HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re: External-Combustion Cars -- Possible?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:04:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.211607.6700@leland.Stanford.EDU>, ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov13.191148.12117@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> |> [...]
|> |> Go to the library and look up "Stanley Steamer." These vehicles used 
|> |> a flash boiler and could start up from cold in under 1 minute. They
|> |> could out accelerate any gasoline engined vehicle of their day, and
|> |> had a top speed over 120 MPH. They were produced around the turn of
|> |> the century. A recent emissions test on one of these antiques showed
|> |> it to handily meet current California emissions standards. But it's
|> |> fuel economy is horrid. Steam engines are fun, but the reason they
|> |> have been replaced in railroading and in automotive usage is that
|> |> their Carnot efficiency is poor. That means they burn a lot of fuel
|> |> and generate a lot of CO2. 
|> 
|> Interesting, what kind of mpg (assuming they used gas) did stanley steamers
|> get?

Well since I was near the library I decided to stop in and answer my own
question.

Turns out that one model of Stanley Steamer (from the '20s I believe) got about
13-15mpg of kerosene. In comparison a typical IC auto from the time (I forget
which make) got around 18mpg of gasoline. Because of the price difference
between gasoline and kerosine, steamers were actually cheaper (in terms of fuel)
to operate. Steamers were more complicated to operate and people feared boiler
explosions and fires, which probably had more to do with there demise at the
time.

The above condensed info is from "The car solution: the steam engine comes of
age" by Gary Levine.


Larry Edwards
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:01:54 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Nov12102213@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Many of us consider that it is "Speak lies to power".  Moreover, Greenpeace
>has the money and publicity to be a considerable power itself and uses
>it for bullying people whose livelihoods they decide to interfere with.

The poor French and Japanese governments, bullied by that great big
Greenpeace with all its money and publicity. And all the French government
has to protect itself is an army and teams of terrorists to put mere
explosive bombs in greenpeace boats. What's a bomb or two, or a destroyer
or two compared with the awful power of Greenpeace's "publicity" machine.
Why won't Greepeace pick on someone it's own size, maybe the Salvation 
Army or the Girl Scouts, instead of this shameless thuggery towards the
helpless French and Japanese governments?

>
>The slogan "Speak truth to power" expresses arrogance as to who has
>the truth.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: greg@core.rose.hp.com (Greg Dolkas)
Subject: Re: halogen lamps for heating
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:18:09 GMT
Organization: HP - Systems Technology Division
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

C S Codrington (dt89csc@brunel.ac.uk) wrote:
: 
: Does anyone out there know anything about the use of Halogen lamps for heating food. I want to use a Halogen lamp in a kettle instead heating element. 
: 
: Is this feasible?
: 

Sounds like you've just invented the 1990's version of the Susy Homemaker Oven.

:-)

Greg.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:12:52 GMT

In article <1857@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>For the record, since Chemicals were first used in WW1 to the best of my
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Think again.  There have been various and sundry nasty stuff used
in war through the ages.  Does 'Boiling Oil' count as a chemical agent?
Does catapulting rotten meat into a walled city count as biological
warfare?  Wars have been fought with a variety of odd munitions over
the years prior to WWI, some of which I would expect would count as
chemicals....

(What this has to do with energy is beyond me.  Is there a rec.war?)


-- 

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.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Demand
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:30:29 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <28211@castle.ed.ac.uk> cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:

|>Don't use air conditioning, open the window!

|>Chris  Centre for Human Ecology Edinburgh
|>cir@uk.ac.ed.festival 

Fine for you Chris.  I assume that's Edinburgh, Scotland.

Try living on that philosophy in some place like Florida for a few years.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:37:32 GMT

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.
scrubbers for coal combustion.
electrostatic precipitators for ore and metal processing.
governmental mechanisms for smog abatement.
sewage processing.
recycling.
wilderness protection.
etc.

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.  Are you suggesting that we should
just turn everything off and have everyone pretend they're living in
Ethiopia or something?  Don't compare apples and oranges.  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.

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
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:31:41 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 <1992Nov17.071642.22601@leland.Stanford.EDU>, ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes:
=In article <1992Nov16.215307.11973@bsu-ucs>, 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
=|> 
=|>  
=|> [....]
=|> > It will get off from a cold start in thirty seconds.
=|> 
=|> But is that just too long?  With an IC, it's a fraction of that.
=|> What can make from quiker startup?  How about an electric heating element?  
=|> Good insulation? Very low water volume might me the key.  Wouldn't a low-volume,
=|> high-temperature, high-pressure system (with less water to boil) 
=|> start up faster?
=|> [....]
=
=Could always run off electric motor/battery for 1st 30 secs

How does the question of whether you're using electricity or fuel for heat
make any difference to the question of how long you get that part of the system
in which you produce steam up to operating temperature?  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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Turbine/Infinitely Variable Transmission
Date: 22 Nov 92 03:43:35 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

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.

An infinitely variable tranny does help some problems, but how
does it help couple a 100,000 rpm small turbine?  Or make external
combustion engines more practical?  Or solve the problems of 
range and weight in a pure electric?  

My point?  That turbine/electric hybrids are only 'off the mark'
if what you are trying to solve is the problem of an infintely
variable transmission ... 

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.

-- 

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.
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: U.S. Renewable Research Exceeds Nuclear
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:25:18 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <SRCTRAN.92Nov11094617@world.std.com: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
:    These figures are wrong.  For one, there is a lot of nuclear research
:that falls under the DoD budgets (the DoE and the DoD have some arrangement
:to do budget tricks).

Um, I've been told that years ago the government put production of nuclear
weapons under civilian control and budgeting, with military supervision.
The government was, thankfully for a chance, wise in making sure that the
military did not have complete control of nukes.  Certain research programs
like Timberwind may fall under the DoD budget (does anyone know for sure?),
but the big expenses like the uranimum enrichment facilities are under the
DoE.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Turbine/Infinitely Variable Transmission
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 08:22:34 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

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.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy - solar
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:02:14 GMT

In article <Nov18.182720.65718@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller) writes:
> I wonder what you mean by efficient.  If one considers the
> solar energy hitting a leaf, photosynthesis converting that energy,
> the plant forming cellulose from that energy, that cellulose 
> being collected by humans, then burned to produce heat, that heat
> converted to work that is then converted to electricity as
> the system, do you really claim that this is more efficient
> than even the worst photovoltaic cell?  If one added the
> additional processes involved in converting the plant to
> fossil fuel then the "efficiency" would be even worse.

Now why would anyone wnat to make such a comparison?  Are you proposing that
we mow down all the forests and replace them with solar cells because
the forests are so inefficient?  The coal that is dug out of the ground
did all the solar collection work for us already.  Thus our only recovery
cost is digging the coal out of the ground.  No collectors to manufacture,
and we don't have to care how efficient the original collectors were.
Same thing with tapping hydro power.  Sure the atmosphere and earth's
surface acted as the solar collector there, and probably weren't all that
efficient.  But who cares?  The water IS at a higher elevation now, and
we don't need to be concerned with how it got there, we are not providing
that process.  The only efficiency that counts is the efficiency of the
equipment we use to convert the available energy into useful work, it doesn't
matter how the energy got there in the first place.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Xref: sparky sci.energy:5564 sci.environment:12853 sci.space:16088
From: jbayer@ispi.COM (Jonathan Bayer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.space
Subject: Re: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:18:49 GMT
Followup-To: sci.energy
Organization: Intelligent Software Products, Inc.

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.171017.28081@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Remember Apollo 13, the failure modes for these things includes
>>BOOM! Also don't forget the electrolyzer, tankage, and pumps.

>I thought the Apollo 13 failure was due to overheating a dewar,
>something not proposed for this house project.


The Appollo 13 failure was due to an oxygen tank being dropped during
assembly into the service module.  The drop was about three inches, and
the tank was throughly test after it was dropped.  However, a small tube
apparently had been dislodged, and it wasn't detected during the
testing.  It was only functional in weightlessness.  The tube was some
sort of relief tube.  When they turned on the internal mixers in flight
(the mixers kept the O2 from clumping in one area) there was an
explosion.  These facts were determined after the flight and after
extensive and exhaustive analysis and testing.  When they released the
service module they were able to see where the explosion had occurred.

JB
-- 
Jonathan Bayer		Intelligent Software Products, Inc.
(908) 248-1853		37 Winthrop Rd. 
jbayer@ispi.COM		Edison, NJ   08817
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: woodbe@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Brian E. Wood)
Subject: Windmill
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:17:01 GMT


I have been seeing a lot of articles posted about renewable energy posted to
this group, but I have not seen, or noticed, any articles dealing with wind
power.  The reason I'm posting this now is that I have recently found out that
the college I am currently attending (I'm a junior Physics major at Clarkson
University, in northern NY if you're not sure) has a vertical axis windmill
from about 10 years ago.  From what I've seen, it has three blades and a lot
of old computer equipment, I think something like an 8080 system, no keyboard
or monitor.

I am interested in experimenting with this windmill, and am in the process of
contacting SERI for information.  Basically what I'm hoping for is some help 
on where to get inforamtion or who to see.  I'm also hoping to acquire funding for this experiment, so if you have any information dealing with that as well I
would greatly appreciate it.

I hope I'm not offending anybody by posting this, but I need help and since this
is an energy group, I thought this would be a good place to ask for help.

Thank you for qour help in advance.

Could you please e-mail and post responses.

Brian E. Wood		woodbe@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Subject: Re: opening of the first
Reply-To: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:06:28 GMT

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <3987.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:
> >
> >Actually, there are thousands of homes and businesses in the U.S.
> >that rely on passive solar heating, usually employing conventional
> >triple-paned glass windows. Many of them, mostly in Colorado and
> >northern California, also rely on solar for electricity.
> 
> 
> I would dispute your claim.  Triple paned glass windows are really
> just conservation -- as long as you have a window, you want to make
> the losses through it be low.  If anything, this *reduces* solar
> heating, as the triple pane windows are somewhat less transparent that
> double pane.

I disagree.  Glass has a high transmission coefficient in the frequency
range of the visible spectrum and the range of the spectrum at which the
most enrgy is available in solar radiation.  However it has a small
transmission coeff. in the thermal radiation range (IR).  What this means is
that glass allows visible light to pass the energy in, but does not allow
the themal energy to escape.  this is how greenhouses work.
It seems to me that triple pane glass would minimize the heat loss even
more.  The most widely used design for flat plate solar collectors is double
plate covers of a transparent material, with high transmissivity at solar
radiation range, and low emissivity (which equals transmissivity) at
thermal ranges.
> 
> If, instead, you are suggesting that additional triple-paned windows
> be installed to provide net heat gain, then I would be dubious as to
> their economy as well, at least for consumers who have access to
> natural gas or oil (i.e., most.)

Hmm.  Adding more triple pane windows would increase the input of solar
energy.  the question is if the walls are better insulators than the windows
(my guess is yes).  If this is the case then the increased energy in will be
balanced by increased heat out, and there will be a point at which we will
lose more than we gain.  Since well insulated walls are (IMO) cheaper than
triple pane windows (Andersen windows are wonderful, but $$$$), I would tend
to agree that it is not economically feasible.  Although for a small
increase in window space in a well designed house, I would expect to see a
net heat gain.

-->Daniel Pedersen  -  Keren's Daddy		(215)543-8961
	dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu	pedersen@engin.swarthmore.edu
======================================================================
Highway sign on I-10, AZ: "Federal Prison - Do Not Pick Up Hitch-Hikers"
	50 yards later: "Campground	Next Right"
"Why do you kill people?"   -   "I am a terminator."  [Terminator 2]
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Electric car question.
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:40:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

MS>        I was wondering how many people would be willing to buy an electic
MS>car if it were powered by a nuclear reactor.  (The reactor would connected
MS>up in such a way that its contents wouldn't come out in the event of a
MS>crash.)

In today's climate? Not many!

This idea was first proposed to the public in the GE exhibit at the 1939
Worlds Fair in New York along with the idea that in the future every
house would have a nuclear generator in the basement. Nothing has
been done with the idea since.

Policing the use and distribution of these generators would be a
nightmare. What's to prevent a kid from sawing one open in a jr. high
shop class?

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
                                 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re: steam electric hybrid ...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 23:28:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.182634.18984@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
|> Thinking a bit more about a steam/electric hybrid ...
|> 
|> [...]

In the June 92 issue of Mechanical Engineering there is an article on
Stirling engines. They mention that Mechanical Technology, Inc., Latham NY,
manufactures a stirling cycle automotive powerplant and that they developed
a stirling engine intended for use in a hybrid stirling-electric bus
propulsion system.

Larry Edwards

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Big Rigs (was Re: Continuing Steam-Car Discussion)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:23:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.090350.12088@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:

(the attribution for the included material was not present ...)

>> That's hard to say. The very best superheat compound cycle steam plants
>> have an efficiency of around 50% while the best IC engines have an 
>> efficiency around 28%. To approach a big compound plant in a car though,
>> that would be really tough. I'd *guess* from what I've read that the
>> steam plant would be about 30% worse than the IC plant for the same
>> peak horsepower. One thing should be noted, however, the characteristics
>> of the two engines are wildly different and a lower peak horsepower steam
>> plant should offer the same driving characteristics as a bigger IC plant.
>
>That looks like a prescription for delivery vehicles & buses.
>
>Big-rigs would be big business, though.

This prompts me to mention:  Trains in the US are often diesel/electric.
Why are their no hybrid trucks?  I'd expect that the electric generator
and motor(s) would be no larger than the present (what 15 speed?) 
transmissions and differentials.

Why not an externally fired steam turbine driving a generator/motor set?
What about steam turbine/generator technology makes it unsuited to something
of the scale of an 18 wheel truck?

>>>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.)
>> 
>> Higher molecular weight fluids wouldn't
>> develop as much pressure at the same temperature in a dynamic system.

More than just molecular weight determines vapor pressure!  (i.e. things
like hydrogen bonding...)

>News flash, folks:
>Was leafing through a different book, trying to learn more about steam engines,
>and there was a little paragraph about a automotive plant that used "an organic
>fluid several times heavier than water" as a working fluid, which made for
>"a smaller power plant."
>                                          
>I wonder just what it was!

Hmmm, me too!
-- 

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,sci.environment,talk.environment