HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Subject: Re: Request: info on desalination and solar energy
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:07:10 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

 In my limited experiments, I found direct 1X solar to be too low-grade to
evaporate much water. Too much heat was lost via radiation, convection.
Low E/R paint and a better enclosure, i.e. not one built in 15 min from scrap
could do better I'm sure. However, even looking at 1kW/m2, you either have
to spread the water pretty thin or concentrate the heat to bring up the
temp and evaporate in short time.

 A parabolic trough collector is probably the simplest choice. It eliminates
the problem of tracking. One absolute necessity is to have a collector which
is well insulated but with a transmissive covering. Perhaps a shrouded 
open-entry design for the collector face could work, if convection could be
adequately suppressed.

 My doodling has been aimed at minimum-complexity, minimum-energy-input
(materials and operation) distillation. Therefore I try to use gravity
feed (descending holding tank to collector, separation by elevation of
vapor) for the water flow. 

 To date all of my models have been pretty unsatisfactory, partly due to
scale (all 1/2 m2 or less). However I have collected clean water even
from the poorest ones - just not much. The real key is to get the collector
temp up. If you can get to 100C dry, you're almost home. This isn't as
easy as raw insolation numbers might make you think. Remember that 1 m2
can radiate and dump to air plenty of heat whilst it's getting shone upon.
-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Turbine/Infinitely Variable Transmission
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:29:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.104023.22493@gallant.apple.com> 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.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sounds like sucker bait to me ... if it is patented, they have already
publicly disclosed.  If it isn't patented, then the first one to be
produced will be reverse engineered to break their trade secret 
protection (unless ALL purchasers of end product and ALL repair
folks will also be under non-disclosure...and non-resale ... and ...)

>they were only interested in licensing the technology, not building it
>themselves.

At how many $$$ to peek under the tent?  And how many more to buy 
a license?

>The transmission is INFINITELY variable, ie all the way from 0:1 to 1:1.

Whoa there... 0:1 implies that for a tinsy little input torque, I can
get near infinite output torque.  i.e. ANY motor driving this thing
can pretzel up the drive shaft anytime it wants to.   Are you SURE it
isn't a range from, say, 1:1 to 10:1 with a switch over to 0:0 (i.e.
neutral) at the far range?  (Also, I think you really mean 1:0 ... input
vs output rpm).

I've seen an example varable transmission with a slider wheel between
two cones.  At one extream range, it runs out of pointy end on one
of the cones and the idler wheel then free runs, in neutral...
(The two cones are pointy ended in opposite directions, one pointy
end right, the other pointy end left, with a wheel in between them...)

>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. 

Ahh, but HOW smoothly?  And from what 'low speed' to what 'high speed'?

Are you SURE it wasn't 0 rpm, 1-1000 rpm? (as opposed to 0-10000 rpm).

...
>It all sounds too good to be true, except that it sure looked like it
>worked in the video. I never did the non-disclosure, and I haven't heard
>anything about it since, so if anyone knows anything more, let us know!

Yes, it does sound too good to be true, and has a high 'odor meter'
reading as well...  How long ago was this?  One week, one decade?
If in the decade range, I'd write it off... 

Sorry to be so harsh about it, but ads from the back of 'some magazine'
for miracle machines that only take a little money to let you see how
they work set off my smell-o-meter big time...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy - solar
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:01:29 GMT

In article <Nov21.000239.67911@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu writes:
>|>Solar, on the other hand, can require
>|>tremendous investment of useful energy- particularly if solar cells are used.

Or it can take relatively little if solar thermal systems are used.

>|> 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.

Ever heard of coal tar?  How about the history of dye chemistry?  How
about alcohol as a chemical feedstock (and coal gasification and ...)

Coal is every bit as usable a chemical feedstock as oil.  Oil is 
cheaper and more convenient for many feedstocks, but you can turn
coal and coal oil into just about anything you can turn oil into.

>|> 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.  

Flat out wrong.  Reword it to 'we would have to pay a bit more for
a lot of our plastics,' etc. and you have a true statement.

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

Then think again.  Rayon is made from plants.  You can get most
plastics et.al. from an alcohol feestock and enough manipulations.
Where can you get alcohol from?  Natural gas, plants, coal, pig shit,...

>Kevin Knappmiller
>Solar Lab

As someone from a solar lab, I would have expected you to be familiar
with the chemical feedstock potential of plant material.

Yes, it is very easy to get long chain hydrocarbon feedstocks from
oil.  Yes, it takes a bit more manipulation to get them from coal
and plants.  No, it would not be the end of plastic society as we
know it if oil went away.

-- 

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: 23 Nov 92 17:29:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.031915.24427@hpcvca.cv.hp.com>, abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown) writes:
> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) 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.

Fine, but that does not explain environmental groups jumping on the bandwagon.
I agree absolutely that a gov't ought to have fairly incontrovertible evidence
(perhaps classified) before making such a accusation.  But what does greenpeace
have to gain by arguing the bee shit theory?  Surely, yellow rain warfare
is an environmental risk and greenpeace should persue the possibility or
remain neutral, but not argue the other side.

> Also consider what it means to be an extremist.  All the word really
> means is that your opinion is not close to the middle of the road at

By extremist, I must admit that I was deliberately trying to isolate
the defenders of Soviet chemical warfare from mainstream environmentalists
(Which I consider myself one of).

> > 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.
> Few serious scientists ever completely accepted the Yellow Rain theory
> either.  The proof just wasn't strong enough back then.

There was debate, agreed.  Most scientists just didn't want to get caught
in the political game.  Biologists I talked to at the time, even the
fairly leftist ones privately ridiculed the bee shit theory, but it is
true that most, if asked point blank what they thought was going on, would
say they didn't know.  Absolutely true, of course.  With all the political
manuevering surrounding the question, official scientific reports on both
sides were somewhat suspect, and most biologists would not have had any
close experience with the substance itself or those studying it.

> > 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.
> I don't have access to these files.  Do you?

No, but it's been big news for the past few years.  Sure, every news report we
see where a box of documents gets turned over and both sides state what
the documents say - those boxes could be full of blank paper, and this is
all a big sham - like McCarthy's list of names.  However, since both sides
have said the contents reveal the same thing, I tend to believe that until
proven otherwise.  If I was really worried, I could always make an FOIA request.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy
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 14:41:25 GMT

>In article <1992Nov18.015040.6276@ole.cdac.com> ssave@ole.cdac.com (The Devil Reincarnate) 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.
>   And pray, tell me, who created these "ecological time bombs"?

 Looks to me like the former Soviet Union. All of these I mentioned were
either by the Soviets or their former puppet states.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:45:06 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>In article <1992Nov18.230016.14603@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown) writes:
>I think we all agree that the Yellow Rain was bad, both for the
>environment and for people.  I just don't see how Greenpeace could
>have done anything about it.

 How can they stop French Nuclear Tests?? They can write and give
lobbyists money to lobby special world groups, ie UN, WC, etc. This is
usually much cheaper and more effective than standing in front of a 
truck or any other such manner.

>I am sorry that I did not keep the articles.  If I had more time on my
>hands I would mail a letter to Greenpeace asking for a reprint.

 No big deal, my complaint was that Greenpeace shows no thanks towards
the US who spends billions each year on the environment.

>There are two things going on here.  One is the feeling of
>appreciation.  The other is showing that appreciation in ways that
>others [e.g. you] will recognize.  I am not sure about the first.
>But it is clear from your comments that Greenpeace could do better
>in showing their appreciation (if they do appreciate it.)

 Sure I feel that Greenpeace seems a little extreme and non-thankful.
However there are much more effective ways to protest rather than their
silly news-drawing sit in's, etc.

>I don't think Greenpeace will ever satisfy you.  But its possible that
>they don't have to offend you as much as they currently do.  Fair enough?

 Yes they can satisfy a lot of people if; 1) They cut the extremeism and
try to do things more effectively; 2) Get better PR people; and 3) Start
lobbying world organizations who can make a difference.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:53:06 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's


 
> But the steam car is now again on its way.  The engine will probably
> be hermetically sealed, 

I expose my greenness when I admit that I don't know what "hermetically sealed"
means.  Wuzzit mean?
  
> requiring no lubrication, no makeup water.
> Its condenser will operate with vacuum.  

With vacuum?  Hmmmm.
As a side note, blowing air over the condenser would reduce its necessary size.

> It will get off from a cold start in thirty seconds.

But is that just too long?  With an IC, it's a fraction of that.
What can make from quiker startup?  How about an electric heating element?  
Good insulation? Very low water volume might me the key.  Wouldn't a low-volume,
high-temperature, high-pressure system (with less water to boil) 
start up faster?

> The engine itself
> will be so light that one mechanic can pick it up in his arms.  

Whoa, now!  That would be a very high-temp and high-pressure system, indeed. 
In the GM Steam Car, the boiler was half the engine, and it weighed hundreds of
pounds.  The whole 160hp system wieghed 450 pounds more than the 300hp IC
engine it replaced.  'Gonna take some work.

Need input, need input!

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: Specs on GM SE 101 and 124 steam engines
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:57:43 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

I figured some of you might want to know more about the engine used in the 
GM SE 101 steam car:

Four cylanders displacing 101 cubic inches, and developed 160hp.
  1.6 hp/lb!
                
It had a camshaft/rocker arm system to open and close the intake valves
  One valve per cylander

Halfway down the cylander wall it had exhaust ports.

However, it was NOT double-acting.

Yet, it used the standard steam-engine mechanical setup, consisting of a
piston, packing, a crosshead, and connecting rod.

  If the system wasn't double-acting, is the piston/crosshead duo needed?
  Why not have the piston connected directly to the connecting rod?
  If the engine was double-acting, then the crankcase would be flooded with
  steam when the piston was pushed up.  But the GM car wasn't double-acting, so
  what's the point, eh?

    Is the packing needed to prevent steam leakage anyway?
    Couldn't the piston's rings do just as well?

      But all piston rings have a gap, eh?
      Would leak through the gaps?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Also in the book is a diagram of the GM SE 124 steam car.  Its engine is very
small--but the system is still huge because of the boiler.     

It had only two pistons--a high pressure piston and a larger low pressure
piston.

The whole engine was about as big as the transmission.

Whatever kind of valvetrain it had, it isn't overhead.  Sliding-valve?

Fascinating, Captain...

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: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 23:07:50 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
 <1992Nov18.215046.17548@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
  <1eerr6INNhgv@gap.caltech.edu>

> The question is irrelevent, as you would've realized had you taken even a
> moment to think about it before posting.  The question is whether we can really
> afford the ADDITIONAL water that would be required by open loop steam engines.
> California has had two severe droughts in the 19 years I've lived here.  We're
> currently entering the 7th year of the drought.  Last year water was RATIONED
> in a number of cities.  An additional water sink is something that looks like
> REALLY bad idea.
> 
> =Remember too that water dispersed into the air is likely to recondense as dew
> =or rain, unlike water that goes down the drain.
> 
> So?  Given that it does condense as dew (not all that likely actually, in
> Southern California for much of the year, considering that 70% relative
> humidity is considered high in these parts), that dew is going to be largely in
> places that:
> 	1)  It can't be recovered from; and
> 	2)  That aren't normally irrigated.
> I.e., it's not going to reduce the amount of water demanded for other uses, and
> it's not going to go back into the water distribution system.  For all
> practical purposes, that water will be GONE.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

The amount of water we're talking about is not significant, even if a whole
new industry were based on it.  I believe the figure is 85%, for the
amount of California water consumed by agriculture.  The growing of
California rice and cotton accounts for more water consumption than all
of the people and animals in California.  It's actually quite ridiculous
that the general public should be asked to cut back on water consumption
when agriculture is wasting water on such an enormous scale.  Part of this
has to do with existing agreements which result in farmers being given
water for a small fraction of the cost of providing it.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:56:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Nov18.195653.12878
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Nov17.204353.12036@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>> 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?

But wet steam is it's own lubricant.
  
>> 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.

And give it right back on the next pass. Keeping the engine hot is an
efficiency improver.

>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) 

The piston isn't that large either, and the boiler is tiny.

>  simplicity (albiet offset by the geartrain)                      

Not as simple as the piston.

>  having one power stroke for every rotation 

The piston has *two* power strokes per revolution, it's double acting.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.energy:5603 talk.environment:4668
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: HCFCs Not Enough of an Improvement (was: . . . Ozone-Friendly Fridge)
Followup-To: talk.environment
Date: 20 Nov 1992 00:46:20 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<Greenpeace.16Oct1992.2210@naughty-peahen>
	<1992Oct19.203128.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu's message of 20 Oct 92 03:31:28 GMT

> While it is true that HCFC's contribute to ozone depletion,
> they are much less effective at this than CFC's.  Their ozone
> depletion potentials range from about .01 to .1 (compared to
> 1.0 for CFC-11).

=-= This comparison is certainly true, but you neglect to
address the magnitude of the damage being done.  HCFCs are
just CFCs with hydrogen added to make them less stable, so
that they break up sooner.

=-= Given that CFCs yield 100 years of ozone depletion,
"sooner" means (to use your statistics) "only" 1-10 years.
This is better news, but it is by no means good news,
especially for those who'll be spending time in the near
future. :-|

> HCFC's are not an ideal solution (and I have never heard them
> advertised as such) . . .

=-= I've seen phrases like "CFC-free" and "ozone-friendly" used
for products that have replaced CFCs with HCFCs.

> . . . but I see no problem with using them in situations
> where better substitutes are not yet available.

=-= Again, the magnitude of the damage is such that I would have
to disagree.

> To determine whether a substitute is "better" one needs to
> consider a wide range of factors, including economic ones.

=-= On this I agree, but with one huge qualification:  Most
systems for calculating "economic factors" aren't designed
for the real world, but for one in which resources are never
depleted and the costs of environmental damage is never even
considered.  "Economic factors" that overlook such things
aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
    <_Jym_>