HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: External-Combustion Cars -- Possible?
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:13:59 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

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?

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?

As I understand it, little to no NOx or CO are produced if the fuel is
steadily burned and not exploded, like in an IC engine.

I'm imagining a high-efficiency titanium boiler that would either boil water
and superheat steam or heat heluim (like in the next-generation nuclear
reactors).                           

The hot steam or helium would then drive 1) a piston engine much akin to a
two-stroke gasoline engine with overhead valves, or 2) a turbine much like the
turbochargers of today.

After going through the prime mover, the working fluid would be 
put back through the boiler, (I understand that recompressing the helium would
be very difficult and costly since it cannot be condensed and pumped as a
liquid like water.  However, a helium system woulnd't need a condenser and
would start quicker).

Could intensive computer control and infinitely-variable transmission
technology help produce quick acceleration?
                                          
Could some auxilliary heating-element system help quicken startup?
                   
ADVANTAGES:
Such a system would be a VERY attractive alternative to the exotic electric
cars that are being produced to meet the California zero-emmisions laws, since
they would have a much longer range and no expensive batteries to periodically
replace.

Also, a boiler's adaptability to different fuels would facilitate the transfer
from today's gasoline to tomorrow's hydrogen.        

Thoughts, please!
          
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: morrison@cs.uiuc.edu (Vance Morrison)
Subject: Re: Electric Car feasible for me?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:23:15 GMT

greg@core.rose.hp.com (Greg Dolkas) writes:

>The commute is 23 miles each way; 46 miles round trip.  Maximum speed is 55
>(or so :-) mph.  This is well within the capabilities of cars I've read about.
>The problem is that I live at 1250 ft elevation, and my employment is at about
>100 ft.  The commute is 90% freeway, so at the time when the batteries are
>winding down the car will need to be doing freeway speeds *up hill*.  

Lets work some numbers.  First let us assume the following

	Car weight 1000Kg		(light weight cars weigh about a ton)
	Battery capacity 50-100KW*Hrs   (This can be highly variable) 
	Energy usage at 60MPH, 10KW	(This might be a little optimistic,
					 with present cars, but it is 
					 between 10KW and 20KW)
	Hill Grade - 6%			Most interstates keep the grade to
				  	at most 6%. If it is greater they
					usually have signs about truck lanes,
					use low gear, etc.

Using these numbers an electric car has a range of somewhere between
60 and 120 miles at 60Mph which agrees well with current claims.

Now you have about 1000ft of elevation difference which cooresponds to
	1000ft ~= 300meters 

Since the car weighs 1000Kg, this represents approximately
	1000Kg * 300M * 10 = 3MJ ~= 1KW*Hr

Which represents less than 2% of the car's total capacity.  Thus it seems
that this is not a big deal from the point of view of energy used.

Lets also check to see if it will slow the car down.  

Now very roughly, 60MPH ~= 96 Km/Hr ~= 27 m/sec

Thus in one second the car moves 27 meters, and thus goes up 
approximately (approximating sin=tan) 27*6/1000 = .162meters
Which represents an energy expendature of .162 * 1000kg * 10 = 1.62KJ
Since this happens every second, the additional load on the
motor and battery is 1.62KW.  

Since the cruising power is approximately 10KW, this represents a
16% increase in power consumption.   Thus it would seem that this
too would not be a problem (of course your acceleration may not
be great).  

Thus it seems the above rough calculations suggest that the elevation
difference is not a big factor (but it is a factor, you are likely to
see a 10-20% decrease in 'gas' milage)

Vance
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Waste
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 20:08:03 GMT

In article <3901.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:
> 
> TGE>Only the government has the perspective to view the entire
> TGE>picture, and develop reasonable environmental industrial
> TGE>policy, in this case subsidizing atmospherically clean
> TGE>nuclear power (I won't say totally clean, but I rather have
> TGE>a little bit of buried waste than an entire planet of
> TGE>unihabitable atmopsphere).
> 
> Yes, but nuclear is not the cleanest and not the least expensive. Wind
> and solar are cleaner and now wind power is less expensive.
> 
> hhs
> ---
>  . SLMR 2.1a . This tagline stolen by Silly Little Mail Reader!
>                                                                                                    
> 

But what about all of the material that must be processed to produce the 
silicon-based solar cells and all of the metal, fiberglass, etc for wind
power?  The industries that produce the actual equipment use highly toxic
chemicals and produce quite a bit of air pollution which have been proven
not to be handled very well in the past (i.e. the amount of water pollution
in Silicon Valley due to all of the chip manufacturers, chemical plants
making the resins, plastic, etc. for wind power and other such equipment).

Remember hhs to look at the whole cycle and not just the power generation
portion.

Don Palmrose





========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: A Compressed-Air Car -- Possible?
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:20:19 GMT

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.

Tap, tap, hmmmm, the gauge on this oxygen tank must be broke. It claims
a pressure of 3200 PSI. Room temperature is above the *critical* temperature
of both nitrogen and oxygen. No matter how much you try to compress them,
they won't liquify above their critical temperature.

Gary
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: The miracle motor
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:02:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmt.1992Nov9.170230.9550
Organization: New Mexico Tech


	Things are getting mighty weird around here.  I just talked to one of
the lab techs who is working with Joe Newman on his miracle motor.  For those
of you who haven't read my previous messages,  Joe Newman is this "inventor"
from Missisippi who has a motor (that has zillions of turns of wire and needs
6000 V to run) that generates these really horrid current spikes and has a
power factor that is off the scale.  Anyway,  Joe believes that the energy in
these spikes is greater than the energy that is being put into the motor.  He
is trying to get $2 million from some real estate developers in Albuquerque to
work on his motor,  and they came down here with $30,000 in a briefcase to
have people from Tech test it.

	Anyway,  my last message about this concerned a group of three lab
technicians who,  more or less against the will of the department head,
decided to "test" the thing by feeding the current spikes back into the
battery (probably via a reverse-biased diode,  transformer and LC network)
and adding a load controller so "the power can be fed into a bank of light
bulbs in case the motor overcharges the battery".

	So,  this morning,  I ran into one of the lab technicians who is
working on this thing,  and he is just totally bouncing off the walls.  He
is completely convinced that he and his new friends are going to revolutionize
the world by the end of the week.  He is convinced that Joe is not only the
greatest genius since Einstein,  but that Einstein has led us off the path
of the truth.  He told me that he saw the inside of the Newman motor and
saw something inside that totally blew his mind (I can believe it!),  and that
he has talked to "very powerful people" who told him things that "I shouldn't
have found out" and that he can't tell me right now.  He was asking me
desperately where I could find a 12 DC -> 120 AC inverter that produces a sine
wave.  He told me that the investors had chartered a private plane at the
airport so he could pick up anything that he needed anywhere in the country.
I think he's gone off the deep end,  and I'm a little afraid that he might
do something that will cost him his job.  In all it seems to be a very
amusing situation.  Anyway,  I'll fill you in on what really ~does~ happen
here,  and if they really do revolutionize the world,  remember that you
heard it here first...  Maybe it will be the first time somebody wins a
Pulitzer prize for electronic communications :-)

-- 
Hungry and out of work?  Eat a republican.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: A Compressed-Air Car -- Possible?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 06:00:45 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

steveo@mobius (Steve Olson) writes:

>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.


Sorry, but dead wrong.  At room temperature, both oxygen and nitrogen
are above their respective critical temperatures.  They will therefore
remain in the gaseous state regardless of the pressure, even though
at some pressure the density will equal or exceed that of the liquid 
state.  Computing where that happens is left as an exercise for the
reader :-)

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: breeders
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:56:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

MO>>Well, I believe you *COULD* use U233 as a bomb about as well as you can use
MO>>tar for fuel in your car.  It could work, but besides being an extra credit
MO>>homework assignment, why would you want to?

MO>*I* don't want to, of course, but if I was Saddam Hussein, and my
MO>ultracentrifuges just got bombed, and I couldn't get my mitts on any
MO>plutonium, and I still wanted to "get even" with the US, I might want
MO>to toss some thorium in some power reactor and then chemically separate
MO>U-233, and (try to) build a bomb from it.

That's one of the problems with being a SUPER POWER, we also become a
SUPER TARGET.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . We all live in a yellow subroutine.
                                                                                
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Subject: Request: info on desalination and solar energy
Reply-To: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 04:12:09 GMT

I need to do some background research for a grant paper.  I am looking for
sources on desalination processes, and specifically desalination of water
using energy from solar radiation.  I am taking a course on Solar Energy
Systems Engineering, so I know a bit about that, but I need some general
information about desalination, especially about the energy needed for it.

So if you know of any good sources, or have some information yourself, I
would be grateful if you could email me some (most preferred), or 
else post it to this group.

Many thanks,
-->Daniel Pedersen  -  Keren's Daddy		(215)543-8961
	dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu	pedersen@engin.swarthmore.edu
======================================================================
Highway sign on I-10, AZ: "Federal Prison - Do Not Pick Up Hitch-Hikers"
	50 yards later: "Campground	Next Right"
"Why do you kill people?"   -   "I am a terminator."  [Terminator 2]
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Good topics
From: spang@calstatela.edu (Sue Pang 10-16-91)
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:08:44 PST
Reply-To: spang@calstatela.edu
Distribution: world
Organization: Cal State University, Los Angeles


Hi,
I think this is a great group.  Everyone seems friendly and gives very informative and educational subjects.

I wrote a paper on Solar Energy.  Please watch for my future posting.  I hope you will like it.  If you feel I have made any errors, please send a note to my email address.

Thank you very much,

Sue
-------------------------------------------------
spang@atss.calstatela.edu
The Sunny State of California
                      
                    \ | /
                   -  o  -
		    / | \

  o ,__Q  
  \-\_<, 
 (*)/'(*)
~~~~~~~~~~
--------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: breeders
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:50:36 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <1992Nov5.161659.24053@engage.pko.dec.com: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
:>Well, I believe you *COULD* use U233 as a bomb about as well as you can use
:>tar for fuel in your car.  It could work, but besides being an extra credit
:>homework assignment, why would you want to?
:*I* don't want to, of course, but if I was Saddam Hussein, and my
:ultracentrifuges just got bombed, and I couldn't get my mitts on any
:plutonium, and I still wanted to "get even" with the US, I might want
:to toss some thorium in some power reactor and then chemically separate
:U-233, and (try to) build a bomb from it.

Personally I'd use a research reactor, natural uranium, and heavy water.  Baring
that, laser isotope seperation.  But why bother?  Chemical or biological
warfare is far easier, cheaper, easier to hide and transport.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Waste
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:56:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

TGE>Only the government has the perspective to view the entire
TGE>picture, and develop reasonable environmental industrial
TGE>policy, in this case subsidizing atmospherically clean
TGE>nuclear power (I won't say totally clean, but I rather have
TGE>a little bit of buried waste than an entire planet of
TGE>unihabitable atmopsphere).

Yes, but nuclear is not the cleanest and not the least expensive. Wind
and solar are cleaner and now wind power is less expensive.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . This tagline stolen by Silly Little Mail Reader!
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Renewable energy from the sun
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:15:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: access.1992Nov6.171522.1259
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Most of our energy comes from the sun (which is not renewable, but we
have no control of this). If we conserve energy, can we live off solar
energy alone? What has been shown? Let's compare our basic energy needs
to the energy we can get from sunlight. Can we gather enough energy from
sunlight to live on and to construct energy saving goods? Do we have an
energy surplus?

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 13 Nov 1992 23:43:17 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 <1992Nov13.125119.11873@bsu-ucs>, 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>The problems with size and wieght experienced with the GM Steam Car, and steam
>engines in general, make me consider using a gas as the working fluid.

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

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: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Where to get Electric
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:09:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

EMS>>There was an article in the current EE Times about a guy selling electric
EMS>>cars. He didn't want to rely on new batter technology so he went low tech.
EMS>                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
EMS>I wonder if this means he used 'automotive batteries' ...

EMS>>He had enough of a challenge with the power electronics.

Check out the October 28, 1992 EE Times/Celebrating the Engineer issue.
The first tribute is to a 33 yr. old, CalTech grad, who got bored
working on the GM Impact electric car, quit and designed his own. He has
a one speed mechanical linkage to the wheels and a 100kw electronic
(MOSFET) controller that gets so hot he has to put two fans on it. Seems
to me that is about an order of magnitude too much power - 134 horses of
which about 60% can be delivered to the wheels in a Honda CRX? That's
one hot car. Too hot! In more ways than one.

The article does a great dis-service to EVs as shown by Mr. Ngai's
response.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . On a clear disk you can seek forever
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: External-Combustion Cars -- Possible?
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:05:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: gap.1dudf6INNd9g
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

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?

You're basically talking about a Stanley Steamer using hydrogen or a light
hydrocarbon for fuel.  Of course it could be built.

=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?

Yes, and yes.  We can certainly make better boilers than were available 100
years ago, but the relevent comparison is to performance compared to an IC
engine, and I don't have the numbers on that.
=As I understand it, little to no NOx or CO are produced if the fuel is
=steadily burned and not exploded, like in an IC engine.

Has more to do with the temperature and pressure of combustion than whether the
combustion is continuous or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: lizard@cats.ucsc.edu (Raul Essig)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More chatter on electric vehicles ...
Date: 12 Nov 1992 07:20:44 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu
Keywords: electric school busses ?


In article <1992Nov11.184055.7336@srg.srg.af.mil> akerson@deimos.af.mil (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp) writes:
>  As a filthy black cloud farted out of the school bus ahead
>of me on my way to work, I wondered 
>"Why arent those things electric ?"

Just to offer a positive example:  The University of Calif. at Santa Cruz
has shuttle busses that circle the campus all day ( and some at night )
and many of these run off of propane.  Many of the work crew pickups
as also fueled by propane.  Being a member of the work crew this last
summer I had an in depth discussion with one of the people whose truck
was converted.  According to her, when the truck was converted
( the successfull second time ) she could not determine any kind of
performance difference whatsoever.  And considering that the cost of the
propane is effectively HALF that of gasoline in California, they are
saving quite a bit of money in the end.  This is part of an alternative fuel
program that is a UC Santa Cruz/ UC Berkeley (I think) joint project.  
I hear that according to the studies the propane engines are putting out 
somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of the pollutants of internal combustion
engines.  The only difference I ever witnessed ( I never actually drove one ) 
was that it sounded "kinda funny".  It was a little quiter than a convention
truck, but in a wierd kind of way.  It's difficuly to describe.  
Mass transit seems to me to be crying out for alternative fuel programs.

-Raul Essig