Shale gas

text: All told, shale gas development in the United States represents less than half a percent of total domestic freshwater consumption, although this portion can reach as high as 25 percent in particularly arid regions.


title: Shale gas

text: Drilling depths of 1,000 to 3,000 m, then injection of a fluid composed of water, sand and detergents under pressure (600 bar), are required to fracture the rock and release the gas. These operations have already caused groundwater contaminations across the Atlantic, mainly as a result of hydrocarbon leakage along the casings. In addition, between 2% and 8% of the extracted fuel would be released to the atmosphere at wells (still in the United States). However, it is mainly composed of methane (CH), a greenhouse gas that is considerably more powerful than CO.


title: Shale gas

text: Surface installations must be based on concrete or paved soils connected to the road network. A gas pipeline is also required to evacuate production. In total, each farm would occupy an average area of 3.6 ha. However, the gas fields are relatively small. Exploitation of shale gas could therefore lead to fragmentation of landscapes. Finally, a borehole requires about 20 million liters of water, the daily consumption of about 100,000 inhabitants.


title: Shale gas

text: Although shale gas has been produced for more than 100 years in the Appalachian Basin and the Illinois Basin of the United States, the wells were often marginally economic. Advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal completions have made shale-gas wells more profitable. Improvements in moving drilling rigs between nearby locations, and the use of single well pads for multiple wells have increased the productivity of drilling shale gas wells. As of June 2011, the validity of the claims of economic viability of these wells has begun to be publicly questioned. Shale gas tends to cost more to produce than gas from conventional wells, because of the expense of the massive hydraulic fracturing treatments required to produce shale gas, and of horizontal drilling.


title: Shale gas

text: The cost of extracting offshore shale gas in the UK were estimated to be more than $200 per barrel of oil equivalent (UK North Sea oil prices were about $120 per barrel in April 2012). However, no cost figures were made public for onshore shale gas.


title: Shale gas

text: North America has been the leader in developing and producing shale gas. The economic success of the Barnett Shale play in Texas in particular has spurred the search for other sources of shale gas across the United States and Canada,


title: Shale gas

text: Some Texas residents think fracking is using too much of their groundwater, but drought and other growing uses are also part of the causes of the water shortage there.


title: Shale gas

text: A Visiongain research report calculated the 2011 worth of the global shale-gas market as $26.66 billion.


title: Shale gas

text: A 2011 New York Times investigation of industrial emails and internal documents found that the financial benefits of unconventional shale gas extraction may be less than previously thought, due to companies intentionally overstating the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves. The article was criticized by, among others, the New York Times' own Public Editor for lack of balance in omitting facts and viewpoints favorable to shale gas production and economics.


title: Shale gas

text: In first quarter 2012, the United States imported 840 billion cubic feet (Bcf) (785 from Canada) while exporting 400 Bcf (mostly to Canada); both mainly by pipeline. Almost none is exported by ship as LNG, as that would require expensive facilities. In 2012, prices went down to US due to shale gas.


title: Shale gas

text: A recent academic paper on the economic impacts of shale gas development in the US finds that natural gas prices have dropped dramatically in places with shale deposits with active exploration. Natural gas for industrial use has become cheaper by around 30% compared to the rest of the US. This stimulates local energy intensive manufacturing growth, but brings the lack of adequate pipeline capacity in the US in sharp relief.


title: Shale gas

text: One of the byproducts of shale gas exploration is the opening up of deep underground shale deposits to "tight oil" or shale oil production. By 2035, shale oil production could "boost the world economy by up to $2.7 trillion, a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report says. It has the potential to reach up to 12 percent of the world’s total oil production — touching 14 million barrels a day — "revolutionizing" the global energy markets over the next few decades."


title: Shale gas

text: According to a 2013 Forbes magazine article, generating electricity by burning natural gas is cheaper than burning coal if the price of gas remains below US or about $3 per 1000 cubic feet. Also in 2013, Ken Medlock, Senior Director of the Baker Institute's Center for Energy Studies, researched US shale gas break-even prices. "Some wells are profitable at $2.65 per thousand cubic feet, others need $8.10…the median is $4.85," Medlock said. Energy consultant Euan Mearns estimates that, for the US, "minimum costs [are] in the range $4 to $6 / mcf. [per 1000 cubic feet or million BTU]."


title: Warren Christie

text: Hans Warren Christie (born 4 November 1975) is a Northern Irish-born Canadian television and film actor known for his roles as Ray Cataldo on the ABC drama "October Road" and as Aidan "Greggy" Stiviletto on the ABC series "Happy Town". More recently, Christie starred as Cameron Hicks in the SyFy series "Alphas".


title: Warren Christie

text: He recurs on the Fox series "The Resident" and costarred on the 2019 NBC series "The Village". He also appeared in "Batwoman" as Bruce Wayne / Batman / Tommy Elliott / Hush.


title: Warren Christie

text: Warren Christie was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, but spent most of his childhood in London, Ontario. He left London for the University of Windsor after being recruited to play college football. It was during his years at Windsor that Christie developed an interest in performing and decided to pursue it as a career. This led to a move to Vancouver, where he soon found acting opportunities. He now lives in Vancouver, married to actress Sonya Salomaa.


title: Warren Christie

text: In 2007, Christie landed a lead role on the series "October Road", playing a cocky construction company owner. In the same year, he was cast as the star of the musical feature film "Magic Flute Diaries", based on one of Mozart's operas. In 2008, Christie was involved in an ABC pilot, "Prince of Motor City", a gothic family drama in which he stars alongside Aiden Quinn and Piper Perabo.


title: Warren Christie

text: Christie has taken on a variety of roles in different genres. He played opposite Heather Graham in the romantic comedy "Gray Matters", and then appeared in the psychological thriller "Beneath", produced by the group that did "Napoleon Dynamite" in conjunction with MTV Films/Paramount Classics.


title: Warren Christie

text: Christie has also been involved in numerous television shows, including the unsuccessful ABC series "The Days", and guest appearances in "Supernatural", "The L Word" and "Battlestar Galactica", before gaining more consistent work. He starred as Cameron Hicks on Syfy's series, "Alphas".


title: Warren Christie

text: In May 2020, it was revealed during the season one finale of "Batwoman", that Christie had been cast as Bruce Wayne, when he portrayed Tommy Elliot disguised as Wayne. This marks Christie as the second actor to portray the character within the Arrowverse alongside Kevin Conroy who played an alternate Earth version of the character during the Crisis on Infinite Earths event.


title: One Piece (season 11)

text: The eleventh season of the "One Piece" anime series was produced by Toei Animation, and directed by Hiroaki Miyamoto based on Eiichiro Oda's manga by the same name. The majority of the season covers the "Sabaody Archipelago" story arc, which deals with the Straw Hats preparing to enter Fishman Island by having their ship coated for undersea travel. During their stay, they meet an old enemy Hatchan, his friends Keimi and Papaggu, and the first mate of Gold Roger, Silvers Rayleigh, as well as 9 rookie pirates known as the "11 Supernovas". In an incident involving the auction of Keimi, the crew and the pirates are attacked by top members of the Marines, including Bartholomew Kuma, one of the Seven Warlords of the Sea. The final two episodes continue the "History Drama "Boss Luffy"" story established in the fourth TV Special and featured in the ninth season.


title: One Piece (season 11)

text: The season aired on Fuji Television from December 21, 2008 to June 28, 2009 and consisted of 26 episodes. The first two DVD compilations of the series were released on January 7, 2011 with two individual volumes released monthly and the last DVD compilations were released on March 2, 2011. This season's episode count and title were announced in the One Piece Movie 10 Guide Book, "One Piece-Pia".


title: One Piece (season 11)

text: The season uses two different pieces of theme music. The first opening, a cover version of the first opening theme by Hiroshi Kitadani, is performed by TVXQ, as "We Are! (Animation "One Piece" 10th Anniversary Ver.)", who also performs the season's second opening theme, titled "Share the World", starting with episode 395 onwards.


title: One Piece (season 11)

text: In North America, the season was recategorized as the end of ""Season Six"" and the beginning of ""Season Seven"" for its DVD release by Funimation Entertainment. The Australian "Season" sets were renamed "Collection 31" though "33".


title: Kamaz Typhoon

text: Kamaz Typhoon () is a family of Russian multi-functional, modular, armoured MRAP vehicles manufactured by the Russian truck builder Kamaz. The Typhoon family is part of Russia's Typhoon program. As of 2021, the number of Typhoons in the Russian Armed Forces fleet was about 330 units of Typhoon-K.


title: Kamaz Typhoon

text: The development of the "Typhoon" vehicle family began in 2010, when Minister of Russian Federation Armed Forces approved the "Development of Russian Federation Armed Forces military vehicles for the period until 2020" program and started the Typhoon MRAP program. In 2012 the first contract between Russian Ministry of Armed Forces and Kamaz to buy Typhoons was signed.


title: Kamaz Typhoon

text: 12 Typhoons took part in Russian Victory Day military parade in 2014. State tests were completed in 2019.


title: Kamaz Typhoon

text: Russia claims NATO STANAG 4569 level 3b protection. Combined set of ceramics and steel armor, which protects against armor-piercing bullets of caliber 14.5 × 114 mm. Includes 128.5-129.0 mm thick bulletproof glass with a transparency of 70%, developed by the "Magistral Ltd" and tested at the Research Institute of Steel, withstanding 2 shots spaced at 280–300 mm in the shelling of KPVT with speed of bullet 911 m / s at the instant of contact with the glass. Bulletproof exceed the highest demands on available GOST (GOST R 51136 and GOST R 50963), in which the highest level - a fire of armor-piercing bullets B-32, 7.62 × 54 mm from the SVD. During the production, Magistral LTD focused on western standards level IV STANAG 4569 - guaranteed protection in the shelling of armor-piercing ammunition B-32, 14.5 × 114 mm from a distance of 200 m with a bullet velocity 891–931 m / s. Reservations withstand hit of 30-mm ammunition. There are bullet-proof tires 16.00R20 with explosion inserts diverting the blast wave, with automatic pumping of air and controlled pressure to 4.5 atmospheres. Provided loopholes for firing from small arms, remotely controlled machine gun. Unification with other family cars is 86%.


title: Kamaz Typhoon

text: Seats are equipped with personal weapons holders, seat belts and head restraints. They are attached to the roof module, to reduce the impact of mines / bombs. Inside the module is installed set for filtering FVUA-100A and air conditioning. On the roof there are escape hatches in case the vehicle rolls over. Passengers exit through the ramp at the stern of the vehicle or through a side door.


title: Kamaz Typhoon

text: In the car the Combat Information and Control System (CICS) GALS-D1M to monitor and control the operation of the engine, calculating machines roll, tilt, road speed, location, etc. The independent hydropneumatic suspension allows the driver to change the ride height on the road, using remote control within 400 mm. KAMAZ-63968 is equipped with five cameras for review the troop unit and cockpit. Cabin is equipped with folding displays, showing how the state of the car is, and an external review.


title: Kamaz Typhoon

text: Solid-body, 6x6 wheeled amphibious armoured personnel carrier (APC) with a remote-controlled weapon station.


title: Help! (film)

text: Help! is a 1965 British musical comedy-adventure film directed by Richard Lester, starring The Beatles and featuring Leo McKern, Eleanor Bron, Victor Spinetti, John Bluthal, Roy Kinnear and Patrick Cargill. The second film starring the Beatles following Lester's "A Hard Day's Night", "Help!" sees the group struggle to protect Ringo Starr from a sinister eastern cult and a pair of mad scientists, all of whom are obsessed with obtaining a sacrificial ring sent to him by a fan. The soundtrack was released as the band's fifth studio album under the same name.


title: Help! (film)

text: "Help!" had its Royal World Premiere at the London Pavilion Theatre in the West End of London on 29 July 1965 in the presence of Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon and the Earl of Snowdon. While not reviewed at the time with the same high level of admiration as their first film, "Help!" is now credited with influencing the development of music videos.


title: Help! (film)

text: An eastern cult (a parody of the Thuggee cult) is about to sacrifice a woman to their goddess, Kaili. They notice that she is not wearing the sacrificial ring. Instead, Ringo Starr, drummer of the Beatles, has the ring, sent to him by the intended victim, who is a fan of the Beatles. Determined to retrieve the ring and sacrifice the girl, the chief priest, Clang, several cult members, and high priestess Ahme leave for London. After failed attempts to steal the ring without Ringo noticing, they confront him in an Indian restaurant. Ringo learns that he will be the next sacrifice if he does not give up the ring. However, the ring is stuck on his finger and he cannot take it off.


title: Help! (film)

text: The Beatles are chased around London by members of the cult. After a jeweller fails to cut the ring off, the band resorts to the bumbling efforts of Professor Foot, a mad scientist and his assistant Algernon; when his equipment has no effect on the ring, the scientist decides that he must somehow acquire it. Amhe comes to the Beatles' rescue and tries to shrink Ringo's finger to get the ring off with ease, but the cult and the scientists ambush the band's home, causing Ahme to drop the syringe in shock, shrinking Paul instead.


title: Help! (film)

text: The band runs to the Austrian Alps and narrowly escapes a trap there, thanks to Ahme, who is secretly aiding the Beatles. To stay safe, they ask for protection from Scotland Yard. They are hidden in Buckingham Palace, narrowly avoiding capture by the scientist. Later at a pub, Clang sets a trap for Ringo involving a trap door and a tiger.


title: Help! (film)

text: Then they flee to the Bahamas, followed by the police officers, the scientist, and the cult members. After Ringo is nearly captured, the police have the other Beatles pose as him in order to ensnare the cult members. Despite their best efforts, however, the scientist catches Ringo and hides him aboard a boat where he intends to cut off his finger to get the ring. Ahme rescues Ringo by giving the scientist a shrinking solution in exchange. The two of them dive into the ocean to escape, but Ringo cannot swim, and they are both captured by Clang and his followers.


title: Help! (film)

text: In the end, when Ringo is about to be sacrificed on the beach, the ring suddenly comes off. He puts the ring on Clang's finger, who is then chased by his own cult as the song "Help!" plays.


title: Help! (film)

text: According to interviews conducted with Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr for "The Beatles Anthology", director Richard Lester was given a larger budget for this film than he had for "A Hard Day's Night", thanks to the commercial success of the latter. Thus, this feature film was in colour and was shot on several overseas locations. It was also given a more extensive musical score than "A Hard Day's Night", provided by a full orchestra, and including pieces of well known classical music: Wagner's "Lohengrin", Act III prelude, Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture", Beethoven's Ninth Symphony ("Ode to Joy"), and, during the end credits and with their own comic vocal interpretation, Rossini's "Barber of Seville" overture. The original title for the film – only changed to "Help!" very near to its release – was "Eight Arms to Hold You". As such, Capitol Records' original pressings of the "Ticket to Ride" single feature the subheading: "From the United Artists release "Eight Arms to Hold You"".


title: Help! (film)

text: "Help!" was shot in London, Salisbury Plain, the Austrian Alps, New Providence Island and Paradise Island in the Bahamas, and Twickenham Film Studios, beginning in the Bahamas on 23 February 1965. Starr commented in "The Beatles Anthology" that they were in the Bahamas for the hot weather scenes, and therefore had to wear light clothing even though it was rather cold. Tony Bramwell, the assistant to Beatles manager Brian Epstein, stated in his book "A Magical Mystery Tour" that Epstein chose the Bahamas for tax reasons. According to "The Beatles Anthology", during the restaurant sequence filmed in early April, Harrison began to discover Indian-style music, which would be a key element in future songs such as "Norwegian Wood". Filming finished on 14 April at Ailsa Avenue in Twickenham.


title: Help! (film)

text: The ski scenes were shot at Obertauern, a small village in Austria. One reason this location was chosen was that the stars of the film were less likely to be recognised there than at one of the larger resorts with many British tourists. The Beatles were in Obertauern for about two weeks in March 1965 along with a film crew of around 60 people. Locals served as ski stunt doubles for the Beatles, who stayed at the hotel "Edelweiss". Most of the crew were based in the hotel Marieta, where one night the Beatles gave an impromptu concert on the occasion of a director's assistant's birthday. This was the only time they ever played on stage in Austria.


title: Help! (film)

text: The Beatles did not particularly enjoy filming "Help!", nor were they pleased with the end product. In 1970, John Lennon said they felt like extras in their own film:


title: Help! (film)

text: A contributing factor was exhaustion attributable to their busy schedule of writing, recording and touring. Afterwards they were hesitant to begin another film project, and "Help!" was their last full-length scripted theatrical film. The Beatles saw the 1968 animated film "Yellow Submarine" (in which their characters were voiced by actors, and they themselves made only a token appearance) as a favourable way to complete their commitment to United Artists for a third film. Many fans have assumed that the cartoon did not satisfy the contract, but "Let It Be" (1970) was the film not connected to the original three-picture deal.


title: Help! (film)

text: The Beatles said the film was inspired by the classic Marx Brothers film "Duck Soup"; it was also directly satirical of the James Bond series of films. At the time of the original release of "Help!", its distributor, United Artists, also held the rights to the Bond series.


title: Help! (film)

text: The humour of the film is strongly influenced by the abstract humour of "The Goon Show", in which the director had personal and direct experience in the conversion of the radio format to television, and personal working experience with Peter Sellers in particular. Beatles recording producer George Martin had also produced records for the "Goon Show" team. McCartney has always said that the Beatles' style of humour was taken from the "Goon Show". Many of the film's concepts are derived from "Goon Show"s, such as the presence of wild animals, music, fourth wall-breaking jokes and abstractions such as the closing statement that concludes the film.


title: Help! (film)

text: Among the original working titles for the film were "Beatles Phase II" and "Eight Arms to Hold You". The latter title was printed on the single "Ticket to Ride" as an upcoming film. Because of this, the phrase has been used as a title for an album by Veruca Salt and for songs by the Goonies and by the Brittles, a Beatles-pastiche band.


title: Help! (film)

text: "Help!" was settled on as the film's title in April, leading Lennon to write the song "Help!" that same night. The official title was announced on 14 April. Aside from "Eight Arms to Hold You", this title won over suggestions from Harrison ("Who's Been Sleeping in My Porridge") and United Artists producer Walter Shenson ("The Day the Clowns Collapsed"). The Beatles had also suggested "High-Heeled Knickers", a play on the title of Tommy Tucker's 1964 hit song "High-Heeled Sneakers".<ref name="Robertson/MojoSpecial p 17"></ref>


title: Help! (film)

text: The photographer Michael Peto was commissioned in 1965 to take still photographs during the making of the film; these became known for their candid and expressive quality. During the digitisation of the Michael Peto Collection, which is held by Archive Services, University of Dundee, in 2002, 500 previously unpublished photographs of the Beatles taken during the making of "Help!" were reported to have been uncovered. "Now These Days are Gone", a limited edition volume of Peto's photographs focusing on the Beatles images was produced in 2006 with deluxe editions of the book signed by Richard Lester. An exhibition of the photographs to mark the book's launch was held at Hoopers Gallery, Clerkenwell, in January 2006. Another exhibition of the photographs was held at the University of Dundee in 2007 as part of the university's 40th anniversary celebrations, with the exhibition then moving to the National Conservation Centre, Liverpool. In 2011 the photographs were exhibited in Dundee, as part of the Scottish Beatles Weekend, and at the Proud Gallery in Camden.


title: Help! (film)

text: The seven main songs formed the first side of the British release of the "Help!" album. The second side consisted of other new Beatles songs recorded at the same time or shortly afterwards. The US album, released by Capitol Records, includes the seven film tracks along with instrumental soundtrack songs orchestrated by Ken Thorne. In addition, the US "Help!" opens with a hidden track stylised as a satirical "James Bond Theme" before the title track. Early pressings of the US version of the album "1962–1966" include this hidden track banded as "Help!", and later pressings, when the UK catalogue was made the official and only catalogue of Beatles albums, omit it. The end credits are played over Rossini's "The Barber of Seville".


title: Help! (film)

text: Upon its release, reviews for "Help!" were mixed. The "Daily Express"s reviewer found Lester's direction "a joy to watch" and called the Beatles "the closest thing to the Marx Brothers since the Marx Brothers". By contrast, the "Daily Mirror", Britain's best-selling newspaper at the time, said "Help!" relied too heavily on "the likeable vacant grin of John Lennon, the smooth charm of Paul, the long-haired good looks of George, and the darkly villainous looks of the Long-Nosed One [Ringo Starr]", and that these qualities were insufficient to carry a film. In his contemporary review in "The New York Times", film critic Bosley Crowther stated: "It's a fiasco of farcical whimseys that are thrown together in this film – a clutter of mechanical gimmicks and madcap chases ... Funny? Exciting? Different? Well, there's nothing in "Help!" to compare with that wild ballet of the Beatles racing across a playground in "A Hard Day's Night", nothing as wistful as the ramble of Ringo around London all alone ... The boys themselves are exuberant and uninhibited in their own genial way. They just become awfully redundant and – dare I say it? – dull."


title: Help! (film)

text: In a retrospective review, Leslie Halliwell describes the film as an "[e]xhausting attempt to outdo "A Hard Day's Night" in lunatic frenzy, which goes to show that some talents work best on low budgets. The humour is a frantic cross between "Hellzapoppin'", The Goons, Goofy, Mr. Magoo and the shade of Monty Python to come. It looks good but becomes too tiresome to entertain."


title: Help! (film)

text: "Help!"’s pop art style influenced the "Batman" TV series and the direction of the contemporary advertising industry. Although Lester's depiction of Indian culture was largely negative and stereotypical, the film's focus on Kali and other Hindu themes anticipated the counterculture's fascination with Indian philosophy and music. In his book "1965: The Year Modern Britain Was Born", cultural commentator Christopher Bray views "Help!" as "one of the central surrealist texts" of the 1960s, and the film that best captures the "magical weirdness" of London before the commercialisation that accompanied its international recognition as the world's "Swinging City".


title: Help! (film)

text: Ronnie D. Lankford of AllMovie describes "Help!" as a "forerunner to music videos", adding: "Lester seemed to find the right tone for "Help!", creating an enjoyable portrait of the Beatles and never allowing the film to take itself too seriously. His style would later be co-opted by Bob Rafelson for the Monkees' television series in the '60s and has continued to influence rock musicals like 1998's "Spice World".


title: Help! (film)

text: On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 89% based on 27 reviews, with an average rating of 7.2/10. The website's critics consensus reads: ""Help!" finds the Fab Four displaying their infectious charm and humor in an enjoyably madcap adventure." On Metacritic, it has a weighted average score of 58 out of 100, based on eight critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".


title: Help! (film)

text: A sequence featuring Frankie Howerd and Wendy Richard was filmed but left out of final editing owing to its length. However, the sequence was left in the film novelisation.


title: Help! (film)

text: Like "A Hard Day's Night", "Help!" was originally distributed theatrically by United Artists – the company handled distribution from 1965 to the end of 1980. In January 1981, rights to the film reverted from UA to producer Walter Shenson, and the film was withdrawn from circulation.


title: Help! (film)

text: "Help!" was released several times in different video formats by MPI Home Video and The Criterion Collection. A version was released in February 1987 in VHS and Beta through MPI, along with a reissue of "A Hard Day's Night" the very same day, and was followed by a special-edition release on 31 October 1995. MPI also issued a CLV laserdisc in 1995 and two releases on DVD, the first as a single DVD release on 12 November 1997 and the second as part of "The Beatles DVD Collector's Set" on 8 August 2000.


title: Help! (film)

text: LaserDisc releases include a Criterion CAV laserdisc and a Voyager CLV laserdisc in 1987, each of which had three pressings. The first pressings had no UPC on the gatefold covers while the other two had the UPC either as a sticker or printed directly on the jacket.


title: Help! (film)

text: The film's transfer on the CAV laserdiscs was done correctly so that no blending of frames occurs and thus movements are not blurry. The supplemental section, which, with few exceptions, has never been available on any other home video release, contains the following:


title: Help! (film)

text: In June 2007, a version of "Help!", sub-titled in Korean, became available on Amazon.com. However, by July 2007, all home video versions of the film were pulled from the market because of rights issues involving Apple Corps – now the full rights holders to the film. The rights issues were eventually resolved and Apple Corps/EMI/Capitol released a new double DVD version with a fully restored image and newly remixed in 2.0 stereo and 5.1 surround sound of the film. This came in standard 2xDVD packaging and 2xDVD deluxe edition box set on 30 October 2007 in the UK and 6 November 2007 in America. This latest release contains new featurettes, three trailers (one of which is in Spanish), and the aforementioned radio ads carried over from the Criterion LaserDisc issue. The film was released on Blu-ray format in June 2013 by Universal Music, now the owners of EMI/Capitol Records, using the 2007 restoration.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The PGM-19 Jupiter was the first nuclear armed, medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) of the United States Air Force (USAF). It was a liquid-propellant rocket using RP-1 fuel and LOX oxidizer, with a single Rocketdyne LR79-NA (model S-3D) rocket engine producing of thrust. It was armed with the W49 nuclear warhead. The prime contractor was the Chrysler Corporation.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Jupiter was originally designed by the US Army, which was looking for a highly accurate missile designed to strike enemy states such as Communist China and USSR. The US Navy also expressed an interest in the design as an SLBM but left the collaboration to work on their Polaris. Jupiter retained the short, squat shape intended to fit in naval submarines.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Jupiter traces its history ultimately to the PGM-11 Redstone missile, the US's first nuclear ballistic missile. While it was entering service, Wernher von Braun's Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) team at Redstone Arsenal began to consider an upgraded version using the LR89 rocket engine being developed by Rocketdyne for the Air Force's Atlas missile project. Using the LR89 and adding a second stage would allow the new design to reach , a dramatic improvement over the Redstone's roughly .


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: As Rocketdyne continued working on the LR89, it appeared that it could be improved to increase thrust over the promised . In 1954, the Army asked Rocketdyne to provide a similar design with a thrust of . During this same period, the weight of nuclear warheads was rapidly falling, and by combining this engine with a warhead of they could build a single-stage missile able to reach while being significantly less complicated and easier to handle in the field than a two-stage model. This engine was continually upgraded, ultimately reaching . This last model, known to the Army as the NAA-150-200, became much better known by its Rocketdyne model number, S-3.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Around the same time, the US Navy was looking for ways to join the nuclear club, and had been focusing mostly on cruise missiles and similar systems. Some consideration had been given to the use of ballistic missiles on ships, but Admiral Hyman Rickover, "father" of the nuclear submarine, was skeptical that this could be done, and was worried it would take up funding needed elsewhere. Another skeptic of missiles was the Chief of Naval Operations, Robert B. Carney.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Lower-ranking Navy officials became increasingly interested when the Army and Air Force began serious development of their long-range missiles. In an attempt to bypass high-ranking Navy officials, who remained uninterested in the concept, the Navy liaison to the Killian Committee championed the cause. The Committee took up the concept, and in September 1955 released a report calling for the development of a sea-based missile system.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Navy's interest in missiles had been greatly increased with the August 1955 appointment of Admiral Arleigh Burke to replace Carney. Burke was convinced the Navy had to get into the missile field as rapidly as possible, and was well aware that the Air Force would oppose any such endeavor. Instead, he approached the Army, and found that the proposed Jupiter fit the range goals needed by the Navy.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The issue of who would be given the go-ahead to build an IRBM by this time had reached the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), who proved unable to reach a decision. This forced the Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson to move ahead without an official recommendation from the military. He saw the Navy interest as a reasonable argument to continue the Army project in any event, and on 8 November 1955 approved both programs. The Air Force would develop IRBM No. 1, or SM-75 (for "strategic missile"), the Army would develop their design as IRBM No. 2 or SM-78. The Navy would develop systems to launch the Army missile from ships and, later, submarines.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The requirement for shipboard storage and launching dictated the size and shape of the Jupiter. The original Army design was long and in diameter. The Navy stated they were not interested in anything longer than . The ABMA team responded by increasing the diameter to . This precluded it from being carried aboard contemporary cargo aircraft, limiting it to sea and road. Even with this change, they were unable to reduce its length enough to suit the Navy. They suggested that they begin with a long version and then scale it down as improvements in the engines were worked into the design. This was rejected, and after briefly considering a version, finally settled on the version.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: On 2 December 1955, the secretaries of the Army and Navy publicly announced the dual Army–Navy program to create a land- and sea-based MRBM. In April 1956, as part of a widespread effort to assign names to various missile projects, the Army's effort was given the name "Jupiter" and the Air Force's became "Thor".


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Redstone provided an accuracy of at its maximum range, which, when combined with its large warhead, allowed it to attack hard targets like protected airbases, bridges, command and control sites, as well as other strategic targets like railway marshaling yards and pre-attack concentration areas. This was in keeping with the Army's view of nuclear weapons, which was in effect more powerful artillery. They saw the weapons as part of a large-scale battle in Europe, in which both sides would use nuclear weapons during a limited war that did not include the use of strategic weapons on each other's cities. In that case, "if wars were to be kept limited, such weapons would have to be capable of hitting only tactical targets." This approach saw the support of a number of influential theorists, notably Henry Kissinger, and was seized on as a uniquely Army mission.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The original goal for the new longer-range design was to match Redstone's accuracy at the Jupiter's much-extended range. That is, if Redstone could reach 300 m at 60 miles, the new design would provide a circular error probable on the order of . As development continued, it became clear the ABMA team, under the direction of Fritz Mueller, could improve on that. This led to a period in which "The Army would lay down a particular accuracy, and wait for our arguments whether it was possible. We had to promise a lot, but were fortunate."


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: This process ultimately delivered a superior design intended to provide accuracy at the full range, an order of magnitude better than Redstone and four times better than the best INS designs being used by the Air Force. The system was so accurate that a number of observers expressed their skepticism about the Army's goals, with the WSEG suggesting they were hopelessly optimistic.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Air Force was dead set against Jupiter. They argued that nuclear weapons were not simply new artillery, and that their employment would immediately trigger a response that might result in a strategic exchange. This would especially be true if the Army launched a long-range weapon like Jupiter, which could reach cities in the Soviet Union and could not immediately be distinguished as attacking a military or civilian target. They suggested that any such launch would trigger a strategic response, and as such, the Army should not be given any long-range weapons.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: However, as von Braun's team went from success to success, and with Atlas still years from operational deployment, it was clear that Jupiter represented a threat to the Air Force's desired hegemony over strategic forces. This led to them starting their own MRBM program Thor, in spite of having repeatedly dismissed the medium-range role in the past. The fighting between the Army and Air Force grew through 1955 and 1956 until practically every missile system the Army was involved in was being attacked in the press.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Navy was concerned from the start about Jupiter's cryogenic propellants, but at the time there was no other option. Given the size and weight of contemporary nuclear weapons, only a large liquid-fuel rocket engine provided the energy needed to meet the Navy's range goal of launching from safe areas in the Atlantic Ocean. They justified the risk thus:


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: All of this changed radically in the summer of 1956, when Project Nobska brought together leading scientists to consider antisubmarine warfare. As part of this workshop, Edward Teller stated that by 1963 a 1 megaton warhead would be reduced to only . Rocketry experts at the same meeting suggested that an intermediate-range weapon carrying one of these weapons could be built using solid propellant. Even in this case, the missile would be much smaller than Jupiter; Jupiter was expected to weigh , while estimates of a solid-fuel missile with similar range were closer to , along with a similar reduction in size which was of paramount importance to a submarine design.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Navy announced their desire to develop their own missile that summer, initially under the name Jupiter-S. After intensive follow-up studies, the Navy withdrew from the Jupiter program in December 1956. This was officially announced by the Army in January 1957. In its place, the Navy began development of what was then known as the Fleet Ballistic Missile Program, and the missile was later renamed Polaris, their first submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Rickover, one of the few remaining skeptics, was won over by pointing out that a properly designed submarine was needed specifically for this role, and he would be called upon to produce it. Rickover was from that point on a staunch ally of the program.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: On 4 October 1957, the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik I from their R-7 Semyorka ICBM. The US was aware of these efforts and had already talked to the press about it, suggesting that if the Soviets launched a satellite first it would be no big deal. To their surprise, the press exploded in rage over the affair. Having spent over a decade working on similar missiles, like Atlas, the fact that the Soviets could beat them was a serious blow, and prompted a deep review of the ongoing programs.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: One problem noted from the start was that the internecine fighting between the Army and Air Force was leading to significant duplication of effort, with little to show for it. The Department of Defense responded by creating the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), whose initial mission was to look over all of the ongoing projects and select ones based solely on their technical merits.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: At the same time, the fighting had begun to have negative political effects. In a 26 November 1956 memorandum, recently appointed US Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson attempted to end the fighting. His solution was to limit the Army to weapons with range, and those involved in surface-to-air defense to only . The memo also placed limits on Army air operations, severely limiting the weight of the aircraft it was allowed to operate. To some degree this simply formalized what had largely already been the case in practice, but Jupiter fell outside the range limits and the Army was forced to hand them to the Air Force.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Air Force, of course, had no interest in taking over a weapon system they had long argued was not needed. However, ARPA's studies clearly showed it was an excellent system, and as it was ready to enter production, any Air Force thoughts about canceling it were immediately quashed. New orders for 32 prototypes and 62 operational missiles were soon placed, bringing the total number of Jupiters to be built to 94. The first, hand-built at ABMA, would be delivered by the end of FY57, and the first production models from Chrysler's Michigan Ordnance Missile Plant near Warren, Michigan between FY58 and FY61.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: A primary complaint about Jupiter was that the design's shorter range placed it within relatively easy striking distance of Soviet weapons, both missiles and aircraft. Thor, based in the UK, would likely have more warning of an impending attack. This is precisely the reason that the Army spent considerable effort on making Jupiter mobile, in order to make surprise attacks difficult without prior aerial reconnaissance missions.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: However, in November 1958, the Air Force decided Jupiter would be launched from fixed emplacements. Army General Maxwell Taylor argued this was done deliberately, noting that:


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: To offset the possibility of air attack, the systems were upgraded to allow a launch within 15 minutes of a launch order.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Rocketdyne tested the first S-3 engine at their Santa Susana, California facilities in November 1955. A mock-up was delivered to ABMA in January 1956, followed by the first prototype engines in July 1956. Testing of these engines began in September 1956 at ABMA's new Power Plant Test Stand. This demonstrated a number of problems with unstable combustion, leading to the failure of four engines by November. To continue testing, the engine was temporarily derated back to 135,000 lbf and was successfully tested at this level in January 1957. Continued work on the engine developed several sub-versions, finally reaching the design goal of 150,000 lbf in the S-3D model.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The 135,000 pound engine, also used in the first Thor and Atlas tests, had conical thrust chambers, but the 150,000 pound model switched to bell-shaped thrust chambers. Unlike Thor and Atlas, which had two small vernier engines for roll control, Jupiter gimbaled the turbine exhaust. The early test model Jupiters had two small gas jets powered off the turbine exhaust, the gimbaled exhaust pipe not being introduced until late 1958.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: In 1954 Test Laboratory director Karl Heimburg began construction of the Static Test Stand for Redstone testing. This was still under construction when it was re-purposed for Jupiter, and finally completed in January 1957. A Jupiter was installed in the stand that month, and fired for the first time on 12 February 1957. This almost ended in disaster when a small explosion went off in the liquid oxygen (LOX) pump, and as the missile sat there the LOX boiled off and threatened to burst the tanks. The day was saved when the foreman, Paul Kennedy, ran to the missile and connected a pressure line to drain the oxygen buildup in the tank. The problem was later traced to the lubricant used in the pump, which tended to burst into flames in contact with LOX. A new lubricant was introduced, along with a series of changes to the test stand to help retain control in these situations.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Kurt Debus had led the construction of launch pads for Redstone missiles at Cape Canaveral, Florida, building the twin LC-5 and LC-6 pads about apart with a common blockhouse located away between the two. Redstone testing moved to these pads from the smaller LC-4 on 20 April 1955, with the launch of the seventh Redstone from LC-6. Envisioning an extended test program, a second set of similar pads began construction in 1956, LC-26 A and B; the only major difference was the blockhouse was located slightly further away, about . In late 1957 a set of parallel railway tracks running just east of the pads was added, allowing an A-frame gantry to be rolled to any of the four pads.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Jupiters were delivered to the Cape strapped to wheeled trailers and flown to the Cape's "Skid Strip" on C-124s. They were then moved to Hangar R at the Cape Industrial Area where the nose cone was mated with the missile, and electrical checkout was performed. It was then moved on the trailer to the pads, about south, where they were lifted to vertical by a crane on the movable gantry. Just to the north of the launch area was the Air Force's LC-17 for Thor, and LC-18 used for Thor and the Navy's Vanguard. After the Army's head start, the Air Force had since caught up and attempted its first Thor launch on 26 January 1957, which ended with the missile exploding on the launch pad.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Jupiter test flights commenced with the launch of AM-1A (ABMA Missile 1A) on 1 March 1957 from LC-5. This missile was equipped with the lower-thrust interim engine. The vehicle performed well until past 50 seconds into launch when control started to fail, leading to breakup at T+73 seconds. It was deduced that turbopump exhaust was sucked up by the partial vacuum in the area behind the missile and began to burn in the tail section. The heat burned through the control wiring, so extra insulation was added there on future flights. An identical AM-1B was quickly readied and launched on 26 April. AM-1B's flight went entirely according to plan up to T+70 seconds when the missile started becoming unstable in flight and finally broke up at T+93 seconds. The failure was deduced to have been the result of propellant slosh due to bending modes induced by the steering maneuvers needed to perform the flight trajectory. The solution to this problem involved testing several types of baffles in a Jupiter center section until discovering a suitable type for both the LOX and fuel tanks.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The third Jupiter, also numbered AM-1, was quickly equipped with the baffles and launched on 31 May, slightly over a month after AM-1B, traveling a full downrange. This version had a slightly improved S-3 engine with thrust. AM-2 flew from LC-26A on 28 August, and successfully tested the separation of the rocket body from the reentry vehicle section before splashing down at . AM-3 flew from LC-26B on 23 October, including the ablative heat shield and the new ST-90 INS. This test flew a planned distance of .


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: AM-3A launched on 26 November and all went according to plan until T+101 seconds when engine thrust abruptly terminated. The missile broke up at T+232 seconds. On 18 December, AM-4 lost thrust T+117 seconds and fell into the ocean downrange. These failures were traced to an inadequate turbopump design that resulted in a string of failures in the Jupiter, Thor, and Atlas programs, all of which used a variant of the same Rocketdyne engine. Testing then paused for five months while Rocketdyne came up with a number of fixes and the Army retrofitted all its Jupiters with the redesigned pumps. In spite of these failures, Jupiter was declared operational on 15 January 1958.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Taking the time to also fully rate the engine to 150,000 lbf, the new engine was first flown on AM-5 on 18 May 1958 from LC-26B, reaching a planned . AM-5 also carried the real nose cone design, which separated from the rocket body, spun up the warhead, and separated to allow the warhead to continue on its own. The warhead section was equipped with a parachute and was recovered by the Navy some from its predicted splashdown point.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: AM-6B included both the production nose cone and the ST-90 INS during its launch from LC-26B on 17 July 1958. This time the Navy recovered it only from its planned splash down point downrange. AM-7 flew on 27 August, testing a new solid fuel rocket for spinup, replacing the older hydrogen peroxide model. AM-9 was launched on 10 October, the first Jupiter to carry the fully functional turbine exhaust roll control system. The flight failed however; a pinhole leak in the thrust transducer area started a thrust section fire and loss of vehicle control. The Range Safety Officer destroyed the missile at T+49 seconds.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Afterwards, there was only one more failure in the Jupiter program, AM-23 on 15 September 1959, which developed a leak in a nitrogen bottle that led to depressurization of the RP-1 tank and almost immediate loss of control at liftoff. The missile wobbled from side to side and the RP-1 tank began to break apart starting at T+7 seconds. The Jupiter flipped upside down, dumping out the contents of the RP-1 tank, followed by total vehicle breakup at T+13 seconds, just before the Range Safety Officer could issue the flight termination command. Flying debris struck and damaged a Juno II on the adjacent LC-5. This particular launch was carrying a biological nose cone with mice and other specimens (which did not survive).


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Through the early 1960s, a number of Jupiters were launched by the forces of other countries, as well as the Air Force, as part of ongoing combat training. The last launch of this sort was by the Italian Air Force, CM-106, which took place from LC-26B on 23 January 1963.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Jupiter missiles were used in a series of suborbital biological test flights. On 13 December 1958, Jupiter AM-13 was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida with a Navy-trained South American squirrel monkey named Gordo on board. The nose cone recovery parachute failed to operate and Gordo did not survive the flight. Telemetry data sent back during the flight showed that the monkey survived the 10 "g" (100 m/s²) of launch, eight minutes of weightlessness and 40 "g" (390 m/s²) of reentry at 10,000 mph (4.5 km/s). The nose cone sank downrange from Cape Canaveral and was not recovered.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Another biological flight was launched on 28 May 1959. Aboard Jupiter AM-18 were a seven-pound (3.2 kg) American-born rhesus monkey, Able, and an 11-ounce (310 g) South American squirrel monkey, Baker. The monkeys rode in the nose cone of the missile to an altitude of and a distance of down the Atlantic Missile Range from Cape Canaveral. They withstood accelerations of 38 "g" and were weightless for about nine minutes. A top speed of 10,000 mph (4.5 km/s) was reached during their 16-minute flight.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: After splashdown the Jupiter nosecone carrying Able and Baker was recovered by the seagoing tug USS "Kiowa" (ATF-72). The monkeys survived the flight in good condition. Able died four days after the flight from a reaction to anesthesia while undergoing surgery to remove an infected medical electrode. Baker lived for many years after the flight, finally succumbing to kidney failure on 29 November 1984 at the United States Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: In April 1958, under the command of President Eisenhower, the U.S. Department of Defense notified the Air Force it had tentatively planned to deploy the first three Jupiter squadrons (45 missiles) in France. However, in June 1958 the new French President Charles de Gaulle refused to accept basing any Jupiter missiles in France. This prompted U.S. to explore the possibility of deploying the missiles in Italy and Turkey. The Air Force was already implementing plans to base four squadrons (60 missiles) under Project Emily —subsequently redefined as 20 Royal Air Force squadrons each with three missiles—of PGM-17 Thor IRBMs in Britain on airfields stretching from Yorkshire to East Anglia.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: In 1958, the United States Air Force activated the 864th Strategic Missile Squadron at ABMA. Although the USAF briefly considered training its Jupiter crews at Vandenberg AFB, California, it later decided to conduct all of its training at Huntsville. In June and September of the same year the Air Force activated two more squadrons, the 865th and 866th.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: In April 1959, the secretary of the Air Force issued implementing instructions to USAF to deploy two Jupiter squadrons to Italy. The two squadrons, totaling 30 missiles, were deployed at 10 sites in Italy from 1961 to 1963. They were operated by Italian Air Force crews, but USAF personnel controlled arming the nuclear warheads. The deployed missiles were under command of 36th Strategic Interdiction Air Brigade ("36ª Aerobrigata Interdizione Strategica", Italian Air Force) at Gioia del Colle Air Base, Italy.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: In October 1959, the location of the third and final Jupiter MRBM squadron was settled when a government-to-government agreement was signed with Turkey. The U.S. and Turkey concluded an agreement to deploy one Jupiter squadron on NATO's southern flank. One squadron totaling 15 missiles was deployed at five sites near İzmir, Turkey from 1961 to 1963, operated by USAF personnel, with the first flight of three Jupiter missiles turned over to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force) in late October 1962, but USAF personnel retaining control of nuclear warhead arming.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: On four occasions between mid-October 1961 and August 1962, Jupiter mobile missiles carrying 1.4 megatons of TNT (5.9 PJ) nuclear warheads were struck by lightning at their bases in Italy. In each case, thermal batteries were activated, and on two occasions, tritium-deuterium "boost" gas was injected into the warhead pits, partially arming them. After the fourth lightning strike on a Jupiter MRBM, the USAF placed protective lightning strike-diversion tower arrays at all of the Italian and Turkish Jupiter MRBM missiles sites.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: In 1962, a Bulgarian MiG-17 reconnaissance airplane was reported to have crashed into an olive grove near one of the U.S. Jupiter missile launch sites in Italy, after overflying the site.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: By the time the Turkish Jupiters had been installed, the missiles were already largely obsolete and increasingly vulnerable to Soviet attacks. All Jupiter MRBMs were removed from service by April 1963, as a backdoor trade with the Soviets in exchange for their earlier removal of MRBMs from Cuba.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Jupiter squadrons consisted of 15 missiles and approximately 500 military personnel with five "flights" of three missiles each, manned by five officers and 10 NCOs. To reduce vulnerability, the flights were located approximately 30 miles apart, with the triple launcher emplacements separated by a distance of several hundred miles.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The ground equipment for each emplacement was housed in approximately 20 vehicles; including two generator trucks, a power distribution truck, short- and long-range theodolites, a hydraulic and pneumatic truck and a liquid oxygen truck. Another trailer carried 6000 gallons of fuel and three liquid oxygen trailers each carried .


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The missiles arrived at the emplacement on large trailers; while still on the trailer, the crew attached the hinged launch pedestal to the base of the missile which was hauled to an upright position using a winch. Once the missile was vertical, fuel and oxidizer lines were connected and the bottom third of the missile was encased in a "flower petal shelter", consisting of wedge-shaped metal panels, allowing crew members to service the missiles in all weather conditions. Stored empty, on 15-minute combat status in an upright position on the launch pad, the firing sequence included filling the fuel and oxidizer tanks with of LOX and of RP-1, while the guidance system was aligned and targeting information loaded. Once the fuel and oxidizer tanks were full, the launch controlling officer and two crewmen in a mobile launch control trailer could launch the missiles.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: Each squadron was supported by a receipt, inspection and maintenance (RIM) area to the rear of the emplacements. RIM teams inspected new missiles and provided maintenance and repair to missiles in the field. Each RIM area also housed 25 tons of liquid oxygen and nitrogen generating plants. Several times a week, tanker trucks carried the fuel from the plant to the individual emplacements.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Saturn I and Saturn IB rockets first stage was manufactured using the tooling from Jupiter and Redstone production, consisting of a central tank of the same diameter of the Jupiter missile with eight tanks of the same diameter as the Redstone clustered around it, all containing LOX/RP-1.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Jupiter MRBM was also modified by adding upper stages, in the form of clustered Sergeant-derived rockets, to create a space launch vehicle called Juno II, not to be confused with the Juno I which was a Redstone-Jupiter-C missile development. There is also some confusion with another U.S. Army rocket called the Jupiter-C, which were Redstone missiles modified by lengthening the fuel tanks and adding small solid-fueled upper stages.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Juno II was a four-stage rocket derived from the Jupiter IRBM. It was used for 10 satellite launches, six of which failed. It launched Pioneer 3 (a partial success), Pioneer 4, Explorer 7, Explorer 8, and Explorer 11.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama displays a Jupiter missile in its Rocket Garden.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama displays two Jupiters, including one in Juno II configuration, in its Rocket Park.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: An SM-78/PMG-19 is on display at the Air Force Space & Missile Museum at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The missile had been present in the rocket garden for many years until 2009 when it was taken down and given a complete restoration. This pristine artifact is now in sequestered storage in Hangar R on Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot be viewed by the general public.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: A Jupiter (in Juno II configuration) is displayed in the Rocket Garden at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. It was damaged by Hurricane Frances in 2004, but was repaired and subsequently placed back on display.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: A PGM-19 is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The missile was obtained from the Chrysler Corporation in 1963. For decades it was displayed outside the museum, before being removed in 1998. The missile was restored by the museum's staff and was returned to display in the museum's new Missile Silo Gallery in 2007.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: A PGM-19 is on display at the South Carolina State Fairgrounds in Columbia, South Carolina. The missile, named "Columbia", was presented to the city in the early 1960s by the US Air Force. It was installed at the fairgrounds in 1969 at a cost of $10,000.


title: PGM-19 Jupiter

text: The Frontiers of Flight Museum at Dallas Love Field in Dallas, Texas, has a Jupiter missile on display outdoors.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: Several common ethanol fuel mixtures are in use around the world. The use of pure hydrous or anhydrous ethanol in internal combustion engines (ICEs) is only possible if the engines are designed or modified for that purpose, and used only in automobiles, light-duty trucks and motorcycles. Anhydrous ethanol can be blended with :gasoline (petrol) for use in gasoline engines, but with high ethanol content only after minor engine modifications.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: Ethanol fuel mixtures have "E" numbers which describe the percentage of ethanol fuel in the mixture by volume, for example, E85 is 85% anhydrous ethanol and 15% gasoline. Low-ethanol blends are typically from E5 to E25, although internationally the most common use of the term refers to the E10 blend.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: Blends of E10 or less are used in more than 20 countries around the world, led by the United States, where ethanol represented 10% of the U.S. gasoline fuel supply in 2011. Blends from E20 to E25 have been used in Brazil since the late 1970s. E85 is commonly used in the U.S. and Europe for flexible-fuel vehicles. Hydrous ethanol or E100 is used in Brazilian neat ethanol vehicles and flex-fuel light vehicles and hydrous E15 called hE15 for modern petrol cars in the Netherlands.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: E10, a fuel mixture of 10% anhydrous ethanol and 90% gasoline sometimes called gasohol, can be used in the internal combustion engines of most modern automobiles and light-duty vehicles without need for any modification on the engine or fuel system. E10 blends are typically rated as being 2 to 3 octane numbers higher than regular gasoline and are approved for use in all new U.S. automobiles, and mandated in some areas for emissions and other reasons. The E10 blend and lower ethanol content mixtures have been used in several countries, and its use has been primarily driven by the several world energy shortages that have taken place since the 1973 oil crisis.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: Other common blends include E5 and E7. These concentrations are generally safe for recent engines that should run on pure gasoline. As of 2006, mandates for blending bioethanol into vehicle fuels had been enacted in at least 36 states/provinces and 17 countries at the national level, with most mandates requiring a blend of 10 to 15% ethanol with gasoline.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: One measure of alternative fuels in the U.S. is the "gasoline-equivalent gallon" (GEG). In 2002, the U.S. used as motor fuel, ethanol equal to 137,000 terajoules (TJ), the energy equivalent of 1.13 billion U.S. gallons (4.3 billion liters) of gasoline. This was less than 1% of the total fuel used that year.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: E10 and other blends of ethanol are considered to be useful in decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and can reduce carbon monoxide (CO) emissions by 20 to 30% under the right conditions. Although E10 does decrease emissions of CO and greenhouse gases such as CO by an estimated 2% over regular gasoline, it can cause increases in evaporative emissions and some pollutants depending on factors such as the age of the vehicle and weather conditions. According to the Philippine Department of Energy, the use of up to 10% ethanol-gasoline mixture is not harmful to cars' fuel systems. Generally, automobile gasoline containing alcohol (ethanol or methanol) is not recommended to be used in aircraft.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: A 2011 study conducted by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland found practically no difference in fuel consumption in normal driving conditions between commercial gasoline grades 95E10 and 98E5 sold in Finland, despite the public perception that fuel consumption is significantly higher with 95E10. VTT performed the comparison test under controlled laboratory conditions and their measurements showed the cars tested used an average of of 95E10 per , as opposed to of 98E5 per . The difference was 0.07 in favor of 98E5 on average, meaning that using 95E10 gasoline, which has a higher ethanol content, increases consumption by 0.7%. When the measurements are normalized, the difference becomes 1.0%, a result that is highly consistent with an estimation of calorific values based on approximate fuel composition, which came out at 1.1% in favour of E5.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: E15 contains 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline. This is generally the highest ratio of ethanol to gasoline that is possible to use in vehicles recommended by some auto manufacturers to run on E10 in the US. This is due to ethanol's hydrophilia and solvent power.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: As a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which mandates an increase in renewable fuels for the transport sector, the U.S. Department of Energy began assessments for the feasibility of using intermediate ethanol blends in the existing vehicle fleet as a way to allow higher consumption of ethanol fuel. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted tests to evaluate the potential impacts of intermediate ethanol blends on legacy vehicles and other engines. In a preliminary report released in October 2008, the NREL presented the results of the first evaluations of the effects of E10, E15 and E20 gasoline blends on tailpipe and evaporative emissions, catalyst and engine durability, vehicle driveability, engine operability, and vehicle and engine materials. This preliminary report found none of the vehicles displayed a malfunction indicator light as a result of the ethanol blend used; no fuel filter plugging symptoms were observed; no cold start problems were observed at and laboratory conditions; and as expected, computer technology available in newer model vehicles adapts to the higher octane causing lower emissions with greater horsepower and in some cases greater fuel economy.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: Other sources make the opposite claim about fuel economy. According to Consumer Reports, "ethanol isn’t as energy-dense as regular gasoline so you will see worse fuel economy with E15 gas.”


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: In March 2009, a lobbying group from the ethanol industry, Growth Energy, formally requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow the ethanol content in gasoline to be increased to 15% from 10%. Organizations doing such studies included the Energy Department, the State of Minnesota, the Renewable Fuels Association, the Rochester Institute of Technology, the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research, and Stockholm University in Sweden.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: In October 2010, the EPA granted a waiver to allow up to 15% of ethanol blended with gasoline to be sold only for cars and light pickup trucks with a model year of 2007 or later, representing about 15% of vehicles on U.S. roads. In January 2011, the waiver was expanded to authorize use of E15 to include model year 2001 through 2006 passenger vehicles. The EPA also decided not to grant any waiver for E15 use in any motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles, or nonroad engines because current testing data do not support such a waiver. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the E15 waivers now cover 62% of vehicles on the road in the US, and the ethanol group estimates if all 2001 and newer cars and pickups were to use E15, the theoretical blend wall for ethanol use would be approximately 17.5 billion gallons (66.2 billion liters) per year. The EPA was still studying if older cars can withstand a 15% ethanol blend.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: The EPA waiver authorizes sale of E15 only from Sep 15 to May 31 out of a black hose and a yellow hose to flex fuel vehicles only from June 1 to Sep 14. Retailers have shunned building infrastructure due to the costly regulatory requirements which have created a practical barrier to the commercialization of the higher blend. Most fuel stations do not have enough pumps to offer the new blend, few existing pumps are certified to dispense E15, and no dedicated tanks are readily available to store E15. Also, some state and federal regulations would have to change before E15 can be legally sold. The National Association of Convenience Stores, which represents most gasoline retailers, considers the potential for actual E15 demand is small, "because the auto industry is not embracing the fuel and is not adjusting their warranties or recommendations for the fuel type." One possible solution to the infrastructure barriers is the introduction of blender pumps that allow consumers to turn a dial to select the level of ethanol, which would also allow owners of flexible-fuel cars to buy E85 fuel.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: In June 2011 EPA, in cooperation with the Federal Trade Commission, issued its final ruling regarding the E15 warning label required to be displayed in all E15 fuel dispensers in the U.S. to inform consumers about what vehicles can, and what vehicles and equipment cannot, use the E15 blend. Both the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association complained that relying solely on this warning label is not enough to protect consumers from misfueling. In July 2012, a fueling station in Lawrence, Kansas became the first in the U.S. to sell the E15 blend. The fuel is sold through a blender pump that allows customers to choose between E10, E15, E30 or E85, with the latter blends sold only to flexible-fuel vehicles. , there are about 24 fueling stations selling E15 out of 180,000 stations across the U.S.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: In December 2010, several groups, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, filed suit against the EPA in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The plaintiffs argued the EPA does not have the authority to issue a “partial waiver” that covers some cars and not others. Among other arguments, the groups argued that the higher ethanol blend is not only a problem for cars, but also for fuel pumps and underground tanks not designed for the E15 mixture. It was also argued that the rise in ethanol has contributed to the big jump in corn prices in recent years. In August 2012, the federal appeals court rejected the suit against the EPA. The case was thrown out on a technical reason, as the court ruled the groups did not have legal standing to challenge EPA's decision to issue the waiver for E15. In June 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from industry groups opposed to the EPA ruling about E15, and let the 2012 federal appeals court ruling stand.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: , sales of E15 are not authorized in California, and according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the blend is still awaiting approval, and in a public statement the agency said that ""it would take several years to complete the vehicle testing and rule development necessary to introduce a new transportation fuel into California's market"."


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: According to a survey conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA) in 2012, only about 12 million out of the more than 240 million light-duty vehicles on the U.S. roads in 2012 are approved by manufacturers are fully compliant with E15 gasoline. According with the Association, BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen warned that their warranties will not cover E15-related damage. Despite the controversy, in order to adjust to EPA regulations, 2012 and 2013 model year vehicles manufactured by General Motors can use fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol, as indicated in the vehicle owners' manuals. However, the carmaker warned that for model year 2011 or earlier vehicles, they "strongly recommend that GM customers refer to their owners manuals for the proper fuel designation for their vehicles." Ford Motor Company also is manufacturing all of its 2013 vehicles E15 compatible, including hybrid electrics and vehicles with Ecoboost engines. Also Porsches built since 2001 are approved by its manufacturer to use E15. Volkswagen announced that for the 2014 model year, its entire lineup will be E15 capable. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced in August 2015 that all 2016 model year Chrysler/Fiat, Jeep, Dodge and Ram vehicles will be E15 compatible.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: In November 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency opened for public comment its proposal to reduce the amount of ethanol required in the U.S. gasoline supply as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The agency cited problems with increasing the blend of ethanol above 10%. This limit, known as the "blend wall," refers to the practical difficulty in incorporating increasing amounts of ethanol into the transportation fuel supply at volumes exceeding those achieved by the sale of nearly all gasoline as E10.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: A 15% hydrous ethanol and 85% gasoline blend, hE15, has been introduced at public gas stations in the Netherlands since 2008. Ethanol fuel specifications worldwide traditionally dictate use of anhydrous ethanol (less than 1% water) for gasoline blending. This results in additional costs, energy usage and environmental impacts associated with the extra processing step required to dehydrate the hydrous ethanol produced via distillation (3.5-4.9 vol.% water) to meet the current anhydrous ethanol specifications. A patented discovery reveals hydrous ethanol can be effectively used in most ethanol/gasoline blending applications.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: According to the Brazilian ANP specification, hydrous ethanol contains up to 4.9 vol.% water. In hE15, this would be up to 0.74 vol.% water in the overall mixture. Japanese and German scientific evidence revealed the water is an inhibitor for corrosion by ethanol.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: The experiments show that water in fuel ethanol inhibits dry corrosion. At 10,000 ppm water in the E50 experiments by JARI and 3,500 ppm water in the E20 experiments by TU Darmstadt the alcoholate/alkoxide corrosion stopped. In the fuel ethanol this resembles 20,000 ppm or 2 volume% in the case of JARI and 5 x 3500 = 17,500 ppm of 1.75 volume% in the case of TU Darmstadt. The observations are in line with the fact that hydrous ethanol is known for being less corrosive than anhydrous ethanol. The reaction mechanism will be the same at lower-mid blends. When enough water is present in the fuel, the aluminum will react preferably with water to produce aluminum oxide, repairing the protective aluminum oxide layer, which is why the corrosion stops. The aluminum alcoholate/alkoxide does not make a tight oxide layer, which is why the corrosion continues. In other words, water is essential to repair the holes in the oxide layer. Based on the Japanese/German results, a minimum of 2 vol.% or 2.52% m/m water is currently proposed in the revision of the hydrous ethanol specification for blending in petrol at E10+ levels. Water injection has additional positive effects on the engine performance (thermodynamic efficiency) and reduces overall CO emissions.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: Overall, a transition from anhydrous to hydrous ethanol for gasoline blending is expected to make a significant contribution to ethanol's cost-competitiveness, fuel cycle net energy balance, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: The level of blending above 10% (V/V) is chosen both from a technical (safety) perspective and to distinguish the product in Europe from regular unleaded petrol for reasons of taxes and customer clarity. Small-scale tests have shown many vehicles with modern engine types can run smoothly on this hydrous ethanol blend. Mixed tanking scenarios with anhydrous ethanol blends at 5% or 10% level do not induce phase separation. As avoiding mixing with E0, in particular at extremely low temperatures, in logistic systems and engines is not recommended, a separate specification for controlled usage is presented in a Netherlands Technical Agreement NTA 8115. The NTA 8115 is written for a worldwide application in trading and fuel blending.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: E20 contains 20% ethanol and 80% gasoline, while E25 contains 25% ethanol. These blends have been widely used in Brazil since the late 1970s. As a response to the 1973 oil crisis, the Brazilian government made mandatory the blend of ethanol fuel with gasoline, fluctuating between 10% to 22% from 1976 until 1992. Due to this mandatory minimum gasoline blend, pure gasoline (E0) is no longer sold in Brazil. A federal law was passed in October 1993 establishing a mandatory blend of 22% anhydrous ethanol (E22) in the entire country. This law also authorized the Executive to set different percentages of ethanol within pre-established boundaries, and since 2003, these limits were fixed at a maximum of 25% (E25) and a minimum of 20% (E20) by volume. Since then, the government has set the percentage on the ethanol blend according to the results of the sugarcane harvest and ethanol production from sugarcane, resulting in blend variations even within the same year.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: Since July 1, 2007, the mandatory blend was set at 25% of anhydrous ethanol (E25) by executive decree, and this has been the standard gasoline blend sold throughout Brazil most of the time as of 2011. However, as a result of a supply shortage and the resulting high ethanol fuel prices, in 2010, the government mandated a temporary 90-day blend reduction from E25 to E20 beginning February 1, 2010. As prices rose abruptly again due to supply shortages that took place again between the 2010 and 2011 harvest seasons, some ethanol had to be imported from the United States, and in April 2011, the government reduced the minimum mandatory blend to 18%, leaving the mandatory blend range between E18 and E25.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: All Brazilian automakers have adapted their gasoline engines to run smoothly with this range of mixtures, thus, all gasoline vehicles are built to run with blends from E20 to E25, defined by local law as "common gasoline type C". Some vehicles might work properly with lower concentrations of ethanol, but with a few exceptions, they are unable to run smoothly with pure gasoline, which causes engine knocking, as vehicles traveling to neighboring South American countries have demonstrated. Flex-fuel vehicles, which can run on any type of gasoline E20-E25 up to 100% hydrous ethanol (E100 or hydrated ethanol) ratios, were first available in mid-2003. In July 2008, 86% of all new light vehicles sold in Brazil were flexible-fuel, and only two carmakers build models with a flex-fuel engine optimized to operate with pure gasoline (E0): Renault with the models Clio, Symbol, Logan, Sandero and Mégane, and Fiat with the Siena Tetrafuel.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: Thailand introduced E20 in 2008, but shortages in ethanol supplies by mid-2008 caused a delay in the expansion of the E20 fueling station network in the country. By mid-2010, 161 fueling stations were selling E20, and sales have risen 80% since April 2009. The rapid growth in E20 demand is because most vehicle models launched since 2009 were E20-compatible, and sales of E20 are expected to grow faster once more local automakers start producing small, E20-compatible, fuel-efficient cars. The Thai government is promoting ethanol usage through subsidies, as ethanol costs four baht (about 12 US cents) a litre more than gasoline.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: A state law approved in Minnesota in 2005 mandated that ethanol comprise 20% of all gasoline sold in this American state beginning in 2013. Successful tests have been conducted to determine the performance under E20 by current vehicles and fuel dispensing equipment designed for E10. However, this mandate was later delayed to 2015, and has never taken effect because the federal EPA has yet to authorize the use of E20 as a replacement for gasoline.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: A study commissioned by BP and published in September 2013, concluded that the use of advanced biofuels in the UK, and particularly E20 cellulosic ethanol, is a more cost-effective way of reducing emissions than using plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) in the timeframe to 2030. The study also found that the use of higher blends of biofuels is complementary to hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs). Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) can deliver strong CO savings with a decarbonised electric grid, but are expected to have significantly higher costs than internal combustion engine vehicles and hybrid cars to 2030, as the latter are expected to be the most popular models by 2030. According to the study, in 2030 an E20 blend in an HEV can achieve a 10% emission savings compared to an HEV running on E5, for an annual fuel cost premium of compared to an annual cost of for an all-electric car.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: E70 contains 70% ethanol and 30% gasoline, while E75 contains 75% ethanol. These winter blends are used in the United States and Sweden for E85 flexible-fuel vehicles during the cold weather, but still sold at the pump labeled as E85. The seasonal reduction of the ethanol content to an E85 winter blend is mandated to avoid cold starting problems at low temperatures.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: In the US, this seasonal reduction of the ethanol content to E70 applies only in cold regions, where temperatures fall below during the winter. In Wyoming for example, E70 is sold as E85 from October to May. In Sweden, all E85 flexible-fuel vehicles use an E75 winter blend. This blend was introduced since the winter 2006-07 and E75 is used from November until March.


title: Common ethanol fuel mixtures

text: For temperatures below , all E85 flex vehicles require an engine block heater to avoid cold starting problems. The use of this device is also recommended for gasoline vehicles when temperatures drop below . Another option when extreme cold weather is expected is to add more pure gasoline in the tank, thus reducing the ethanol content below the E70 winter blend, or simply not to use E85 during extreme low temperature spells.