HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:43:53 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

> 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.

AHA!  So all those devices are availalbe off-the-shelf, eh?
  
> 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.

I'd worry of hurting the engine.  What if the condensed water was used to
"cool" the engine?  That way, you'd recover a lot of the heat used to heat
the 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.

I'm looking at diagrams and theorizing how the rotary engine could be adapted
to steam use.  It would mean a having a gear train, in the form of two exhaust
and two intake valves per rotor.  

The advantages of a rotary would be: 
  small size (more room for boiler) 
  simplicity (albiet offset by the geartrain)                      
  having one power stroke for every rotation 
   (it's essentially a two-stroke, but has two power cycles going at any
   one time)
         
> 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.)

Some kind of oil, maybe?  The Saturn V lubricated its fuel pumps with kerosine.
I'd be afraid of 1000C flammable gas shooting out of my car if it sprung a leak,
though.

A CFC?

--    
       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: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Turbine powered cars (was Re: Info on the GM SE-101 Steam Car)
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:27:18 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <1992Nov13.223911.25528@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@carla.JSC.NASA.GOV (Keith Mancus/MDSSC) writes:
>  Interesting stuff.  Obviously it needs more development work, but I
>think this is a more promising area than those silly electric cars.  (Sorry
>folks, I am far more suspicious of battery technology than most of you
>are.  I'll believe it when I see cheap, relatively lightweight mass-market
>batteries with energy storage comparable to a tank of gas.)

GM actually produced a turbine powered car in the mid-80's. Here are some
details... The vehicle was called the Chevrolet Express.

4 seat, four doors, really slick aerodynamics; 30 mpg at 150 mph
sustained crusing speed. Ceramic (not 100% sure) turbine engine mated
to a 3 speed auto tranny. Various creature comforts, i.e. trunk space,
a/c, entertainment. Hi-tech instrumentation (single pod). Compact 
size. Provisions for IVHS links to make sure the 150mph
cruising speed would be possible / feasible. Not sure about fuel. 

Right when I was hired at GM in 85 or so they mentioned giving a demo to
various Congress members of the Energy commitee (I think there was some
DOE money used along with GM's money). Some Senators got to test drive
it!

I saw the Express a couple of years later, the sound of it is astonishing.
Not noisy (pretty good muffling actually), but just listening to the
woosh of the turbine was quite an experience...

There may have been a turbine experimental car made in the 50's, come
to think of it. (CERV 2?). I saw that one in Detroit..

Spiros


-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       (317) 451-0815
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Followup-To: sci.energy
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Nov19215037@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <51524@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:05:46

In article <51524@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
   In article <JMC.92Nov19215037@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
   > Physics Prof. Bernard Cohen of Pittsburgh University and Chairman of the
   > Health Physics Society once offered to eat a gram of plutonium oxide
   > and to breathe a liter of plutonium oxide particles that would stay
   > suspended in air for one minute.  He estimated that the reduction of
   > his life expectancy would be equivalent to taking a six month sabbatical
   > in Denver Colorado, which has more cosmic radiation than Pittsburgh
   > because of its 5,000 foot altitude.

   What he hasn't considered here is that he would absorb some of the Pu, even
   as an oxide.  It takes only a fraction of a nanogram - that will go directly
   to the bones, where short-range high-energy alphas will cause leukemia in
   short order.  So the gammas he is exposed to for a minute would be like
   living in Denver for 6 months, but when you return from Denver, you don't
   carry anything with you (except your luggage, provided the airline didn't
   lose it).

   (And come to think of it, the leukemia is incurable, since the standard cure
   is to wipe out and replace the bone marrow.  The new marrow would get
   irradiated and start the process all over again).

   I would, however, be perfectly comfortable in a room with a solid chunk
   of Pu.  It isn't giving off all that many gammas, and the alphas get nowhere.
   Just so long as it isn't airborn, who cares.


   --
   Richard Stead
   Center for Seismic Studies
   Arlington, VA
   stead@seismo.css.gov

I admire Richard Stead's assurance in telling us what the President of
the Health Physics Society didn't consider.  I wouldn't be surprised
if Cohen, whose subject this is, had written a book with tables in it
about how much plutonium is absorbed when plutonium oxide passes through
an animal digestive tract, how much is excreted at what rate, and how
much in the bones gives what risk of leukemia over what period.  Why
not try his book

28.5) Cohen, Bernard Leonard, 1924-. NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY. [1st ed.]. 
        (Garden City, N.Y., Anchor Press, 1974)
        LOCATION: Physics QC776.C56
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky sci.energy:5620 alt.activism:19024 misc.headlines:7107 talk.politics.misc:60995
From: ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.activism,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Public Citizen Rates States on Energy Use
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:18:22 GMT
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto

Here is a press release from Public Citizen.

 Public Citizen Rates States on Energy Use
 To: National Desk, Environment and Energy writers
 Contact: Jonathan Becker, 202-546-4996, or Andrew Carroll,
          202-833-3000, both of Public Citizen

   WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 -- All but three states rely on 
"dirty, dangerous and depletable" energy resources to meet a
majority of their energy needs, according to a report released by
Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project, while none of the 50
states has even approached its potential in developing alternatives
to coal, nuclear and oil-generated power.
   The report, Energy Audit: A State-by-State Profile of Energy
Consumption and Conservation highlights the need for greater
funding of energy policies at the state level and describes some
policy tools states can employ to increase energy efficiency and
reliance on clean, safe and renewable energy resources.
   "Even with a new federal energy bill, much of the responsibility
for energy choices falls to the states," said Jonathan Becker,
energy-policy analyst for Public Citizen, "and it's clear that some
states are making much wiser decisions than others."
   Energy Audit contains Public Citizen's analysis of four key
idicators of energy use.  The report describes the experiences of
a number of states that have produced thorough and innovative
approaches to meeting their energy needs.
   "Federal energy policy is still controlled by the fossil-fuel
and nuclear power lobbies," continued Becker.  "It has been left up
to the states to implement a fair, safe and sensible energy plan."
Governors of all 50 states have been sent copies of Energy Audit:
A State-by-State Profile of Energy Consumption and Conservation.
   Copies of the 45-page Energy Audit are available from Public
Citizen at a cost of $40.  Discounts are available to non-profit
organizations and schools.  Members of the press may receive the
study free of charge on request.
   Public Citizen is a non-profit research and advocacy
organization founded in 1971 by Ralph Nader.  Public Citizen has
over 130,000 members nationwide.  The Critical Mass Energy Project
is its energy-policy arm.
 -30-
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:32:31 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's


 
> Then you lose all the advantages you get out of the phase change of your
> working fluid.  If you're going to use a hot gas, why not use the combustion
> products?  Wow, we've just invented the combustion turbine engine!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Now, lets not get smart, here...

But does Mr. Lydick have it right?
Would there be any advantages at all of an external-combustion gas turbine over
an internal-combustion model?

Emmisions is the only possiblity I can come up with...  but if the gas 
temperatures were the same in both systems, it wouldn't really make a 
difference, would it?

That settles it.  'Looks like we'll have to use a liquid.

Damn.

Becuase a liquid working fluid means:
  A condenser
  A bigger boiler
  Lubricant separation before condensation

    Can anyone explain the nessecity of this?  Why does lubricant have to be
    mixed with the steam, like the book on the GM Steam Car said?

    I suppose that just like the best IC engines burn a _little_ oil, 
    a _little_ lubricant would leak into the fluid system of a steam car.

    The book said that if the lubricant stayed in the water after condensation,
    the boiler would be damaged.  How's that?  Would the oil break down in 
    the 1000 degree + boiler?

    Could the lubricant be separated AFTER condensation, BEFORE boiling?

    HELP!!!

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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:12:59 GMT

>In article <56457@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.161857.24416@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
>> 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.
>
>This is, of course, confused, innacurate, and absurd. 

 Where is it innaccurate????
 How is it absurd when over 1,000 Afghanis died from chemicals???
 What are you confusing it with??? 

>by line but  I am mystified by Daniel Ortega's use of "chemical
>agents" on the "suspected" farms of his own party. What's a 
>"'suspected' farm"? Why would Mr. Ortega use these "chemical agents" on
>them? 

 Reread the post. It was "suspected" farms of the Contras. Secondly Ortega
was in a war in which the Contras were partially funded by selling their
crops to the Hondurans. By destroying these crops the Sandinistas were trying
to strangle out the Contras. This particular incident I chose because a lot
of eco-groups, including Greenpeace, have repeatedly complained about
the US use of Agent Orange and its affects in Vietnam.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:23:33 GMT

ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

>Wars have been fought with a variety of odd munitions over
>the years prior to WWI, some of which I would expect would count as
>chemicals....

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

	There is a sci.military and an alt.war, neither of which are
likely to want to talk about Greenpeace.  I agree, it's time this
portion of the thread get back on track with respect to energy.

	Just for thought, though, perhaps the first use of chemical
weapons was that battle (Carthage, Troy, something like that) where the
ground was sown with salt to prevent future plant growth.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Any info. on hydrogen power for cars??
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:57:07 GMT

In article <51531@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.175417.10952@nmt.edu>, houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>Actually, electrolysis is not required.  Hydrogen can be generated pretty
>efficiently just using heat and chemical reactions.  I did this in high school
>15 years ago and showed that a series of reactions which reproduced the
>starting chemicals and split water in the process would actually work.

OK, so now you've got us all wondering.  What Were The Reactions?!!!

(Gads... drop a teaser like than and leave us hanging... the nerve ;-)

>> 	I personally think that biomass fuels are more likely to be used
>> in a sustainable economy -- with fuel cells,  one could get very close to
>> zero emission (some CO2 gets released,  but it was just removed from
>> the atmosphere in the past few years,  so this doesn't contribute to
>
>Yeah, but the fuel cells probably produce some sort of foul acidic sludge that
>must be dealt with if they are fed raw biomass. If the bimass is first conerted
>to alcohol or methane, then the convertor produces sludge.  Hopefully,
>the sludge could be converted to fertilizer.

No conversion needed.  The output of a methane digester is wonderful 
fertilizer.  If you want to go the alcohol route, you have a couple of
choices.  Garden variety fermentation of grains yields a sludge that
is great for animal feed ('distillers mash' or some such name).  Using
the Tricodermata Veridae (sp?) mold on cellulosic material to get sugar
sludge that is fermented to ethanol and are back to a distillers junk
type of left over (lower in cellulose, but higher in other stuff).

If you go real high tech, and don't use a yeast ferment for the sugar
to ethanol step, you might get some jucky stuff, but that approach
usually benefits from a clean feed stock, so I'd expect the sugar
to be separated from the other junk prior to reaction...  I don't
know what sludges you would get in this case.
-- 

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: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:25:50 GMT

In article <1849@spam.ua.oz>, jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.161857.24416@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
> >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.
> 
> I was reading a biology paper once on the alledged use of 'Yellow Rain'.
> It turns out to be bee spit not biological or chemical weaponry. Another
> attrocity story from the dark side of the Cold War.

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.  However, the theory was shot down in flames
when the former soviet union released files that showed that they did,
in fact, use yellow rain in the very circumstances attributed to bee shit.
Few serious scientists ever completely accepted the bee shit argument
due to the huge volumes of bee shit required in very short amounts of time.
It really would have required a new kind of bee that was a virtual shit
factory during very brief periods of time, but completely corked up
for most of the lifespan.

So the bee shit theory is the atrocity cover story generated by the dark
side of the cold war.  It turns out that now that the cold war has been
won, files have been released by the former soviet union that support
virtually every official accusation of atrocity by the US and agree in
incredible detail.

BTW - This is way off the subject of energy.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Xref: sparky sci.energy:5472 sci.environment:12772 talk.environment:4632
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Request: info on desalination and solar energy
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:53:42 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <JMC.92Nov14095822@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <ETHANB.92Nov14090929@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu> ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:
>
>   They use nuclear power.  [to desalinate water]. 
>   The water coming into the house is hot:
>   instead of a water heater, one needs a water cooler to get hot and
>   cold running water.  However, this is more of an example of money to
>   burn than oil to burn.
>
>I don't believe nuclear power is currently used for desalination in
>the Middle East.  The countries that need desalination have plenty of
>cheap oil.  As I recall, the main technology was distillation, but
>they are shifting to reverse osmosis, which is technically more
>demanding but more economical of energy.

The Israelis have at least one nuclear cogeneration facility whose
low-temperature facility is a flash desalinization unit.  The water comes out
lukewarm, however, not hot.

Of course Israel doesn't have the oil.  Moses made a wrong turn somewhere ;-) .

-dk
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Info on the GM SE-101 Steam Car
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:19:37 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

> Finally, a piston
> engine offers the advantage of dynamic braking for free. That's not a
> small consideration.

Dynamic braking?  Is that like letting engine compression
slow you down?                          

> If you could superheat to 800C, it'd be great, but that
> brings on another host of problems you don't want to tackle outside a
> large stationary plant. 
> Gary                   

What problems?  The GM Steam Car did 700C, and that was in the seventies!
Wouldn't 800C be possible today?  Shoot, lets' go for 1000.
       
--        
       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: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: opening of the first
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:03:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

DP>I have a question about the hydrogen storage method.  I haven't come across
DP>this system of storing energy before, and I wonder about the safety of this
DP>system.  If I remember correctly, hydrogen is an extremely flammable
DP>substance, and not something that I would want to live on top of.

DP>So.  What is the danger involved of sitting on top of 15,000 liters of
DP>hydrogen under pressure, as opposed to, for example, an equivalent tank of
DP>cooking gas or the "regular" 2 or 3 m^3 (by my vague estimation) tanks that
DP>sit by the house?

Hydrogen is no more dangerous than any other flammable gas and much less
dangerous than gasoline. Hence, storing it involves no greater hazard
than the propane bottle that you probably have in your garage to run
your camp stove or propane torch. When stored as a hydride it is
probalby less dangerous because of the low pressure involved.

Like the hysteria about radioactivity, most people have seen pictures of
the Hindenburg disaster and believe hydrogen is the worst. But the facts
are that two thirds of the people on the ship walked away from the
disaster and of the 35 people who died, three were burned by diesel
fuel and other flamable materials and 32 were killed by jumping to the
ground.

A hydrogen gas pipline is probably the the most efficient way to
transport energy and at the other end you can convert it to electricity
and fresh water with 96% efficiency via PEM fuel cells - considerably
more efficient than high voltage DC transmission lines.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a
                                                                             
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: vsvankay@acs.ucalgary.ca (Hima Sagar- The Humming Bird)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.engr.power
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 22:39:12 GMT
Organization: E & C Engg., Univ. Of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

From the keyboard of akerson@deimos.af.mil (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp) in <1992Nov17.185248.78@srg.srg.af.mil> ::
>
>  The charter's sample topics do not seem to differ from
>the content of sci.energy, except to broaden it :
>
>>> - applications of the following to power engineering
>>>	  - high performance computing
>>>	  - distributed computing
>>>	  - artificial intelligence
>>>	  - numerical analysis and optimization
>>>	  - control theory
>>> - conference announcements/call for papers, job vacancies
>
>  are thos topics going to generate any traffic ? - otherwise why bother ?


IMHO, sci.engg.power *is* different from sci.energy. For example,
there are specific issues like operation ( unit committment, load
forecasting, security), control and monitoring aspects of the power
grids that do *not* seem to be of interest in sci.energy.

My vote is YES for sci.engg.power

Cheers,
Vidya.
-- 
Vidya 'Hima' Sagar 
vsvankay@acs.ucalgary.ca (or) vankay@enel.ucalgary.ca