HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:27:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.205149.18798@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@zaphod.JSC.NASA.GOV (Keith Mancus/MDSSC) writes:
 
>  Given the large mass, slow acceleration, high torque, low noise, etc...
>I would say that the initial version should be a replacement for large diesel
>trucks (everything from small Macks to 18-wheelers).  This looks like a
>near-perfect solution, provided that the efficiency is high enough.
>And I HATE getting behind trucks belching choking black smoke!!!
...
>  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.

An interesting set of suggestions...  One suggests that steam is better
suited to very long haul very large rigs (18 wheelers can do 10 hours
straight sometimes ...) and the other suggests that steam is better suited
to very short haul very small rigs ...

So which is it?  What does the physics of steam engines really work well
for?  Large or small, long haul or short?  Or just anything other than
mid size mid range ...

Related question:  If one goes 'open loop' ;-) on a commuter car, can
steam beat electric?  Look at the list of attributes:  Large mass, slow
acceleration, high torque, low noise, ... (and implied short range...).
Can you get a 100 mile/water charge steamer that is open loop and gets
similar efficiency to an electric?

-- 

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: pharris@roseworthy.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Propane powered vehicles - enough propane ?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 03:28:50 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: tellus.roseworthy.adelaide.edu.au

In <1992Nov12.192800.13054@srg.srg.af.mil> akerson@deimos.af.mil (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp) writes:


>
>A warehouse where I was sweating for tuition used propane powered forklifts.
>The exaust was a little smelly but not noxious. ( around 1982 or so. )

>Anyone know what the supply of propane is like compared to natural gas ?

Of course it is far easier to run a vehicle on propane than methane, but
methane is a renewable resource, as well as being an ozone hazard. Natural
gas is methane, which many people may not realise.

Regards, Paul Harris
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 18 Nov 1992 18:11:25 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 <1992Nov18.113559.12069@bsu-ucs>, 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>
> 
>>>  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.
>
>No, that's not the problem.  You could probably do a day's drive on a
>toilet-flush's worth of water.

>It'd have to be distilled, though, and perhaps even chemically treated.  That
>means you'd have to buy it at the store or at the gas station, and that means
>you'd have TWO fluids to replenish periodically.  That, and distilled water
>is $.60/gal.
>
>Inconvinience.  That's all.

Hmmm.  Multiply that toilet flush's worth of water by millions of commuters and
you're talking about a substantial amount of water.

>Furthermore, you can't plug your car in at a parking lot.

Never been to northern Idaho, have you?  If you had, you'd realize just how
flat-out wrong the above claim is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Subject: Re: steam electric hybrid ...
Organization: U. of Washington
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:00:35 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 ...

There is a lot to be said for an IC/electric hybrid; one of the
advantages of steam (good power at a variety of speeds) is lost in
this application.

You can have a very simple, two speed (on or off), low power engine.
You can use it to provide enough power to continuously recharge the
batteries while cruising (for unlimited range), and it can run after
you have stopped to recharge the batteries (what you lost from them
during the city driving at the start of the trip) while you are parked
where you can't get an electric hookup.  The engine can be very small,
light, and simple (no transmission, few emission controls, it has
exactly constant speed and load (when running)).  As Mr. Smith points
out, you need not run the engine at all for short trips.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:5624 sci.environment:12891
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: HCFCs Not Enough of an Improvement (was: . . . Ozone-Friendly Fridge)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 04:48:21 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 <Jym.19Nov1992.1646@naughty-peahen>, jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

Odd.  For once Jym posts something that vaguely touches on science, and then
directs followups to talk.environment.  Odd.  Followups redirected to
sci.energy and sci.environment.

=> While it is true that HCFC's contribute to ozone depletion,
=> they are much less effective at this than CFC's.  Their ozone
=> depletion potentials range from about .01 to .1 (compared to
=> 1.0 for CFC-11).
=
==-= This comparison is certainly true, but you neglect to
=address the magnitude of the damage being done.  HCFCs are
=just CFCs with hydrogen added to make them less stable, so
=that they break up sooner.
=
==-= Given that CFCs yield 100 years of ozone depletion,
="sooner" means (to use your statistics) "only" 1-10 years.
=This is better news, but it is by no means good news,
=especially for those who'll be spending time in the near
=future. :-|

Given that your description is accurate, then your conclusion is wrong.  If the
HCFCs get to the stratosphere as easily as do the CFCs and break down more
easily once they're there, then there wouldn't be any significant difference in
their effects on the ozone.  On the other hand, if the HCFCs are stable enough
to break down easily in the troposphere, then the total lag in effects on the
ozone will be the same, but the amount of catalyst involved will be cut by a
factor of 10.

The relative ease with which CFCs and HCFCs can break down would affect the
degree of ozone depletion, not the time scale on which the effects will be
seen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re: steam electric hybrid ...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 23:13:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.124242.12259@bsu-ucs>, 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
|> 
|> > How big would a steam turbine and generator be for, say 10-15 kW?
|> > 
|> > I would expect it to be far smaller than the mass of batteries
|> > it would replace in a pure electric car.  
|> 
|> It's the boiler that takes up the most space, not the turbine.

I think here the point was that the weight would be smaller not the size.
I'm no expert, but in any case I don't think boiler size would be that much
of a problem Stanley Steamers and other steam cars from the 1920's were no
bigger than competing IC auto's.

|> [...]
|> > The idea of an external combustion generator onboard an electric 
|> > hybrid solves a bunch of problems (low smog, lighter weight than
|> > an all-electric, good acceleration from batteries, good efficiency
|> > from turbine, long range on fuel, all-electric mode for short trips, etc.)
|> > so where does it fall down?
|> 
|> Well, just how practical is the hybrid concept at all, anyway?  Knee-jerk
|> engineering tells me that the added complexity and cost of a fuel-driven
|> prime mover AND an electrical system makes it all look silly!
|> 
|> If the steam system is clean and efficient, why bother with the batteries?  
|> (I know this a pretty juvenile question, but I'd appreciate the advantages of
|> hybrid systems laid out in from of me.)

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. The hybrid would have the advantage of
instant cold starts, and maybe the steam engine could be optimized for
weight/size/efficiency if it is operating at constant load/speed but I'm
just guessing here.

Larry Edwards
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: dbc@sybus.com (David Cameron)
Subject: Re: Request: info on desalination and solar energy
Organization: Sybus Corporation, Largo, FL
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:10:44 GMT

In article <1eg988INNlva@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.153706.7862@nmt.edu>, houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>>it could keep most of the house at 80 centigrade during the day.)
>
>Wow!  That's 176F.  Where do you live, Death Valley?

Talk about two wrongs don't make a right !

Dave 'what's an order of magnitude between fiends' Cameron

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mancus@zaphod.JSC.NASA.GOV (Keith Mancus/MDSSC)
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:41:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.113559.12069@bsu-ucs>, 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>Carl wrote:
>>I wrote:
>>>  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.
 
> No, that's not the problem.  You could probably do a day's drive on a
> toilet-flush's worth of water.
 
> It'd have to be distilled, though, and perhaps even chemically treated.  That
> means you'd have to buy it at the store or at the gas station, and that means
> you'd have TWO fluids to replenish periodically.  That, and distilled water
> is $.60/gal.
 
  I'm not convinced it would need to be distilled.  If it was reasonably
clean (i.e., no 200 ppm dissolved solids!), couldn't you get away with flushing
the system occasionally?  I don't use distilled water in my radiator, though
I admit that is not a good comparison.

>It's the same thing with the electric heater for wintertime.  Maybe the real
>men in the Tater State don't mind, but little inconviniences like that (ec. the
>Stanley Steamer's pilot light) doom a design.

  I don't see this as any different from the radiator system.  If my
radiator can be kept from freezing, so can the rest of my block.

-- 
 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,sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:01:24 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <2518@ispi.COM> jbayer@ispi.COM (Jonathan Bayer) writes:
>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...

This actually leaves out an important intermediate step.  The (probable)
drop damage to the tank wasn't directly responsible for the accident.
Its main effect was to make it difficult to empty the tank after ground
tests.  And that is where the real problem crept in.  When the tank
wouldn't empty after a test, the tank's heaters were used to boil it
dry... and thanks to another error or two along the way, the tank was
drastically overheated and nobody realized it.  This roasted the Teflon
insulation on the in-tank wiring.  In flight, when the tank stirrer
was turned on, shorts through the ruined insulation produced sparks,
the insulation ignited, and things went downhill quickly from there.

References:

Cooper, "Thirteen:  The Flight That Failed".
Murray&Cox, "Apollo:  The Race To The Moon".
NASA SP-350, "Apollo Expeditions To The Moon".
NASA SP-4204, "Moonport".
NASA SP-4214, "Where No Man Has Gone Before".

>... When they released the
>service module they were able to see where the explosion had occurred.

Actually, not true except in a very general sense.  They didn't have a
very good view and that bay of the Service Module was quite a mess.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Subject: Re: Request: info on desalination and solar energy
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:36:58 GMT

In <BxoxI6.Jqv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke Nosek) writes:
>
>	Yikes! are you sure that it would be feasable to desalinate water
>with solar energy? I heard that they are making desalination plants in the
>middle east now - and the reason that they can afford it is because oil is
>dirt cheap over there - IT TAKES A LOT OF ENERGY TO REMOVE THE SALT FROM 
>SEAWATER - more than the sun could provide unless there were some sort of 
>technological miracle in solar energy.

Yep, it *is* feasible; remember that you can convert sunlight to heat
(which is all you want for desalination by distillation) with near 100%
efficiency.  Solar radiation is about 1kW/m^2 maximum, say 1/2 that
on average during the day (we're talking about *hot* countries here),
so it doesn't take an enormous area to collect significant amounts of
energy.  And you can just use more seawater as the heat sink on the
condenser side of the still.

Israel already has solar desalination plants, but then I don't think
oil is "dirt-cheap" there.  Maybe the oil-producing countries don't
use solar, but then maybe they should (if the Israelis would sell them
the technology ;-).
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: steam electric hybrid ...
Date: 20 Nov 1992 21:57:39 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 <1992Nov20.182634.18984@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>Efficiency?  Fuel being burned external to the boiler will burn cleaner,
>but do you loose too much energy in the boiler/turbine/generator/motor,
>and occasionally battery charge/discharge, cycle?  Would CAFE kill it?
>Given that commercial power steam plants can get to very high efficiencies
>I have trouble believing that this is a killer... but maybe it would
>cost too much to make small plant that efficient?

Commercial power steam plants make use of mutiple valve points and a number of
other things that wouldn't be very feasible for a car (just how long are you
willing to make the engine compartment, anyway?).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Greenpeace and nuclear power
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:05:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.031121.23913@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, hoeferbe@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Bernard Everett Hoefer) writes...
>	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?

A related question is, given there is now lots of that evil plutonium in
the world, in the form of bombs and "spent" fuel rods, if Greenpeace got
their way, what would they do with it all?  I know they'd shut down every
nuke in the world so no more gets created but what of the stuff that already
exists?  Can't fission it, else that would mean running the nukes (or setting
off the bombs...)

-Mike
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: Mon, 16 Nov 92 16:51:44 GMT

>In article <56263@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>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?

 By using the above logic why then didn't the Japanese or French escorts 
just put a 135mm shell into the Greenpeace ship instead of boarding it and
forcing it to veer away? Greenpeace uses countries non-violent orders to
their extreme and press these escorts to the limit. Maybe one day they'll
learn that these aren't unarmed fishing vessels.
 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!

Richard Dyrda
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Request: info on desalination and solar energy
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:37:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.140710.8710@mlb.semi.harris.com> jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:
> In my limited experiments, I found direct 1X solar to be too low-grade to
>evaporate much water. Too much heat was lost via radiation, convection.
>Low E/R paint and a better enclosure, i.e. not one built in 15 min from scrap
>could do better I'm sure. However, even looking at 1kW/m2, you either have
>to spread the water pretty thin or concentrate the heat to bring up the
>temp and evaporate in short time.
>
> A parabolic trough collector is probably the simplest choice. It eliminates
>the problem of tracking. One absolute necessity is to have a collector which
>is well insulated but with a transmissive covering. Perhaps a shrouded 
>open-entry design for the collector face could work, if convection could be
>adequately suppressed.

	The low-tech designs that I've seen for solar water desalination
mostly use a tent-like structure made out of polyethylene sheet (which is a
really good material if you want to play with solar thermal technology on the
cheap.  My father built a solar "greenhouse" addition to the house one year
using wood and poly sheet that he had laying around,  and with the addition
of a fan,  it could keep most of the house at 80 centigrade during the day.)

	It might be interesting to look at how much one could improve such
a design without using any kind of active concentrators.  Two strips of mirror
could increase the light flux -- as you say,  low E/R paint and keeping the
bottom layer of water thin would be necessary.  What could be done along the
lines of using input water to speed up condensation?
--
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:44:23 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov17.205320.3112@leland.Stanford.EDU> ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes:

|>It doesn't ... I didn't say it did. I was just suggesting using an electric
|>motor to *move* the car (not generate heat) until the steam engine could take
|>over -- i.e. steam/electric hybrid. Since apparently the electric motor would
|>only be needed for 30 secs I would think the battery requirements would be
|>pretty small.

The battery may be small, but if you hope to get any speed during those
30 seconds, the electric motor will have to be massive.  Then you will have
to haul around that dead weight after the steam engine gets up to heat.


-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:02:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.181007.17295@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

 >Our current energy consumption, from all sources, is 1/100,000th of
 >the energy received by Earth from the Sun. That's 0.001%, the change

Actually, more like 1/10,000.

 >Your naive faith in the power of government directed R&D is touching,
 >but there is *no* assurance that *any* amount of R&D funding can break
 >fundamental Carnot limits on the low grade energy of diffuse sunlight.

Actually, the "temperature" of sunlight is quite high, more than 5000
K.  It is diffuse, yes, but its entropy is fairly low.  If we could
collect sunlight at the Carnot limit at the earth's surface we could
convert more than 90% of its energy to work.  The problem is one of
engineering and economics, not fundamental thermodynamic limits.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu