HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: NEWS: Danger of Plutonium Stressed, Not Proved of Course
Keywords: Plutonium! Death! Destruction! Cancer! Oh My!
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:57:03 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <Greenpeace.16Nov1992.1603@naughty-peahen> Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>      GREENPEACE STRESSES DANGER OF PLUTONIUM IN TOKYO BAY

It's good that there is a distinction in our language between "stresses" and
"proves". 

>2. The Danger of the Plutonium Shipment in Tokyo Bay
>
>2.4. Pu and Fisheries
>
>If Pu will be released in Tokyo bay, it will be harmful for the
>ocean ecosystem in Tokyo bay and fisheries.

Okay, Jym. _Prove_ to me how a retrievable cask containing a block
of plutonium as large as the terminal in front of me is going to destroy
the ecosystem.

>3. About the Collision Between Solo and Shikishima
>
>Maritime Safety Agency announced that it is Solo's fault to
>collide with Shikishima which kept the direction and speed.
>But this statement is totally wrong.  Shikishima repeated the
>dagerous navigation before the collision and neglected the
>warning of Solo.  Greenpeace Japan will hold a press conference
>tomorrow especially on this issue. The details will be explained
>in the press conference.

Yep, just like the US Navy was totally wrong about its legal weapons test 
that Greenpeace interfered with. When all is said and done, if Greenpeace 
violated international law, it should be punished accordingly.


I wanted to tear apart this entire article, but I'm sure that everyone 
following this thread knows a bit more about the truth than GP.

C'mon, I know Greenpeace is better at media hype than this. How about 
holding the press conference at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, to show how the world-
wide "plutonium trade" will cause untold death, destruction, and suffering
for all mankind?

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:35:59 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's


 
>>  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.

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.

Furthermore, you can't plug your car in at a parking lot.  And a solar panel
wouldn't work at night.

___________________________________________________________

They key to this thing seems to be using the least amount of working fluid:
Reducing the amound of water used:
  Reduces condneser size.
  Speeds startup.
  Leaves us with less water to keep from freezing--less energy to keep warm.
  Makes for a more efficient, low-volume, high-temp, high-pressure system.

"Knee-jerk engineering" tells me that we could create an even lower volume
system that those today by utilizing:
  Super-skinny tubing (pencil-diameter) with lots of fins.
  Extreamy meticulus computer control of the feedwater pump.
  Very high compression-ratio engines with precision geartrains.

Comments?

CM
>-- 
       Craig Meyer                 01CRMEYER@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU
       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433

       Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily
       shared by the Indiana Academy.
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Any info. on hydrogen power for cars??
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:21:42 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's


 
> Natural gas has the advantage over coal that the output is richer in
> hydrogen, and has much less sulfur, the scrubbing of which requires
> additional equipment.  Biomass, btw, has much less sulfur than coal.
> I have seen a projection that biomass-derived hydrogen is cheaper than
> electrolytic hydrogen for electricity prices greater than about
> $.02/kWh.

Are you saying that hydrogen from biomass sources can be produced at 2 cents?
Not an insult--I just can't believe it!
  
> Any of these reforming processes can benefit from a source of process
> heat.  High temperature nuclear reactors (liquid metal or high
> temperature gas cooled reactors) would do nicely.  This would
> be a more efficient use of the reactor's thermal energy than production
> of electricity for conventional electrolysis.

I suppose the same goes for solar-thermal plants, eh?
Or are the very high temperatures necessary?
  
> 	Paul F. Dietz
> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

       Craig Meyer                 01CRMEYER@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU
       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433

       Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily
       shared by the Indiana Academy.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Date: 22 Nov 1992 16:33:57 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 <1992Nov22.031915.24427@hpcvca.cv.hp.com>, abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown) writes:
=> The whole point is that a lot of environmental extremists went to
=> great lengths to exonerate communist states in the use of yellow
=> rain, by coming up with the bee shit theory.

=Accusations such as Yellow Rain must not be done lightly, especially
=against a foreign country.  It is only reasonable and prudent to
=carefully investigate alternative explanations.

When has Greenhype EVER "carefully investigated" anything?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: sherwood@space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:01:35 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Some observations:

1.  My diesel pickup requires that I turn the key, and wait 17 seconds for
the glowplugs to heat up.  In winter I may have to do this three times before
the engine will start.  30 seconds is no big deal.  But then, I don't use my
truck to go 6 blocks to the corner store.  I can see where it wouldn't
be popular with some people.

2.  Some of these 30 second boilers work as 'flash boilers'   Flame heats
a plate, and the water is sprayed on.  With some work, I bet that you could
trade increased fuel consumption for faster heating.

3.  As long as the lubricant is immiscable with water, I don't see a problem.
A sump, a centrifugal filter, a final separation filter.  Bush pilots used to
filter water from their fuel by  wetting a piece of thin fine weave cloth with
gasoline.  The gas could go through, the water wouldn't.  

4.  I think that the original reason Stanley's had pilot lights was to keep 
the boiler from freezing in winter.  Some clever design is called for here, 
with either pilot light and/or systems that self drain into a holding tank
won't get bent out of shape by freezing, and could be warmed easily with
either a plug or a torch.  

5.  Good insulation around the engine would help efficiency.  The closer the
engine is to the temperature of the working fluid, the less energy you lose
to heating metal.

6.  One of the claimed advantages of the Stanley Steamers was their noise.
They were very quiet.  This would be a big selling point with me.  They
were also very simple mechanically, although messy in terms of plumbing.  
I think the entire drive train had 24 moving parts.

7.  One of the big advantages of steam is the idling efficiency.  You
use very little fuel sitting still.  This could be significant for trucks,
busses, and city delivery vehicles.

Questions:

1.  What kind of gas mileage did the Stanley's get compared to other
vehicles of the time?

2.  Given reasonable engineering assumptions about the change in the art, 
what would the comparison be now?

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.)

--
=> Sherwood Botsford                   sherwood@space.ualberta.ca <= 
=> University of Alberta         Lab Manager, Space Physics Group <=         
=> tel:403 492-3713                             fax: 403 492-4256 <=
From: root@surya.UUCP (Root Account)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Homebrew fuel cells?
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:30:45 GMT
Organization: Sunshine in a box

howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:

> PH>I need some help with *fuel cells*, a subject I have not
> PH>seen discussed here in a long time.
> 
> PH>My son wants to base his science fair project this year on
> PH>an alternative method of generating electricity, other than
> PH>the obvious solar stuff.  Fuel cells are one option, and one
> PH>I know virtually nothing about.
> 
> PH>Does anyone have any reference info where I could get some
> PH>info on fuel cells, how to construct a simple one, etc.
> PH>I would think if it generated enough power to illuminate a
> PH>small bulb/LED, that would be sufficient.  I am not looking
> PH>to make 10kW or anything.  Likewise, any suggestions on
> PH>anyother out-of-the-mainstream means to make a few electrons
> PH>would be appreciated.
> 
> I put the question to John Gotthold of the American Hydrogen Association
> and he answered:
> 
>           " - So far there is no such thing as a home brew fuel cell
> We have been trying to figure out a way to make one that  we called
> Joe Six Pack's fuel cell, but the reality is that fuel cells are just
> now coming out of the Science labs and the materials to make even a
> simple cell will cost in excess of $1,000.
>     Another way to make electrons, and one which will become publically
> visible next year is the Genset. Harry Braun from AHA Headquarters has
> put together a consortium of several large companies and they are
> gearing up to produce thousands of Gensets around the world.
>     A Genset is a solar dish which focuses sunlight onto a heat engine
> Sterling or Johnson. The heat engine then turns a generator and makes
> electricity. You can buy heat engines from Popular science catalogs,
> build a concentrator dish from cardboard and tin foil and hook up a
> small generator. Small gensets are quite spectacular when the sun
> shines."
> 
> hhs
> ---
>  . SLMR 2.1a . Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!
>                                                                              

 
The above is quite untrue.  Scientific american in the late 70s (I think) 
had at least two articles in their Am. Scientist section, on home made 
fuel cells. One was an Oxy Hydrogen cell. One electrode as I recall was a 
porous carbon electrode activated with silver. The carbon came from a dry 
cell center electrode. The other electrode may have been nickel mesh, 
The other cell burned eiterh methanol or ethanol, and had a gelled 
electrolyte I think. The electrodes were nickel mesh,  one of which had a 
small ammount of palladium  catalyst.  Neither of these was high power, 
but both would be suitable for science fairs.
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:38:49 GMT

>In article <1992Nov18.031743.1834@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown) writes:
>:  Yellow Rain usage in Afghanistan and SE Asia.
>
>That was not at all clear.  The US Government was unable to prove
>their case in Afghanistan.  How do you expect Greenpeace to do what
>the $U$S$ could not?

 When certain KGB files were opened they had found that they had used it.
Boris Yeltsin has also apologized about this. Something had to cause
those massive amounts of bee crap in those areas, unfortunately it was
Yellow Rain.

>:  Eastern Europe, esp. Romania and Hungary and their garbage problems
>
>Not true.  They *did* protest there.  The protests just didn't make it
>into the US media.
 
 Fair enough, when and where?? On the Danube?? 

>:  It seems that Greenpeace only cares about Capitalistic countries'
>:  eco-faults.
>
>Within their limited budget Greenpeace investigates and protests (as
>appropriate) the countries they have access to.  You complain because
>they do not do the near impossible: invade a hostile country.

 Why can't Greenpeace lobby the UN? Why can't they make statements
regarding other countries (of which sometimes they do)?

>: The US and the free world spend well over $1 trillion dollars
>: on ours and the world's so-called ecological time bombs. I don't see any
>: other nations doing this, we are leading the race to help find some
>: remedies, however it seems Greenpeace doesn't appreciate it.
>
>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?

 The point wasn't energy conservation it was spending $$$$$ on research 
and development. We are trying to help yet people, esp. Greenpeace and
Sierra Club, never seem to appreciate all their fundings and gov't
assistance.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Dyrda                         |  "I'm your ice cream man stop
School of Nuclear Engineering         |   when I'm passing by!! They say
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory |   all my flavors are guaranteed 
c/o Purdue University                 |   to satisy!!" Van Halen 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: foesydney@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:17 EST
Subject: Australian Research Reactor Propos
Nf-ID: #N:peg:182900005:000:1373
Nf-From: peg.pegasus.oz.au!foesydney    Nov 19 18:17:00 1992


AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR LOBBY TRIES TO BULLDOZE REACTOR REVIEW

WANTED: ANYONE FAMILAR WITH CONVENTIONAL REVIEW PROCEDURES USED 
IN COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS FOR REACTOR PROPOSALS.

The Australian government is allowing only a month and half for 
public submissions to a government review board in an attempt to 
bulldoze through a new research reactor proposal. If succesful, 
the reactor will likely be built on the site of an older research 
reactor just 1.6 kilometres from residential housing.

Organisations and people working in the peace, nuclear and energy 
fields, are requested to lobby the Australian government to 
extend the closing date for submissions beyond 18 December 1992.

The Australian government is highly sensitive to international 
pressure, so any evidence that demonstrates that this review 
fails to meet acceptable international criteria could prove 
extremely embarassing for the ministers and bureaucrats involved.

Please phone or fax the Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating 
with your concern: tel: 61-6-277-7700; fax: 61-6-273-4100

Individuals who wish to submit evidence to the review should 
contact:
The Secretariat, Research Reactor Review, GPO Box 9839, Sydney, 
NSW 2001, Australia.

Please inform Movement Against Uranium Mining ( fax: 61-2-281-
5216, tel: 61-2-212-4538), or Friends of the Earth on 
peg:foesydney, of your action

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ssave@ole.cdac.com (The Devil Reincarnate)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: CDAC, WA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:50:40 GMT

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.
>
> It seems that Greenpeace only cares about Capitalistic countries' eco-
>faults. The US and the free world spend well over $1 trillion dollars
>on ours and the world's so-called ecological time bombs. I don't see any

   And pray, tell me, who created these "ecological time bombs"?

>other nations doing this, we are leading the race to help find some
>remedies, however it seems Greenpeace doesn't appreciate it.
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Richard Dyrda                         | "I could have been home baking
>School of Nuclear Engineering         |  cookies or something like that!" 
>Idaho National Engineering Laboratory | "Nah, that's ok Hillary your 
>c/o Purdue University                 |  husbands fat enough!!!!!!" 
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


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 23:18:21 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 ...
|> 
|> 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.
|>
|> [...]
|>
|> 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?
|> 
|> [...]
|> 
|> At the scale of 10 kW, which electric generating process is most 
|> efficient, clean and least costly?  Steam turbine, fuel cell,  or ???
|> 
|> Maybe I'm going off the deep end on this, but the idea of three 
|> gallon size objects under the hood (boiler, turbine, generator)
|> in exchange for 1500 lbs of batteries, providing an unlimited
|> range with very low smog production is rather appealing ...
|> 
|> I think it even solves the condenser problem, since at the scale
|> of 10 kW, I'd expect the condenser to be on the same order of size
|> as a present IC engine radiator...

Yes, I was going to followup with exactly such a suggestion after I posted
about steam/electric motor combos, but I wasn't sure about the size & weight of
the steam plant and efficiency in comparison to batteries. Your analysis makes
it look good, anybody else care to comment?

Larry Edwards
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mancus@zaphod.JSC.NASA.GOV (Keith Mancus/MDSSC)
Subject: Re: Info on the GM SE-101 Steam Car
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.212013.11971@bsu-ucs>, 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>> Questions that your material might be able to answer:
>>  -Why did they use a piston steam engine instead of a geared-down turbine?
>>   Gearing problems?  Cost of the turbine?
 
>Would a geared-down turbine be damaged with a gear change?  This could be fixed
>with an infinietly-variable transmission.

  Would we even need a variable transmission?  How wide a range of RPM's
keep turbines happy?  Because of the gearing ratio, low-end torque would
not matter.

>Would a turbine be bigger and/or heavier?  You'd think it'd be cheaper, since
>they're so simple.          
>Are c200 hp steam turbines currently made?  How big are the things?
  
  Turbines have never been mass-produced like recips, so they're more
expensive.  I remember the jet engine in the single-place BD-5 jet was
costing something like $100K for what was essentially a 100 HP engine.
(Of course, you cannot directly compare jet thrust with recip HP.)
  I won't try to guess what turbines would cost if mass-produced, but
they would certainly be much cheaper than today.

-- 
 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.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. ABIAN replies to PING 
Keywords: Principles (A1)  and (A2).  Repelling Forces explained
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:15:51 GMT


Dear Mr. Ping,                        11-16-92                     



>} THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES ARE CREATED BY COSMOS PRECISELY TO REPEL
>} THE LIKE ELECTRIC CHARGES TO COOPERATE WITH THE SPACE IN SPACE'S
>} TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO OF ITS ELECTRICAL NEUTRALITY !!!
>}  (brilliant explanation - don't you agree !)
>}  

>  Why do you assume Mr. Abian that space's status quo is to be electrically
>neutral?

    My answer is:
  Because I see that the space fights for it, it tries to prevent added
concentration of electrical charges and by (A1) the initial action is
the tendency of maintaining the status quo.  Why Bush was fighting, 
why Clinton provoked by challenge and many other things reacted and created 
a situation and will try to maintain the new status quo for some time? (A1)
explains why.  
   Don't be dismayed that (A1)  applies to animate as well as to inanimate
objects.  After all, people are also made of matter!!!
   You ask me a question, I answered my way

  With best wishes and regards,        Alexander Abian
-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: down with inertial frames
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:00:25 GMT


It is easy to imagine how one could teach a course in SR without ever
mentioning inertial frames. No doubt there are textbooks of this kind.
But does anyone know a textbook which treats Newtonian mechanics without
using inertial frames? What exactly is involved?