HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:57:03 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov17.160248.23062@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
>>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.

I believe that if they did not know the difference already,they might
have learned it after the French government showed that it was willing
to murder unarmed protesters.

>
>>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

This statement is, surprise, counter-factual. The French government
certainly showed that it was willing to risk bad publicity when it
sent a terrorist team to bomb the Greenpeace boat and then again when
it used strong arm tactics and lies to get its terrorists out of
New Zealand's jails. 

>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.

Well, that's because we have a semi-democracy where the right to peaceful
protest is still preserved. Got a problem with this?

>>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

Pathetic. Is it your contention that the Japanese rammed a Greenpeace
boat to get revenge for the actions of another environmental organization?

>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!

Sure. Many people recognize a difference between the actions of the armed
forces of a nation and the actions of unarmed non-violent citizens groups.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.space
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: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:24:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.211228.1295@adobe.com> 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.

Yes, it was an oxygen tank explosion. The tankage was primarily for
the fuel cell. Allis Chalmers had several fuel cell explosions during
their development of the cells, however, and it was initially thought
that it had happened again.

Gary
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: tel:403 492-3713                             fax: 403 492-4256 <=
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:53:46 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <51502@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>Radioactive waste is a non-problem.  Bury it in Yucca Mt.  No biggy.  Other

Not what the folks in Nevada seem to think. But, hell, why let mere
civilians make decisions about their own lives and their own state when
there are *experts* who can make these decisions for them?

>countries have been doing this for awhile in much less stable sites.
>It really isn't a problem - where the heck do you think the nuclear fuel
>comes from in the first place?  It comes out of the ground.  I mean,

This is really a weak argument.  

>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.

Part of what bothers many people about nuclear power is the zealous
shrillness of some of its advocates.  


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson)
Subject: Re: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:44:40 GMT

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

I don't think that's right.  As I recall, it was determined that technicians
had applied too high a voltage to the tank heater when boiling O2 out of
the dewar during a ground test long before the actual flight.  The teflon
insulation became cracked, etc, setting the stage for the explosion
when the heater was turned on shortly after A-13's final TV transmission.

In many ways, it was shear luck that the dewar in question hadn't been 
installed aboard the Apollo 8 SM....

--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: External-Combustion Cars -- Possible?
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:11:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.111359.11804@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>Hey, everyone, thanks for the input on the compressed-air car!  Needless to
>say, I am now convinced that such a craft would travel less than twenty blocks
>on a tank of air OR wiegh 30,000 lbs because of the tanks.
>
>I've got another idea, though, that I hope you'll find interesting:
>
>Could a fuel-burning, zero-emmisions vehicle be built if it were driven
>by an external-combustion engine?

No. A vehicle with *reduced* emissions of NOx and HC can be built, but
more CO2 is produced.  A zero emissions vehicle can't produce *any* site 
of use emissions.

>Could recent advances in materials make for smaller, hotter, and more-efficient
>systems?  If a boiler was perfected, couldn't it be easily upgraded to burn
>natural gas or even hydrogen?
[description of exotic system deleted]

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. 

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: pkeller@engin.umich.edu (Paul Michael Keller)
Subject: Re: U.S. Renewable Research Exceeds Nuclear
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 19:49:01 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov15.182518.6296@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>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 is correct.  At the end of the Second World War there was quite
a political battle within the US over control of the then new nuclear weapons,
a political battle which DoD (I believe then it was called the Department of 
War) lost, with the result that the research, design, production and retirement 
of US nuclear weapons (and nearly all nuclear research) were placed under the 
control of a civilian agency.  At that time it was the old Atomic Energy 
Commission, which later evolved into the Energy Research and Development 
Administration and later DOE.

I believe that Project Timberwind is indeed a DoD program, specifically one
funded by the Stategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO, aka Star Wars),
but it is a notable exception to the general rule of anything nuclear related
being funded and controlled by DOE.  Please also note the Timberwind is not
a nuclear weapons project, but rather a space nuclear propulsion project.

Paul Keller
pkeller@engin.umich.edu



Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: A Compressed-Air Car -- Possible?
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:38:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.002426.5219@kestrel.edu> king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
writes:
>In article <BxIEqA.L0z@Novell.COM> steveo@mobius (Steve Olson) writes:
>>>According to my calculations (based on a Gast airmotor catalogue), such a
>>>vehicle would need air tanks that could hold 100,000 psi.
>>
>>The nitrogen and oxygen in air liquify at a much lower pressure than
>>100,000 psi. 
>>I think around 1200 psi. This makes it impossible to reach a higher pressure 
>>because liquids do not compress very well.
>>
>>Maybe your idea would work with 1000 psi. You might need a bigger tank than
>>anticipated but 1000 psi in a 100 gal tank represents a good deal of energy.
>
>SCUBA tanks go well over 3000 PSI these days.

3000 psi (at least) is also the pressure used by air liquification plants, but
the air doesn't liquefy until after it passes through the expansion valve and
cools down sufficiently.

Also, Nitrogen and Oxygen do not liquify at any pressure at room temperature. 
They just become denser and denser gasses as the pressure increases.  Refer to
a thermodynamics text.

Chris O'Neill
Telecom Australia Research Labs
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 20 Nov 1992 18:28:14 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 <51526@seismo.CSS.GOV>, stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
=In article <JMC.92Nov20072352@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
=> What is the source of your scenario about the microgram of Pu?  What
=> does it assume about the chemical state?  Does it take into account
=> eventual harm from the alpha radiation, or is it concerned with
=> chemical poisoning?
=
=Takes into account alpha damage.  Pu is a hazardous heavy metal, but you are
=correct that its heavy metal danger is much less than a lot of toxics.
=Chemical state is irrelevant to this scenario as long as a microgram is
=ingested or inhaled.  This is because it is estimated to take less than
=a nanogram of Pu to kill.

And a single cosmic ray can also kill you, if it happens to do just the right
damage.  So what's the point?

=That's only 1/1000th of that microgram
=that got ingested.  The body will not have much difficulty transporting
=that fraction to the bones, regardles of chemical compostion (unreactive
=oxide or whatever - a more reactive composition would simply mean that
=more than enough would be incorporated into the bone to kill).  A microgram
=of HCN is not sufficient to kill.

And what's the probability that a microgram of Pu will kill?  A reasonable
comparison would be between the LD50s of the two compounds.  
=
=> What about Bernard Cohen's willingness to eat and breathe plutonium
=> oxide?  To be elected President of the Health Physics Society, he
=> certainly must be regarded by health physicists as an expert.
=
=And then he'd be a highly regarded health physicist with terminal
=leukemia.

With what probability?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: rat1@me1.MsState.Edu (Robert Thompson)
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:24:31 GMT

In article <28387@castle.ed.ac.uk> cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:
>Sorry I don't think I am a Nuclearphobe.  
>
>Secondly, to the person living Florida (apologies I can't remember your
>name), point taken, however buildings can be designed (even for Florida)
>which can be cool (or at least cooler than the outside ambient
>temperature), without the need for air conditioning systems (or at least
>minimise their use). Architects do not seem to have taken this on board.

Yeah, in Mississippi the average daytime summer temperature is
up around 90-95 F for a good two-three months.  Yeah, I'll feel
real cool in a house 10 F cooler than the outside--that's 80-85 F,
with near 100% humidity.  No thanks.

--Another environmentalist for nuclear energy--
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: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:02:23 GMT

In article <28116@castle.ed.ac.uk> cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:

> The problem with tapping the sun's energy as we now do through burning
> fossil fuels, is that we are overloading the system. Not only is the
> earth receiving energy from the sun, but energy from the past, in the
> form of fossil fuels.

On a global scale, the direct heating from combustion of fossil fuels
(as opposed to the indirect heating from altered atmospheric radiative
properties), is insignificant, perhaps .01% of global insolation.
Natural variations in the solar constant are an order of magnitude
larger.  Changes in Earth's albedo from alterations in climate or
deforestation are also, I would think, much larger.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment,alt.activism
From: ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Nation's Environmental Community Offers "Sustainable Energy Blueprint"
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:11:08 GMT

Here is a press release from the Blueprint Coalition.

 Nation's Environmental Community Offers "Sustainable Energy
Blueprint" to New Administration
 To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor, Environment Writer
 Contact: Phil Sparks or Marianne Sandretti for the
          Blueprint Coalition, 202-682-1270

   News Advisory:

   /Editors: This press conference can be heard live by calling
             202-220-5050/

   Endorsed by some of the nation's largest environmental
organizations, a "Sustainable Energy Blueprint" outlining specific
policy and budget actions that could be taken by the incoming
Clinton/Gore administration and the new Congress will be outlined
at a press conference on Friday, Nov. 20, at 2 p.m. in the West
Room of the National Press Club, 14th and F streets, N.W.
   The blueprint is the first major transition document to emerge
from the environmental community.
   State-by-state figures on energy consumption, global warming
emissions and wind energy potentials will be released at the press
conference.
   Among the recommendations are proposals to create one million new
jobs by the end of the decade through investments in sustainable
energy technologies, increasing the nation's energy efficiency by at
least 30 percent by 2010, slashing U.S. oil consumption by 50 percent
and total carbon emissions (the main cause of global warming) by
40 percent in the transportation sector, dramatically increasing
renewable energy resources, and using natural gas as a "bridge" fuel
while the nation makes the transition to energy-efficient and
renewable technologies.
   Among the dozens of organizations endorsing the Energy Blueprint
are: the Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth,
Public Citizen, Environmental Action, the American Wind Energy
Association and the Alliance to Save Energy.
   The Blueprint coalition says it will present the document to
officials of the new Clinton/Gore administration and to the Congress.
 -30-
From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Washington
Summary: Dixy Lee Radiation
Date: 17 Nov 92 07:57:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: eskimo.1992Nov17.075712.14118
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-

In article <3989.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
> The American Wind Energy Association held its annual conference
> in October in Seattle, Washington, attracting the largest, most
> enthusiastic crowd in twenty years. The week of the conference was named
> "Wind Energy Week" by the state government. The Governor of Washington
> is Dixie Lee Ray, a scientist and former head of the Atomic Energy
> Commission. Is she trying to tell us something?

     Dixy hasn't been the governor for quite some years.  Mike Lowry was just
voted in this last election, Booth Gardner prior to that.
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:33:31 GMT

In article <1em382INNq0o@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> This reminds me:  Anybody know what ever became of Project Moho?

I believe that was Project Mohole.  The one off the coast of Peru.
It ran out of funding years ago (typical).  Never made the moho, not even
close.  Funny thing is, that the funding needed to continue the project
was a lot less than had already been spent.  Wish they would just let
folks finish these things after all that money and they're well on the way.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: brett@bambi.wg.waii.com (Marc Brett)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:19:10 GMT
Organization: Western Atlas International, Inc.

In article <1992Nov17.161857.24416@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
>
> As with the current thread on Greenpeace's amnesia on Saddam's environmental
>catastrophies, oh I forgot it was the US's fault because we were bombing
>him at the time. I'd like to show some other environmental disasters that
>Greenpeace seems to have forgotten.
>
> Yellow Rain usage in Afghanistan and SE Asia.
> RNS SSN Mike sinking in the N. Atlantic due to reactor fire.
> Eastern Europe, esp. Romania and Hungary and their garbage problems
> Daniel Ortega using chemical agents on Sandinista farms and "suspected" farms.

The "Yellow Rain" is nothing more than bee feces.  Scientific American ran
a good article debunking this particular myth.

As for items 2 and 3, Greenpeace has consistently criticised the USSR, CIS,
and eastern Europe for pollution, nuclear and otherwise, as well as for
their whaling practices.  Their wrath is not aimed only at the capitalists.

I got a belly laugh out of item 4, whew!

-- 
All opinions made from fresh ingredients.  No official additives.
Marc Brett                           | brett@wg.waii.com
Western Geophysical                  | Phone:    (713) 963-2311
10001 Richmond Ave. Houston TX 77042 | Fax:      (713) 963-2490
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Source for 'toy' steam turbines?
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:08:50 GMT

I've othen wanted to make a 'toy' steam engine...  The hybrid car
discussion has got that interest re-awakened.

So, does anyone know of a source for 100 W - 10 kW steam turbines 
(or even piston ) engines?  I'd be happy to build from a kit, but
would rather avoid machining work (no lathe or milling table in the 
garage...).

Any source for Stirling engines could be of interest too...

Thanks.
-- 

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: kwyatt@ccscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (Kershner Wyatt)
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 14:15:35 GMT

Watching the banter back and forth on the external combustion vehicles and
water consumption in closed vs. open system--

What's the feasibility of using gray water, especially in an open system?

Think about it, lots of it, not potable, generally wasted anyhow.  The steam
"distillation" would probably be a benefit to "recycling".
-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
From: kwyatt@ccscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (Kershner Wyatt)
Subject: Re: More chatter on electric vehicles ...
Keywords: electric school busses ?
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 15:58:59 GMT

Any ideas what the Avis busses run on at the San Diego Airport.  It sounds like
they cut off when stopped and immediately fire up when you need to move.

		Thanks,
-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Electric car question.
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:07:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.005104.4688@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.171026.26464@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>How large would a properly packaged 10 kW SNAP generator be?
>
>As I understand these things, SNAP generators can not be turned off.
>Kind of inconvenient to park in your garage...

How so?  Just plug the car into 'The Grid' and reduce my PG&E bill!

(And maybe add a better vent to the garage roof to reduce the heat
build-up in the garage...)

Wasting the fuel isn't exactly an issue for a SNAP ...

-- 

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