HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Continuously Variable Transmissions
Summary: Ouch!
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:48:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.225421.20631@mlb.semi.harris.com> jws@cica4.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:
> What I had in mind as a discrete-step transmission was not a set of
>planetaries, but something more like a variant of the CVT. However, instead
>of a metal belt transmitting power by friction (hence requiring controlled
>clamping force on the cones) I envisioned a cogged flat belt, where the
>cogs index up/down in number as the pulley diameter is indexed.

Well, that's different and doesn't require anywhere near the
auxiliary systems of a typical CVT.  But if you have large
amounts of rotating mass, your discrete ratios are going to
give you torque spikes in the system (and current spikes in
the output) when you shift your wind generator.  There will
have to be some sort of shock damper in the system to absorb
the energy of the sudden variations in relative speed.

If you use an induction generator which does not have to be
synchronized to the line, you might be able to get away with
this and no more.  (Make sure your structure has no troublesome
resonances around any of the possible rotational speeds!)  And,
of course, belts both wear and break.

I still think you are better off using electronics in a
variable-speed wind turbine, but feel free to try to
supply a counter-example.
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Electric vs. gas cars
Summary: Nukes don't *have* to be thrown away...
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:51:53 GMT

In article <11345@mindlink.bc.ca> Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
>And isn't there also the expense of
>decommissioning nuclear plants when they are no longer useful?  Nuclear power
>plants don't last forever.

Neither does anything else.  How do you de-commission a hydro
dam when the reservoir fills with silt?

Nukes have a major advantage:  the one big lifespan worry, which
is neutron embrittlement of the reactor vessel (in PWR's), can
be remedied by annealing the steel for a fraction of the cost
of decommissioning.  You then have a nice, ductile, like-new
vessel.

>Result is that if the industry
>did announce a way to safely store or, better yet, to somehow render the waste
>non-radioactive, a lot of people wouldn't believe the glad news.

There's energy in them wastes, and I believe there are designs
for radwaste-burners which would transform waste isotopes into
either stable isotopes or very short-lived ones (half-lives of
a few years), and do it with net energy produced.  I'm not real
clear on the details.  But if you won't trust the people who
know if these things are real or snake oil, who can help you?

>If I come
>across as an unthinking fanatic, maybe I am.  However, I worry far less about
>an explosion that about wastes that might damage DNA and create problems for
>people born 100 years from now.

If you want less radiation exposure, move closer to sea level and
don't live in an area with granite bedrock or uranium in the soil
(you get gammas from granite and radon from uranium decay).

>Oh, and another thing.  I think an electric car better be good on the highway
>for a few hundred miles.  I like to drive from BC to Alberta.  I guess it's a
>way of going on a holiday.

That one at least has a fix.  Rent a power-trailer for those
trips and have its on-board engine push the car, charge your
batteries or both.  (This turns your car into a half-hybrid,
only carrying an auxiliary engine and fuel when you need to).
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
From: 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Hydrogen engines - NO2 reduction
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:13:54 GMT

The main reason that Hydrogen engines put out all that NO2 is becuase
there's no carbon in the exhause to fire a catalytic converter, right?

If so, then could a hydrogen engine burn hydrogen with a little bit of
natural gas mixed in to provide that carbon?

Would the use of mixed-gas help bring hydrogen-fired cars into 
existence, since the boys in texas could still sell something?

CM  01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines - Correction-
From: srgxbhh@grace.dsir.govt.nz
Date: 17 Apr 92 09:11:29 +1200
 <1992Apr15.170303.10462@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> <1992Apr17.071245.16725@grace.dsir.govt.nz>
Organization: DSIR, Gracefield, New Zealand

In article <1992Apr17.071245.16725@grace.dsir.govt.nz>, srgxbhh@grace.dsir.govt.nz writes:
 
> In practice many such engine factors exist and the requirements for avoidance
> of knock are vested in the fuel alone. 
           ^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, that should be  " are not vested "

   Bruce Hamilton            SSRGXBHH@grv.dsir.govt.nz
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Electric vs. gas cars
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:14:50 GMT

ashraf@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Ashraf Mahmoud) writes:

>In article <11345@mindlink.bc.ca> Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
>>I don't know if I've missed anything but has anybody here said anything about
>>the power stations or dams that will have to be built to provide electricity to
>>charge the batteries of the electric cars?  

FYI:  i did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and, if we just cover the
roofs of 70 million homes with solar cells, we could supply all the
electrical energy the US consumes.  I haven't heard anything about those
low cost TI cells in a long time--what's the deal.  [assumptions: 8 hours
of sun for 200 days, 1000 sf of roof and 20% efficiency].

  "...should have seen it kids, looked like a big old glowing gopher..."
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Cars Energy Usage: Summary  NEW DATA
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:28:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr14.172823.10088
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


In an article dated 4/10 from cn0gr8af@hydra.unm.edu, Rusty 
provides data on his electric car and recaps data from earlier
discussions and other sources.
  He concludes that his experience confirms the energy usage reported
by SCEdison in their test vehicles. If his data on his car is correctly
reported, this conclusion is incorrect. His units are reversed.
  He states that his car got 1.95 miles per kwh of electricity used.
BUT the SCE data say that their vehicles REQUIRED 1.5 kwh per mile.
Therefor Rusty's experience is closer to the 0.18 to 0.5 kwh/mile
reported in earlier discussions by several individuals, and his
power consumption was about one-third that of the SCE vehicles.
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Conservation (was Re: Green Coal (:-) (was Re: Victor ...)
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:05:08 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Apr8.044908.28002@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (anmar mirza) writes:

>In article <1992Apr7.125215@pan.mc.ti.com> a722756@pan.mc.ti.com (W. D. Rolph) writes:

>>     2)  the exponential growth of energy over time

>Concern #2,  what exponential increase?  I believe that energy usage
>has remained steady or only slightly increased over the last 20-30
>years.  I don't forsee a future exponential increase unless new energy

If what you say is true, why are new power plants required?

I believe that the real growth in energy requirements is due to the
exponential increase in the world's population and the increasing
industrializaton of the 3rd world.

Now considering North America, it has been industrialized for many
decades and it has a much smaller population growth than the rest of
the world.  So I can believe that NA needs
have not changed much in the last few decades, but I am
sure they have increased, not decreased.

>>I appreciate your well reasoned comments they were quite interesting.

I, too, find your posts good.

_______________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: elsonliu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Liu)
Subject: Re: Mixed power sources for electric cars
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 08:41:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.205421.12877@cs.brown.edu> evan@gauss.math.brown.edu (Evan M. Simpson) writes:
>
>   To the point: If the above are correct, couldn't one build an automobile
>run by electric motors, powered by a fuel-burning turbine under the hood? 
>The turbine assembly could be made to be easily replaced, so that a
>changeover to a new fuel, or even to high-capacity future batteries, could
>be a simple matter.
>
>Evan Simpson
>evan@gauss.math.brown.edu
>Brown Unversity Math Department

Yes.  What you speak of (in general terms) has already been made, and some
are commercially available.  They are called hybrid electric vehicles.
In fact, the big three automakers are planning to come out with hybrids
to help with the latest emissions regulations, especially in California.
Furthermore, the Energy Department and Ford Motor Company are sponsoring
a national competition among colleges and universities to design and
build a hybrid vehicle, similar to the solar car competition sponsored
by GM.

				.....Elson.....
From: 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: CVT's  and  Wind Turbines
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:39:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr14.193951.6390

Have you-all read about a new variety of CVT that ranger-rover's installing
in some of their vehicles?  It can go from very low ration all the way 
down to "geared neutral."  And those Range Rover's are pretty high-power
vehicles, aren't they?  I read about it in a Pop Sci or Pop Mech.

And as for the wind generators, I've read of them generating DC and then
rectifying it to match the grid.  That way, the unit can spin as fast as
it can, thereby generating extra power in gusts and strong winds.

CM
From: ab0kfc@gdt.bath.ac.uk (K F Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: BMS survey
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:56:08 GMT
Organization: School of Architecture, University of Bath, UK

If you are an undergradate of engineering you may like to
do a questionnaire through email, on the subject "Building
Management Systems". This questionnaire is being done by 
your counterparts at USA, CAN, & UK. Comparison will be 
made between you and them.

If you know nothing about BMS but you know some others may 
do, please pass on the message.

Come and Join the party !!

-------------------------------------------------------------
K.F CHOW                      email : ab0kfc@uk.ac.bath.sl1
School of Architecture &              ab0kfc@uk.ac.bath.gdt
Building Engineering,
Bath University, UK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Eldred)
Subject: Cost to drive electric cars
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:14:52 GMT

I'm new to the newsgroup but I have been watching with great interest
the discussions on how much energy is actually required to run an
electric car.  In many cases comparisons to gas powered vehicles are
made, with the conclusion that electric cars are cheaper to run.
I don't feel that these are fair comparisons, in general.  To make
a fair comparison, the following factors should be taken into
consideration:

1.  The cars should be equivalent in size, power, and accessories
(such as power brakes, air conditioning, lights, etc.)  If an electric
car is putting out an average of 4 hp, then the only fair comparison
is with a gas car with 4 hp.  I think that this gas car would turn out
to be extremely cheap to operate.  It would also have excellent range
and low emissions due to the small engine.

2.  When comparing the operation cost of electric vs gasoline cars,
the taxes imposed on both forms of energy should be considered.  The
tax on gasoline currently consists of nearly half the pump price, while
the tax on electricity is much less significant.  Thus the real price
of gasoline is much less than what we pay at the pump, and this should
be factored into the comparison.  You can depend on the government
imposing additional taxes on electricity if there is a mass movement
torwards electric cars and hence loss of revenue from gas taxes.  Based
on this argument, the real cost to drive a gas powered car is very
inexpensive indeed.

Flame on.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|   PRESERVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  STOP CIVIL FORFEITURE UNDER RICO!   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan Eldred                  | Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 198-326    |
| eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov | 4800 Oak Grove Dr.,Pasadena, CA 91109 |
| Phone: (818) 354-6519       | Fax: (818) 393-4440                   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: leland@cbnewse.cb.att.com (leland.m.kornhaus)
Subject: Re: Electric Cars Energy Usage: Summary
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:18:28 GMT


In a previous post Paul Houtz quotes a figure of 2-4 hp to maintain 50 mph!

Paul, I'd like to know where you got this figure.  GM's ultralite vehicle has a 
CD of .192 (Popular Mechanics April '92 pg100)  This car uses about 4 hp to go 
50 mph and it does not even remotely come close to the size, frontal area and 
CD of a Ford Tempo.   Where are you getting your figures?

We can't argue with what your electric meter thinks you are using.  However We 
tend to think something is wrong when you post energy usage that appears to be 
mathematically and physically impossible.  The fact that your car has no 
regenerative braking and probably weighs more than a standard Tempo makes the
figures you post even harder to belive.  Lastly, if your car can't maintain
65 mph up a 5% grade, don't you think a more realistic comparison would be
made with a Tempo with a gas engine that can only produce 8-15 hp?  

None of us doubt that electric vehicles have potential.  We doubt that existing 
conversions are as efficient as $30,000+ dollar prototypes that have 
regenerative braking, more advanced electronics, and are purpose built. 



Leland Kornhaus
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Eldred)
Subject: Re: Electric vs. gas cars
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:17:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.181450.14151@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
>
>FYI:  i did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and, if we just cover the
>roofs of 70 million homes with solar cells, we could supply all the
>electrical energy the US consumes.  I haven't heard anything about those
>low cost TI cells in a long time--what's the deal.  [assumptions: 8 hours
>of sun for 200 days, 1000 sf of roof and 20% efficiency].
>

Not to mention, it would reduce global warming, would not deplete
natural resources (silicon = beach sand/gravel), provide all sorts
of jobs, and would make US globally competitive again because we
would have cheaper energy than anyone else.  I'll bet the oil
companies wouldn't like it too much, though.




-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|   PRESERVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  STOP CIVIL FORFEITURE UNDER RICO!   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan Eldred                  | Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 198-326    |
| eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov | 4800 Oak Grove Dr.,Pasadena, CA 91109 |
| Phone: (818) 354-6519       | Fax: (818) 393-4440                   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ashraf@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Ashraf Mahmoud)
Subject: Re: Electric vs. gas cars
Organization: Department of Engineering Physics, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:15:15 GMT

In article <11345@mindlink.bc.ca> Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
>I don't know if I've missed anything but has anybody here said anything about
>the power stations or dams that will have to be built to provide electricity to
>charge the batteries of the electric cars?  

Yes, quite a bit has been said about this not too long ago.

>And isn't there also the expense of
>decommissioning nuclear plants when they are no longer useful?  

All utilities that run nuclear plants include decomissioning costs in their
rate base calculations, albeit towards an uncertain final figure.

>Result is that if the industry
>did announce a way to safely store or, better yet, to somehow render the waste
>non-radioactive, a lot of people wouldn't believe the glad news.  

I will raise an issue of semantics that I raised earlier (to some confusion 
I might add).  The industry *does* know how to "safely store" its radioactive
waste.  In fact, it's probably being stored safer than any other toxic waste
we generate.
  
What you (probably) are referring to is long-term storage.  This is not 
nit-picking, because the implications of your original statement are not
trivial.

>However, I worry far less about
>an explosion that about wastes that might damage DNA and create problems for
>people born 100 years from now.

It is appropriate that you use the word "wastes" alone, dropping the
adjective "nuclear".  I worry about wastes that might damage DNA also (plus
a myriad of other effects).  Nuclear waste is not among these.

Jeremy Whitlock                     "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Summary: Turbines are better.
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:22:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.232226.23903@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>Summary:  Hydrogen makes a lousy fuel for an internal combustion engine.
>So how well does it do in a gas turbine engine?

1.)	Unless your hydrogen supply is pre-pressurized, you
	still have to input some work to inject it.  However,
	it takes nowhere near as much as diesel injection does.

2.)	It's very easy to keep hydrogen lit.  That's a plus.

3.)	Dunno about NOx.  A transpiration or radiant burner
	might solve that problem.

4.)	Since fuel and air are not mixed until they reach the
	combustion chamber, pre-ignition is not a factor.  If
	the compressor outlet temp is high enough to ignite
	hydrogen, then flameout is impossible.

Hydrogen looks a lot better for a gas turbine than for a piston engine.
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Summary: Correction.  (I'm sitting this time.)
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:21:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.170303.10462@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> I wrote:
>A typical intake air temperature on a car today is 100 F (311 K).
>If we consider the air-hydrogen mixture to be an ideal gas with
>a ratio of specific heats of 1.4, its temperature after being
>compressed by n:1 will be its original temperature times n^(.4/1.4).

I plead guilty to using the wrong exponent.  The exponent should
be .4, not .4/1.4.  Elucidation:

In an isentropic compression or expansion of an ideal gas, the
polytropic gas law applies.  This law states that P*v^gamma = C,
where gamma is the Cp/Cv of the gas.

The ideal gas law P*v = R*T also applies, so:

	T*v^(gamma-1) = C/R (another constant)

	T2/T1 = (v2/v1)^(1-gamma)

This changes the results below.

>In this case, we have a maximum temperature ratio of 1.534, which
>leads to a maximum compression ratio of 4.47:1 (1.534 ^ (1.4/.4))

This maximum compression ratio is 1.534^(2.5), or 2.91:1.

Lots of EGR and water injection could certainly raise the
critical compression ratio and allow the use of carbureted
hydrogen in a more efficient spark-ignition engine.  However,
I do not think it is worth the bother.
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Electric vs. gas cars
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:31:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.165153.781@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>In article <11345@mindlink.bc.ca> Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
[...]
>>Result is that if the industry
>>did announce a way to safely store or, better yet, to somehow render the waste
>>non-radioactive, a lot of people wouldn't believe the glad news.
>
>There's energy in them wastes, and I believe there are designs
>for radwaste-burners which would transform waste isotopes into
>either stable isotopes or very short-lived ones (half-lives of
>a few years), and do it with net energy produced.  I'm not real
>clear on the details.  But if you won't trust the people who
>know if these things are real or snake oil, who can help you?

Could you cite some references dealing with this topic?  It sounds
absolutely fascinating.  Please email a copy of any references you
cite.  Thanks in advance.

>Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
>  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *
>
>                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)