HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kwyatt@ccscola.Columbia (Kershner Wyatt)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy in Diesel
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:56:47 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC

In article <22420@oasys.dt.navy.mil> cervi@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Cervi) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.032001.22915@Arco.COM> dlc@arco.com writes:
>>An old friend of mine was wanting to find some #3 diesel to run in a tractor
>>for
>>tractor pulling competition.  He has the opinion that that this heaver fuel has
Lotsa good info deleted.
>I doubt if he will win any more races simply due to the choice of fuel.
>
>Turbo charging will make a big difference, (but a new fuel pump will
>also be required.)

Advance apology- I refer to "you" meaning your friend.

You may want to really check about whether a higher volume fuel pump is needed
as most diesel injection systems run a fair amount of fuel through the bleed
valve and return lines.  I think that most pumps allow some adjustment on
fuel flow as well.

Turbocharging engines is obviously a very effective and moderately expensive
way to produce a good deal more shaft power.  Fortunately also is the way
the power is used- RPMs up, drop the clutch, and pull that sled.  However,
I have seen a few blowers go on the competition/modified biggies.

Ways I've seen to try to dump as much fuel in as possible is to make the
metal injection lines as straight as possible, not the traditional 90 degree
turns, increased diameter lines, pressurized fuel supply line from the tank
(as most diesels use the injection pump as the fuel pump), the last to allow
the injection pump to force fuel into the cylinders rather than have to pull
and force fuel.   If you know you have a clean fuel tank and can super filter
the fuel, you may want to remove any filters in the supply line (questionable
practice (IMHO))- as this is also a restriction and pressure drop.  I think
you would also find cetane ratings very important in your fuel choice, perhaps
more than diesel grades.  I find my diesels are somewhat sensitive to this,
it's a case of experimentation -- your friend may not find any value.

Air volume is extremely critical for power.  You need as much air as possible,
so minimize any restrictions here.  Synthetic lubes are something I hear
mixed reviews on, but there are a lot of supporters of the Molys and synthetics,to each his own.

Best of luck on the search for "More POWER"
-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: pcl@engrserver.uark.edu (Peter Laws)
Subject: Re: High-tech highways, chicken/egg (was: Is car pooling for real?
Organization: University of Arkansas
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:54:25 GMT


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.   

SUPPORT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD:  TELL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TO SUPPORT THE
"AMPENNY" BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!


Peter Laws            |"The '90s are gonna make the '60s|    pcl@engr.uark.edu
n5uwy@ka5bml.ar.usa.na| look like the '50s"--D. Hopper  | plaws@uafsysb.bitnet
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling f
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:41:03 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>	Yes,  many people don't realize that transport properties determine
>how dangerous different radioisotopes are.  About 30 megacuries of radioactive
>noble gases were estimated to be released from the TMI accident.  That's
>alot of radiation 

Wrong and no.  30 megacuries is not a lot of "radiation" because the curie
is a measure of radioactivity.  The amount and quality of radiation
emitted by a curie of radioactive material is strictly dependent on
the elements present.

Thirty megacuries of mainly Kr-85 (~80 kev gamma, 0.4% abundance) (if
that number is valid - I don't have my TMI file handy.) released
as it was over several days, emitted such a trivial amount of radiation
that it was never detected at the site boundary.  In the case of TMI,
that boundary is only a few hundred feet away.  That, despite the
fact that Kr-85 is a very heavy gas that tends to lay around
in low spots despite significant draft.  (I've had to use smoke
ejection fans to clear out the basement of a lab where we
spilled a few thousand curies of Kr-85.)

>-- but noble gases don't stay in the body or get
>concentrated in the ecosystem,  so this isn't as severe as it could be.

Correction, it was zero severe.

>	Probably between 10-20 curies of radioactive iodine were released;
>this stuff is really bad because it concentrates in the thyroid.  Had 30
>MCu of radioactive iodine leaked from TMI,  this would have been a serious
>health problem...  But 30 MCu of noble gases is much less severe.

The release of I, if any, was postulated.  None was ever measured.  It
should be noted that essentially the entire core inventory of I was
released at TMI as the fuel melted.  This I either plated out on
internal surfaces (minor contribution) or immediately combined with
the cesium also released and made cesium iodide which happily stayed
in solution in the primary coolant.  It should also be noted that the
inventory of I in the core quickly (minutes) drops below 30 MCi (note
the correct abbreviation) number you hypothesized due to decay.

You really ought to know what you're talking about in this group and
not just read that greenie stuff to us.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil.  Was Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:40:23 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul28.121653.5817@iscsvax.uni.edu> howard@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>So why is it [ethanol] not being promoted more? At least we could reduce 
>foreign oil purchases by up to 10% . Though I agree that other technologies, 
>such as solar power, should be pursued in the future, ethanol is 
>available now. 

The problem with ethanol is that most of it today is produced by the
fermentation and distillation of corn. Something Iowa has too much
of due to government agriculture programs. The corn in turn is produced
using large amounts of oil derived petrochemicals and fuel. Studies
have shown that ethanol produced this way is a net oil consumer.

Now that's not the only way to produce ethanol, but it is the way it
is done today. It's as cheap as gasoline only because of the government
production subsidies and cheap oil subsidies. Made from ordinary organic
"waste" without oil or government hidden subsidy, ethanol rings in at 
around $1.75 a gallon plus tax. It's not economic with today's crude oil
prices.

Gary
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Natural Gas Cars - Refuel From Home Lines!
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:48:55 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul29.021620.171306@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> inpsa@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu writes:
>This article came with my July gas bill.  It details a small appliance
>designed to refuel natural-gas powered cars.    --Jim Reynolds
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>From "The Gasline", News Of Interest To UGI Customers       July, 1992
>
>Introducing the Ultimate Home Appliance!
[deleted]
>The home fueling appliance offers many exciting advantages:
>
>  - lower fuel costs (70 to 80 cents per gallon equivalent)

While all the claims of this article are technically true, this one
issue needs a little further reflection. *Gasoline* retail pricing
is also around 70 to 80 cents a gallon. The rest is road tax. Using
home fueling from non-tax paid natural gas is freeloading on gasoline
and diesel vehicle drivers for road maintainence. It's also against 
Federal Tax law. Add in the 25 cent a gallon combined Federal and
Georgia motor fuel tax, and you have $.95 to $1.05 a gallon pricing.
That's exactly the same as self serve no lead at filling stations
here in Georgia. 

Gary
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: High-tech highways, chicken/egg (was: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:46:41 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

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.   
>
>SUPPORT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD:  TELL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TO SUPPORT THE
>"AMPENNY" BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trains are great when they're full, but 5400 passengers/hour is not
far from the 3900 passenger/miles/hour of a typical expressway. And
one thing is certain, none of the cars are running empty. The same
can't be said about the train. This is a fatal flaw of mass transit.
It's only efficient when it's full, yet it has to run 24 hours a day
if it's to be accepted as an alternative to private autos. So it's
usually running mostly empty. Add in it's fixed routes that limit
travel flexibility, and it's a loser except in specialized situations,
mostly strip cities confined by geography. Spoke and hub systems require
backtracking for cross town travel and that means that many *extra*
passenger miles are required to deliver a person from start to destination
compared to a directly routed car.

Where high speed trains may really shine is as replacements for intercity
airline travel. Bullet trains capable of 300 MPH are possible that can
travel directly from city center to city center at reduced cost and reduced
travel time compared to airliners. This option is used in Japan and France.
Proposals are in place for such systems in heavily travelled corridors of
the US. 

In very high density areas, like Manhattan, human driven cars are not 
very efficient. High rise buildings support high density with high speed 
automated elevators. In the horizontal plane of the city, high speed 
slidewalks could be an alternative to cars. See Robert Heinlein's 
"The Roads Must Roll" for an exaggerated vision of this concept. Automated
cars on fixed roads would be closer to the elevator concept though. In
less dense areas, the private auto, even manually controlled, is still 
the winner in flexibility and often in efficiency.

Gary
From: Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: News: pioneer project: so
Date: 29 Jul 92  23:57:00 EST

-> Hydrogen, one of the most abundant elements on earth, is
-> lightweight, compressible and can be transported long distances. When
-> combined with oxygen in a fuel cell, electricity is released at a
-> 50-60% efficiency rate, far higher than that of the internal
-> combustion engine.  What's more, the only byproduct is pure

I think that before anyone gets too awfully excited about this you might want to look into it in more depth.  A cost comparison study will show that hydrogen is very, very expensive to use as fuel in an auto engine. If you store it as liquid, it takes up a lot of space and you lose a lot over a period of time by venting off the pressure as the liquid warms. If you store it in a metal hydride matrix, it is very heavy and you will have to use some of the fuel to accelerate and move the extra mass.

Hydrogen is indeed the most abundant element, but there is not much of it around in the free state which means you need to use another energy source to produce it.  The solar cells are very expensive and don't last forever.  A lifecycle study of the complete system will show the reason why we are not using hydrogen-powered vehicles today.  It's awfully easy to confuse what's possible with what's practical.

This idea is not new.  In the early '70s, I worked at General Motors Research Labs and they were just wrapping up ten years of Stirling engine research.  They spent $10 million on it and saw the futility of spending more.  They have research reports in their files which would make your eyes bug out. They tried all sorts of combinations and permutations to come up with a reasonable vehicular system.  A lot of that information is still proprietary to GMRL.

So when some professor says he has a new idea and gets grant money to fund it I don't get too excited.  Remember "Cold Fusion"?

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Social Engineering -- and Awareness (was: Is car pooling for real?)
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:12:42 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Jul24.202552.14100@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <Jym.24Jul1992.9am5@naughty-peahen.org> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>>> Folks, you just can't get people to car pool.  20th century
>>>> Westerners, at least, are just too independent.
>>
>>=+= But when you take a good look at it, you see that this
>>independence is illusory.  Not only is this kind of commuting
>>heavily dependent on a powerful infrastructure (the oil biz),
>>it's also a huge sink of money (and thus time).

>     Is the point that 'we are not independent anyway, so someone
>     might as well explicitly tell us what to do'?

Or is it:  'We are not independent in the long term, so we ought
to be dependent in the short term too'?

Once my tank is full, I'm independent for a week...  Once I'm in
the car pool, I'm no longer independent at all.

No last minute decision to play with the kids 5 more minutes.
No quick trip to the hardware store or bank at lunch.
No call from the wife to pick up some {foo} on my way home.
No DIRECT and FLEXIBLE bugout to home after the Quake!  (Yes, after
the Loma Prieta Quake I DROVE home in my car.  In a fairly direct
route, bypassing the broken areas.  This would have been hell in
a carpool, and BART doesn't go to my home ...)
etc.

I'll accept my weekly dependence on the oil companies in exchange
for skipping a minute by minute dependence on a car pool.  Yes,
I'll call that week of flexibility 'independence', because it is.

Just because SOME DAY my life will depend on the medical establishment
doesn't mean that I ought to go on life support today and give up my
independent times spent camping in the woods ...


-- 

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.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:3706 talk.environment:3007
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Pioneer Project: Solar Hydrogn Power
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:45:02 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <JMC.92Jul25164425@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>It would be interesting to know if the Schatz Solar Hydrogen Project
>as reached a higher level of engineering achievement and understanding
>than Richard Stead achieved in his high school science fair project.

I doubt it. :-)

>The key question about hydrogen is whether hydrogen pipelines are
>a more economical way to transmit energy from the sunny parts of
>the country than electric transmission systems.  The direct current
>intertie between the Pacific Northwest and California, including
>Southern California, transmits power almost as far as would be required
>by a massive solar system.

Pipelines are *the* cheapest way to transport energy. The analysis I have 
is from the 1970s, that's when the government funded the bulk of alternative 
energy research that answered the basic questions of technological feasibility 
and economic viability. Lessing, in "The Coming Age of Hydrogen", says
that hydrogen pipelines are three times as efficient as electric transmission
lines in delivering energy.

>Another question is how much energy storage or excess capacity would
>be required to handle cloudy periods.  Are hydrogen tanks (gaseous or
>liquid) better than pumped water storage or compressed air?

The best systems proposed in "The Hydrogen Fuel Economy" are "just in time"
nuclear thermal systems. However, hydrogen storage, as a compressed gas
in long pipes, is the best way to handle peak demand for utility purposes.
The low storage density is not the problem it is in vehicles, and much
of the energy used to compress the hydrogen can be recovered when it is
released, just as with compressed air storage.

>For cars, I think liquid hydrogen is the only way to achieve the
>energy densities required.  The safety and insulation problems
>are substantial but solvable according to people with experience
>working with liquid hydrogen.

While liquid hydrogen is certainly safer to handle than liquid oxygen,
I wouldn't want to trust John Q Public with such a system. A heavily
hydrogenated synthetic gasoline equivalent is likely the best choice.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:03:14 GMT

In article <13776@mindlink.bc.ca>, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>
>> That doesn't prove that they are not intelligent.  They could have reasons
>> for letting men kill them; reasons that they understand but we don't.  Look
>> at all the absurd things humans do in the name of religion.  Aliens judging
>> humans by a few religious fanatics might decide that humans aren't
>> intelligent.  :)
>
>By that argument, you could suggest that chairs are intelligent, but for
>reasons we do not understand choose not to reveal that intelligence, and
>instead let humans sit on them and push them around.

Actually, given that the only way chairs procreate is to have men build more,
that strategy on the part of chairs would be quite intelligent :-).

>Imagine that whales have intelligence at our level, and they all share a common
>religion.  This religion states that life is a temporary phase on the way to
>something better, and that dying is nothing to be concerned about.  That
>religion might also state (through an interpretation of the "Dead Sea Song")
>that revealing to any non-whale beings that whales are intelligent is a
>terrible sin which would send that whale to eternal agony.

Wait a minute!  If we accept that argument, then we would also have to believe
that Buddhists are possesed of rudimentary intelligence :-).

>There: an explanation for whales' apparent lack of intelligent activity or
>concern for death.  Mass beachings could be a religious ceremony equivalent to
>sacrificing a goat to bring the sun back, or bowing to Mecca at noon.  It is no
>more ludicrous than most human religions.  Perhaps whale's form of intelligence
>makes belief in religion far stronger than humanities (ie. whales have less
>doubt), and thus no whales sneak off to talk to media reporters.  :)

I tend to believe that religion is one of the best arguments against the
existence of terrestrial intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:3794 talk.environment:3056
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Pioneer Project: Solar Hydrogn Power
Date: 30 Jul 92 04:33:16 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <1992Jul28.011958.15661@michael.apple.com:, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
: In article <1992Jul25.053753.10053@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
: >[Re: hydrogen economy]
: >Delivery of hydrogen by pipeline requires pumps of sixty times the
: >capacity of ordinary natural gas pipeline pumping systems. In addition,
: >the piping is exposed to hydrogen embrittlement. These problems have
: >solutions, but again they aren't cheap.
: These don't seem to have prevented 'water gas' plants in the 1800's
: from selling a mixture of CO and H2 ...

You want to sell CO and H2 in the 1990's?  HAHAHAHAHAHA!  The opposition
would have a field day with two elements that can be easily associated with
the Hindenberg and suicide.  Is it fair?  No.  Would it happen?  Probably.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Pioneer Project: Solar Hydrogn Power
Followup-To: sci.energy,talk.environment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:29:06

How will the cost of solar produced hydrogen compare with the
cost of nuclear produced hydrogen.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Cold Fusion, real again?
Date: 29 Jul 92 02:30:45 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

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.  The experiment was
almost identical to a  heat-producing cold-fusion type of experiment
described earlier this year by Akito Takahashi of Osaka University.

This marked the first time that one laboratory has claimed to have
reproduced a cold fusion experiment in another laboratory and obtained
the same positive results.  A major cloud hanging over claims of cold
fusion has been the inability of reserarchers to describe to others how
to build and operate a cold fusion experiment that, as is claimed,
releases more energy that it consumes.
...
Much of the new interest in Japan has been fueled by Dr. Takahashi's
experiment.  In January Dr. Takahashi said he was getting an average of
70% more power, in the form of heat, out of his cold-fusion type of
experiment than was being put into it electrically.  The experiment, he
said, was continuously producing more energy than it was consuming, and
during a typical week might produce 50 megajoules (14 kilowatt-hours) of
excess energy.

***** END QUOTE *****

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

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

-- 
E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

"Nothing can keep an argument going like two persons who aren't
sure what they're arguing about."   O.A.Battista