HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: International Seminar on ENERGY opens in Minsk
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:33:19 GMT
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.


   International Seminar on ENERGY opens in Minsk

   Minsk November 20 TASS

   By BelinForm Correspondent Anna Gladysheva-TASS: A three-day seminar
on problems of energy saving opened in minsk on friday. The seminar is
organised by Belarussian ENERGY experts and the organization for
distributing energy-related technology which operates in the framework
of the european community. The participants in the seminar will assess
the work of the Minsk joint energy centre established last spring with
the assistance of EC experts. Foreign experts proposed a total of 40
programmes for energy saving and developing advanced technology within
the framework of the TERMI programme which covers the period until the
end of 1994. Foreign experts provided practical assistance in assessing
the energy market and monitoring. They also implemented several
interesting projects gratis, including the construction of a green
house which warms itself up on cold days, blueprints for optimal
lighting up of a factory in minsk and recommendations forimproving
routes and heating facilities given to a city public transport park.
The participants in the seminar will also discuss plans for
international cooperation in 1993 and problems of coordinating their
activities in the framework of the programme of foreign aid to the
commonwealth of independent states.
---
Dewey Coffman		ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey%ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com
Consulting @ IBM			dewey@ctci.com
11400 Burnet Rd				All opinions are mine.
Austin, TX 78758-3493, USA		(512) 823-6463
===============================================================================
	"I do hope that you rot in Hell"   -The Christian JFH II
Don't Bag it. 1-800-453-SMOG, EPA Stratospheric Ozone Hotline, 800-296-1996,
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Washington
Date: 14 Nov 92 05:07:33 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

Dixie Lee Ray is a FORMER governor, several times removed.  She has
shown interest in many promising technologies, including solar, wind,
and, yes, nuclear power.


-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:59:05 GMT

stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
: In article <1992Nov18.031743.1834@hpcvca.cv.hp.com>, abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown) writes:
>> We are not leading the world.  In energy conservation the US is dead
>> last in the developed world.  Would you like to list some of the areas
>> where the US is supposedly ahead?

> US leads environmentally in just about every category.

> Auto emissions control.
> elimination of lead from gasoline.
With the exception of California and possibly NY I believe Japan is
ahead of the USA in these two.

> scrubbers for coal combustion.
> electrostatic precipitators for ore and metal processing.
> sewage processing.
> wilderness protection.
You could be right with these four.  I just don't know.

> governmental mechanisms for smog abatement.
This is too vague to address in a short amount of time.

> recycling.
At least with bottle recycling Norway is ahead of USA.

> etc.
Speaking of vague...

> The US is not "dead last" in energy conservation.  We consume energy per
> capita than any other country, but we also produce more per capita and
> have a higher standard of living.
Excuse me?  That we produce and consume more is not justification that
we have good energy conservation.  This statement is just weird.

> Energy consumption says nothing about conservation.
> We may be using the most efficient
> equipment and processes in the world to do what we do - but we just do more.

In fact that is not the case.  Japan produces more that the USA per
energy unit.

> You should really read about the US environmental record (as a whole) and
> compare it to that of other countries - you might learn a lot.  Hearing
> about a few isolated cases of this or that really does not give you a
> picture of reality.
>	Richard Stead
I offer you the same suggestion.
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
      Not representing my employer.
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:11:19 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov13150417@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>By the way, how is the cooking done in this self-sufficient house?

Catalytic hydrogen burner.

Gary
From: cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:33:54 GMT

stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

>Sigh.  Another nucleophobe.  Why do people think that those two words are
>enough to justify the elimination of nuclear power?

>This is not an answer!

>Radioactive waste is a non-problem. 

>You're worried that the burial site will remain contaminated for centuries?
>Big deal.  The thousands of landfills across this country are virtually
>all heavily contaminated by heavy metals (cadmium, mercury and whatnot).
>Nobody seems so concerned about those, and remember - there the problem
>will not decay away after a few centuries.  The heavy metals will always
>be there.

This is not a justification! You might as well say, I've shot myself in
the foot, it was no big deal, a bit painful, so I'll do it again.

I am concerned about toxic wastes sites.

>People love to complain about radioactive waste, but there are no real
>problems, other than the people who love to complain.  Some people seem
>to need something to be afraid of and they latch onto nuclear issues
>because they can't understand them.

I'm sorry but this is not a serious comment. Yes there is alot of
emotion over Nuclear issues. Ever wondered why? Its not the above answer.


Chris cir@uk.ac.ed.festival
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Info on the GM SE-101 Steam Car
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:51:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Nov18.195154.12795
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Nov17.201937.12035@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>> Finally, a piston
>> engine offers the advantage of dynamic braking for free. That's not a
>> small consideration.
>
>Dynamic braking?  Is that like letting engine compression
>slow you down?                          

Exactly.

>> If you could superheat to 800C, it'd be great, but that
>> brings on another host of problems you don't want to tackle outside a
>> large stationary plant. 
>> Gary                   
>
>What problems?  The GM Steam Car did 700C, and that was in the seventies!
>Wouldn't 800C be possible today?  Shoot, lets' go for 1000.

The GM Steam car did 700*F*. At high superheats, steam is a terrific
corrosive agent. 800C is really pushing the envelope of steam plant
technology. You can't use leathers as rings at that temperature. Such
dry steam is no longer it's own lubricant and you have to develop special
oils complete with separators and high pressure injectors. Nasty complex
problems.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 16:02:48 GMT

>In article <56343@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>The surviving relatives of the poor fellow that the French murdered in
>Australia might disagree with your assessment of the French government.

 I never said I agreed with the French government. All I said was one
day Greenpeace may learn the difference between fishing trollers and
Missile Cruisers.

>In any event, it's rather humorous to see
>all these tears for the victimization of the governments
>of two of the worlds most powerful nations when confronted with unarmed
>protesters.  Many anti-environmentalists seem to live in an inverse reality
>where General Electric, the government of France, and the US government are
>weak powerless victims of the mighty citizen lobbying organizations.

 Cmon! Greenpeace totally preys in on the big nations because they know
they can not risk any sort of bad publicity. Greenpeace, or some other
radical envirornmentalist group, tried to board a Soviet fishing
vessel in the North Pacific once, too bad they found out it was a KGB spy
troller, and they almost got shot out of the water. Our government is
extremely tolerant to these type of groups.

>> Who knows maybe the Japanese were getting even for all the ramming Greenpeace
>>has done to their merchant fishing fleet. Nobody said the Japanese didn't
>>like revenge!
>It is the Sea Shepherds who ram Japanese trawling
>ships, and Sea Shepherds split from Greenpeace on the issue of whether
>such "enforcement" tactics were a good idea. 

 Maybe but they are all in the movement. Perhaps one day, soon
hopefully, Greenpeace has a big awakening call. Imagine if a US Naval
Frigate just stopped a French merchant vessel, boy would our
Government catch hell over it. But since its a peace loving group
like Greenpeace, oh no they can disobey any law and get away with it!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Dyrda                         | "I could have been home baking
School of Nuclear Engineering         |  cookies or something like that!" 
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory | "Nah, that's ok Hillary your 
c/o Purdue University                 |  husbands fat enough!!!!!!" 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Date: 21 Nov 1992 19:38:42 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 <1992Nov20.055642.20533@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
=Aside from nuclear fission plants, the other major non-solar player is deep
=dry geothermal energy. Like solar, that's also primarily nuclear energy.
=This time radioactive decay rather than fusion. And like solar, the
=actual radioactive processes are divorced from site of use. That tends
=to make it acceptable to a fearful public. Unlike wet geothermal, which
=is available only in limited areas, dry geothermal is available anywhere
=you are willing to drill deep. Thanks to vigorous development by the
=oil industry, we have most of the tools to tap this heat. Much development
=remains to be done, but dry geothermal holds the promise of electricity
=nearly as cheap and controllable as that from nuclear fission plants,
=and with a similarly low level of environmental effects.

This reminds me:  Anybody know what ever became of Project Moho?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: mancus@carla.JSC.NASA.GOV (Keith Mancus/MDSSC)
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:59:12 GMT

In article <1ec2mqINNc33@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.205149.18798@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mancus@zaphod.JSC.NASA.GOV (Keith Mancus/MDSSC) writes:
>>> 3.  Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than
>>> water (Something that wouldn't freeze, and could act as a lubricant.)
>> 
>>  For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd
>>is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/
>>condenser and associated weight.
> 
>That's fine if you have LOTS of water to waste.  In case you haven't heard, the
>state that's pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be in a
>major drought.

  True enough.  I live in Southeast Texas, which normally has an embarassing
surplus of water.  We worry far more about flooding than droughts.  Not
so long ago, local rivers were 30 feet over their banks...

  Does anyone think it's practical to design a boiler that can use salt
water directly?  You'd have to flush the tank of accumulated sediment every
so often, and there might well be other contamination problems.  But could
this be a reasonable solution?

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@cheers.jsc.nasa.gov>                           |
                 N5WVR                                                  |
  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       |
  in Hell." -General Sheridan                                           |
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: Mike Wiese <mikew@apple.com>
Subject: Re: Turbine/Infinitely Variable Transmission
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:40:23 GMT
X-Xxdate: Mon, 23 Nov 92 10:27:45 GMT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A735F22142010C85@wiese.apple.com>
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

Subject: Re: Turbine/Infinitely Variable Transmission
From: E. Michael Smith, ems@michael.apple.com
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:43:35 GMT
In article <1992Nov22.034335.24492@michael.apple.com> E. Michael Smith,
ems@michael.apple.com writes:
>In article <BokLuB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim
Bowery) writes:
>>All this talk about turbine/electric hybrids seems a bit off
>>the mark given the fact that Epilogics up in Silicon Valley
>>has created a hard-geared infinitely variable transmission
>>with less complexity than a typical automatic transmission.
>
[stuff deleted]
>
>With that said, can you post a bit about the way the tranny works
>and the gear ratios it can achieve?  It could be a real help in 
>making some engines that want to run at constant speed more effective.

a couple years ago when I was working on solar cars with some friends at
school, we saw an article in some mech e. magazine and sent away for more
info. the company sent some literature and a videotape.

they didn't explain how it works, you need to sign non-disclosure first.
they were only interested in licensing the technology, not building it
themselves.

The transmission is INFINITELY variable, ie all the way from 0:1 to 1:1.
There's no need for a clutch. A lever moved along a linear path changed
the ratio, and it was clearly visible on the video that the output shaft
went from zero to high speed smoothly. As the original poster mentioned,
it is always engaged, ie it doesn't depend on friction, a variable length
chain, or the like. hence it can handle high torque loads that CVT's
can't. As "proof" they showed a big rig that they claimed was retrofitted
with one of their transmissions.

They claimed device is as small and efficient as a manual transmission,
and there were no difficult to machine parts. 

It all sounds too good to be true, except that it sure looked like it
worked in the video. I never did the non-disclosure, and I haven't heard
anything about it since, so if anyone knows anything more, let us know!

mike
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: hoeferbe@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Bernard Everett Hoefer)
Subject: Greenpeace and nuclear power
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 03:11:21 GMT

	It seems to me that Greenpeace would like to see the
countries of the world drop their nuclear power programs.  Why is
this?  What reasons to they have to want to ban nuclear power?

-- 
				Bernard Everett Hoefer
				Purdue University
				School of Nuclear Engineering
From: tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: U.S. Renewable Research E
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:20:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:3958.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com:1218763951:cdp:1466300107:000:892
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Nov 18 09:20:00 1992


<responding to Chris Frey>

Thanks, but I will stick with "handouts" as an accurate description of the
clean coal demo program.  You're right, the technologies would diffuse
more slowly without them, and the industry would be subject to greater
risk.  My thesis is that a mature energy industry like the coal industry is
capable of shouldering these burdens on its own.  The Reagan and Bush
Administrations were very generous with rhetoric about letting the free
market work in energy technology development, they just suffered amnesia
when it came to this particular program.

The same $2.5 billion, applied to carefully targeted handouts (see, I'm
even-handed) for similar technology demonstrations of renewable energy
systems, would have purchased far more bang for the buck.  But the
renewable energy industries are not mature, and contribute much less money
to political campaigns.

Tom
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gregor@kafka.saic.com (gregg hanna)
Subject: Sodium/Sulfur Battery Question
Keywords: sodium sulfur battery
Reply-To: gregor@kafka.saic.com
Organization: Science Applications International Corporation
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:51:06 GMT

Does anyone know the charge density (by weight and/or volume)
of a sodium/sulfur battery?  I can't seem to find the appropriate
chemistry book at home.

                                         gregg hanna
                                         gregor@kafka.saic.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 09:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.231853.15777@grebyn.com>, sgs@grebyn.com (Stephen G. Smith) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov17.180135.25760@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> sherwood@space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) writes:
|> 
|> >3.  Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than
|> >water (Something that wouldn't freeze, and could act as a lubricant.)
|> 
|> [...]
|> 
|> I seem to remember that there are a couple of CFCs that are almost as
|> good as water (Hey!  Put that down!  OUCH! :-) but not much else.

Wally Minto developed a CFC "steam" car in the 70s

Larry Edwards
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:41:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.231853.15777@grebyn.com> sgs@grebyn.com (Stephen G. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.180135.25760@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> sherwood@space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) writes:
>>3.  Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than
>>water (Something that wouldn't freeze, and could act as a lubricant.)

>The reason for using water is its very high heat of vaporization --
...
>Water is also cheap, nontoxic, nonflammable,
>has halfway reasonable boiling and freezing points, and doesn't
>decompose at high temperatures.

Hmmm.  Sounds like a refrigerant.  So why not also look at the
other stuff used as refrigerants?  Yes, some of them are toxic
or flamable, but at the small quantity levels needed that should
be acceptable.  (Look, if I've got 15 gallons of gasoline in my
car today, I think I could accept 1 pint of flamable working fluid
of similar toxicity.  {don't try inhaling 1 pint of gasoline fumes...})

>I seem to remember that there are a couple of CFCs that are almost as
>good as water (Hey!  Put that down!  OUCH! :-) but not much else.

What about:  NH3, SO2, Propane, Pentane, Hexane {& etc.}, HCFCs,
HCFs, and most anything else with a fair number of hydrogen bonds
and a reasonably inert to metal chemistry?

Why can't you make an ammonia turbine?  Or a Hexane turbine?

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:35:08 GMT

In article <1652@airgun.wg.waii.com> brett@bambi.wg.waii.com (Marc Brett) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.161857.24416@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
>> Yellow Rain usage in Afghanistan and SE Asia.
>The "Yellow Rain" is nothing more than bee feces.  Scientific American ran
>a good article debunking this particular myth.

I read the Scientific American article.  It failed to fully explain
how bee feces could cause whole villiages full of people to die in
convulsions, hemorraging from every bodily orifice.

I've heard of killer bees, but this is ridiculous.

Too bad for that little bit of Politically Correct Science that Boris
Yeltsin recently released documentation of Soviet chemical weapons used
in Afghanistan, as someone else in this thread has already point out.
Though I suppose you won't believe Yeltsin, either.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming
mvp@netcom.com         | mob pounding on a greasy spot on the pavement,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com      | where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com (Doug Rudoff)
Subject: Re: Request: info on desalination and solar energy
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:29:35 GMT


Yesterday while home sick I watched a children's educational TV
program. The subject was desalination by _freezing_ seawater.

The process was being developped by a physicist for a Long Island
community. A test pond (70 feet square and 3 feet deep) would be
filled with seawater by spraying it into the air (spraying in winter
temperatures would cool the water faster than just filling the pond).
The water would freeze and brine would drain from the bottom of the
pond. The ice is basically pure water. If done in the winter, no
energy is needed to freeze the water.

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Doug Rudoff          Motorola, Seattle    INTERNET:rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com
                                            USENET:uunet!mdisea!rudoff   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:19:42 GMT

In article <1ebhauINNm1l@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>Personally, I can't
>imagine very many situations in which having to wait 30 seconds between the
>time you turn on the ignition and the time you can start the car moving would
>be a serious problem.

	One can make a case that gasolene-based cars should have a 30-second
warm-up cycle as well.  Catalytic converters do not function effectively
until they get up to operating temperature,  so a rather large contribution
to emissions is made in the first few minutes of operation.  We can imagine
either an electric or gasolene-based heater that brings the converter up to
temperature.  Similarly,  one could use a pump to pressurize the lubrication
system and get oil distributed throughout the engine ~before~ starting,  which
would considerably reduce wear.
-- 
Xref: sparky sci.energy:5471 talk.environment:4629