My reply is already up to 22K, and I still have more
sources to read!
This might take a while...reading Committee reports is
not particularly exciting. ;P
I'll try to trim it down a bit more, once I've
finished reading. :)
Debbi
Not Trying For The Longest Post - Really! Maru
___
- Original Message -
From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:53 PM
Subject: "Nukular" L3 (was: cars, air L3er)
> Chipping in with my selective .02$ worth, mostly from
> a medic
Chipping in with my selective .02$ worth, mostly from
a medical perspective (since my environmental
engineering days were limited to a
summer-and-a-semester of graduate school -- before I
thought I knew what I wanted to be when I grew up ;D
). Articles about Chernobyl, the problems of uranium
min
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:57:53 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>We've now gotten to the point where we are discussing strongly conflicting
>data from different sources. Rereading my post, I was worried that it
>might appear that I will simply not accept any number you put out. But, I
>am applying self
At 06:58 PM 10/29/02, William T Goodall wrote:
what happened to the Stanley Steamer?
It's the name of a local carpet cleaning service?
--Ronn! :)
I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the last.
--Dr. Jerry Pournelle
___
At 03:23 AM 10/31/2002 +, you wrote:
on 30/10/02 1:52 am, Kevin Tarr at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> External combustion engines (steam engines/turbines) are already more
>> efficient than internal combustion engines, and what happened to the
Stanley
>> Steamer?
>>
>> --
>> William T Goodal
th my criteria or on how I apply them.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: cars, air L3er
>
> http://www.awea.org/faq/instcap.html
>
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/1406
In a message dated 10/30/2002 8:22:48 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Steam cars lasted into the 1920's. They cost more than IC cars, and fuel
was
very cheap, so efficiency didn't matter. So it was price that killed them
AFAIK.
>>
But the all leather omnibus, the
on 30/10/02 1:52 am, Kevin Tarr at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> External combustion engines (steam engines/turbines) are already more
>> efficient than internal combustion engines, and what happened to the Stanley
>> Steamer?
>>
>> --
>> William T Goodall
>
>
> Well come on ;-) They couldn't
William T Goodall wrote:
>
> External combustion engines (steam engines/turbines) are already more
> efficient than internal combustion engines, and what happened to the Stanley
> Steamer?
>
Aren't they the ones that are tough on dirt, gentle on carpets?
Julia
who expects that that
External combustion engines (steam engines/turbines) are already more
efficient than internal combustion engines, and what happened to the Stanley
Steamer?
--
William T Goodall
Well come on ;-) They couldn't go far, took hours to warm up, had to carry
both fuel and water, very dangerous in c
on 27/10/02 8:48 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I may be overly optimistic because it is my personal belief that now is the
> time to start a shift away from non-renewable fuels, starting with oil. Any
> vehicle that will run on anything but gasoline will play a part in sta
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:32:47 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>I think remote, not rural is where the break even is. From
>http://www.go-solar.com/Pvinsolation.html
>I got the average sun hours as 4.8/day. If you factor in the fact that the
>cells rarely operate at peak efficiency, you are talking close
I've been enjoying reading this thread. I have a comment or three, and
a question (and the question is something I could probably look up, but
I figure someone knows the answer)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 23:42:23 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>
> >You might be my age,
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 23:42:23 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>>Yes, my number was high. I was likely remembering a projected number.
>>But, to be fair, your data source is 2 years old. Wind capacity in the US has
>>close to doubled in that time.
>
>Are you sure,
>
>at
>
>http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: cars, air L3er
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: &l
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: cars, air L3er
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:02:21PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > >From what I've rea
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:02:21PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> >From what I've read in Physics Today, it is going to be very hard to
>
> squeeze out added efficiencies. Everything that I see indicates
> that we need to do a lot of fundamental research before there is a
> breakthrough. So, money
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: cars, air L3er
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:42:23PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> > Are you sure,
> >
> >
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:42:23PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> Are you sure,
>
> at
>
> http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004691.html
>
> I obtained the following historical trend
>
> 1989 7034.4 MWh
> 1990 9379.2 MWh
> 1991 9379.2 MWh
> 1992 8793 MWh
> 1993 9086.1 MWh
> 1994 10551.6 MWh
> 1995
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: cars, air L3er
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 15:40:50 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> Please forgive the lateness of my reply. Life gets in the way
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 15:40:50 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Please forgive the lateness of my reply. Life gets in the way.
..much snippage throughout...
> Feel free to check my figures, but it appears that the energy storage is
> consistant with about 12% efficiency. Which kinda makes sense, because
Kevin Tarr wrote:
>Q. When does a person decide to become an engineer?
>A. When he realizes he doesn't have the charisma to be an undertaker.
hehe, I've heard that joke applied to many different occupations, including my own,
though I heard it as "Actuaries are like accountants without the char
As bad as:
How many "F"s in "Birffday"? <---age 6.
I still hear college as colledge.
And here the best money I've made in the past year came from picking up 200+
electrical engineering and computer books. I don't have to understand them to
sell them. I do wonder about the felt pen $1.00 price
In a message dated 10/13/2002 7:20:27 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I'm bad without spellchecker also. >>
As bad as:
How many "F"s in "Birffday"? <---age 6.
I still hear college as colledge.
And here the best money I've made in the past year came from picking up 2
> <<
> William Taylor
>
>
> Do you mean Howard Hughes? What did he do to a steam car? How old are
you?
> Howard died in 1976, and I doubt he was swinging an axe for many, many
> years before that.
> >>
>
> I'm total crap without a spellchecker.
>
> I remember that in a Howard Hughes film bio
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: cars, air L3er
> In a message dated 10/12/2002 6:09:09 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> <<
>
In a message dated 10/12/2002 6:09:09 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
William Taylor
Do you mean Howard Hughes? What did he do to a steam car? How old are you?
Howard died in 1976, and I doubt he was swinging an axe for many, many
years before that.
>>
I'm
Damn the answers are good and fast here. So I take it not one engineer on
this thought project thought of a ruptured air tank in a collision with a
28
gallon gas tank?
I thought a ruptured gas tank does not explode unless the gas is first
mixed
with air.
I remember what Howard Huges did with an
In a message dated 10/12/2002 3:24:35 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> <<
> Further, the tank appears to be a 77 gallon tank. >>
>
> A simple question from a not very technical mind. If this is a 77 gallon
tank
> at 300 atmosphere
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: cars, air L3er
> In a message dated 10/12/2002 1:35:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> <<
> Fur
In a message dated 10/12/2002 1:35:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
Further, the tank appears to be a 77 gallon tank. >>
A simple question from a not very technical mind. If this is a 77 gallon tank
at 300 atmospheres, what happens if it ruptures?
Remembers a ve
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: cars, air L3er
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:54:47 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >Well, it would be very hard to believe. Lets look at some
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:54:47 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>Well, it would be very hard to believe. Lets look at some numbers. The
>general efficiency of an internal combustion engine is given in
>http://ecen.com/content/eee7/motoref.htm
>at around 40%. The initial efficiency of a big power plant g
34 matches
Mail list logo
