HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:28:10 GMT





>Emphatically yes, we have an energy surplus. The solar energy striking
>the earth is about 7.8E18 kilowatt-hours per day. World energy consumption
>is about 7E12 kilowatt-hours. So solar alone, if totally converted to


>Then there are the non-solar sources of energy. We can tap the Moon's
>gravitational energy via tide power plants. We can tap the radioactive
>decay heat of the Earth via geothermal plants. We can tap nuclear power
>directly through fission power plants. And hopefully we will soon be
>able to tap fusion power directly in fusion power plants. The latter
>three sources can rival the Sun in the amount and duration of available
>energy they can supply. Note that all energy sources, including the
>Sun, are nuclear energy sources, with the exception of gravitational
>potential energy.


The problem with tapping the sun's energy as we now do through burning
fossil fuels, is that we are overloading the system. Not only is the
earth receiving energy from the sun, but energy from the past, in the
form of fossil fuels. Something that the biosphere is not designed to
cope with over a long period of time. By living off solar energy as we
get it, through wind power etc, or by using biofuels, we would not be
altering the amount of energy in the system.

Admittedly these system are expensive, but this is due to the present
miserly levels of investment that they receive, compared with fossil
fuels. 

The other advantage of solar systems is that you don't get any
problematic side effects, unlike fusion and fission. Yes burning
biofuels gives off CO2, however this is CO2 which was verily recently in
the air taken in by plants, it should not therfore alter the amount of
CO2 going round the system. 

As the population grows, living within the capacity of the planets
systems will become more important, a move to solar tecnologies is thus
of prime importance.

Chris  cir@uk.ac.ed.festival
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: breeders
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:56:21 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <1992Nov3.182354.8060@engage.pko.dec.com: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
:Regarding thorium breeders, is there any danger of the U-233 produced being
:useful for bombs?
:-Mike

Well, I believe you *COULD* use U233 as a bomb about as well as you can use
tar for fuel in your car.  It could work, but besides being an extra credit
homework assignment, why would you want to?

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: edm@halcyon.com (Ed Morin)
Subject: Re: Where to get Electric Car kits?
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:18:41 GMT

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>*Some* designs of DC electric motors have high torque at low RPM, series
>wound motors, but not all. And series wound motors are unstable under load.
>Shunt wound motors have peak torque above stall RPM. AC induction motors, 
>much more efficient, have zero torque at stall. Thus they must, like gasoline 
>engines, be operated above a minimum RPM.

My point, although not stated as well as yours, is that a motor with charac-
teristics different than a combustion engine might not necessarily need the
same "horsepower" ratings.  Clearly, it is a combination of motor and trans-
mission matched to do the job that is the best solution.  One solution might
have a combustion motor with 100 HP and another solution might have an elec-
tric motor with 30 HP that does a similar job, but with a few performance
differences in certain situations.

Ed
-- 
Ed Morin
Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice)
"Serving the Usenet community since 1987."
edm@nwnexus.WA.COM
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Subject: Re: A Compressed-Air Car -- Possible?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:19:29 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

 The dewar approach is still a possibility. However, you will have to
heat the LN2 quite a bit as it comes out. Free A/C, though! 
Warming something -up- to room temp is not that bad of a problem.
-- 
##########################################################################
#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: jennings@icd.ab.com
Subject: IEEE Spectrum Electric Vehicles article
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:08:48 GMT

The article in Nov, 1992 _Spectrum_ about electric vehicles talked mostly about
batteries.  A few paragraphs were included about government support.  I
recently read another report describing a trolley car that gets it power from a
new type of pickup from an underground cable.  This pickup uses an inductor, so
that there are no exposed power lines.  The inductor also senses where the
cable is buried in the lane and automatically follows the cable while the vehicle
is in motion..

I thought that this pickup technology would eliminate the battery problem,
provide a good role for government support, and even allow for electric
"18-wheelers."  The government could provide for power cable laid in all paved
streets and set up a vehicle power utility that would track how much power
each vehicle used and arrange for billing.  Only a small battery that would
power the vehicle to and from the street cable is needed, and could be recharged
while driving.  Finally, enough power would be available for even heavy freight
transport.

Does anyone know if a detail proposal based on this approach has ever been
presented?  If so, were there any flaws that kept the proposal from being
implemented?  

Please let me know.

Thanks,

lmj
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: edm@halcyon.com (Ed Morin)
Subject: Re: Where to get Electric Car kits?
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:54:07 GMT

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>Of the 4 models of Honda Civics sold today, the HP ratings are 70, 92,
>102, 125.  3 out of 4 are close to or over 100 HP. Mine is a 92 HP

Those HP ratings for combustion engines can be a bit misleading.  They
are only for specific RPM ranges.  I think you might be wiser to compare
torque ratings.  Also, remember that a Honda going down the highway only
requires a fraction of the total horsepower available.  For acceleration
from a dead stop, the electric engine will be great because it has much
better low-RPM torque characteristics.

I think where the real difference would be is speeding up to pass some-
body at, say, 60 mph or so.


-- 
Ed Morin
Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice)
"Serving the Usenet community since 1987."
edm@nwnexus.WA.COM
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Where to get Electric Car kits?
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:47:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.180150.3123@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Ok, we went around this barn a few months ago. To get a 100 mile range
>at the speed limit on level ground, you're going to need about 20 kWh
>of stored battery power. 

Um, you may have gone around this barn, but I havn't ... ;-)

MY model was a 30-50 mile range requirement, not 100.  While 100 would
be nice, I stated that I needed 30 and would be very happy with 50 or 60.

So down rate your battery requirements to 1/2 or 1/3.

>According to the Bosch Automotive Handbook,
>lead acid traction batteries run about 25 Wh/kg, so you'll need about
>800 kg of batteries (1760 pounds) to hold the power. 

Make that 400 kg to 266 kg or 880 lbs to 587 lbs.  MINUS the weight of
an engine (but plus motor and controller)  and fuel and fuel tank... 

>Can your Honda
>stand that much extra weight? 

Yes, rather easily.  It can take 3 passengers at 200+ lbs each.  And 
since my commute car is basically a 1 passenger vehicle ...  If it gets
to be a bit much, I can put air shocks on it.  But I think that adding
a (guess, net of engine swap) 600 lb payload and making it a two seater
would be acceptable.

>That's nearly double it's unladen weight,

Come again?  It's unladen weight is about 1900 lbs (I can check
the manual for an exact figure...).  Your figure is about the same
as the unladen weight, not double it.  Or are you saying that adding
the batteries would double the unladen weight?  In that case, only
if you want the 100 mile range.  I'm going for 30-60, remember?

>which will, of course, *reduce it's range*. Ouch, it's a vicious circle.

Or reduce it's acceleration.  It is mostly flat around here ... and
I wouldn't mind a loss of 'pepi-ness' in a 'toy' car.

I don't for a minute contest the accuracy of your figures; I'm only
pointing out that for a toy car for single commute only use, I'd be willing
to accept a shorter range and a loss of acceleration rather than put
a ton (literally!) of batteries in the car.

Certainly not a practical general purpose vehicle, but that isn't 
what I'd be doing it for ...

Now if NiMH batteries ever got cheap ...

-- 

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: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: breeders
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:12:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: engage.1992Nov5.161659.24053
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Nov5.035621.10797@sugra.uucp>, ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes...
>In article <1992Nov3.182354.8060@engage.pko.dec.com: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>:Regarding thorium breeders, is there any danger of the U-233 produced being
>:useful for bombs?
>:-Mike

>Well, I believe you *COULD* use U233 as a bomb about as well as you can use
>tar for fuel in your car.  It could work, but besides being an extra credit
>homework assignment, why would you want to?

*I* don't want to, of course, but if I was Saddam Hussein, and my
ultracentrifuges just got bombed, and I couldn't get my mitts on any
plutonium, and I still wanted to "get even" with the US, I might want
to toss some thorium in some power reactor and then chemically separate
U-233, and (try to) build a bomb from it.

-Mike
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:03:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.185407.2123@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>               A second type of Free-Energy device, such as the "Gray 
>          Motor" (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the Tesla Coil, and the 
>          unpatented motor of inventor Joseph Newman, taps electro-
>          magnetic energy by induction from "Earth resonance" (about 12 
>          cycles per second). 

	Actually,  Joe Newman is supposed to show up here at NM Tech today.
It seems that a group of investers from Albuquerque want some people from
our EE department to test his claims about his motor.  He was supposed to
be at the EE lab at 2:00 today,  but he hasn't shown up yet.

	The only problem is that the guy who is testing the motor is crazy
enough to actually make the damn thing work!
-- 
Hungry and out of work?  Eat a republican.
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: IEEE Spectrum Electric Vehicles article
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:36:15 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1dmdeuINNd9f@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.150848.28757@icd.ab.com>, jennings@icd.ab.com writes:

>>Does anyone know if a detail proposal based on this approach has ever been
>>presented?  If so, were there any flaws that kept the proposal from being
>>implemented?  
>
>Do you mean other than the fact that such an inductive coupling is extremely
>inefficient?

I don't think that the inefficiencies of a particular implementation
are a reason for not thinking about this scheme.  

Probably the main difficulty is that the primary and secondary windings
can't get close enough together for good coupling.  This is where the challenge
lies in developing such a technology.  It would certainly solve the
battery problem.  In principle this is a very attractive means of
supplying power to vehicles.  

At least it proposes to use well-known electrical components and does
not pretend to violate any laws of physics.  Let's not poo-poo this
idea before some more discussion.

__________________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: IEEE Spectrum Electric Vehicles article
Date: 9 Nov 1992 19:16:46 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 <1992Nov9.150848.28757@icd.ab.com>, jennings@icd.ab.com writes:
>Does anyone know if a detail proposal based on this approach has ever been
>presented?  If so, were there any flaws that kept the proposal from being
>implemented?  

Do you mean other than the fact that such an inductive coupling is extremely
inefficient?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:5273 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2175 sci.physics:18232
From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:42 PST
Subject: science policy sources
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466300103:000:463
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Nov 11 19:42:00 1992


To:    sci.energy
From:  mwgoodman@igc.org (Mark W. Goodman)
Re:    publications
Date:  11/11/92

I am new in the energy policy world, and am trying to get up to
speed as quickly as possible.  Does anyone have suggestions for a
few good sources?  Though I am technically literate, I am more
interested in policy than in technology.  I would particularly
appreciate suggestions for the top two or three (expand the list
if necessary) periodicals on energy policy.
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:25:13 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

Just a note for anyone who does not know: Robert has been hawking this
junk around the sci groups for the last month or two.  Every time he
posts it everyone falls around laughing, so then he goes and tries
someplace else.

His last posting was on sci.physics and dealt with a bunch of
anti-gravity machines.  I said GEC would be interested in a working
(self-levitating, not just lighter) prototype.  I haven't heard
anything since.

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: breeders
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 16:46:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.161659.24053@engage.pko.dec.com>, moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
> 
> In article <1992Nov5.035621.10797@sugra.uucp>, ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes...
> >In article <1992Nov3.182354.8060@engage.pko.dec.com: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
> >:Regarding thorium breeders, is there any danger of the U-233 produced being
> >:useful for bombs?
> >:-Mike
> 
> >Well, I believe you *COULD* use U233 as a bomb about as well as you can use
> >tar for fuel in your car.  It could work, but besides being an extra credit
> >homework assignment, why would you want to?
> 
> *I* don't want to, of course, but if I was Saddam Hussein, and my
> ultracentrifuges just got bombed, and I couldn't get my mitts on any
> plutonium, and I still wanted to "get even" with the US, I might want
> to toss some thorium in some power reactor and then chemically separate
> U-233, and (try to) build a bomb from it.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> 

IMO if a nuclear weapon could be made from U-233, I would think that we 
(meaning the US) would have tried to build one by now.  The US does have
alot of thorium around also and it was tested in the Shippingport reactor.

The only reason why it might not have been tried was to put thorium in a
Pu-production reactor like the N-Reactor at Hanford (no longer in operation)
would have screwed up the neutronics of the reactor enough to cause really
poor performance.  It also might require a special separation process rather
than the same as was used for Pu extraction.  In the final analysis it might
have cost too much money just to test some Los Alamos physics guy's theory.

Food for though anyway.

Don Palmrose




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: selee@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Lee Say Eng)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:21:20 GMT
Subject: Need HELP !
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: sci.energy


I have been trying without much success to find the amount of
damage that a machine part will suffer when it is impacted by 
a moving body.  I understand that when the kinetic energy of
the moving body exceeds the maximum elastic strain energy of
the machine part, the part will (if we neglect the inertia of
the part and the energy dissipated during impact) either suffer
some permanent deformation or be crushed at the location where
the cross-sectional area is minimum.   I however do not know
how to find by how much the part will be crushed in such a case.
It could be found experimentally but it would also be beneficial
to be able to theoretically predict things.  The material is
pretty brittle but to simplify things, it might be easier to
ignore failure by crack propagation.  Any help will be greatly
appreciated.   


		     ********
		     * mass *  |  Free falling mass
		     *  m   *  |  from height h 
		     ********  V


                               |
                               |
                               V
		       ****  ---  Distance that will
          Machine     *    * ---  be crushed ??
           Part      *      *  ^
                    *        * |
                   *          *
              ___ *___________ * _____
	      ////////////////////////
		    Rigid Base
                 
  
  Data known regarding machine part:  
  
		Dimensions/geometry 
		Young's Modulus, E
		Compressive strength
		Ultimate tensile strength

Thanks in advance,

Alan Phang

alan@hpmalr50.mal.hp.com
From: steveo@mobius (Steve Olson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: A Compressed-Air Car -- Possible?
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:49:22 GMT
Reply-To: steveo@mobius (Steve Olson)
Organization: Novell, Inc.

>According to my calculations (based on a Gast airmotor catalogue), such a
>vehicle would need air tanks that could hold 100,000 psi.

The nitrogen and oxygen in air liquify at a much lower pressure than
100,000 psi. 
I think around 1200 psi. This makes it impossible to reach a higher pressure 
because liquids do not compress very well.

Maybe your idea would work with 1000 psi. You might need a bigger tank than
anticipated but 1000 psi in a 100 gal tank represents a good deal of energy.




Regards,
Steve Olson
From: camelsho@magna.ksu.ksu.edu (   James A Seymour   )
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: FAQ????
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:30:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: magna.1dnktcINNju1
Distribution: world
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: magna.ksu.ksu.edu

IF there is a FAQ for this group AND IF you are the person
that posts the FAQ, could you please email me a copy so I
can determine if the seemingly common place questions I want 
to ask are already answered?????

If there is not a FAQ, please post that fact here, so our
system mailbox does not get deluged with replies.

Thanks,
james seymour/camel/camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: ghg@en.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble)
Subject: Re: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 01:11:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.190010.5512@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>
>This is really the problem. There is really much less to be gained from
>decentralized power than many people are willing to realize. For instance,
>a friend of mine recently was all excited about getting off the grid, and
>I asked him if he were willing to sacrifice that most valuable of modern
>amenities, Star Trek TNG. He replied that he envisioned a great bank
>of lead acid batteries charging all day to provide power at night. 
>
>I pointed out that the environmental degradation of this approach would
>far exceed anything due to the grid if it were widely adopted, since
>individual homes burn to the ground every day, and the toxic waste load
>due to all those batteries would surely exceed the expectation of damage
>due to any centralized generating facility. Having reduced the argument
>to hydrogeology, my friend's specialty, he immediately saw the point, but
>I'm not sure others will.
>

How about a large bank of Nickel-iron batteries instead.  Nothing toxic,
and they don't self-destruct (sulphate out), if discharged too far.
Some Nickel Irons are still running at windpower sites from the '30s.
Let a Lead-Acid discharge, and set dead for a few days, and it is history.
--ghg
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment