Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

I NEED ASSISTANCE: Useable BTU's per Cubic Foot, and per Pound (weight)

Expand Messages
  • hhowderd
    Eric: I am working on the NewMobility project, and have gotten stumped by the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Information. That office refuses to
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Eric:

      I am working on the NewMobility project, and have gotten
      stumped by the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy
      Information.

      That office refuses to publish a table of useable BTU
      per cubic foot of every substance known. I was thinking
      that such a table would be most handy in our NewMobility project,
      especially if it were presented in descending order of the
      dimension: useable BTU per cubic foot. Other useful data
      could also be shown in a format of only one line per substance.

      Of course we would want NAME OF SUBSTANCE (in English) maybe
      any popular alias, maybe two different numbers in our dimension
      to account for different uses, such as internal combustion
      engine, external combustion engine, transmitted energy, or
      person-propelled.

      For example, there would be an entry for CORN, another for
      gasoline-87 octane, another for black-eyed peas, another
      for SONY battery #23478, etc.

      Ideally, the data would be in a computerized data base, so
      that a very user-friendly form could be filled out to cause
      the data to be displayed any way the user wanted it displayed,
      even taking options in language, metric measurement, additional
      information about the substance, such as grade, or some price
      estimate (maybe several price estimates in various markets),
      and completely searchable, and sortable any way the user wanted it.

      I just had this idea that by all means, density should also be
      included in the data: BTU per pound ! as well as pound per
      cubic foot. And then in metrics, also. Let the user pick whatever
      he wants, and have it searched and sorted the way he wants.

      I can not find anything like this on the internet

      When I asked for the information from the US Office of Energy
      Information (US Department of Energy), they made a claim that they
      had the data, and where on the internet I could access their data.

      However, what I found, as directed by the US Office of Energy
      Information was many tables, using DIFFERENT dimensions, and
      only for a few well-known fuels: Kerosene, naptha, etc.

      The most important thing in the table that I need is to have the
      measurement in the SAME dimension, and I prefer Useable BTU per
      cubic foot. Or maybe, to avoid confusion of what is "useable",
      have that as one data item for each use, and just a laboratory
      BTU per cubic foot as another data item.

      Is one of our stakeholders capable of supplying this necessary
      data ?


      best regards,

      howard finch
    • hhowderd
      -- Eric, et al: Digging deeper into this problem of an exhaustive list of substances by useable BTU per cubic foot, I have ran into the proposition of latent
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --
        Eric, et al:

        Digging deeper into this problem of an exhaustive list
        of substances by useable BTU per cubic foot, I have ran
        into the proposition of "latent heat."

        For example, there is always a release of energy with
        a change of state -- gas to liquid to solid.

        Also, there is a release of energy whenever the containment
        pressure is reduced. That may be of critical importance for
        any vehicle powered by compressed water, compressed air,
        or even the now popular (although I don't know why): compressed
        natural gas. I don't see that you could go very far on
        compressed natural gas if it was all brought on board pretrip,
        commercially. (Now, maybe compressing the natural gas exiting
        the passengers might be a more useful concept ! ! Is that
        what they are doing ? )

        For your further information, this got me to thinking about
        the ecology movements "global warming" project. I would suspect
        that the surface air temps might be rising everywhere as a
        result of increased dew falls, as a result primarily of increased
        release of minute particles from various volcanoes for the past
        twenty (20) years or so.

        For transport WHILE THE DEW IS FALLING -- maybe only twenty (20)
        minutes , and at an uncertain time each day in some markets,
        there might be a chance to build and market a commercially viable
        transport vehicle powered by such a power source.

        Then, there might be hundreds of spin-off ideas from such an
        original idea.

        Anyway, while awaiting the data for various useable BTU per cubic
        foot, I am going to turn to self-propelled transport, ie
        with the person being the power source. I am thinking that
        there might be some advantage to providing a way to "smooth"
        the effort, in contrast to the systems now, which require the
        rider to exert whatever energy is require at the moment.
        I rode a bicycle this week, and I can tell you from experience,
        that some of those are very tough moments ! ( And I HAD a 12 speed.)

        I was thinking maybe compressed air, or compressed water.

        Regardless of what is compressed, the people who probably know the
        most about this is the maker of the SMEAL fire truck pumper.

        Is it proper for NewMobility to recruit stakeholders ? I am not
        certain about it, but , like I say, SMEAL should have something to
        contribute to any solutions we might come up with.

        For example, I understand from my local fireman, that the water
        temp in his fire engine is stored at 250 degrees, F. Most of that
        energy is the result of pumping it in at 100 psi, and holding it
        at maybe 300 psi.

        There is no need for us to repeat the mistakes of trams about Paris
        in a previous century where they tried to then put another fire
        onboard to INCREASE the pressure more. That idea was going
        BACKWARDS !

        To my mind, the FORWARD direction is to do something like use the
        tires to contain the stuff we would want under pressure. Maintain
        the pressure by dynamic braking going downhill, braking to stop,
        and exertion by those onboard. Have something to change the
        configuration
        of the profile of the tire, independently both inside and out !
        (Would be easy to do with a computer control system onboard.)
        Should be able to get plenty of locomotion from all that for
        a small vehicle. Name it "THE SCOOTER", from a historical
        predecessor they used to build in the midwest USA ( I think those
        even had a sail on them, and are reputed to be used to transit
        both water and ice.) ( ICE is good !) And for HIGH psi,
        the markets are probably NOT humid, so we are talking: Finland,
        Estonia, Poland, Saskatchewan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Russia,
        Lithia, Sudan (dropping the ice benefit), Cuiba Brazil, etc.

        In our case, the tandem wheels can act as paddle wheels in water,
        and turn into smooth tires for land and ice.

        On the INSIDE of the tire, we should also be able to get paddlewheel
        effects
        for both locomotion and braking, trying to keep the mass of the
        compressed
        matter in as continuous rotation as possible. ( Seems to me I recall
        that there are non-intuitive bad sonic effects of high velocity
        air in tight quarters, discoved in the transport tunnel experiments--
        so maybe we won't be rotating that fast. I forget waht the clearance
        is
        to avoid the sonics-- all we got to do is make the tire big enough.
        Maybe the tires would be ten (10) inches in diameter, and like the
        modern
        motorcycles, there is probably an advantage in NOT having the two
        tires
        either the same diameter, or same tread, or same interior at the same
        time !

        What is the name of that device presented last year on American TV ?
        I would think they made a mistake in not positioning the wheels in
        tandem. But I suppose their target was very smooth surfaces, only.
        I bet I would bounce right off of their platform in my surface
        environment !

        However, their "pole" to hold onto is probably necessary. In my recent
        biking experience, I concluded after the third hour of transport,
        that the bike set is NOT for sitting -- it's purpose is to provide
        stability by having a fixed bar pass between your leggs ! The higher
        the more leverage I got ! No wonder that Tour de France winner had
        testicular cancer.

        As I mentioned in a previous message, maybe we can make the pole even
        higher, and provide tech stability via retro-jets, supplied from the
        hi psi tires. STILL, there must be some way to keep the person on
        the Scooter while cornering, etc (any acceleration).

        The person should be lying on his back, pushing a bar up AND down
        to provide additional power replenishment. He can either steer with
        his feet , or other systems ( will need a lot of redundancy in
        steering, anyways ! ) I will post another message about those
        possible
        advance concepts. AND, to keep the center of gravity as low as
        possible. Also, to have a place for his briefcase, or groceries !
        Put those ABOVE his body -- handly for when he gets off , and walks
        away with them in hand.

        All that seems to my mind very doable, within six (6) months
        with the right cooperating stakeholders, or friends of NewMobility,
        or whatever you call them. I agree , Eric, vocubulary does seem
        to be steering people's thinking, so "stakeholder" is not the right
        term for us --
        that was used by the old Mobolity force.
        Relly, we can't use "friends" , either -- that is a term for
        Republicans in the USA, Maybe Newt Gingrich started that via
        his "friends of Newt"
        club. So, if you have a ready term, please sart another NewMobility
        Yahoo Group
        to be our standard dictionary, so we won't become inadvertant
        equivacators !

        I bet you that is enough for one message !

        Kind wishes for everyone's success in this drive,

        howard finch

        copyright September the 29th, 2006
        all rights reserved by howard finch, USA ga tech class of 1966
        Karl Bevins, mentor



        - In xTransit@yahoogroups.com, "hhowderd" <hhowderd@...> wrote:
        >
        > Eric:
        >
        > I am working on the NewMobility project, and have gotten
        > stumped by the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy
        > Information.
        >
        > That office refuses to publish a table of useable BTU
        > per cubic foot of every substance known. I was thinking
        > that such a table would be most handy in our NewMobility project,
        > especially if it were presented in descending order of the
        > dimension: useable BTU per cubic foot. Other useful data
        > could also be shown in a format of only one line per substance.
        >
        > Of course we would want NAME OF SUBSTANCE (in English) maybe
        > any popular alias, maybe two different numbers in our dimension
        > to account for different uses, such as internal combustion
        > engine, external combustion engine, transmitted energy, or
        > person-propelled.
        >
        > For example, there would be an entry for CORN, another for
        > gasoline-87 octane, another for black-eyed peas, another
        > for SONY battery #23478, etc.
        >
        > Ideally, the data would be in a computerized data base, so
        > that a very user-friendly form could be filled out to cause
        > the data to be displayed any way the user wanted it displayed,
        > even taking options in language, metric measurement, additional
        > information about the substance, such as grade, or some price
        > estimate (maybe several price estimates in various markets),
        > and completely searchable, and sortable any way the user wanted it.
        >
        > I just had this idea that by all means, density should also be
        > included in the data: BTU per pound ! as well as pound per
        > cubic foot. And then in metrics, also. Let the user pick whatever
        > he wants, and have it searched and sorted the way he wants.
        >
        > I can not find anything like this on the internet
        >
        > When I asked for the information from the US Office of Energy
        > Information (US Department of Energy), they made a claim that they
        > had the data, and where on the internet I could access their data.
        >
        > However, what I found, as directed by the US Office of Energy
        > Information was many tables, using DIFFERENT dimensions, and
        > only for a few well-known fuels: Kerosene, naptha, etc.
        >
        > The most important thing in the table that I need is to have the
        > measurement in the SAME dimension, and I prefer Useable BTU per
        > cubic foot. Or maybe, to avoid confusion of what is "useable",
        > have that as one data item for each use, and just a laboratory
        > BTU per cubic foot as another data item.
        >
        > Is one of our stakeholders capable of supplying this necessary
        > data ?
        >
        >
        > best regards,
        >
        > howard finch
        >
      • Daryl Oster
        Howard, The energy content data you desire is all published in many reference books, and is available in web accessible data bases -- it is all considered to
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 29, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Howard,

          The energy content data you desire is all published in many reference books,
          and is available in web accessible data bases -- it is all considered to be
          well known information that any engineer knows how to access as needed.

          As far as being all on the same table, with all the same units, there is
          little need for that among transportation experts, as there are many more
          factors to consider when selecting a fuel. If it were as simple as just
          finding the substance with the greatest energy per unit of volume, we would
          all be using solid metallic phase triterium (extra heavy hydrogen)-- this
          has enormous energy potential (the thermonuclear fusion kind) but is not
          practical as a fuel (or food) for many good reasons that could not all be
          easily reflected in a chart.

          The caloric energy content of foods is all published -- usually right on the
          package -- the conversion from BTU to calories is well known and easily
          accessible to anyone who is smart enough to type "conversion from BTU to
          calorie" in a Google search window (2519.9576 calories per BTU).

          Due to the fact that many fuels are compressible, volume is NOT a good way
          to measure energy content -- as volume depends on pressure and temperature.
          Mass energy content is a much more useful (and reliable) measure of fuel
          energy. Fuel energy values are typically quoted in the units they are sold
          in -- gallons or liters for liquids (when was the last time you purchased
          gasoline by the cubic foot!).

          The energy rating measure of foods AND fuels are accomplished in exactly the
          same way -- by using an oxygen bomb calorimeter (Google up "oxygen bomb
          calorimeter" if you do not know what this basic scientific device is, or how
          it functions).

          NOTE: persons uninformed enough about: Energy units, energy content, and use
          of fuels, and energy storage media; to the point that they do not know how
          to find the very basic information, are not likely to know enough to put the
          information to practical use, or to advise others in the practical use.

          Almost anyone will properly "refuse" to do something unreasonable. I
          suggest that if you want such a list as you request, to first learn about
          energy units, their conversion, and how to use density data to calculate
          volume of a given mass at a particular temperature and pressure. THEN, I
          suggest you go to the library reference desk and ask for:

          CRC handbook of chemistry and physics,
          Marks standard reference for mechanical engineers,
          Perry's chemical engineering handbook,
          College level text books on thermodynamics,
          Text and reference books on food value,
          Etc.

          And comprise your own "energy content by volume" list if that is what you
          must have.

          Another book I suggest you get and read is:
          The US Dpt. Of Energy, Energy Efficiency, and Renewable Energy
          "Transportation Energy Data Book" edited by Ms. Stacy Davis,
          Published by the Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Lab.

          www-cta.ornl.gov/data
          http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml
          The book is in the 25th edition, and may be downloaded for free -- or they
          will send you a hard copy in the US.


          Daryl Oster
          (c) 2006  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
          e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
          of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
          FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310, et3@... , www.et3.com


          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: hhowderd
          >
          > Eric:
          >
          > I am working on the NewMobility project, and have gotten
          > stumped by the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy
          > Information.
          >
          > That office refuses to publish a table of useable BTU
          > per cubic foot of every substance known. I was thinking
          > that such a table would be most handy in our NewMobility project,
          > especially if it were presented in descending order of the
          > dimension: useable BTU per cubic foot. Other useful data
          > could also be shown in a format of only one line per substance.
          >
          > Of course we would want NAME OF SUBSTANCE (in English) maybe
          > any popular alias, maybe two different numbers in our dimension
          > to account for different uses, such as internal combustion
          > engine, external combustion engine, transmitted energy, or
          > person-propelled.
          >
          > For example, there would be an entry for CORN, another for
          > gasoline-87 octane, another for black-eyed peas, another
          > for SONY battery #23478, etc.
          >
          > Ideally, the data would be in a computerized data base, so
          > that a very user-friendly form could be filled out to cause
          > the data to be displayed any way the user wanted it displayed,
          > even taking options in language, metric measurement, additional
          > information about the substance, such as grade, or some price
          > estimate (maybe several price estimates in various markets),
          > and completely searchable, and sortable any way the user wanted it.
          >
          > I just had this idea that by all means, density should also be
          > included in the data: BTU per pound ! as well as pound per
          > cubic foot. And then in metrics, also. Let the user pick whatever
          > he wants, and have it searched and sorted the way he wants.
          >
          > I can not find anything like this on the internet
          >
          > When I asked for the information from the US Office of Energy
          > Information (US Department of Energy), they made a claim that they
          > had the data, and where on the internet I could access their data.
          >
          > However, what I found, as directed by the US Office of Energy
          > Information was many tables, using DIFFERENT dimensions, and
          > only for a few well-known fuels: Kerosene, naptha, etc.
          >
          > The most important thing in the table that I need is to have the
          > measurement in the SAME dimension, and I prefer Useable BTU per
          > cubic foot. Or maybe, to avoid confusion of what is "useable",
          > have that as one data item for each use, and just a laboratory
          > BTU per cubic foot as another data item.
          >
          > Is one of our stakeholders capable of supplying this necessary
          > data ?
          >
          >
          > best regards,
          >
          > howard finch
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > xTransit: New Mobility’s missing link!
          > Catch it from the New Mobility Agenda at http://www.newmobility.org
          > To post to the group: xTransit@yahoogroups.com
          > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole.
          > (That may actually best be sent as a personal message)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Daryl Oster
          ... It is not always a release of energy, but energy can also be absorbed (as in refrigeration cycles)-- exothermic (release of heat) OR endothermic
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 29, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: hhowderd
            >
            > Digging deeper into this problem of an exhaustive list
            > of substances by useable BTU per cubic foot, I have ran
            > into the proposition of "latent heat."
            >
            > For example, there is always a release of energy with
            > a change of state -- gas to liquid to solid.

            It is not always a release of energy, but energy can also be absorbed (as in
            refrigeration cycles)-- exothermic (release of heat) OR endothermic
            (absorption of heat) process.

            > Also, there is a release of energy whenever the containment
            > pressure is reduced.

            Again, usually the case -- but not always


            > That may be of critical importance for
            > any vehicle powered by compressed water, compressed air,
            > or even the now popular (although I don't know why): compressed
            > natural gas. I don't see that you could go very far on
            > compressed natural gas if it was all brought on board pretrip,
            > commercially. (Now, maybe compressing the natural gas exiting
            > the passengers might be a more useful concept ! ! Is that
            > what they are doing ? )

            CNG (compressed natural gas) is a viable transportation fuel, it is in wide
            spread use in China -- most of the taxis in Chengdu run on CNG, as do
            hundreds of busses in CA. LPG (propane) is also a viable motor fuel in
            widespread use (many thousands of forklifts for example). Unfortunately,
            most do NOT recover the energy of compression (or the phase change energy --
            in the case of propane, vehicle cooling could be enhanced due to the
            endothermic process of propane vaporizing).

            > For your further information, this got me to thinking about
            > the ecology movements "global warming" project. I would suspect
            > that the surface air temps might be rising everywhere as a
            > result of increased dew falls, as a result primarily of increased
            > release of minute particles from various volcanoes for the past
            > twenty (20) years or so.

            A thousand years ago it was warm enough to farm Greenland -- then global
            cooling put an end to a couple hundred years of Greenland AG -- it is still
            too cold to farm Greenland as the Vikings did a thousand years ago. There
            are many natural cycles, and harmonics of natural cycles that affect global
            temperature much more than human factors do.

            > For transport WHILE THE DEW IS FALLING -- maybe only twenty (20)
            > minutes , and at an uncertain time each day in some markets,
            > there might be a chance to build and market a commercially viable
            > transport vehicle powered by such a power source.

            The "energy per cubic foot" would be abysmal! Not likely to be practical.

            > Anyway, while awaiting the data for various useable BTU per cubic
            > foot, I am going to turn to self-propelled transport, ie
            > with the person being the power source. I am thinking that
            > there might be some advantage to providing a way to "smooth"
            > the effort, in contrast to the systems now, which require the
            > rider to exert whatever energy is require at the moment.
            > I rode a bicycle this week, and I can tell you from experience,
            > that some of those are very tough moments ! ( And I HAD a 12 speed.)
            >
            > I was thinking maybe compressed air, or compressed water.

            Compressed gas energy storage IS practical, and in use (I'll dig up some
            references for you if you are interested). Compressing water is NOT
            practical (water is not very compressible) however, combining a compressed
            gas, AND a hydraulic fluid (could be water -- but usually oil is used) in a
            pressure accumulator, a very practical energy smoothing function can be
            realized. Eaton (a major manufacture of hydraulic equipment) has patented
            such a system for use on cars to recover braking energy. A hydraulic
            accumulator is capable of storing more energy per unit of mass and volume
            than the best batteries -- and will last longer too.


            > Regardless of what is compressed, the people who probably know the
            > most about this is the maker of the SMEAL fire truck pumper.
            >
            > Is it proper for NewMobility to recruit stakeholders ? I am not
            > certain about it, but , like I say, SMEAL should have something to
            > contribute to any solutions we might come up with.
            >
            > For example, I understand from my local fireman, that the water
            > temp in his fire engine is stored at 250 degrees, F. Most of that
            > energy is the result of pumping it in at 100 psi, and holding it
            > at maybe 300 psi.

            Most of that heat is probably caused by energy losses of running a pump
            without water flow to cool it-- not a direct result of compression.

            > There is no need for us to repeat the mistakes of trams about Paris
            > in a previous century where they tried to then put another fire
            > onboard to INCREASE the pressure more. That idea was going
            > BACKWARDS !

            Steam engines are more sustainable than muscle powered transport, but less
            sustainable than Diesel powered transport.

            > To my mind, the FORWARD direction is to do something like use the
            > tires to contain the stuff we would want under pressure. Maintain
            > the pressure by dynamic braking going downhill, braking to stop,
            > and exertion by those onboard. Have something to change the
            > configuration
            > of the profile of the tire, independently both inside and out !
            > (Would be easy to do with a computer control system onboard.)

            Pumping oil to hydraulic accumulators is much more efficient (about 90%)
            than compressing air (about 70%).


            > Should be able to get plenty of locomotion from all that for
            > a small vehicle. Name it "THE SCOOTER", from a historical
            > predecessor they used to build in the midwest USA ( I think those
            > even had a sail on them, and are reputed to be used to transit
            > both water and ice.) ( ICE is good !) And for HIGH psi,
            > the markets are probably NOT humid, so we are talking: Finland,
            > Estonia, Poland, Saskatchewan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Russia,
            > Lithia, Sudan (dropping the ice benefit), Cuiba Brazil, etc.

            The fastest sail "boat" sailed on frozen water at more than 150mph.

            >
            > What is the name of that device presented last year on American TV ?
            > I would think they made a mistake in not positioning the wheels in
            > tandem. But I suppose their target was very smooth surfaces, only.
            > I bet I would bounce right off of their platform in my surface
            > environment !

            The segway is an over-priced toy, a $180 electric scooter will do the same
            job (except compensate for lack of self esteem).


            > However, their "pole" to hold onto is probably necessary. In my recent
            > biking experience, I concluded after the third hour of transport,
            > that the bike set is NOT for sitting -- it's purpose is to provide
            > stability by having a fixed bar pass between your leggs ! The higher
            > the more leverage I got ! No wonder that Tour de France winner had
            > testicular cancer.

            You should try out a recumbent bike -- defiantly designed for great sitting
            comfort (and much higher efficiency).

            > All that seems to my mind very doable, within six (6) months

            It IS being done now -- a few days ago a human powered vehicle went more
            than 1000km in 24 hours.


            > Relly, we can't use "friends" , either -- that is a term for
            > Republicans in the USA, Maybe Newt Gingrich started that via
            > his "friends of Newt"
            ...
            > howard finch
            > copyright September the 29th, 2006
            > all rights reserved by howard finch, USA ga tech class of 1966
            > Karl Bevins, mentor

            Most of my friends are still friends in spite of most of them being
            republicans and democrats.


            Daryl Oster
            (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
            e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
            of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
            FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@... , www.et3.com>
          • hhowderd
            YES, Daryl Oster-- that is exactly what I want someone else to do. And it sounds like you know just how to do it ! I would think that you might make a fortune
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              YES, Daryl Oster-- that is exactly what I want someone else to do.
              And it sounds like you know just how to do it !

              I would think that you might make a fortune in checks from Yahoo
              or Google, if you put this up. ( Although you are correct,
              I don't know much about the internet business.)

              What I was thinking, was that when it comes time to design
              our "small vehicle for inteller space" about the good way to go
              would be by the "supply ahead" concept. Would be very useful to have
              the computer navigation system do the hunting !

              I really don't think it will come down to deciding only one fuel.
              we might have to take in what we can reasonably get !

              Thank you so much for your textbook ideas !

              howard finch, USA
              Karl Bevins, mentor

              Copyright October the 3rd, 2006 4:25pm in the EAST
              all rights reserved
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.