HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:42:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

RB>In article <4664.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard
RB>h)  writes:
RB>>DK>But wait!  An honest electric car advocate should compare a CD=0.19 elec
RB>>DK>vehicle with a SIMILARLY STREAMLINED gas vehicle.
RB>>
RB>>Name one! There aren't many proposed as a family car. Most
RB>>"streamlined" gas cars are open on the bottom and don't produce anywhere
RB>>near CD=0.9.
RB>         ^^^
RB>Misprint?

Oops! Yes, it should read CD=0.19. Sorry!

The photos of the TEPCO "IZA" (which means "Record Breaker") showed a
rather roomy, four passenger vehicle, maybe a little cramped in the back
seat, much like an Integra. Looks better though.

RB>Putting the family, groceries, and cross-country ski gear in a
RB>vehicle with CD=0.19 and heading for the mountains in the winter
RB>(with 5 inches of new snow and a temperature of 10 deg F) would be a
RB>nice test, especially if the trip were made at night and required a
RB>150-mile drive.

The operating temperatures of NiMH are rated -20 to +50, NiCd -40 to +60
degrees C. The solid electrolyte, lithium polymer should have no
problen. The inefficiency of the batteries would be a slight advantage
here - warms the batteries up in a hurry.

RB>If the temperature stayed low, the return trip might be a real hoot.

RB>Sorry, kids, our EV just won't start until it gets warm again.....in April.

I've had similar experiences at Lake Tahoe in the winter time in an IC
auto and it wasn't the battery. Temperature and altitude effects on
carburation are nonexistent with EV's.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . My reality check just bounced.
                                                                      
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dbc@sybus.com (David Cameron)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Organization: Sybus Corporation, Largo, FL
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:27:18 GMT

In article <15940@auspex-gw.auspex.com> daryl@bovill.auspex.com (Daryl Starr) writes:
>Has anyone thought of the gyroscopic effect of the flywheel?

This is a problem I was thinking about also. One could mount the axis vertically
with some angular freedom (for cornering); but what happens if you ROLL the car
or drive one side of the car into a ditch and exceed the range of freedom? 

("Backup" bearings could be designed that would take the force, but at what cost and
weight ?)


Dave
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: 19 Dec 92 16:18:17 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <1992Dec18.144531.16684@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <1992Dec18.031731.14504@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>A gallon of gas is equivalent to 345.74 kWH. That assumes perfect conversion
>>of heat to mechanical energy of course. Practical IC engines are about 23%
>>efficient at the conversion so a gallon of gas can actually deliver about
>>79.5 kWH. That's still remarkabbly better than any battery. A gallon of
>>gas weighs about 7 pounds. 5 gallons of gas is equivalent to 397.5 kWH
>>which at $.11 a kWH is $43.73 or about $8.75 a gallon equivalent. If the
>>EV cost no more to purchase than a gas powered car, it still wouldn't
>>be cost competitive unless gas was $8.75 a gallon.
> 
> Well I screwed this up royally, let's try again.
> 
> A pound of gas has 118,000 BTU and there are 7 pounds to the gallon.
> So a gallon of gas has 826,000 BTU. A BTU is 293e-6 kWH, so a gallon
> of gas is equivalent to 242 kWH. IC engines are about 23% efficient,
> so a gallon of gas is equivalent to 55.66 kWH. At $.11 a kWH, a gallon
> of gas is equivalent to $6.12 of electricity. So gas has to reach
> $6.12 a gallon before electricity becomes cost competitive. And that's
> if the vehicles are the same price.

I would still swear that something is wrong.  242kWH is going to make a car
like that Japanese prototype go HOW far?  I see a more efficient car as bieng
just that.  Even factoring in the efficiency of the motors, you still have
a fair amount of energy to deal with.
1:because they are more effecient, you need less energy IN to get 
desired speeds. ie, H.P. in an EV is not equal to H.P. in an IC in terms of
energy used.
2: 6.12 of electricity goes HOW far in *miles* in an EV?
3:Funny, but I get electricity for .08/kWH.

I see your math as being fine, but you seem to have neglected the EV's side
of the equation.

Please clarify this for me, someone...
P.S. Could someone post two things about that prototype?
1:weight
2:volts @ kWH
Thanks.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
From: whjjm@whyalla.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 11 Dec 92 09:01:22 +1030
Organization: Cured, discharged

In article <1992Dec8.171323.2711@cnsvax.uwec.edu>,
mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>                                  UN-wise Quotes
> 
>                The following three quotations of past "scientists" were 
>           supplied to a "Theoretical Mechanics" class at UW-EC: 

[conservatism at it's best (worst?)]

>                Fortunately, a few SMART inventors and scientists did 
>           NOT take such authoritative pronouncements to be the final 
>           word. 
YYYEAH!
>                Modern orthodox "scientists" are still saying SIMILAR 
>           things AGAINST UFO Spacecraft, Gravity Neutralization, 
>           Electromagnetic Propulsion, Free-Energy Technologies, 
>           Biological Transmutations, Hollow Earth Theory, Natural Anti-
>           cancer Remedies, Cold Fusion, Radionic/Psionic Devices, 
>           Astrological Influences, etc., ETC.. 

Well! Talk about a shock to the system! Something intelligent and true
for a change!

Mr McElwraine (sp? Sorry) is not usually known for his, uh, 'lucidity' shall
we say? Normally he dribbles on about really weird things like barcodes
and the Revelation. This is not like him at all!

Great, but first show us the evidence for these things, then we'll believe
you. BTW, from what I can remember of him 'ETC' includes God...
-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Technical Officer Level 1
Email at whjjm@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au
From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:21:19 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec17.161305.7468@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:

|> I'll stick to my gas bill (albeit a bit high) than have a roof full of
|> panels fail with no one around to fix them or replace them.
|> 
|> Tino

It seems like many people are confused about the definition of
"Passive" Solar as opposed to "Active" Solar.

A roof full of panels and their associated systems is
"Active" Solar.

A house with windows, insulation, and mass is
"Passive" Solar.   As you will probably notice this covers
just about any house, hence the vagueness of the definition.
Realistically one more accurately talks about "incorporating
passive solar concepts into the design of a building".

This way one doesn't have to say one has a home heated by
solar energy and be refused insurance as Alan McCartney
was. :-)

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
(303)491-8215
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu
From: avkats@azbuka.kharkov.ua (Aleksandr V. Kats)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Private Phisical Inst. seeks collaboration in different forms and directions
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:18:32 +0300
Distribution: world
Organization: INFOCOM LTD, Ltd.
Reply-To: avkats@azbuka.kharkov.ua

                           Dear Sir,
            Works of  private little venture Eco-Energy Institute are
       directed in general for ecology clean  possibility  of  energy
       production, conservation and utilisation.
            We are interested in collaboration,  the orders  of  some
       criogenic devices and osonators, and joint investigations.
            Suppose, that it is reasonable to  have  the  discussions
       and   meetings   with   investigators,  working  in  following
       directions:
       1. NASA  programs  of  metastable  helium  states (MHS)  as a
       rocket propellant   and   of   moon   He3   utilisation,   MHS
       manufacturing, conservation and utilisation.
       2. Weakly  bound  species: helides, rare  gas - hydrogen - and
       carbohydryde clusters, now wellknown foullerens,for example,
       - the manufacturing of its.
       3. Ozone generation, conservation and utilization.
          All theese ones may be used as energy accumulated species,
       but not only, ofcourse .
       4. The plasmoreactor methods of hydrogen from water and H2S
       production.
       5. Scintilators for nuclear and cosmic radiation detecting -
       some unusual methods of manufacturing, examination and testing.
       6. Mathematical modelling of dust ewolution and grouing in air
       on the base of Smoluhovsky  equations.
          We are interested to take part in the experimental work on
       the base of US organisations in all this fields.
          In all this directions  we have ideas,  know-hows,  skill,
       experience, patents.
          Now the negotiations, concerning 4 and 5 items, with some
       US Universities are in progress.

          We would like to have grants and other forms of collaboration
       for our researchers, working in this directions.


                S.Y.
                D. Myshkis,
                Director of Eco-Energy Institute
                Ph.D, Mb.of RAN Commitee for
                Energy Accumulating Species  Using

                Ukraine, 310103, Kharkow,
                ul.Kosmonavtov,5A/77.
                tel.+7-(057)-2-727666
                fax +7-(057)-2-324677

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:38:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.190510.446@en.ecn.purdue.edu> ghg@en.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.192918.1@vax.sonoma.edu> oberland@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>>Someone commented about Ni-Cads costing 10K+ and Ni-H going for 30K+.
>>By the time I need to replace those Ni-H(a LONNNNG time), I need only
>>pay a fraction of that price.  Look at Ni-cads:5 years ago, they cost much
>>more.  consider this: I can get a D-cell NiCad for about 2 dollars, most of
>>which is packaging and casing that is 1.2v@4-5AH.   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Where can you get the "High Capacity" (4-5AM) D cells for $2?
>I can believe a "C" cell in a D case (~1.5AH) for $2.  Radio Shaft
>4AH D cells are $7.95  ($4.95 when on sale once/year).. Other sources
>of 4AH D cells are often over $10 each.
>--ghg

I bought 80 D-Cell 4 AH NiCds at the Dayton Hamfest last year at $.85
that's eighty five cents each.  Year before that they were a dollar
apiece.  Never been used.  Use em for caving all the time.  Mil-Spec.
Work quite well.  Of course you're going to get taken if you buy from
Rat Shack.  One other hint, I didn't get them at that price because I
bought them in volume, my friend got 4 for the same price.



-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
From: daryl@bovill.auspex.com (Daryl Starr)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:04:47 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems

In article <1992Dec17.162050.21393@watson.ibm.com>, andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor) writes:
|> In article <15940@auspex-gw.auspex.com> daryl@bovill.auspex.com (Daryl Starr) writes:
|> >Has anyone thought of the gyroscopic effect of the flywheel?
|> 
|> About 2 months ago there was a piece in the NY Times business section on
|> a start-up company developing flywheel technology.  The company didn't
|> seem think crashes were a problem. I believe they said they had already
|> done crash tests but they did see gyroscopic effects as an obstacle.
|> 
|> Andrew Taylor

Was that really "did see gyroscopic effects as an obstacle" or was it
meant to be didn't?

With the mass and frequency required to store reasonable amounts of energy,
doesn't the gyroscopic effect wreak havoc with maneuvering?

Daryl
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Date: 16 Dec 1992 23:18:20 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1go6ntINN8j7@ollie.solbourne.com>, dans@solbourne.com (Dan Scott) writes:
>Maybe you could explain how passive solar technology is "phased out"
>making your home less valuable?

Well, as a lot of people who invested in passive solar water heaters in the
'70s discovered, when the equipment fails, and the company that made it has
gone out of business, and no local plumber wants to work with it, it's pretty
useless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: PLUTONIUM SHIP OF DEATH!!! Run Away! Run Away!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 10:53:07 GMT

In article <Greenpeace.10Dec1992.2311@naughty-peahen> Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>        PLUTONIUM SHIP OF DEATH VEERS AWAY FROM CARIBBEAN
>
>Just one week before the plutonium shipment left France, the
>Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
>unanimously passed a resolution which called for a complete ban
>on "shipments of plutonium and other radioactive or hazardous
>materials."  The twelve Heads of Government promised to bring
>the resolution before the United Nations and pledged to get
>support and co-sponsorship for the resolution from all countries
>bordering on the Caribbean Sea.

Okay, Jym---how the hell are the Caribbean nations going to get their
oil, their medical supplies (which could contain radioisotopes), and
their pesticides, among other industrial products? Hazardous materials
could be _ANYTHING_.

>"We certainly hope that the CARICOM declaration will be applied
>to these shipments and that the heads of government will take
>all action necessary to stop these dangerous cargoes from
>transiting the region," said Moglen.

See above statement.

This is one of the stupidest, short-sighted agreements ever made.

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:13:59 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <Dec14.191317.25218@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.151417.14978@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>|> In article <Dec11.232412.63015@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu writes:
>
>|> >Bingo.  So lets raise the price of gas to $10/gal and it will
>|> >then be economical for us all to drive electric cars. ;?)
>|> 
>|> No, all that does is cripple most of our transportation system and
>|> make it economically infeasible for many of us to operate a car at
>|> all, or to buy products transported to us by vehicles.
>|> 
>
>I was not being totally serious, but the tax will probably go up
>significantly.  If it goes up in steps with plenty of
>warning there is no reason that anything needs to be 
>crippled.  The mode just needs to change.  For example
>electric cars and electric trains.  If we decided that the
>airline industry couldn't handle the tax and there was no
>alternative then you just wouldn't tax that mode so much and
>since the supply would be greater (autos not using it) it
>might be cheaper overall.

No, you're still the victim of faulty economics. If the gas tax
goes up significantly, say to a dollar a gallon, then operating
a gasoline car becomes more expensive. Perhaps so much more expensive
that it becomes breakeven with an electric car (though I doubt it).
Now what does that do to your cost per mile? It doubles it whether
you drive the cheaper gas car on expensive gasoline or the expensive
electric on cheap electricity. Either way your cost per mile just
doubled. Since the US economy is built around transportation, doubling
the cost of transportation cripples the economy. It doesn't matter
if the cost is in the vehicle or in the fuel, it's still a doubling
of cost. So it can't be cheaper overall.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: cost of roads
From: wilma@mcl.saic.com
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:30:43 EDT

I'm interested in understanding how our transportation infrastructure
 is funded, and I've noticed that recently there has been some discussion
 of fuel tax and who pays what.  Any references that would allow me to get
 at the following questions would be appreciated.  Thanks in advance.


1)	How much is spent per year on building new roads and maintaining
	 existing roads?
2)	How is this revenue generated?
3)	What is the estimated replacement value of our roadway system?
4)	How much revenue do gasoline/diesel taxes provide?
5)	How are fuel taxes split between cars and trucks?
6)	What other taxes/user fees do trucks have to pay?
7)	How does the U.S. fuel tax compare with other countries?
8)	How is the load distributed between local, state and federal
	 governments?
9)	Are there any private roadways operating in or outside the U.S.?
10)	Are tolls limited to funding the projects from which they are collected?

dave brown
===========================================================
My opinions are just that.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:14:17 GMT

In article <Dec11.232412.63015@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.154137.15298@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>|> more difficult to repair.  Increasing the mileage of a car from 30 to
>|> 40 mpg only saves about $1300 or so over the (say) 150,000 mile life
>                           ^^^^^
>|> of the car.  This savings would be spread over years in the future,
>|> while the higher price of the car would have to be paid up front.
>
>Bingo.  So lets raise the price of gas to $10/gal and it will
>then be economical for us all to drive electric cars. ;?)

No, all that does is cripple most of our transportation system and
make it economically infeasible for many of us to operate a car at
all, or to buy products transported to us by vehicles.

Gary

Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: IGNORANCE is BLISS - But EDUCATION is SEXIST
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:18:37 GMT

In article <29545@castle.ed.ac.uk> cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:
>
>Greenpeace et al do carry out quite a bit of scientific research. 

I have to spend six years to get degrees in the engineering field, go to
conferences, take qualifying exams, etc. to be considered a competent
memeber of the power industry.

Greenpeace dresses up in power plant costumes and parades around a parking
lot.


Who's going to solve our energy problems of the future?

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.energy:6294 sci.electronics:21235
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:11:35 GMT
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said:
# OK.  Here is one *I* would like to see. How about flywheel application
# in uninterruptable power supplies?  

It IS true...
History DOES repeat itself ;-}

It's called an MG set, and it has lots of applications. But they
are expensive, noisy, heavy & oh so inefficient.......

--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: IGNORANCE is BLISS -
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:09:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

TI>I have to spend six years to get degrees in the engineering field, go to
TI>conferences, take qualifying exams, etc. to be considered a competent
TI>memeber of the power industry.

TI>Greenpeace dresses up in power plant costumes and parades around a parking
TI>lot.

TI>Who's going to solve our energy problems of the future?

Easy! Engineers working on solar, wind and hydrogen energy systems -
energy systems with reserves to meet our needs for billions of
years, create minumum pollution of the environment and don't stir up
fright in the so-called "uneducated".

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!
From: lamontg@stein.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: When your sun forges iron...
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:19:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec18.231931.24746
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>No, it is wrong.

[...]

>Fe-56 cannot fission any more than it can fuse.  It is at the bottom 
>of the binding energy curve.   

Oh sure it can fission, it just takes positive energy to do it.

My ASTR prof explicitly said that the Fe-56 in the core begins to break
apart as the pressure increases and not only does not produce any
energy, but begins to absorb it.  If you think he's wrong, I'd like more
info than just a statement of "thats wrong".

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu
  "When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases."
                                      -- Robert Anton Wilson