HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:28:17 GMT
Followup-To: sci.energy

In article <1h4qbkINNnbi@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> In article <78150@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> >Sounds like an interesting idea to me.  Make one end of the flywheel a motor
> >driven by line current.  Make the other end a generator that powers your
> 
> This used to be fairly common in big mainframe installations.  I worked at
> a Cyber site that had a flywheel about ten feet in diameter attached to
> the main motor-generator set.  When the power went out, we had about twenty
> seconds of operation to save registers and copy all jobs out to disk.

Aaaahhhh.

Real world flywheels, now this is more like it.  Here, we got a 10 foot
stationary flywheel that can power a computer for 20 seconds.  Probably
very safe, and possibly lower maintainance than the lead-acid batteries
currently in use for uninterruptibles.

Given the design of that, how can these other people talk about little,
portable flywheels capable of powering a car 600 miles (10 hours!).
The car probably pulls at least as much juice, and they want to power it
1800 times as long with flywheels at least 10 times smaller (which means
at least 10,000 times the revolutions per second) than the practical, real
world flywheel described above.  And I've heard about those 10 foot flywheels,
they're pretty safe, but every once in awhile one would fail, and they did
so quite spectacularly.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: mtvahb@rivm.nl (Aldrik Bakema)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: electric fuel gauges
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:26:04 GMT
Organization: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiene,Bilthoven,NL
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

I'm not an expert in this, but would it not be possible tu 'use up',
say, 5 cells or so at a time, switching to the next 5 whenever the 
first 5 get low. This way you would know quite precisely how much
'fuel' you have left, and at the same time take care that all cells
are discharged deep enough now and then, as I understand is necessary
for NiCads. The reason I guess some sort of scheme like this would
be possible, is that in cars it's not so much the maximum power that 
is limiting, but the maximum storage capacity. So, it should be possible
not to use all celss at the same time, and still get your normal performance.
Of course the number of cells connected at one time depends on tehir size
and capacity. The number 5 is just used as an example.
Comments?

Aldrik Bakema
From: kline@well.sf.ca.us (David Kline)
Subject: Re: Rape Oil as transport fuel
Keywords: biofuel rape transport Europe
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:53:47 GMT

Another interesting twist on the biofuels idea is a process which
turns algae into diesel fuel.  I know someone working on such a 
project here at NREL, and it sounds promising for that particular 
niche.
From: Essential Information <ei@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 31 Dec 92 12:43 PST
Subject: Re: Energy Ideas - Thermal Env.
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1466300127:cdp:1466300132:000:2493
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ei    Dec 31 12:43:00 1992



RADIANT BARRIERS - ENHANCING INSULATION PERFORMANCE

Insulation is capable of stopping the conduction of heat but it
cannot prevent heat transfer by radiation.  When sunlight strikes
the roof of a building it can increase the temperature of the
roof up to 190 degrees fahrenheit on a black roof or 160 degrees
on a white roof.  Both the outer and inner surface of the roof
are at this temperature.  The placement of insulation beneath the
roof prevents the conduction of heat from the roof into the
building.  However, since insulation has a non-reflective
surface, it will absorb heat radiated by the roof until it
reaches the same temperature as the roof.  The hot insulation
then warms the air surrounding it.  Rather than being a barrier,
the insulation has become a heat source.

Radiant Barriers Block Radiant Heat

Radiant barriers prevent the roof~s radiant heat from reaching
below the building insulation.  A radiant barrier is essentially
a low-emissivity (low-E) surface.  Since low-E surfaces neither
absorb nor emit heat radiation very effectively,  radiant
barriers reflect infrared radiation.   A 1985 Solar Age Magazine
article states that a radiant barrier will reflect up to 97
percent of the incident radiation.  

Placement of Barriers in Buildings

Since commercial buildings generally have their insulation, if
any, as a part of their roof structure, barriers must be
installed on top of the roof.  Weathering and dust accumulation
will reduce the effectiveness of a barrier over time.

Exterior Barriers for Buildings

Two types of radiant barriers exist on the market.  The first is
a sheet of low-E material, such as aluminum foil.  The foil is
normally laminated to a rigid scrim (a coarse fabric) to
facilitate installation.  The second is a paint which may be
applied to any surface.  The paint is only slightly less
effective than foil in its performance, but it can also be
applied externally and to a surface of any shape.

CASE STUDIES:

Application of Paint Barrier in Arkansas
In 1987, a radiant barrier paint was applied to the
28,000-square-foot roof of an egg production facility. The
application of the barrier reduced the roof temperature by 40
degrees fahrenheit.  The production facility was closed but in
1990 the coating was still in good condition and the interior
temperatures of the building were lower than adjacent untreated
buildings.  (Contact: Bob Aresty, Solar Energy Corporation, 129
Walters Avenue, Trenton, NJ  08638, (609) 883-7700.)


Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Motor/Generator ???
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:11:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.092927.1@pa881a.inland.com> schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer) writes:
>Can anyone say a few words about motor/generators.

The motor turns the generator. Is that few enough words? :-)

MG sets have been used for many purposes. The most common is to convert
DC power into AC power, or AC power of one frequency to AC power of another
frequency. Rarely are they used to convert AC to DC since rectifiers do that
so much better. Solid state inverters have replaced most uses of MG sets in
the last 15 years. The efficiency is higher, and there is no mechanical
wear. Computer installations used to use MG sets to ride out short duration
power loses, IE an early mechanical form of UPS. Usually these were DC->AC
MG sets that ran off a bank of batteries that were on constant float charge
from mains power. A few really big systems also had large flywheels to 
smooth out short duration power bumps. 

>Are generators more efficient that motor/generators?

All generators have to be turned by some kind of engine, so they're
all motor generators in that sense. When the engine is a prime mover
rather than a secondary power source like an electric motor, energy
is converted from chemical to electrical leaving a net increase in
available electrical power. When the system is a MG, electrical energy 
is converted to electrical energy with some loss so that the net amount 
of available electricity is now less. So in that sense, you would say 
that MG sets are less efficient than generators turned by a prime mover.
They operate at a loss while the others operate at a gain.

>Would a good motor like those used in R/C cars and planes 
>be a good generator?

No, the slip angles on the communtator are wrong. You'd get excess
sparking. DC generators in general are fairly inefficient. That's
why cars use alternators that generate 3 phase AC power that is then
rectified to DC by solid state rectifiers.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Popular Science Fly Wheel Article
Date: 28 Dec 1992 19:32:32 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 <78155@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1h41jqINNn2j@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>
>|	2)  They've reduced the energy stored in each flywheel.  I'd be happier
>|	    if they were using about 500 flywheels, but 20's a start.  They're
>|	    now only talking about something like 2 sticks of dynamite
>|	    equivalent in the event of a flywheel failure.
>
>Only if they put each flywheel in a separate container, otherwise the shock
>wave of the first one going will take out all the others.  Of course if they
>put them in seperate containers, your car will soon weigh more than your
>average tank.

Well, yes, I *was* assuming that they'd put them in separate containers.  By
doing so, they'd be able to increase the time over which the failure occurs
(even if the containers were flimsy enough that failure of one would generate a
chain reaction of failures as other containers were breached by debris), which
could make things considerably safer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:34:59 GMT

stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>>>I couldn't see solar and wind supporting a country of 10-20 million or more,
>>>and I wouldn't want to be in Bangladesh when a typhoon carries off the 
>>>country's entire capacity of solar panels.
>> 
>> I woudln't want to be in Bangladesh when a typhoon carries off a
>> containment structure.

>No comparison.  Containment structures are designed to withstand the strongest
>tornadoes - a mere typhoon would simply give the plant a nice bath.
>									Just
>look at some of the stuff our last big hurricane did in Florida.  That's
>exactly what a typhoon does.

You mean, like knocking the Turkey Point nuclear plant offline for several
weeks? That's one hell of a bath!


William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com

"We trained hard,  but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized.  I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;  and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization."	-Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC
From: Essential Information <ei@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:54 PST
Subject: Energy Ideas - HVAC-2
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466300134:000:1835
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ei    Dec 31 13:54:00 1992



ENERGY IDEAS -- AIR CONDITIONING (Vol. 1, No. 4, December 1992)

Editor -- Jonathan Kleinman
Founder, Center for Study of Responsive Law -- Ralph Nader
Director, Government Purchasing Project -- Eleanor Lewis


This issue of "Energy Ideas" continues the discussion of heating,
ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.  In particular,
this issue considers increasing chiller efficiency, absorption
cooling systems, thermal energy storage and adjustable speed
drives.  One article covers an emerging technology -- fuel cells.

This issue also covers two environmental topics.  The first is
the selection of refrigerants for air conditioning systems.  As
the ozone hole continues to fade away, the selection of safe
fluids for use as refrigerants in air conditioning systems
becomes increasingly important.  HFCs and absorption cooling
systems provide the safest alternatives.  Also, end users have
begun to ask what they should do with their fluorescent lights
after the lights burn out.  They contain mercury, a toxic metal,
and the EPA has not stated whether end users will be held liable
for disposal of these lights into municipal landfills.

The last article of this issue contains a survey.  Please take
the time to answer the survey -- we would like to make this a
more effective resource for users of e-mail.  (please send
responses to ei (on EcoNet) or ei@igc.apc.org (on InterNet)).

To read an article, type <topic number>.<article number>

1.  Introduction
2.  Improving Cooling System Efficiency
3.  Switching from Electricity to Natural Gas
4.  Refrigerants: What are the Alternatives ?
5.  Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: Absorption vs. Vapor-Compression
6.  Thermal Energy Storage
7.  Adjustable Speed Drives
8.  On the Horizon: Fuel Cells
9.  Lighting Update: Mercury in Fluorescent Bulbs
10.  Resources
11.  Survey
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:17:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

CJL>Yes, he *DID* forget that EV's are about 50% efficient.  If he'd added that
CJL>in to his calculations, he'd've realized that the break-even price for
CJL>gasoline is about $12.24/kWH.  He *DID* take into account the fact that IC
CJL>engines are only about 23% efficient.  Next time, maybe you ought to take t
CJL>time to read the post to which you're responding.

Well, Carl, I have to admit that I haven't followed this thread as
closely as I should have, but the numbers that Gary has come up with are
are at such a variance with those that others have been claiming for
EVs, including SoCalEd and LA Water and Power, that I felt compelled to
say something.

I will endeavor to retrieve the previous messages from all that swill
about the toxicity of plutonium and check the numbers.

OK?

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Hello, I am part number ................
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Motor/Generator ???
From: schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer)
Date: 23 Dec 92 09:29:27 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN
Nntp-Posting-User: zaragoza

Can anyone say a few words about motor/generators.

Are generators more efficient that motor/generators?

Would a good motor like those used in R/C cars and planes 
be a good generator?

-- 
Don Schiewer   | Internet  schiewer@pa881a.inland.com    | Onward Great
Inland Steel   | UUCP:     !uucp!pa881a.inland!schiewer  | Stream...
From: george@mech.seas.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:49:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania, Mechanical Engineering

:> factor would be introduced by regenerative braking?
:
:negative reduction!!  Or are you one of those free-energy fanatics who believe
:that you can get more energy out of a process than you put in?
:
:Stop and go driving will require MORE energy, not less.
:

slight misunderstanding i think.  stop and go driving with
regenrative braking will require less energy than the same
stop and go driving without regenerative braking.

I think you will find that the energy losses due to braking
are pretty small relative to the constant speed drag energy
though, so regenerative braking will not make a dramatic
difference to the range of the vehicle. ( unless its a mail truck.. )




--
  /   george jefferson
\/ *  george@mech.seas.upenn.edu
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:11:38 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Dec22144421@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
> Now, I've asked this several times before, does anyone know
> the claimed Q for these beasties? If they're are as good as
> the best mesoscopic physical systems I know of they should discharge
> significantly over a weekend - somewhat of a problem for a family
> commuter car, puts a pretty steep overhead on keeping the tank full.

Awww, let's give that to them.  Assume the magnetic suspension is done
with very efficient room-temperature superconducting magnets, and that
the vacuum is perfect.  Then there are no losses.  Any inaccuracies in that,
and will treat it the same as the gas that manages to escape your tank over
a weekend.  Or maybe the leakage current in the batteries of a standard
electric car?  Anyway, the flywheel will probably lose more, but not so
much to worry about if they design the vacuum and magntic suspension well
enough.

(oops, I guess I assumed the flywheel itself is perfectly balanced as well,
and there is no vibration of the housing when the car is parked.)

Let's say they have a regenerative system, and when the car is parked, they
just sell the the energy back to the electric company off the flywheel, and
leave the flywheel parked until enough time before they are ready to use it
again to allow for full charging.  That way we can still give this point
to them.  No biggy since the flywheel can't be built, and would explode
if it was.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: Essential Information <ei@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:28 PST
Subject: Re: Ground Source Heat pumps
Nf-ID: #R:Ligon-221292073705@3.1.100.11:-1166968275:cdp:1466300120:000:211
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ei    Dec 30 11:28:00 1992



Mr. Ligon -

I wrote an article on ground-source heat pumps.  It is in "Energy Ideas"
which is posted in the <climate.news> conference on EcoNet.  Check it
out (see volume 5).

Jonathan Kleinman
ei@igc.apc.org
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:32:00 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <4890.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:

|GC>A pound of gas has 118,000 BTU and there are 7 pounds to the gallon.
|GC>So a gallon of gas has 826,000 BTU. A BTU is 293e-6 kWH, so a gallon
|GC>of gas is equivalent to 242 kWH. IC engines are about 23% efficient,
|GC>so a gallon of gas is equivalent to 55.66 kWH. At $.11 a kWH, a gallon
|GC>of gas is equivalent to $6.12 of electricity. So gas has to reach
|GC>$6.12 a gallon before electricity becomes cost competitive. And that's
|GC>if the vehicles are the same price.

|But aren't you forgetting that mechanically coupled EVs are better
|than 50% efficient from the plug to the street and direct drives can
|approach 80%. That, coupled with the reduced rates many utilities give
|for off-hours charging, makes the EV more than competitive.

In the above equations, GC is assuming that EV's are 100% efficient.
He is comparing the energy density of gasoline and electricity, then
comparing the costs to acheive the same amount of energy from either
source.

|The efficiency of ICs has been quoted in other places as only 4-5% to
|the street, but I'm not sure if that is from the pump or from the
|well-head.

Probably from the well-head.  But if you want to make such a comparison,
why don't you calculate the efficiency of electricity from the well-head,
or the mine instead of from the plug.

|An additional factor in favor of EVs is that they consume very little
|energy when stalled in traffic - so that the mileage of an EV with
|regenerative braking is nearly the same in the city as on the highway.

Fine if you do a lot of stop and go driving.  Personally, less than 1% of
my driving is stop and go.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:14:19 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <51637@seismo.CSS.GOV: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
:In article <1992Dec12.044341.16500@sugra.uucp>, ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
:> In article <51588@seismo.CSS.GOV: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
:> :In article<1992Dec5.045552.1667@sugra.uucp>,ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
:> The presumation I made was land and ocean have an equal probablity of having
:> the plutonium particle land.  I suspect that most of the rain comes down on
:> the mountains alongside of oceans.  This would make my estimate conservative.
:> Does anyone know for sure?
:_I_ know for sure!  For cryin' out loud, do you just doubt any statement
:that contradicts your presumptions?

I do look things up, as time permits.  But I have also learned that on a lot
of mediums, especially usenet, to view phrases like "I know" without some
kind of reference with a grain of salt.  There are people who I do trust by
default, Paul Dietz, Henry Spencer, and the former Larry Lippman, for example.
I have looked up what they say and find that more often then not they are
correct.  Furthermore, they readily give references to make the lookup work
easier.  Maybe you are such a person, I hope so, I enjoy intellectually
stimulating conversations.  But enough of this, back to sci.energy.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Flammability of gasoline
Date: 30 Dec 1992 10:37:58 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

It's been pointed out to me that I was a bit narrow-minded in my description of
flammability of gasoline.  In particular, one does *NOT* need to mix oxygen with
the fuel in order to get a combustible mixture.  On can, for example, use any
of various fluorine compounds as oxidizers.  Sorry for my imprecision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:19:22 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec23.201247.9477@erg.sri.com> rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:

>Transmission and accessory losses are what, about 20% of that? If I
>remember correctly, the best electric motors are order of 95%
>efficient. 

This is true of the electricity applied to the motor.  BTW, was this
motor you mention large enough to deliver 15HP.  In most other fields
small equals efficient, as you scale them up, they get less effiecient.
I don't know if this holds true for electric motors.

If you want to get the effieciency of an electric motor you have to
add up all of the losses in getting the electricity to your house, then
into the battery and then back out of the battery as well.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky sci.energy:6349 sci.electronics:21364