HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgs@grebyn.com (Stephen G. Smith)
Subject: Re: External-Combustion Cars -- Possible?
Organization: Agincourt Computing
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:54:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.111359.11804@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:

>Could a fuel-burning, zero-emmisions vehicle be built if it were driven
>by an external-combustion engine?

>       Craig Meyer                 01CRMEYER@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU

Dunno about zero emission, but external combustion engines can be *very*
low emitters.

The two main candidates are Stirling and Rankine (steam) cycle engines.
Both have promise, with a bit of a nod to the Stirling in terms of
efficiency.  Both have a lower Carnot efficiency than IC because the
high temperature of the external combustion engines is the temperature
of the working fluid, while the high temperature of the IC engine is the
temperature if the combustion gasses.

It's not clear if this means anything in practical terms.  Current
prototypes are not particularly efficient, but they are research
machines.  I'm not sure if any of them have actually been tested on the
road.

Unfortunately, US automobile manufacturers have a deep financial and
emotional attatchment to IC engines.  They're not likely to do anything.
The Japanese?  Show 'em a way to make money at it and stand back ....

The "official" problem with Stirling engines is that the reenerator
(see your friendly local library or encyclopedia for a description of
the cycles) has to be made out of "exotic" materials.  For the car
companies, "exotic" means anything other than mild steel, cast iron,
aluminum, or plastic.

Steam is a bit stranger.  The Stanley Steamer was supposedly unsafe,
but that's not what the evidence says.  Apparently, it was one heck of
a car, "high performance" even by modern standards.  However, the
justification that "Stanleys exploded" (none ever did) is still used as
an arguement against investigating steam.

In addition, whatzisnme Lear (of the Lear Jet) got a DOE grant sometime
in the 1970's to build a "concept steam car".  He came up with a steam
turbine driven monster that basically ended discussion on the subject.
IMHO, he simply proved that an aerospace contracter can spend $15
million without accomplishing anything.  Not a surprise.

Supposedly, there was an outfit that went bankrupt in the late 1970s or
early 1980s (Williams Engine Company, Ambler, PA?) that made steam cars.
Anybody have any data?

Anyway, in conclusion, "external combustion" engines are a very fruitful
area of investigation that are currently being neglected.  Hopefully,
this will change soon as car companies get squeezed by the air pollution
regulations.

-- 
Steve Smith                     Agincourt Computing
sgs@grebyn.com                  (301) 681 7395
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Turbine/Infinitely Variable Transmission
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:48:17 GMT

Mike Wiese <mikew@apple.com> writes:

>a couple years ago when I was working on solar cars with some friends at
>school, we saw an article in some mech e. magazine and sent away for more
>info. the company sent some literature and a videotape.

>they didn't explain how it works, you need to sign non-disclosure first.
>they were only interested in licensing the technology, not building it
>themselves.

	Something is fishy here; why a non-disclosure agreement unless
they can't get a patent on it?  Also, you would think some of the larger
diesel-motor and heavy-equipment manufacturers would love to get this.
Why would they have to advertize?


>The transmission is INFINITELY variable, ie all the way from 0:1 to 1:1.
>There's no need for a clutch. A lever moved along a linear path changed
>the ratio, and it was clearly visible on the video that the output shaft
>went from zero to high speed smoothly. As the original poster mentioned,
>it is always engaged, ie it doesn't depend on friction, a variable length
>chain, or the like. hence it can handle high torque loads that CVT's
>can't. As "proof" they showed a big rig that they claimed was retrofitted
>with one of their transmissions.

>They claimed device is as small and efficient as a manual transmission,
>and there were no difficult to machine parts. 

>It all sounds too good to be true,

	It probably is.  Actually, it sounds like the HydroStatic
transmissions companies like John Deere have had in their heavy
equipment for a number of years now.  Or, it could have been something
as simple as a variable-volume hydraulic pump and turbine.

< 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: abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:17:43 GMT

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.

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?

:  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.

The other examples you listed I never heard of.  Greenpeace
ultimately consists of individuals.  It is not omniscient.  It is
possible that Greenpeace just didn't know about it.  But more likely
they were spread too thin to do anything.

:  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.

: 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.
:	Richard Dyrda

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?
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
      Not representing my employer.
    "'Moderation in all things' is for wimps."
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:43:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Nov18.194325.12702
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

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

The Stanley was not a high mass car. It weighed less than a Model T.
Remember it uses a flash boiler that's no bigger than a juice can
and a direct drive piston engine that doesn't require a gearbox.
Steam engines run as happily backwards as they do forwards, all
it requires is switching a couple of valves, so they don't even
need a gearbox for reverse. It was not slow either. It held the
land speed record on Daytona beach during the teens and topped out
at over 120 MPH. Other "steam wagons", built on the locomotive
principle, were big and slow, but not the Stanley. 

For truck use, however, the flash boiler doesn't generate enough
steam. You'd have to go to a fire tube boiler that *is* big and
heavy. It takes about an hour to bring one of these up to temperature,
and it's a nasty steam explosion risk in a collision. I had to stand
by and watch an engineer be cooked alive by steam after a railway
accident. It's not a pretty sight, he screamed for several minutes.
 
>  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.

The condenser isn't small, but needn't be terribly heavy since it operates
under partial vacuum rather than pressure. That vacuum increases engine
efficiency markedly, and eliminates the need to carry makeup water. At
10 MPG of water, the Stanley had to carry a rather heavy makeup water
tank.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:03:05 GMT

>>> governmental mechanisms for smog abatement.
>> This is too vague to address in a short amount of time.
> Not vague.  The SCAQMD is the only governmental organization of its kind
> and scope.  It's ability to react both short and long term to smog threats
> is unequalled.
Mentioning SCAQMD is specific.  Thank you.

> Richard Stead
You also ridicule me for suggesting that you do more research.  It is
clear that both of us are in the same position.  Both of us have read
up on this subject.  And neither of us is willing to spend the time
re-reading that info to fill in the details of these arguments.  At
this point I intend to drop out of this argument.  I really don't have
time for it.  And I don't think it is accomplishing anything useful.
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
      Not representing my employer.
    Member of League for Programming Freedom.  Write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re: External-Combustion Cars -- Possible?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 21:16:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.191148.12117@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> [...]
|> 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. 

Interesting, what kind of mpg (assuming they used gas) did stanley steamers
get?


Larry Edwards
Xref: sparky sci.energy:5625 talk.environment:4690
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: German Government Fuels Dangerous Eastern European Reactors
Date: 20 Nov 1992 05:03:40 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 <Greenpeace.19Nov1992.1700@naughty-peahen>, Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>Only because of the political, economic and technical assistance
>from Germany, countries like the CSFR, Bulgaria or Russia can
>continue operating their run-down reactors.
>  
>Greenpeace therefore demands from the German government to stop
>any further export of nuclear fuel from Greifswald to Eastern
>Europe immediately. Instead, the government should work for an
>immediate shutdown of Eastern European reactors. They should
>offer to assist Eastern European governments with the
>implementation of energy efficiency measures and the alternative
>energy supplies, such as gas and steam power plants.

Just how long does Greenpeace expect it to take to make up the shortfall in
generating capacity via "energy efficiency measures" and "gas power plants"
(please note:  "steam power plants" in this context is pure bullshit.  Nuclear
power plants ARE steam plants.  You'd think Greenhype could at least get
something that simple right).  What are the Slovaks supposed to do for
electricity in the meantime?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 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 14:06:27 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Nov19110116@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>   In article <1ebhauINNm1l@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>>Personally, I can't imagine very many situations in which having to wait
>>30 seconds between the time you turn on the ignition and the time you
>>can start the car moving would be a serious problem.

I drive two diesels and I have not found the wait for the pre-glow to be a
big problem (somewhere between 15 and 45 secs).  You just turn the key when
you get behind the wheel, then put your seatbelt on, and do those other things
that a lot of drivers do while there going down the driveway, and on the 
road.  That glow cycle is done before I am most of the time.

If I am in that much of a hurry to get moving, then I better consider a "legal"
line of employment or stay off the highway before I kill someone.

>(yeah, I know emergency vehicles are a small part of the
>problem, but they're going to get pretty expensive if they're
>going to have to be made or operated differently from ordinary
>vehicles...)

Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that a "warm car" wouldn't take as long
to get going.

30 seconds is minor in the great scheme of things. 
-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: tel:403 492-3713                             fax: 403 492-4256 <=
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:33:00 GMT

In article <56587@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> 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?

That's why we live in a Federal Republic.  No one state can make a unilateral
decision that affects the welfare of all states.  Your preferences would take
NIMBY to the logical extreme of anarchy where every individual makes their
own decisions about everything and screw everyone else.

> >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.  

And I take it that those six words are a really strong argument?  What
is weak about my argument?  You clearly have no rebuttal.

> >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.  

I'm shrill and zealous now?  I ask anyone to read my original post and your
response and determine who is shrill and zealous.  It is pretty clear.
Your ad hominem attack alone ("zealous shrillness") is an example of shrillness.
Your unfounded fear of nuclear waste, your appeal to "civilians make decisions
about their own lives" are examples of zealotry.  Greenpeace is zealous
and shrill.  I have yet to meet a shrill, zealous nuclear power advocate.
Regardless, the attitudes of defenders of an argument have nothing to do
with the truth of the argument.  I do not let Greenpeace's zealous
shrillness cloud my judgement of their opinions.  I wait for them to
provide the basis of their opinions and judge based on that and data from
other sources.

I am still waiting for the basis of your opinions on nuclear waste.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:30:09 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Nov18.184208.11908@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>> >Our current energy consumption, from all sources, is 1/100,000th of
>> >the energy received by Earth from the Sun. That's 0.001%, the change
>>
>>Actually, more like 1/10,000.
>
>Yearly solar influx is roughly 1.86E+18 watt-hours. World energy consumption
>is around 15E+12 watt-hours. That's roughly 1/100,000th. Where's my mistake?

Both your numbers are in error.  Yearly global primary energy use is
around 10^17 watt-hours.  Global insolation is around 10^21 watt
hours/year.


> It may not be "fundamental" but I haven't seen any process that raises
> a working fluid to anywhere near 5,000 K using the solar influx on
> anything but a tiny scale (IE solar furnace). The best large scale
> systems do well to reach 500 F. The Carnot limit for a heat engine
> is a ratio of inlet to outlet temperature of the *working* fluid.

Actually, parabolic 2-d concentrators easily exceed this last figure
(which comes from 1-d trough concentrators, right?)  See the work on
liquid sodium boilers in IECEC.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate Hawthorn)
Subject: why?
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:27:20 GMT

why is it that something silly like "a 30 second warm up, forget it"
would hold up development of a technology????
 
I can see these guys in a office arguing this point and finally dropping 
development because of it.
 
It really doesn't matter. Just because it's not EXACTLY like what you 
have now, doesn't mean you shouldn't make it.
 
Just stop it.
 
There's always a way to solve these small peoblems if you really want to 
(and really have a need for them).
 
The comment that someone made about the fact that he doesn't drive down 
to the store 6 blocks away is valid. If you're lazy then pay the price 
for it, that's all.
 
Ideas: Have a power system that sends electric power to the car at
night if the temp gets too low and supplies it from UNDERNEATH, not
needing the consumer to plug it in at all. Then that heats the water the 
SMALL amount it needs to keep it warm enough to not freez.
 
WE wouldn't need it in CALIFORNIA, or other southern places anyway.
 
If the tank is as insulated as it should be (if you built one you might 
get an idea of what it can/can't do instead of talking about what you 
have no experience with)... then the tank would lose little STEAM POWER 
or temp at all and thus you would just get in and go from the start.
 
Lighting the flame is no problem, we do that now in everything with a 
electronic spark, no problem...
 
I say quit talking about it and build one today. Go to the garage and 
quite watching TV.

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy - solar
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:02:39 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

|>If that's the argument, then we also need to consider the energy recovered
|>and the useful energy expended in this recovery.  For a biomass example,
|>very little useful energy is expended - in some areas pumps may be required
|>for irrigation and maybe some fertilizer would be required.  In addition,
|>there would be the fuel the tractors use to sow and harvest.  This totals
|>to a very small amount of useful energy.  Solar, on the other hand, can require
|>tremendous investment of useful energy - particularly if solar cells are used.

This is a very important point and must be considered in the overall life
cycle costs of an energy source, but we are talking about the semantics
of the term "system efficiency".  In the definition that I am familiar with
these factors are not included in this term.  

|> is used first instead of a competing resource?  Are you arguing that
|> someone in the future wants to use it for energy?  But who cares - 

Keeping reserves for the future might not be a bad idea unless
you truly don't care at all about future generations.

|> 
|> Or perhaps you are arguing that coal is valuable for other reasons.  I
|> cannot agree with that.  Coal has no other use than to produce energy.
|> Now, oil I can understand.  It is vitally important to the chemical
|> industry and we would not have a lot of our plastics, pharmecueticals,
|> etc. without it.  So I can say, no we shouldn't burn up all our oil.

Very good point.  As a matter of fact this argument about oil is
exactly what I was thinking of.  

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
(303)491-8215
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: GR743@uacsc2.albany.edu (Greg Rickes)
Subject: Re: Any info. on hydrogen power for cars??
Organization: University at Albany, Albany NY 12222
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 16:22:24 EST

>> >Before hydrogen cars can ever be more than a "look at us, see how good
>> >enviromentalists we are" project/publicity stunt, one major problem has
>> >to be solved.  How do you generate all that hydrogen in the first place
>> >without generating pollution, possibly more than running the car on gasoline
>> >or some other alternate fuel in the first place?
As a casual reader of this list, I am hardly technically
qualified to expand this discussion, but for your info
and further investigation Mazda recently announced some
potential in using the Wankel rotary cycle engine on
hydrogen fuel; apparently the Wankel cycle and multi-
spark ignition produces more efficient combustion than
traditional internal combustion design technology.