HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Japan Takes US to Cleaners
Date: 29 Dec 92 13:24:43 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

In article <1992Dec28.175000.26453@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <1hc9imINNaq1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >I have to give Japan tremendous credit for this:
|> >
|> >Just saw on news report that Japanese gov plus major
|> >businesses have developed ==100 year== plan to clean
|> >the earth, including
|> >
|> >Sanyo is busy developing cheap solar panels for homes.
|> >Mitsubishi heavily into improving wind generation economy.
|> >Algae systems to scrub CO2 from air from coal gen plants.
|> >Massive solar power systems to supply clean electricity global,
|> >with vast arrays in African desert 
|> >for example, piping electric power worldwide.
|> >
|> >They took the vision and are moving ahead with it.
|> >
|> >When will the U.S.?
|> 
|> 
|> Hmmm. The Japanese have also sunk hundreds of millions into a
|> Fifth Generation Computer Project that has gone nowhere. They
|> make many bets, but only a few pay off.
|> 
|> The US took a hard, and expensive, look at alternative energy
|> systems in the 1970s. The result was that they found them not
|> economically competitive with more mainstream energy technologies,
|> then or in the foreseeable future. Perhaps in 100 years some of
|> these technologies will become economic, but any work done now
|> will have it's patents running out in 17 years. So the Japanese
|> are free to do the early ground work at their expense if they
|> wish, but they won't have exclusive right to reap the profits
|> later on when the market is ready for them.
|> 
|> Gary


maybe, and I realise how hard this may be to swallow, but just maybe the
Japanese are thinking of the ENVIRONMENT (rather than mere money)!

Michael
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: electric fuel gauges
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 05:32:01 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:


>Er, Howard?  Suppose you've got a nominal range of 60 miles.  You've driven 58
>miles.  You're driving past a place where you could recharge your battery, but
>you *REALLY* want to get to someplace about 5 miles further in the next half
>hour.

>Do you stop and recharge your battery, or do you keep driving?

(assuming I'm fool enough to buy one of these pigs) I'd just walk around
to the trunk of the vehicle, fire up my honda generator, put the battery
on charge, stick the un-catalyticly-converted flexable exhaust out the 
window and be on my way.

Oh, is that cheating?  :-)

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 17:34:49 GMT

In article <51704@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>
>Depends on what you consider loss.  The standard physics environment
>of no gravity, smooth frictionless plane, no air, etc., says the only
>energy that is real (not "loss") is that required to accelerate the car
>initially.  That is tiny indeed, but irrelevant.  The real world has
>air, friction, vibration, inefficiencies, etc.  The whole discussion
>of the energy involved to this point, including all the forgoing
>computations has assumed that the electric vehicle is much more
>efficient than the gas one.  Are there any gas vehicles that
>can go 600 miles on 2 gallons of gas?

Rutan's Voyager aircraft circled the globe on 200 gallons. That's
125 MPG. And most people will acknowledge that aircraft drag can
be reduced below that of practical autos, and that Voyager couldn't
be called a practical aircraft for anything but record setting.

Any claim for a practical vehicle that gets over 50 MPG equivalent
over a 600 mile run, gas, electric, flywheel, whatever, should be 
scrutinized with great care.

Note that the Sunracer style vehicles used in the solar electric
vehicles races often claim better than 1,000 MPG equivalent, but
one look at those vehicles reveals they aren't practical transportation.

In the 1970s, Mercedes built a diesel streamliner with a 0.40 cubic
inch engine that claimed a closed course record of 1053 MPG at an
average speed of 12 MPH and a total distance travelled of 8.8 miles.
I think they intended to go further, but something broke off when they
hit a bump.

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: electric fuel gauges
Date: 22 Dec 1992 06:39:37 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 <BzM2nG.Ar@rivm.nl>, mtvahb@rivm.nl (Aldrik Bakema) writes:
>I'm not an expert in this,

That's true, and I'll prove that below.

>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.

You *COULD* do that.  However, one of the limiting factors of a cell (and even
when it's not a limiting factor, it influences cell life) is the discharge
rate:  You desing the car so as to optimize the discharge rate of the cells. 
Changing this discharge rate in order to get a "fuel gauge" is *NOT* a good
idea.

Please note:  I'm not making fun of you.  Given that you don't know much about
batteries, the idea isn't a bad one.

>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.

Sorry, but any competent engineer tries to design things so that *EVERYTHING*
is limiting.  When something *ISN'T* a limiting factor, you've engaged in
"overdesign."  That's OK (and sometimes even a good idea) for one-off setups,
but is considered a sign of incompetence if you're talking about a production
design.  See "The Fabulous One-Horse Shay," by Oliver Wendell Holmes for an
example of the ultimate in engineering!
 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel as Mountain Bike energy storage medium
Date: 27 Dec 1992 09:41:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



Some years ago I read an article discussing using some
sort of spring on a bike that would be wound by downhill
or pedalling, etc.
I cannot remember where I found this article.
At any rate this thread reminds me of the idea and I
wonder if spring technology would allow something like
an encased spring at real wheel axle with connecting
engagement lever and drive to front sprocket.
What is the current state of technology of basically
a very large watch spring (there must be some large
clock springs in some of the restored antique giant
clocks in Europe, etc.).
How much energy can such a spring store?
And yes I know you're going to tell me it will explode
when I cranking to 50 mph tailgating my sag crew
van, etc.
Still, who knows, this could be the next Exerloper
of the bicycle world.


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: dbliss@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Doug Bliss)
Subject: Domestic Hot Water Heaters - oil vs. electric
Organization: Environment Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:14:22 GMT

I have heard that oil-fired domestic hot water heaters are very 
ineffecient (20-30% efficiency) compared to electric hot water heaters.  
Does anyone have any information on efficiencies and heat losses expected 
from these types of hot water heaters?
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:45:16
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<51699@seismo.CSS.GOV>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV's message of 22 Dec 92 23:11:38 GMT

In article <51699@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

   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.

Don't wanna! At 60,000 RPM quoted in one post, we have 10**3 revs/sec.
there's 10**5 secs per day, so we want Q \gtorder 10**8 to avoid losing
10%++ of the energy per day. That's quite impressive even with a vacuum
system and magnetic bearings when you figure they have to be
mass-produced. Can anyone suggest systems with comparably low damping?
(I seem to remember optical atomic transitions have Q \sim 10**8 !)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	*
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric TrRail System
Keywords: trains
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:46:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec22.015607.14646@clipper.ingr.com> brian@clipper.ingr.com (Brian Smith) writes:

|   I am thinking in terms of energy input per passenger-mile. How does the
|efficiency compare with transportation by auto? One advantage I can see is that
|a train car is usually full during commute hours but, must autos carry a single
|passenger. It seems a train should be more aerodynamically efficient as well.
|Are these the only advantages or are there obvious others?

When calculating the _total_ effieciency of rapid rail, don't forget to
add in the off peak times, when that train is only hauling 1 or 2 passangers.

-- 
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: weimer@spud.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Gary Weimer 726-3370)
Subject: Re: Mileage vs. Safety concerns in autos
Reply-To: weimer@pixel.kodak.com
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co.; Rochester, NY
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 13:23:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.061609.29827@mr.med.ge.com>, hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987 ~BHOSVWZ#097) writes:
|> Gary Weimer 726-3370 (weimer@spud.NoSubdomain.NoDomain) wrote:
|> : 
|> : My Chevy Sprint easily gets 50 MPG in the winter and can get 60 MPG in
|> : the summer. This is a 4 door car with enough room for a week-long trip
|> : out of state carring me, my wife, my 2 year old daughter, and our
|> : luggage + sleeping bags and christmas presents. Even while carrying all
|> : this, it had no problem maintaining 65 mph up and down hills and still
|> : got > 50 MPG.
|> : 
|> : How much more "practical" of a car do you require?
|> 
|> Sure, it gets good mileage.  However, what about safety?  I don't have 
|> the HLDI figures in front of me at the moment, but as I recall you are
|> about 5 times as likely to get seriously injured in an accident than
|> you would be if you were in the safest cars (Mercedes, Saab, and Audi   
|> <I think> in that order).
|> 
|> And I'm getting 30 mpg wite my Saab 900 (turbocharged).  Is the extra
|> mileage worth risking your life?  How much extra gasoline is your life
|> worth?

If I could THINK about affording a Mercedes, Saab, or Audi, your
argument might be relevant in my life...

I paid < $4000 for my sprint (30,000 miles on it). Not that I got much
of a deal, but it was cheap. If I bought something that cost more, I
would have needed a loan, so I would have to add interest to the cost.
Plus insurance would probably be more.

Maybe after I've been in an accident, I will feel that the extra
$5000-$10000 for a Saab every 5 years or so (assuming I would buy used)
would have been worth it. Right now I feel that it is "insurance" that
I can't afford. In the mean-time, I get 50-60 MPG as an added benefit.

-- 

Gary "Chugging down the road in a small car" Weimer
weimer@pixel.kodak.com
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,rec.autos
Subject: Re: Popular Science Fly Wheel Article
Date: 28 Dec 1992 19:35:01 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 <1992Dec21.191923.19719@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
=In article <1h41jqINNn2j@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU 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.
=
=Wouldn't you expect that a containment failure in one would quickly
=cause all the others to fail too? Wouldn't 20 flywheels in general be
=more likely to have one failure than one flywheel would, assuming the
=same levels of margin were engineered into both designs?

Yes to both questions.  However, the critical question is "how quickly?"  Even
spreading the failure of all the flywheels over a period of a couple of seconds
would represent a vast improvement over the catastrophic failure of a single
flywheel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 28 Dec 1992 21:40:24 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 <1992Dec23.201247.9477@erg.sri.com>, rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
>Someone's actually claiming to have *developed* a flywheel car?!?

No, they claim to've developed a computer simulation of the flywheel they'd use
in the flywheel car.  Rather like the stuff that leo@zelator posts concerning
the computer animation of what a videotape of a perpetual motion machine would
look like in action.

>Sounds like a stupid bit of vapor ware and false advertizing to me.

Sounds like it.

>I've seen the results of dropping a
>simple physics lab gyro (with considerably less energy) off its
>mounts...don't worry, it'll take a lot of convincing for me as well
>before I step into one of these things).

A couple of decades ago, a physics undergrad turned off the air flow to the
mechanism in the Maxwell's top demonstration before spinning things down.  The
top took out an oscilloscope and then continued on through two walls.  And it
wasn't storing much energy at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:6435 talk.environment:5241
From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: UN Convenes Special Meeting on Nuclear Transports
Summary: A quick answer or two
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:06:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.environment,sci.energy
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1992Dec16.054346.7830@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au> ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au (Dale Smithyman) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Dec14161859@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

Sorry this is so late!

>>A very ingenious press release, interspersing what the IMO and IAEA
>>said with Greenpeace propaganda and lies.  For example, referring
>>to the plutonium being extracted from the used fuel elements as
>>waste is an intentional lie.

>Rather than tell us it is a lie, back up your claim. What do the processing
>plants do?

Reprocessing plants remove the Plutonium and unused Uranium from the left
over fuel. Essentially they dissolve the rods in a Nitric acid solution.
The aqueous solution is mixed with a chemical which has a higher affinity
for the Pu and U than the aqueous solution. The two streams move in opposite
directions through a series of stages. At each stage they are mixed and
separated with a lower Pu/U concentration in the aqueous solution. After
a lot of such stages the Pu/U is removed as an oxide or more rarely a metal.

>Where does the plutonium Japan is now shipping coming from?

The Plutonium comes from spent fuel from Japan's conventional reactors
mostly PWR's. Although the rest is waste the Pu is not as it is usable
(and will indeed be used) in a fast breeder (or some other designs)

>Why
>the uproar if these plants are as safe and unpolluting as you think they are?

Mass hysteria? Sun spots? I don't know but I would suggest it is a combination
of ignorance of the technology, self interest of various environmental and/or
'peace' groups, Nuclear Weapon fears, deliberate lies and a healthy mistrust
of the nuclear industry which has in the past treated the public as fools and
been so wildly optimistic as to lose them all crebibility. (ie it is the fault
of just about everyone connected or not connected with the industry)

>Why does England need a new plant?

Britain is a Nuclear weapons power. They need to keep their technology up
to scratch and further they see this as a way of recouping the massive
losses they have made on Nuclear power plants. They process Japanese waste
and make a few bucks


Joseph Askew - An Econazi for Sane Nuclear Power


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32  Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.
From: monson@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Tom Monson)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:53:34 GMT
Subject: Schem for EV xtroller?
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

Does anyone have access to a schematic, block diagram, etc. (w/part #s) for the
type of controller used in electric vehicles?  Could you point me to a source 
of such?  Thanks
                                          Tom Monson
                                          wk (707) 794-2838
                                          hm (707) 829-2642
                                          monson@hpsad.hp.sad.com
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Ideas - HVAC-2
Date: 1 Jan 93 21:36:56 GMT

In article <1466300143@igc.apc.org>, ei@igc.apc.org (Essential Information) writes:
> Advantages of Fuel Cells
> 
> The main advantage of the fuel cell is the reduced emission of
> air pollutants. According to an article in the May 22, 1992 Los
> Angeles Times ("The Natural Gas-Powered Fuel Cell System," p.
> D1), a natural gas fuel cell emits only 1,130 pounds of carbon
> dioxide and 0.02 pounds of nitrogen oxide per megawatt-hour
> (MWh), while a conventional power plant (presumably coal-fired)
> emits 1,485 pounds of carbon dioxide and 5.74 pounds of nitrogen
> oxide. The reduction in carbon dioxide emissions may be
> attributed to both a slightly higher electricity generation
> efficiency (42 percent as opposed to 34 percent for combustion)
> and the use of natural gas instead of coal, which contains less
> carbon per unit of energy. The reduction in nitrogen oxide
> emissions may be attributed to the lower operating temperature of
> the fuel cell as compared to a conventional power plant. In
> addition, the use of natural gas eliminates emissions of volatile
> organic compounds (VOCs) and sulfur dioxide, which lead to acid

Like a lot of the articles being posted in this series, this is
basically a very good, informative article.  But it discredits itself
somewhat by insisting on making poor comparisons, thus pumping up
the benefits of the technology it is advocating unnecessarily.
Fuel cells are a great technology and should eventually prove to
be inexpensive and reliable and less polluting.  So why not compare
fuel cells to gas-fired electric?  Why is it necessary to compare it
to coal-fired?  It is well-known that coal is "dirty", so the comparison
just brings the reaction "so what?"  I'm sure the comparison to
gas turbines would still come out in the fuel cell's favor, and
this would be a better argument for fuel cells.  Otherwise, it is
really just an argument for natural gas over coal.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov