HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 22 Dec 1992 13:59:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
NNTP-Posting-Host: grissom.larc.nasa.gov

In article <51682@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1h4qbkINNnbi@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>> In article <78150@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>> >Sounds like an interesting idea to me.  Make one end of the flywheel a motor
>> >driven by line current.  Make the other end a generator that powers your
>> 
>> This used to be fairly common in big mainframe installations.  I worked at
>> a Cyber site that had a flywheel about ten feet in diameter attached to
>> the main motor-generator set.  When the power went out, we had about twenty
>> seconds of operation to save registers and copy all jobs out to disk.
>
>Real world flywheels, now this is more like it.  Here, we got a 10 foot
>stationary flywheel that can power a computer for 20 seconds.  Probably
>very safe, and possibly lower maintainance than the lead-acid batteries
>currently in use for uninterruptibles.

Yes, this is extremely dependable technology.  19th century technology in
fact (although the casting and balancing of a steel flywheel that large
is still pretty impressive).  As far as I could tell, the system was zero
maintainance, in fact... it got lubricated every year but not much more
than that.

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

That's not to say that it's not possible to perform this task, just that
to do so requires a lot better technology than running a computer for
twenty seconds.  I don't believe that we currently have the technology to
build a safe flywheel-powered automobile but that doesn't mean that it's
not worth speculating on what manner of technology is required (and to
attempt to work that technology out).
--scott
   (who has an intense hatred of internal combustion engines this morning)
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:24:12 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <7520009@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:

>I just read a book written by the Hawkweed Group, a solar architectural
>firm from Wisconsin.  They make a claim that a passive solar house
>can be built just as cheaply (or even cheaper) than a conventional house,
>and that over 90% of the heating requirements of the house will be provided
>by the sun.


No problem.  I built a normal-looking house, except that most of the 
windows face the south side.  On even the coldest days, if the sun is
shining brightly I need no other source of heat.  However, in this
climate you would be hard pressed to rely on the sun for all your heat.
During November this year, there were only 5 sunny days.  And the
sun is only reasonably high in the sky for a maximum of 8 hours.
I guess that means that only 6% of the heating requirements for
the month were met by solar.

I'm afraid that for most people who need wintertime heating, the sun
is not the answer.  The reason it's cold in the first place is that
the sun's heat is not strong enough.  Move my house to Colorado and
I'd do just fine, thank-you.

___________________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier						Mitel Corporation
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:13:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <gfBCW0a00YUn84A25_@andrew.cmu.edu> geek+@CMU.EDU (Brian E. Gallew) writes:

|OK.  Here is one *I* would like to see. How about flywheel application
|in uninterruptable power supplies?  The energy density should be a lot
|higher, *and* they should be a lot lower maintenance.  I think someone
|mentioned drawing power directly from the flywheel (basically using it
|as a generator).  could this concept be broadened where you have both
|a power-in and a power-out path going at the same time?  Wouldn't this
|also tend to stop power surges and so forth?  Am I simply stupid?

Sounds like an interesting idea to me.  Make one end of the flywheel a motor
driven by line current.  Make the other end a generator that powers your
computer, or whatever.  Output is electrically isolated from the input, and
the mass of the flywheel will even out the surges and dropouts.

-- 
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
From: Essential Information <ei@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:55 PST
Subject: Re: Energy Ideas - HVAC-2
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1466300134:cdp:1466300146:000:1483
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ei    Dec 31 13:55:00 1992



ENERGY IDEAS SURVEY

We are interested in making this a more effective resource. 
Please take the time to respond to this survey and send a
hardcopy to: Energy Ideas Survey, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 
20036, or fax to (202) 387-8034.  Thanks.

1.) Should each issue be shorter?  yes  no

2.) Are the articles too technical?     yes  no

3.) Are the articles too long?          yes  no

4.) Are the case studies helpful?       yes  no

5.) Do you want fewer or more case studies?
     fewer          more      same

6.) Do you want more information on life cycle cost analysis?    
               yes  no

7.) Do you want more information about financing?                
          yes  no

8.) Do you want more information about proper maintenance?       
          yes  no

9.) What other suggestions do you have for improving Energy
Ideas?










10.) Have you called any contact persons from the case studies to
ask for further information? If yes, who?






11.) What articles have been the most informative and helpful?
Why?









12.) What articles have been the least informative or helpful?
Why?






13.) What topics are of greatest interest to you? (i.e.,
financing, lighting, HVAC, solar power, maintenance, etc.) 




14.) What type of information is of greatest interest to you?
(i.e. technical descriptions, financial detail, problems with
installations, etc.)





15.) If you want to receive Energy Ideas, please provide your
name and address here:
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Solar powered battery charger
Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:29:19 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> Many thanks to all who gave advice on whether a dash
> mounted solar cell could be effective in charging a 12
> volt car battery.

=v= Sorry to get into this thread so late . . .

=v= If the product you describe is what I think it is, there
is indeed no way it could charge a 12 volt car battery.  But
the product I've seen touted itself as a device to keep a
battery from discharging, say, when left standing for long
periods of time.

=v= If this same product is being marketed as a battery
charger, that's clearly fraudulent.
    <_Jym_>
From: Essential Information <ei@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:54 PST
Subject: Re: Energy Ideas - HVAC-2
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1466300134:cdp:1466300138:000:2133
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ei    Dec 31 13:54:00 1992



SAVING MONEY BY SWITCHING TO GAS-DRIVEN ENGINES


Some facilities have managed to lower their energy costs by
switching from an electric to a natural gas-powered vapor
compression air chiller. Utilities have begun offering
Demand-Side Management rebates to facilities that install
gas-driven engines. While electric engines have a higher
coefficient of performance (the ratio of the cooling output to
the energy input), the inefficiency of electricity generation and
transmission makes the overall efficiency of gas and electric
engines nearly equal. 

CASE STUDY:

Chiller Installation at University
The State University of New York at Buffalo sought to air
condition portions of an old building which houses the chemistry
department. The three-floor, 220,000-square-foot building has
classrooms on the first floor and offices and laboratories, which
need air conditioning, on the second and third floors. The
facility manager estimated that the building required about 300
to 400 tons of cooling. The building did not have the existing
service to supply power to an electric chiller. Supplying that
service would have cost $210,000.

Instead, a gas-engine-powered, horizontal screw chiller was
installed in 1989. This chiller was chosen because it is easy to
maintain and because of the differences in fuel prices. Taking
efficiencies into account, electricity would cost $2.10 per therm
(100,000 British thermal units) while natural gas only cost 40
cents per therm. The cost of the gas-powered chiller was
$180,000, but with a gas utility rebate of $70,000, the chiller
cost only $30,000 more than an electric chiller. The annual
savings have been nearly $10,000. The chiller availability has
been almost 100 percent; the only shut-down occurred when the
lubricating pump needed to be repaired. Aside from the economic
benefits, the facility manager stressed the ease of maintenance
and the compact size of the chiller (4' x 12' x 7') which allowed
it to fit easily in the basement of the building. (Contact: Fred
Smeader, University Facility Engineer, SUNY Buffalo, 115 John
Beane Center, Buffalo, NY 14260, (716) 645-2612.)
From: hardie@herald.usask.ca (Peter Hardie,4805)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 1 Jan 1993 16:08:59 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Reply-To: hardie@herald.usask.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: herald.usask.ca
Originator: hardie@herald.usask.ca

From article <C057yB.6Dw@encore.com>, by wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll):
> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> 
>>No comparison.  Containment structures are designed to withstand the strongest
>>tornadoes - a mere typhoon would simply give the plant a nice bath.
>>									Just
>>look at some of the stuff our last big hurricane did in Florida.  That's
>>exactly what a typhoon does.
> 
> You mean, like knocking the Turkey Point nuclear plant offline for several
> weeks? That's one hell of a bath!
If you had read the news correctly you would know that the hurricane did not
damage the nuclear power plant at all. It was taken off line as a precaution
during the storm. The damage was done to a nearby coal-fired plant (one of the
stacks was damaged?). After being taken off-line, the Turkey Point plant could
not get permission to start up again for some time because of concerns about
the ability to evacuate the nearby population if an emergency occurred at the
plant (i.e. the existing emergency evacuation plans would have been difficult
to carry out with the debris from the storm impeding people's ability to get
out of the area).

Pete hardie@herald.usask.ca
From: ahgrabow@apgea.army.mil (Alexander H. Grabowski <ahgrabow>)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Japan Takes US to Cleaners
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:30:35 GMT
Organization: CBDA, Edgewood, Md

In article <1hc9imINNaq1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>
[interesting articel deleted...]
>
>-- 
>Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
>            looks promising.... |-)

... And after being down there for couple hours he added:
Scotty beam me up, there's no intelligent life down here!
[:-)]

Alexander

__________________________________________________________________
| Don't call us, we will call you    |  Ain't got no brains.     |
| Don't flame me, I won't flame you  |  Ain't got no opinion.    |
|                                    |  Ain't got nuttin' to be  |
| ahgrabow@cbda8.apgea.army.mil      |  held responsible for.    |
|                                                                |
|       Only narrow-minded people care about typos.              |
|                                   (James Michener)             |
|________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: sci.energy,misc.consumers.house
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Domestic Water Heaters - oil vs. electric
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 05:52:32 GMT

In article <1hvil4INNbje@morrow.stanford.edu> ho@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (Hiang-Kwee Ho) writes:
>However, in theory (and in practice in some cases), a much more efficient way 
>of heating is to use a heat pump. Since a heat pump produces typically
>3-7 times the amount of heat for a given input of work (or electricity), its
>performance beats the performance of any oil or electric water heater by
>a wide margin. (The actual "efficiency" or coefficient of performance of the 
>heat pump depends on the initial temperature of the cold water, the desired
>hot water temperature etc.)

For making hot water at useful temperatures during the winter, I believe
that heat pumps are unsuitable. What is the max delta T you can achieve
at a profitable efficiency with a heat pump?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987 ~BHOSVWZ#097)
Subject: Mileage vs. Safety concerns in autos
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 06:16:09 GMT

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?

What bothers me about the CAFE standards rising is that it will encourage
the building of even more flimsy cars than we already have.  Yeah, it's
a good idea to conserve petrol, I don't think that's the way to go about it.

Going to an EV system, we can reap the benefits of better efficiency,
more ecological soundness, and yet not sacrafice safety.  With the imminent
mandate for higher and higher mileage vehicles, we are just trading 
society's well being for short-term political gains.

If the automakers get (even more) used to cutting corners now due to 
government interference, you can bet that they won't go back to building
the safer, more expensive ways once we go EV.

Alternative?  How about a multi-fuel powerplant that can burn ethanol,
propane, methanol, or gasoline?  There are systems like this that do work,
and this would be a good way to buy us time while the inevitable EV bugs
get worked out.  

ObFlywheelComment:  Yup, they're a good idea, provided it's done
carefully.

--

Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.
Don't blame me; I voted for Perot!        Yes, I have an opinion on this.
SAAB - Because you get what you pay for.             Pherrets are Phun!!!
From: karol+@pitt.edu (Filip M. Gieszczykiewicz (fmgst+@pitt.edu))
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Flywheels and Space Stations
Summary: ideal power source/battery
Keywords: posted in sci.electronics also
Date: 3 Jan 93 15:59:31 GMT
Followup-To: sci.energy
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


	Greetings. How about a bit of a change of subject. This one is
	a bit more practical (and I'd patent if I could) [smirk]

	I'm sure most folks have seen the designs for 23rd century space
	stations - you know, the "wheel" ones. Yup, how practical would
	it be to use the spinnin motion of some parts of the station as a
	storage medium? From my point of view, the gyroscopic effect of
	a giga-flywheel would be benificial because it would stabilize the
	station and oppose all the forces like shuttles docking, folks
	shooting each other with guns [hey, how do you handle that part
	of social "interaction"? Gee, it's bad enough if it happens in
	a plane...[evil grin]], and other events that would otherwise be
	handled with rocket jets.

	Also, as you may suspect, the station would aready be spinning to
	simulate gravity (at least some portions of it would be, anyways).
	Hey, not to mention that we don't need any funky bearings and there
	is already vacuum!

	So, say we have a space station that NASA wants to build. During
	the time that it is exposed to sunligh (or magnetic field or
	whatever) motors are spinning up the flywheel which can then
	supply power to the station either when main power fails or
	simply as the MAIN power source.

	I'm sure this beats having a breeder/fusion/fuelcell in the
	vicinity of the station.

	Hope this stirrs some discussion as it seems to me to be a very
	possible (or more sane) application of this wonderful and 
	efficient storage medium.

	Take care.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT REPLY HERE. REPLY TO "fmgst+@pitt.edu". THANK YOU. If that doesn't work,
send that e-mail to "fmg@alpha.smi.med.pitt.edu". Proud co-owner of a Jeanie's
Teenie serial# 1: all-Al, 285lb, low-wing, 53 hp, 120 knts, experimental plane!!
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Japan Takes US to Cleaners
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:50:00 GMT

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

-- 
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: brian@clipper.ingr.com (Brian Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Electric TrRail System
Keywords: trains
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:56:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA



   I know that light-rail systems such as BART (here in the SF Bay Area) help
to reduce traffic congestion but, is such a system actually any more fuel 
efficient?

   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?

   How much power is lost in distribution for an electric rail system like
BART?


		Thanks

			- Brian -
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen)
Subject: Re: Mileage vs. Safety concerns in autos
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:44:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.061609.29827@mr.med.ge.com> hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987 ~BHOSVWZ#097) writes:


>What bothers me about the CAFE standards rising is that it will encourage
>the building of even more flimsy cars than we already have.  Yeah, it's
>a good idea to conserve petrol, I don't think that's the way to go about it.

There are two issues with saftey: mass and engineering

If engineering is constant:

A light car impacting a wall would produce the same damage to
occupants as a heavy car impacting a wall.

IT is conceiveably possible for one in a light car to hit one in a
heavy are and fare better if the light car was engineered better. The
problem is the lighter the car relative to the other car, the more
energy that is transferred to the light car.

I guess my point is the following:
It is incorrect to say that CAFE standards will encourage the building
of flimsy cars. Since, if everyone drove these resulting 
small cars, size is no longer an issue. Flimsy does not equal small
it equals poorly engineered.

Also, it is just as dangerous for two large cars to hit each other as
two small cars. So, if everyone went to large cars, you would be
no better off.

Size only matters to saftey when you have all types of cars on the
road. In that case you would want the biggest best engineered car you
can find.

john
-- 
John Nielsen   MAGNUS Consultant            ______   ______   __  __	
jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu         /\  __ \ /\  ___\ /\ \/\ \
                                           \ \ \/\ \\ \___  \\ \ \_\ \
  Back off man, I'm a Scientist!            \ \_____\\/\_____\\ \_____\
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Domestic Hot Water Heaters - oil vs. electric
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <BzoMuq.F7z@world.std.com>, moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
writes:
|> dbliss@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Doug Bliss) writes:
|> 
|> >I have heard that oil-fired domestic hot water heaters...
|> 
|> First, my home heating system is essentially a oil-fired hot water heater...


Several years ago, someone pointed out to me that these devices are
actually _cold_ water heaters, not _hot_ water heaters, as if the
water was already hot, you wouldn't need to heat it, would you?
Alternatively, they can be just "water heaters".

Now, next time someone tells you about a "hot water heater",
you too can sound clever (or excessively picky)!   :)


Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy