HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com (Doug Rudoff)
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:26:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.183213.13212@eskimo.celestial.com> nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
>     I can't see of any way to make an internal combustion engine that uses
>air as the oxidizer not have this problem.  You can reduce the problem by
>using lower temperatures and pressures, but you get lower thermo-dynamic
>effeciency.  This is one of the reason gas milage went to hell around '74
>when compression ratios were lowered in the name of meeting NOx emission
>requirements.

I have seen for use by welders a machine that continually extracts
oxygen out of air (I don't know how it is done). If something like
that could be used to either completely or partially remove the
nitrogen from the air, it would remove or reduce the NOx emmisions.
However, I doubt this is practical because these machines seemed
rather bulky in the pictures I've seen of them and probably couldn't
deliver enough oxygen for a running engine. Does anyone know anything
about this device?
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Doug Rudoff          Motorola, Seattle    INTERNET:rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com
                                            USENET:uunet!mdisea!rudoff   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Continuously Variable Transmissions
Summary: Don't bother.
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:40:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: fmsrl7.1992Apr6.224019.12917
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI

In article <1992Apr6.162730.4547@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> warman@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Jeremy Warman) writes:
>I am  currently interested  in finding ways of improving the
>power output of small wind turbines. One common method is to
>rectify the output of the wind  generator to  allow variable
>speed operation.  I am more interested  in mechanical  means
>of   achieving variable  speed   operation. 

If you are interested in cost-effective operations, forget
CVT's for windpower applications.  Electronics are more
reliable and are available off the shelf.  Mechanicals
wear, break, and would have to be engineered to suit.
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
From: Environmental Studies School <ssu@igc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 08 Apr 92 09:34 PDT
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Nf-ID: #R:1992Apr2.045025.12017@cbnewse.cb:2060430613:cdp:1466300055:000:705
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ssu    Apr  8 09:34:00 1992


	To answer some of your questions: First, a gaseous fuel is delivered with a closed, sealed pressurized carburetor. The main concern is getting all 
fuel to the combustion chamber. As for low NOx, some fuels (i.e. Hydrogen) don't
really have this problem. However, there are 2 methods that should help even
without a catalytic converter. H2O injection should help, but may not be a
total solution, depending on the fuel(this is best with propane, CNG and H2).
A more certain method is to pre-cool intake air by drawing air through the
radiator and then into the air filter.If you really want to maximize 
performance and cut all pollution with an internal combustion engine, use H2.

		- Matt Karber, SSU
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: The effect of charging current spikes on Pb/H+ Batteries
Keywords: Solar Power, Efficient Charging System
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:26:31 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Apr10.162047.4622@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> mathiega@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (G. A. Mathieson) writes:
>I am designing a DC-DC converter that is required to interface solar cells to an Electric Vehicle battery (Lead-Acid - 300V nominal bus voltage), such that the efficiency is maximised. Though a good day's sunshine is unlikely to provide more than 10% of 30kW.hr full charge, even the smallest gain in efficiency may be useful in less power-hungry applications.
>
>The high-frequency (~1E5Hz) converter that will probably be used will have voltage spikes with comparable or higher frequency content. Since another consideration is power-conversion density, I am keen to minimise the size/weight of the output filters.
>
>Is there anyone out there who knows what sort of effect these spikes have on batteries that are supposedly suited to constant current charging, with a final taper? Information directly related to converter and output filter characteristics, such as the effective load (battery) impedance at varying levels of charge would be very useful.


I don't claim to be authoritative, but I will note that most conventional
chargers use no filtering at all. The Gates battery handbook comments that
pulse charging is more efficient than constant voltage, or constant current
charging. Battery protective circuitry is somewhat more complex though.

Let's hear some details on the electric you are working on. 30 kWh on
board is respectable.

Gary
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Electric vs. gas cars
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:19:09 GMT

Sigh.  This is probably a FAQ.  In fact, most of the questions I ask are
probably FAQs...:-(

Nevertheless...

In article <1992Apr15.184650.21831@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
[Discusses the problems of replacing the current electric power system with
house-based solar cells, and approaches to solving them]
>None of the approaches is as cheap as simply keeping on keeping on, and
>letting the fossils burn. Getting those environmental costs internalized
>is the tough problem.

Would it be less expensive to replace existing fossil-fuel plants with
fission reactors than it would be to replace them (and the grid) with a
solar network?  It would involve no new technology and would be
relatively clean (if the engineering solutions to dealing with long-term
waste products are sufficient).

What about replacing them with large solar farms?

>Gary


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Biogas
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:22:08 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Apr6.205718.20758@ichips.intel.com> marcos@ichips.intel.com (Marcos O. Camargo) writes:
>There has been a discussion going on about generation of methane using
>organic matter.  Could somebody, please, post how to build the system
>in a small farm?

Get your library to bug interlibrary loan for the book "Homemade Power"
published by Mother Earth News. They have several articles on their
homemade digester, including construction and operating details. It
really is simple, if you run a pig farm. Note this book is a compliation
of Mother Earth articles on homemade power. Topics include water power,
wind power, methane digestion, running tractors on methane and hydrogen,
etc. It's not terribly ripe with charts and graphs, but it has a lot
of down to earth information that may be useful for the home experimenter.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
From: srgxbhh@grace.dsir.govt.nz
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:43:11 +1200
Organization: DSIR, Gracefield, New Zealand

In article <1992Apr15.184328.12282@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>                                         The cheapest current source
> is reformed natural gas, but then why not just burn the natural gas
> directly?  Methane is cheaper, easier to use in an internal combustion
> engine, easier to store as a compressed gas, and nearly as clean.

I suspect the "nearly as clean" comment is a subjective opinion - if not
I'd be interested in any reference to reports that suggest a fuel that
produces one mole of carbon dioxide per mole of fuel is nearly as clean
as hydrogen. Presumably the assumption is that CO2 causes almost the
same environmental consequences as water plus minor amounts of NOx ( and
perhaps some other combustion products). 

 
> 	Paul F. Dietz
> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

      Bruce  Hamilton            SRGXBHH@grv.dsir.govt.nz
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche)
Subject: Re: Continuously Variable Transmissions
Organization: MetaPro Systems, Perth, Western Australia
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 15:16:59 GMT

In <1992Apr9.213013.19678@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
   wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:

>I can see you know nothing at all about electro-hydraulic
>control systems.  A CVT requires too much power to be
>controlled using electric actuators alone, and the belt
>clamping pressure is supplied by a hydraulic pump.

NB: Not all CVTs use belt and pulleys.
-- 
+-----+ Bernd Felsche                     _--_|\  #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd          /      \ bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
| | | | 328 Albany Highway,              X_.--._/         Fax: +61 9 472 3337
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100  v        Phone: +61 9 362 9355
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Darrius wind turbines (was Re: Off-shore wind power
Summary: Cheap and simple but not real great.
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:14:55 GMT

In article <kuotcuINN8vm@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kron@ueshiba.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>To be honest I don't know what a Darrius Wind Turbine is

If memory serves, a Darrius turbine is a couple of hemi-cylinders
offset by one radius, which look like this from the end:
               _______
	      /	      \
	    /	        \
	   |	      .  |
		   |	         |
		    \	        /
		      \_______/

The period is the axis of rotation.  A Darrius turbine has good
low-speed torque and can be made from materials as crude as steel
drums cut in half.  If you put two on the same shaft offset 90
degrees they are self-starting from any wind angle.

The problems with these are:

1.)	They need a LOT of material per unit of frontal area.
	This makes them very heavy and costly in large units.
2.)	They can't be furled in high winds.  A gale is likely
	to rip your turbines apart from overspeed or just blow
	them over.
3.)	They are rather inefficient.

So, if you are going to pump a little bit of water and need
something to turn your pump, a Darrius might be a good fit
to the job.  If you want to generate megawatts of electricity,
use propellor turbines or the like.
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (anmar mirza)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Conservation (was Re: Green Coal (:-) (was Re: Victor ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:49:08 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Apr7.125215@pan.mc.ti.com> a722756@pan.mc.ti.com (W. D. Rolph) writes:

>
>My issue with energy conservation as a means of energy capacity augmentation is
>based on two issues:
> 
>     1)  industrial usage
> 
>     2)  the exponential growth of energy over time
> 
>Household usage is small compared to industrial usage, and no fixed amount of
>conservation can compensate for exponential growth.IN short we will
>need in the near future large amounts of high capacity energy
>sources. The only question to
>my mind is what will they be? Coal? Oil?  Wind (we want the landscape covered
>with windmills everywhere?) etc etc.

Addressing concern number 1, also noting similar posts I have posted
in the past, and on sci.environment, and keeping in mind that I was
attempting to supply some guideline figures and that my own agenda
bears little resemblence to many of the alternative energy advocates
here on the net (indeed, some of them would be quite shocked to hear
some of my thoughts), I basically don't have an opinion on industrial
usage as my concerns are mainly with small scale production of power
(whew! What a run on sentence!).  IMHO I don't feel that home energy
conservation will have much of an impact when compared to industrial
usage, but that's not why I play the conservation game.  I play it
because the economics of being your own power company favor it.  Also
because household economics favor it.  I'm not educated enough, or
experienced enough, to deal with conservation or economics on the large
industrial scale.  I leave that up to the folks who are.

Concern #2,  what exponential increase?  I believe that energy usage
has remained steady or only slightly increased over the last 20-30
years.  I don't forsee a future exponential increase unless new energy
*production* technologies come online.  The only reason there will be
an exponential increase in demand is if there is a significant
decrease in cost.  At our current rates, if there were an exponential
increase in usage, available supply would drop to the point of
rationing and will tend to be self-levelling.  

But, I am only hashing out things that have been said here hundreds,
if not thousands, of times before (costing hundreds, if not thousands,
of dollars to send everywhere).

NOW, if you have a question on small scale energy production and the
economies thereof, I'll be happy to answer or research them!

>
>I appreciate your well reasoned comments they were quite interesting.

Thanks!  Often times my posts draw few or no comments and I wonder if
anyone is reading them :-)


-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! Not IU's!# Support Search
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! # and Rescue,
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion# GET LOST!
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Cars Energy Usage: Summary  NEW DATA
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:27:16 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Apr14.172823.10088@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe) writes:
>
>In an article dated 4/10 from cn0gr8af@hydra.unm.edu, Rusty 
>provides data on his electric car and recaps data from earlier
>discussions and other sources.
>  He concludes that his experience confirms the energy usage reported
>by SCEdison in their test vehicles. If his data on his car is correctly
>reported, this conclusion is incorrect. His units are reversed.
>  He states that his car got 1.95 miles per kwh of electricity used.
>BUT the SCE data say that their vehicles REQUIRED 1.5 kwh per mile.
>Therefor Rusty's experience is closer to the 0.18 to 0.5 kwh/mile
>reported in earlier discussions by several individuals, and his
>power consumption was about one-third that of the SCE vehicles.

His numbers closely match the TE Van tested by SCE, 5900 pounds and
2mi/kWh not including charging losses. Note that the G Van that required 
1.5 kWh per mile weighs 8900 pounds, and included charging losses. That's 
a big commercial van and not a little VW like Rusty's. His numbers are in 
close agreement with calculated values for light autos with reasonably 
good aerodynamics. The TE Van is rather spectacularly good considering 
it's weight and size, even after you factor in charging losses.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Continuously Variable Transmissions
Summary: Get real reprise.
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:30:13 GMT

In <1466300056@igc.org> Environmental Studies School <ssu@igc.org> writes:
>	I am not familiar with IVTs or EpiLogic but am familiar with the 
>operation of CVTs.

As familiar as you are with hydrogen combustion, eg. hardly at all?

>It is controlled by electronic signals
>rather than the oil pressure (in the trans.).

I can see you know nothing at all about electro-hydraulic
control systems.  A CVT requires too much power to be
controlled using electric actuators alone, and the belt
clamping pressure is supplied by a hydraulic pump.

>The
>big problem: this system doesn't yet work with high torque systems, including
>high horsepower cars.

Emphasis on "yet".

>I too have contemplated its use with electric cars, but
>I am uncertain about possible outcome/results.

You'll waste a lot of power in the hydraulic pumps and
chain friction, that's what.
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Organization: Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: Mon,  6 Apr 1992 22:50:51 -0400 
From: Henry Christopher Frey <hf09+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Green Coal (:-)

In article <1992Mar26.180639.22869@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> 
ashraf@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Ashraf Mahmoud) writes:

>In article <Edo=fwG00Uh_02Nngh@andrew.cmu.edu> hf09+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Henry Chri
>stopher Frey) writes:
>>Just what do you mean by "inefficient"?  Today's natural gas-fired gas
>>turbine combined cycle technology has an efficiency of *at least 50
>>percent* (that means 50 percent of the chemical energy of the natural
>>gas is converted to kWh's at the busbar).  
> 
>...and if you burn it in a furnace you convert considerably more than 50% 
>of your chemical energy into end-use energy.  QED.

This is apples and oranges.  Paul Dietz explained it in his usual
elegant way.  Just because the "furnace efficiency" is, say 80 percent"
does not mean that 80 percent of the chemical energy is converted to
*useful* end-use energy.  Furthermore, the thermal heat is of very low
quality.  This is particularly true for space heating systems.  And
especially so if you spend a lot of energy to heat ducts, the insides of
walls, and rooms without occupants.     

Cogeneration systems can also be designed to get very high thermal
efficiencies.  However, even this is somewhat meaningless, because the
quality of electrical energy is much higher than that of the thermal
energy associated with steam.

Conversion of over 50 percent of chemical energy in a fuel to
electricity is a big deal.  There are a lot more ways to efficiently use
electricity than there are to efficiently use low quality thermal energy.

>It's a greenhouse gas nonetheless.  Personally I don't buy the Global Warming
>Pseudo-Theory, but if you do, you shouldn't put natural gas above nuclear 
>(which was my original point). 

This again is apples and oranges, and you apparently missed, or
completely ignored, my previous point.  Look, one *can* buy into the
global warming theory and also buy into the notion that waste products
and risks associated with nuclear are also a major problem.  These are
two different problems, both of which could be simultaneously important.
 They are also measured by different attributes.  Thus, it is not
necessarily the case that nuclear wins out over natural gas -- you have
to consider the risks from both global warming and those associated with
nuclear power to make such a conclusion -- you have to convert the
vector of risks associated with both, which are different, into some
common scalar measure of risk, before making a comparative judgment. 
And the fact is that natural gas is less harmful than some other fossil
fuels, which makes it relatively attractive.  That is my point.  Too bad
that globally so much natural gas is wasted at oil fields, rather than
put to productive use.

Chris Frey
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche)
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Organization: MetaPro Systems, Perth, Western Australia
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 15:30:35 GMT

In <1992Apr9.212210.19375@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
   wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:

>In <1466300055@igc.org> Environmental Studies School <ssu@igc.org> writes:

>[Aside:  Are we going to have to junk all postings to sci.* originating
> at igc.org in order to have anything worth reading?]

No, it takes all kinds.

>>As for low NOx, some fuels (i.e. Hydrogen) don't
>>really have this problem.
>Hydrogen has a rather substantial NOx problem.  You
>should look things up before posting.

Most people forget that air is mostly Nitrogen and that high
temperatures cause NOx formation.

>>A more certain method is to pre-cool intake air by drawing air through the
>>radiator and then into the air filter.
>The radiator is hotter than the ambient air and will pre-heat
>the intake air rather substantially.  You cannot cool the
>intake air below ambient without active refrigeration, and
>that requires using some of the engine output power.

Pre-cooling is possible using water evaporation. You can be
pedantic and say that you have to carry the water and that
takes engine power...

-- 
+-----+ Bernd Felsche                     _--_|\  #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd          /      \ bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
| | | | 328 Albany Highway,              X_.--._/         Fax: +61 9 472 3337
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100  v        Phone: +61 9 362 9355
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Biogas
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:19:39 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Apr6.205718.20758@ichips.intel.com> marcos@ichips.intel.com (Marcos O. Camargo) writes:
>There has been a discussion going on about generation of methane using
>organic matter.  Could somebody, please, post how to build the system
>in a small farm?

Mother Earth News published a 'how to' book in the '70s or so that 
does a pretty good job of describing how to do it.  The title was
something like 'Mother Earth News Handbook of Homemade Power'.  I have
a copy burried somewhere ... If you can't find it listed in the 
card catalog at a major local library, let me know and I'll dig up
my copy for a more complete reference...
>
>Questions I have:
>
>1. Is the hole just a hole without any lining, or lined with bricks?

It should be 'gas tight' and must be 'water tight'.  It can be plastic,
steel, or (more commonly) masonry/cement/plaster.

>2. How do you cover the hole?

With a lid.  (Not being flippant.  This IS the answer.  Use a plastic,
metal, whatever, floating gas proof lid.  Often this is a sheetmetal
dome that floats on the glop extending down into it on the sides and
with a small gap [1/2 inch or less] at the sides between the lid and
the wall of the hole.  Gas accumulates and lifts the lid up.  The 
gap at the edge reduces efficiency a smidge, but it just wastes a 
little shit, so who cares ...)

>3. Put a pipe on top of hole and run the pipe to a woodstove?  What kind of pipe?

Most often, copper tubing to iron pipe or PVC.  Treat it like poor 
natural gas (which it is).  It is often passed over iron filings
to remove sulpher (H2S ?) and may be 'dried' to remove water vapor
by any of several ways.

>4. Does it need any valves to control gas flow?

Just like regular natural gas ...

>Also, if you can direct me to any good book or paper on the subject, I would
>greatly appreciate it.

Look up 'Gobar Gas' in India.  I think the guy's name was Ram Buk Sun or
some such...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ...!sun!apple!ems

'If you can dream it, you can do it'  Walt Disney

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)