HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion, real again?
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:26:58 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Jul29.203113.3213@socrates.umd.edu> doug@UC780.UMD.EDU writes:
>In article <28549@goofy.Apple.COM>, ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>>Enclosed is a snippit from sci.physics.fusion:
>>There is some interesting stuff being discussed there ... 

>I'd like to see a third institution reproduce this. If it can, we've got
>a bit more than a quirky transient phenom... is MIT going to take another crack
>at cold fusion? Any other University?

There was some article that mentioned some other site that had gotten
a partial confrim, but their rate was something like 5% or 10% 'excess'.

And hey, I was just quoting a teaser ...  If you want the full info,
go read it in the other news group!  ;-)

>>14 kWh is no small quantity of heat!  and 70% is a non-trivial percentage.

>If Storms or someone else can reproduce what Japan is doing now...

The two groups that had 'duplicated' the work had much lower percentages,
but there were two groups ...  And an oddity ... one of the failures
to duplicate was a cell made from Paladium from another source.  It had
micro cracks in it...  The Paladium that 'worked' was from the same
vendor as the stuff that the first guy used, and had no cracks ...

I'm not interested in quoting everything from sci.physics in this
news group.  It would be much easier for folks to just go read it
there, then discuss it here ... ;-)

Mike

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ...!sun!apple!ems

'If you can dream it, you can do it'  Walt Disney

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil.  Was Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are 
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:58:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.213130.19001@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>Were I Energy God, I'd plan for BOTH methanol and ethanol blends to 

I think the potential for methanol leaks to poison the ground water is
frighteningly high. Things like motor oil and gasoline don't mix
that well with water and can still spread far enough to cost
a fortune to decontaminate. Methanol mixes perfectly well with
water and is a fantastic poison too.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:57:18 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

> A nuclear power program operated under rules set by engineering criteria and
> not political considerations will have ZERO impact on the environment.

Ohhhh, so _that's_ what you meant.  Nuclear energy technology would have zero
environmental impact in an ideal society (no corrupt contractors, no
self-serving politicians, no ignorant eco-terrorists...).

You know what, human society might also have no wars, no starvation or homeless
people, etc, in such an ideal society.

Of course, while both propositions are true, they have a value approaching the
claimed figure for environmental impact.  :-)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: doug@UC780.UMD.EDU (Deac Moo of the UGC)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion, real again?
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:31:13 GMT
Reply-To: doug@UC780.UMD.EDU
Organization: The University of Maryland, University College

In article <28549@goofy.Apple.COM>, ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>Enclosed is a snippit from sci.physics.fusion:
>There is some interesting stuff being discussed there ... 
>***** BEGIN QUOTE *****
>
>Materials scientist Edmund Storms reported in a paper submitted to a
>scientific journal that he has measured 20% more power coming out of his
>experiment as heat than was put into it electrically. 

I'd like to see a third institution reproduce this. If it can, we've got
a bit more than a quirky transient phenom... is MIT going to take another crack
at cold fusion? Any other University?

>14 kWh is no small quantity of heat!  and 70% is a non-trivial percentage.

If Storms or someone else can reproduce what Japan is doing now...

>Maybe B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmannn will have the last 
>laugh yet ...

They were too busy worried about cashing in on the science part, and I am
beginning to suspect they didn't do as much homework as they should have before
making an announcement. 

By leaving the door vague enough to show SOMETHING happened, but not spelling
out how it was done, they cut loose half the world trying to prove or disprove
them... and those who tried to disprove them may have stumbled onto a better
way...


                               ******
   Net postings: Demonstrating the lack of quality psychotherapy in the world.
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling f
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:36:04 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article<13660@mindlink.bc.ca:, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
:> Repeat after me 1000 times.  This is a POLITICAL problem.  The technology was
: > developed decades ago.  POLITICAL, not technical. Remember that.
: Being a political problem and not a technical problem doesn't make it any less
: of a problem.  In fact, technological problems are often easier and faster to
: solve.  :-\

Stating that it is a political problem rather than a technical problem puts
the focus on where it belongs.  To do so would be like blaming companies
for paying zero taxes rather than blaming the Congressmen who wrote the
laws that let them pay zero taxes.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: High-tech highways, chicken/egg (was: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:03:11 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Jul22.235425.13042@engrserver.uark.edu> pcl@engrserver.uark.edu (Peter Laws) writes:
>
>Let's see:  One TGV trainset is 10 cars (+2 Power cars) long, I think
>about 700' long, and seats ~450 people.  Using the original poster's "4
>feet between" trains, ~7 trains in a mile, 150 miles/hr (conservative),
>that comes to, let's see...~500,000 passengers per hour.  Not as far
>from reality as "smart highways".  12 trains / hour is more realistic
>and only brings the passenger / hour down to 5400.  In a "lane" 15'
>wide.  With almost no noise.   

    (12 trains an hour?  Down what TGV track?  Into what station? How the heck
    do we afford the trains?)

    That's good.   And I hope all the people are going to the same place.

                          dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling f
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:18:58 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:

> In the research I have done on the toxicity of nuclear waste, it seems that
> the waste is less toxic than the ore it comes from in between 300 and 1200
> years, depending on how you measure toxicity (its a lot more complicated than
> you would think).

That's true, but timescales are important in determining what is "environmental
damage".  Do you consider the Chernoby area a "clean environment" because the
radioactivity is temporary in geologic timescales?  PCB's do break down
eventually, does that make them environmentally safe?

Uranium mine tailings will eventually become soil, with a lower radioactive
content than if it hadn't been processed, but you'll have a lot of generations
of humans for whom the tailings will be an environmental problem.

Sorry, but you can't dismiss a problem by simply using a time frame that is
inappropriate.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Burn The Bombs
Keywords: plutonium, burner, reactor, Japanese
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:07:14 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1673@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com writes:
>According to a fact-sparse article in the business section
>of the Washington Post, the Japanese are proposing to use
>the surplus weapons-grade plutonium from the former SU
>nuclear arsenal to generate power.  They plan to build
>"burner" reactors (as contrasted to "breeder") that change
>the plutonium into "another form" unsuitable for weapons.
>The article estimated the amount of material available at
>130 tons and that this would be enough for "thirty years."
>
>Does anyone know anything more about this idea?  Do the
>burner reactors share the problems of size, cost, and risk
>of conventional reactors, or is it possible to build smaller
>ones?  What's the "other form" of plutonium that they
>produce?  How much energy would the 130 tons produce?  (It
>seems unlikely that the "thirty years" is the total energy
>needs of the former SU republics for thirty years.)

Burner reactors are just conventional reactors like the ones
we already use. The only difference is that their primary
fuel would be plutonium instead of uranium. The "other form"
spoken of is Pu240 which is unsuitable for weapons because
it generates unpredictable bursts of neutrons that would
make a weapon fizzle unexpectedly. It's very difficult to
separate out Pu240 from weapons grade Pu, so a little 
effectively poisons the whole batch for weapons use.

>After all, we have a great deal of this stuff also, and it's
>awfully hard for even the most extreme of hawks to make a
>case for our needing to retain more than a hundred of our
>tens of thousands of warheads.  So how about if we turn our
>underground test area into an energy park of burner reactors
>and run superconducting cables to the nearest population
>centers?

A hundred nuclear weapons is hardly a credible military deterrent.
They *would* form a terror threat to a concentrated population,
but couldn't effectively guarrantee disabling the opposition's
military power. A nation's leadership that considered it's urban
civilian population expendible wouldn't be deterred by 100 weapons.
Note that the former Soviet Union suffered over 20 million civilian
casualties in WWII, but emerged from the war as a super power.

If the 100 weapons were "doomsday" bombs of 100 Mt surrounded by
Cobalt blankets, they could make life on Earth for *everyone*
very miserable for centuries. But no rational nation would ever
*use* such weapons, so they aren't a credible deterrent. Our
weapons are fractional megaton devices intended to destroy
hardened military targets. To do so they have to hit with less
than 100 meter targeting error. There are a very large number
of 100 meter radius circles containing militarily significant
hardware in the world.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Followup-To: sci.energy
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:52:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.163040.6487@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.160604.5987@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     Q:  Why is this not done?
>>
>>     A:  It is not economical, and I think that most people would object
>>         to having 5 windmills in their front yards.
>
>Dale, why don't you try reading the article before you dismiss it out
>of hand?

     Greg, why do you not respond with a specific objection based on 
     the data in that issue (or any relevant objection at all) ?

>>     Nuclear plants *are* needed, right now.
>
>Dale, why don't you try reading that nice little Scientific American
>special issue on energy and try to refute the estimates in it, instead
>of asserting that you know all the answers?

     Greg, why do you not respond with a specific objection based on 
     the data in that issue?  Coal-fired plants are being designed
     and built *right now* in Virginia.  Nuclear plants are currently
     running economically in the state of Virginia.  The only obstacles
     to building more are disinformation and politics.

     As far as I know, there are no major wind farms in Virginia.

>
>>     I think what you have failed to realize is that capacity *will*
>>     increase with economic growth (if the environmentalists allow
>>     us any).
>
>Dale, why don't you try reading that nice little Scientific American
>special issue on energy and try to refute the estimates in it, instead
>of asserting that you know all the answers?

     Greg, why do you not respond with a specific objection based on 
     the data in that issue?
  
>Followups to alt.flame, because this thread has zero information
>content.

     Followups directed to sci.energy where implications and insinuations
     should never be mistaken for actually having made the argument.

                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling f
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:11:44 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article<13708@mindlink.bc.ca:, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
: > Stating that it is a political problem rather than a technical problem puts
: > the focus on where it belongs.
: True, but it neither solves the problem, nor ensures that it will be solved.
: Until the political problems regarding nuclear waste are solved, nuclear waste
: is a concern (potential problem) and the technological solutions are
:meaningless unless they work _despite_ the politicians and corrupt contractors.

Improperly stating the problem GUARANTEES the problem will not be solved.  The
first step in solving a problem is to correctly identify it.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
AT&T and Apple: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: tls@solbourne.com (Tom Schreur)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less pollutin
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:21:47 GMT

Good bye to this news group.  The mindless babbeling of many and the 
rudeness and arrogance of one person in particular (it's obvious who)
is a disgrace.

bye

tls
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wanted: info. on alternative car energy systems
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:50:13 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul30.053933.25597@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au> khchung@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (mr kh chung) writes:
>Not quite.  The GM Impact (designed by MacCready et al) accelerates from
>0 to 100 in 8 sec, and has a top speed of 160 km/h.

I'd call that modest performance, especially when coupled with lateral G
and braking performance in a repetitive situation. IE it'd make a lousy
race car.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.energy:3791 alt.fan.dale-bass:22
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.fan.dale-bass
Subject: Kill file in place, should save alot of energy ;-)
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:58:00 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

I've added Dale Bass to my first KILL file ever.  This is a great
moment for Dale, as he gets the singular distinction of having 
committed net-suicide (by providing to me the command to add him
to a KILL file) and having been found worthy of it (given that 
I've not resorted to a KILL file in a decade or so of reading news,
this is quite a statement!)

I expect that this will save untold quantities of energy for 
the net and net participants world wide.  ;-)

Mike

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

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

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: High-tech highways, chicken/egg (was: Is car pooling for real?
Summary: System crashed, mail lost, re-send.
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:30:50 GMT

Someone sent me a mail message yesterday or early today in
response to this thread.  However, due to the unfortunate
coincidence of bad sequencing of events in mh and a system
crash at exactly the wrong time, I lost two mail messages
in their entirety.

Would whoever sent me the mail message please try again, thanks.
-- 
Russ Cage   wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Conservation
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:04:43 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

> Steel doesn't enter a mill cold, iron *ore* enters the mill cold.

Actually, I was thinking about minimills, which take in cold scrap steel and
turn out cold finished formed steel.  I'm not claiming that there's an
available technology that would reduce energy use and be economically feasible.
However, the potential for energy conservation is there.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Conservation
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:34:50 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

> Industrial energy demand makes up two thirds of total US energy consumption.
> Reducing that 75% with homeowner tricks is not likely to be very successful.

Well, if that is the attitude, of course it won't be successful.  If
conservation in industry is considered possible and even economic, then it has
a much better chance of being successful.  Many industries have been saying
"reducing waste will cost too much money", yet many of those that have reduced
waste are finding that they have had a positive economic return from doing so.

Aluminum requires large amounts of electricity, since the energy is stored in
the material.  Steel enters a mill cold, is heated for processing, then is
cooled (quickly or gradually) and leaves the mill cold.  There is potential for
recovering that heat.  Continuous casting, where the molten iron is not cooled,
then reheated for forging, is one example of conserving energy through redesign
of the process.  I'm sure it's not the only possibility.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: 'Micro Power' generators?
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:20:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: max.1992Jul24.112006.1

In article <28389@goofy.Apple.COM>, ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
> A couple of friends are in wheel chairs.  From time to time they
> run out of juice.  I've often wondered about building for them
> a small 'micro power' generator.
> 
I would do the same thing I do for my emergency flashlight.  Use solar cells,
(for the flashlight, I keep it in a window constantly charging a rechargable 
battery) and a big enough rechargable battery.  

Just stick the cells somewhere on the outside, and let them charge over time.
If the use is infrequent, then there ought to be enough time to charge the thing
before needing it, no matter that the charge rate is slow.

			John.
From: kencam@deakin.OZ.AU
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: low tech water pumping
Summary: request for information/location of Peter D Dunn
Keywords: pumping, low tech
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:47:03 GMT
Organization: Deakin University

I have recently come across a book,Introduction to Appropriate Technology, R
Congdon ed., Rodale Press 1977.  Peter D Dunn  presented a chapter on Energy in
Rural Areas and particularly discussed his work on low tech pumps.  He
describes systems proposed/developed by Payne, Kleen as well as work done on
internal combustion, water-piston UHumphreyU pumps.
I am interested in the practicalities of these systems as I see water pumping
as the biggest single problem in irrigated farming systems.

Does anyone out there know what happened to Peter Dunn and this work; does
anyone have interest/extertise in this area.  I would like to here from you.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Structure of Time (SUMMARY)
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:45:44 GMT

sgr@ae-sun05 (Stan Ryckman) writes:

[speculations on colored neutrinos deleted]

>If _anything_ has a color, it does one or more of:
>   a) emit optical photons;
>   b) reflect optical photons;
>   c) absorb optical photons; or
>   d) refract optical photons.

[..]

You did *not* speak of the colors of quarks ? 
--
 Hartmut Frommert, LS Dehnen, Physics, | E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet>
 Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60,     |     or  <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany   | + SAVE THE WHALES ! BOYCOTT NORWAY !        +
 Phone: +49-(0)7531-88-3747   | + Whales R intelligent. Whale killers not.  +
+ Whale killing is murder. Eating whales is cannibalism. Eat whale killers. +
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: *Serious* individual air play. The cause of excessive traffic?
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:39:32 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona

In article <1992Jul29.170758.12621@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>And it is certainly not just Dale, either. There are those out there who seem
>to think it is their personal responsibility to comment on *all* subjects
>*all* the time. Sorta takes away from the concept of a 'group' discussion.

1.  Not nearly as much as asking them to shut up.

2.  So long as there are more than one of them they're a group.

3.  Who died and left you Roberts' Rules of order?

4.  No man is an island; nor any a vertical market.  If
    I didn't know *both* Writing and Physics I'd be either
    a poet or a particle-pusher, but I'd certainly be no
    engineer.  Some people are just multi-faceted and
    like giving their opinions.  Some people play fifteen
    games of chess at one time.  Checkmate is still checkmate.

				--Blair
				  "Where's Ice-T?  We need a
				   rap about killing net.cops..."
Newsgroups: sci.physics