HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: man with Firefly
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:58:09 GMT

In article <12565@grayt> meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes:
>In article <7AUG92.14542208@wl.aecl.ca> zukicn@wl.aecl.ca writes:

>Also, automatic transmissions and air conditioning provide a measure
>of safety by reducing driver stress.  

Actually, I rented an automatic Nissan Micra once and the transmission 
stressed me immensely by being ill-suited to the car's characteristics, 
thus taking forever to change gears and constantly screaming away at me
through the firewall.  About air conditioning, I would add (forgive me 
if it's already been said) that air conditioning probably increases
fuel efficiency in some circumstances by making open windows unnecessary.

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:19:16 GMT

In article <1077@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <11AUG92.07565241@wl.aecl.ca> zukicn@wl.aecl.ca writes:

>
>One other thing that I've noticed that may not have occurred to you.
>What is the angle of the sun when it gets hot?  In my experience, having
>the sun closer to vertical, just makes it feel hotter, regardless of what
>the thermometer says.

Very tricky stuff here.  When the sun is directly overhead is
typically when the solar radiation hitting the surface is greatest.
As the sun sinks into the horizion, atmospheric attenuation decreases
the influx dramatically.  In practice, if, at noon here in
Bloomington, in the summer, the solar influx is 800W/m2 (which it
usually is) by 5 the solar influx on a perpendicular plane will be
down to 500W/m2.  If you are out in the sun from 10-2, chances are,
you *will* be warmer even if the ambient air temperature and humidity
stay the same, than if you were out at 5.  Also, between 10-2, you are
more likely to get hit by reflected radiation from objects around you,
and even the atmosphere.  

As to feeling hotter, it only takes a very few watts of heating for
the human body to maintain homeostasis in 75F ambient temps.  If you
have .1 m2 of your body surface collecting 800W/m2 radiation, those
extra watts will quickly put you over the limit needed to maintain
homeostasis, and you'll have to dump heat.  In short, you get *warm*



What all this silliness has to do with sci.energy, I don't know.

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! Not IU's!# Will be
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! # President
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion# for Food
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 00:09:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.170941.2621@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov) writes:
|> 
|> Instead of wasting all the time, and gasoline standing in toll-
|> booth lines, as well as the cost of the toll-booths and personel,
|> Doesn't it make a lot more sense to have gas taxes pay all the
|> costs of maintaining our roads. The more I drive, the more gas 
|> I use. No fancy math needed!

Yes, I agree. Only trouble is this results in people subsidizing the roads
they don't use ... there seem to be a number of people out there that
have an aversion to subsidies, so they would complain (at least I assume
they would, since they complain about mass-transit subsidies 8-) ).

Larry Edwards
edwards@sunrise.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987)
Subject: Re: stuff...
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 08:58:20 GMT

Lev Tarasov (bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
: 
: What's the difference in burning corn-based ethanol in a tractor
: or in a car? The inputs to corn production include much more than
: just the fuel for the tractor.

<Note: not a flame>

Keep in mind that the 'costs' of using one source of energy vs. 
another are more than just what it takes to produce that energy.

We are paying freight to get oil from Alaska or wherever to where 
we are, we are paying for the distillation, we are paying for the
oil itself, we are paying for the damage it does to the environment`
and our health (although indirectly), etc. etc. etc.

So, to say that ethanol (or methanol) is more expensive is only
partly true.  If research was never done because it wasn't 
'profitable', we wouldn't, for instance, have a space program,
which brought us printed circuits, miniturization, etc. etc. etc.

With alcohol fuels, we could have regeional, or even local, distilleries,
which would take care of the needs of that area, using materials from
that area.  Sounds good to me.

But then again....I heat my house with oak.

--

Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.
SAAB - Because you get what you pay for.
hinz@picard.med.ge.com
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:11:52 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Aug18.023813.28004@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov) writes:
>
>I am not in the mood to get into a debate on global warming, but

Then why did you post your article, which, by the way, was full of crap.



Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987)
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 08:03:53 GMT

Bo Curry (curry@hplred.HP.COM) wrote:
: 
: Your "factual claim" was that:
: 
:  "[Bo has] been _harming_ the environment by wasting more gasoline,
:   due to the parasitic drag induced by having [his] car's windows open."
: 
: 
:  |BTW, just what is my agenda?  What is it you are assuming?  Just curious.
: 
:  You wrote:
:  "Ah, the misguided do-gooder.  Perhaps the worst kind."
: 
: So, collect some data, do some arithmetic, and you might be able to
: convince me that my actions harmed the environment, although I doubt it.
: You still need to know something about my motivations before you can
: reasonably claim I'm a "misguided do-gooder".

Sorry BO,  I don't really have the time, desire, or access to do the research
you want.  I was going by information provided here, which I felt came from a
reputable source, and from SAAB's engineering information books, which I trust
implicitly.        

I must say that, as you mention, at low speeds there isn't much drag induced
by having windows open, but there's not a lot of cooling either.  I suppose
if you feel comfortable sweltering in the 100+ degree interior of your car,
with the windows open in traffic, breathing all the fumes, then that's up to
you.  At higher speeds, you get the cooling, but also the drag.  I don't know
(or really care much) if it's a linear relationship of speed vs. drag, I'm sure
some aerodynamically knowledgable person would know, feel free to consult
sci.aeronautics.

: 
: About your agenda:
: 
: People who season tidbits of data (Gary Coffman's numbers) liberally with
: unwarranted assumptions to produce strenuous conclusions are usually
: operating from an agenda. "Do-gooder" is one of the code-words employed by a
: particular class of libertarian or anti-environmental agendas, as
: typified by our goodbuddy JdeA and his fellow Luddites. Admittedly not
: as clear an indication as his pet terms, but you also suffered somewhat
: from guilt by association.
: 
: Bo Curry

Bo, Bo, Bo, Bo, BO,

That is an interesting assumption you are making.  Let's see, I'm an anti-
environmental libertarian, who follows JdeA (who?)  Wow, it's amazing what
can be inferred (incorrectly) from one word.

Do-gooder, in MY vocabulary anyway, means the kind of person who sticks their
noses in other people's business, interferes with their rights, and/or has
a limited grasp on reality.

Feel free to guess which category I was putting you into.

Examples of do-gooders would be the anti-abortion nuts, the anti-gun nuts,
anyone who watches the entire dem/rep convention, temperance nuts, anti-sex nuts,
etc. etc. etc.  Oh, and of course, the "I don't use an air conditioner and
neither should you" nuts.

Oh, and if that makes me a Libertarian, I don't have a problem with that.  Do
you?
--

Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.
SAAB - Because you get what you pay for.
hinz@picard.med.ge.com


Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug11.165457.5065@nmt.edu> <1992Aug13.145346.951@vexcel.com>
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:44:13

Kuwait oil should be mostly back in production by now.  Has anyone seen
any recent figures?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 15 Aug 92 17:05:35 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1248@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Aug12.041139.8827@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug10.183441.20237@spdc.ti.com> burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris) writes:
>>>1. You must be kidding about the 150 hp garden tractors and 400-600 hp street
>>>vehicles. And you have the gall to call others "econazis"?
>>Indeed. The SOTA for garden tractors is 800-900 hp out of a blown, nitro
>>burning 350 Chevy. Coupling the power to the ground in a tractor that
>>must weigh under 2000 pounds is the tricky part. Love those garden tractor
>>pulling contests. :-)
>I would like to know were you guys shop.  I work part time at Sears, the
>lawn and garden department to be precise.  The *largest* "garden" tractor
>that we sell has only 18 hp.  The majority of them are only 10hp to 12hp.

Naturally these aren't *stock* tractors. Who would be caught dead with
a *stock* garden tractor. How gauche. These are hotrods, they even have
their own national sanctioning body. Watch ESPN late at night some time.
John Deere seems to be the favorite chassis, much stronger than (snicker)
Sears.

Gary
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: man with Firefly
Date: 11 Aug 92 13:54:52 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <7AUG92.14542208@wl.aecl.ca> zukicn@wl.aecl.ca writes:

>I find APPALING the attitude of majority in the US regarding cars. Two
>years ago we bought a new, standard Firefly, no A/C, no radio.
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^

I am sorry you could not afford a radio.  However, I don't think that not 
having a radio in the car will save the world.

Also, automatic transmissions and air conditioning provide a measure
of safety by reducing driver stress.  

>we made 75,000 km, survived (and I mean) severe Canadian winters, no
>probs with engine, or anything else. Consumption ~4 liters/100 km.
>
>Safety is and will be a concern, and even if person is in a tank or ATC,
>that may not guarante safety.

Well, that sure proves it to me.  You drove 75,000 km and survived.
I guess the Firefly is a pretty safe and reliable car after all.

>The point is why would anyone who even remotely considers him/herself
>aware of the current enviro problems drive a 4-6 doors dragon, or Joe

By your logic, we should all live in tents and huddle together
for warmth.  

>Anyway, I think that big three (big in what, other than # of empolyees)
>could/should do more in promoting enviro friendlier vehicles over nature
>raping commercials of Jeeps, GM trucks etc. Other car manufacturers too!
                              ^^
Are Ford trucks OK?

It sounds to me like you had a bad experience with somebody who drove a
truck.  For your information, most people who own trucks  where I live use
them for a purpose, like hauling firewood, taking organically-grown
produce to the market in town, making deliveries  of large items for
neighbours who don't have large vehicles, etc.

_______________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:49:10 GMT

In <1992Aug11.170148.12395@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In <1992Aug8.122014.4052@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org writes:
>>Seven countries with largest Oil consumption in billions of barrels per year
>>United States                   6.3
>>Japan                           1.8
>>West Germany                    0.8
>>Italy                           0.7
>>France                          0.7
>>Canada                          0.6
>>Britain                         0.6
>>The U.S. imports half its Oil.  At this rate we would run out in 8 years,
>>hence we run out this decade.  We will probably import more oil and
>>use our own reserves more slowly as we run out, but it is clear that
>>oil will get much more expensive as we become more dependent on imports.
>
>Hm, if imported oil is more expensive, then domestic oil must be
>cheaper. Where can I fill up my car with domestic gasoline?
>
Phil, imported oil is no more expensive than domestic oil.
The price of oil is affected by what economists call "the law
of supply and demand".  Let me refrain from taxing your brain 
with the most simplistic economic theories, but instead
let us just say that in importing half our oil, our contribution 
to world demand is 3.1 billion barrels per year.  When we run out 
we will increase world demand by another 3.1 billion barrels per year.  
This is a huge increase in world demand.  The increased demand will
drive the oil price up.

Xref: sparky sci.energy:4017 sci.environment:10693
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:30:37 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug13.145346.951@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>The various posts about the price of oil rising usually assume some form
>of supply and demand leading to a relatively gradual increase in price.
>It seems to me that with a large percentage of the reserves in a
>relatively unstable region that politics will have the largest effect
>and supply and demand curves will be a second order effect.  Saudi Arabia
>has been able to keep prices low even though both Kuwait and Iraq are
>out of the picture.  I assume this is a thank-you note for our efforts
>in the Gulf War but that is another issue.  The smooth curve assumed
>for supply/demand models would provide time for alternatives to replace
>oil but I think large discontinuities in the curve is more likely.  The
>large rises will increase economic dislocation and the large drops will
>make the development of alternatives more difficult for the marketplace.

You have this backward I think. In the past thirty years we've seen a
barrel of oil go from $2 to the current $18 with a short period around
$30 engineered by OPEC. The reality was that OPEC couldn't hold the
line at $30 no matter how hard they tried, somebody always decided to
cheat and turn a fast buck. Supply and demand really did break OPEC's
stranglehold on world oil prices. Current price is slightly lower than
the price 30 years ago when inflation is factored in.

Gary
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: stuff...
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:59:17 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug11.105759.4430@mr.med.ge.com> hinz@bonfire (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987) writes:
>
>What puzzles me is this:  Why are we using petrol from obviously unstable
>sources, when, with little modification, our existing fleet could use
>ethanol?  This way, our money would stay in the country, supporting our farmers
>(corn production), we wouldn't be supporting the dictator-of-the-month,
>and we'd be breathing cleaner air.

Why aren't we doing it? Because corn is intensely subsidized by petrochemicals.
It's a net energy loss to substitute ethanol for gasoline. Besides, it's a
less than optimal use of fertile topsoil. And that doesn't even touch the
economics of ethanol versus gasoline. Methanol from wastes now, that's a
different story. But it's rather toxic in itself, produces cancer causing
formaldehyde when burned, and has fewer BTU per pound.

Dealing with the Middle East for oil is not as expensive as it may seem.
We're playing global policeman in the area anyway because of Israel, and
the DOD turned a net profit on the Gulf War thanks to arm twisting of
the Saudi's and our allies. Direct costs were $60 billion and direct
payments to the US Treasury were $65 billion. So we made a $5 billion
profit on that operation.

As to the economics of petrodollars, most of them wind up being spent
in the US to buy products used in the Middle East. So the money is
no more a net loss than money spent on a Moon shot. It doesn't go
over, or up, there and rot. It's actually mostly spent here where it
creates jobs and wealth. Mercantilism is an obsolete economic theory.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: braking distances
From: Rob Winters <rwinters@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov>
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:09:00 +0600
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA Headquarters
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1a2Lines: 16



>Funny you should mention this.  I rememeber reading a Scientific American
>when I was very young (lates 70's or early 80's).  There was an article
>on experiments with brake lights which flashed faster the harder you
>presses the brakes.  It was shown that people's responses to this
>flashing were far more effective than just the on/off feedback they get
>from conventional brake lights.

There's an accessory like this for motorcycles. It's a little box
 that senses how hard you are braking (actually G forces, 
whether the brakes are on or not ;-) and pulses the brake light
or a rear-facing strobe light to match. Sorry, no specific info.
I saw this a while ago, and I'm bike-less at the moment :-(

Rob
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Subject: Re: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 22:51:53 GMT


It can be done better, with cards showing entry point and tolls
collected only upon exit. It IS being done better elsewhere.
 -Stewart Rowe usr2210a@tso.uc.edu  srowe@igc.org
From: phys2108@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: NEED info for Ni-Zn battery
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:30:53 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Hi,
	I need some data on Ni-Zn batteries, more specifically, the Wh/Kg,
No of cycles, dentrite problems, are there any commercially made, and if so
where? My info is hopelessly out of date. Ii is not easy for me to get 
current data for the above, any info would be appreciated. Thanks in advance
Geoff.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dodeca!clyde@jarthur.Claremont.EDU
Organization: Ameritec Corporation
Reply-To: cvisser@ucrmath.ucr.edu ("Clyde R. Visser, KD6GWN")
Subject:   NEW LIST: EV Electric Vehicle Discussion Mailing List
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:12:16 PDT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA27642; Tue, 18 Aug 92 16:15:47 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA22548; Tue, 18 Aug 92 16:15:44 -0700
X-Received:  by dodeca.UUCP (UUPC/extended 1.11q);           Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:12:18 PDT
X-To: "sci.energy" <sci.energy.usenet>
X-Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


EV on LISTSERV@sjsuvm1.sjsu.edu -  EV Electric Vehicle Discussion
                                   Mailing List

The  EV Electric Vehicle Discussion Mailing List is  intended  to 
provide  a  forum  to discuss the current state of  the  art  and 
future  direction of electric vehicles.  It is *not* intended  to 
discuss  either  EV  appropriateness or  comparisons  with  other 
transportation primary drive modes such as the venerable internal 
combustion engine.  Those "discussions" are best relegated to the 
appropriate usenet newsgroup.

An  electric vehicle is any vehicle which uses an electric  motor 
as  the primary or sole motive force.  The energy storage  device 
used  to drive said motor can use any technology  including,  but 
not  limited  to,  solar  electric,  electric  battery,  internal 
combustion  engine  coupled  with a electric  generator,  or  any 
combination of these.  Production electric vehicles are currently 
available.  Internal combustion engine vehicles can be  converted 
to electric.  There exist a number of companies who perform this
conversion.  There is also a number of manufacturers of equipment 
allowing you to do-it-yourself. 

To  subscribe,  send the following  command  to  LISTSERV@SJSUVM1 
(bitnet) or LISTSERV@SJSUVM1.SJSU.EDU:

SUBSCRIBE EV firstname lastname

After  subscribing, messages may be sent to the list  by  sending 
to: EV@SJSUVM1 (bitnet) or ev@sjsuvm1.sjsu.edu.

Owner:  Clyde R. Visser, KD6GWN <cvisser@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->NEVER<-
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:22:29 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug19.144115.28484@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov) writes:
>
>Sooner or later, we will come to the point where fossil extraction
>will require more per unit energy than is present in the resource.
>At this point, the resource does effectively dissappear. Also 
>a number of current reserves have high environmental risks 
>associated with them (Alaska, North Atlantic off Newfoundland,...)

If the oil is recovered by a process powered by cheap nuclear generated
electricity, or any other effectively limitless energy source you wish to 
use, then the oil resource does *not* effectively disappear. It simply
becomes a transport medium for the energy expended. This is the case
with the proposed hydrogen economy for example. The point where oil
will disappear as an energy transport medium is when cheaper methods
than oil of transporting, storing, and using portable energy become 
available. Oil is just a particularly long duration storage medium
for solar energy.

>Alternative sources have much room for development still. Photo-
>voltaics are not close to their theoretical maximums. Ocean-
>thermal (OTEC), biomass, hydrides for hydrogen storage, battery
>technology,... also have much room for development. Also,
>as has been very clear in the microcomputer market, cost
>estimates can take a large dive with mass production and 
>new production technologies. However, when something on 
>the order of 90% of the DOE's alternative energy 
>research budget goes to fission and fusion, it seems
>obvious to me that there is a strong bias in government
>policy. Where would photo-voltaics be now, if they  
>received even 5% of the DOE research budget?

As backward and regulation plagued as the nuclear industry 
perhaps? It's bad policy to have the government fund R&D, 
they do it so poorly.

Gary