NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/energy/5560

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 3.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!CARL
From: [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 19 Nov 1992 01:49:26 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 46
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sherwood Botsford) writes:
=Carl J Lydick ([e-mail]) wrote:
=: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Keith Mancus/MDSSC) writes:
=: >> 3.  Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than
=: >> water (Something that wouldn't freeze, and could act as a lubricant.)
=: >
=: >  For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd
=: >is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/
=: >condenser and associated weight.
=:
=: That's fine if you have LOTS of water to waste.  In case you haven't heard, the
=: state that's pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be in a
=: major drought.
=
=Wait a minute.  Suppose the 10 mi/gal water is accurate.  That would mean that
=water consumption would be on the order of three times gas consumption.
=Just how much gas do you guys burn in california compared to your water use?

The question is irrelevent, as you would've realized had you taken even a
moment to think about it before posting.  The question is whether we can really
afford the ADDITIONAL water that would be required by open loop steam engines.
California has had two severe droughts in the 19 years I've lived here.  We're
currently entering the 7th year of the drought.  Last year water was RATIONED
in a number of cities.  An additional water sink is something that looks like
REALLY bad idea.

=Remember too that water dispersed into the air is likely to recondense as dew
=or rain, unlike water that goes down the drain.

So?  Given that it does condense as dew (not all that likely actually, in
Southern California for much of the year, considering that 70% relative
humidity is considered high in these parts), that dew is going to be largely in
places that:
    1)  It can't be recovered from; and
    2)  That aren't normally irrigated.
I.e., it's not going to reduce the amount of water demanded for other uses, and
it's not going to go back into the water distribution system.  For all
practical purposes, that water will be GONE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | 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.