COZBY ENTERPRISES, INC.

P. O. Box 1104
Anaconda, MT 59711

ph: (406) 563-5186
alt: (406) 560-0118

fbcanaconda@msn.com

  • Home
  • Site MapClick to open the Site Map menu
    • 1 ERDA ASSESSMENT
    • 2 Evidence Supporting Rankine Cycle Engine Technology
    • 3 Understanding the Rankine cycle
    • 4 How Does an Advanced Rankine Engine Work?
    • 4.1 Audels Quadruple Expansion Engine Plan
    • 4.2 Audels Quadruple Expansion Engine Plan Revised
    • 4a United States Patent Cozby 4,395,885
    • 4b Montana DNRC Project
    • 4c Principles of Power Density
    • 5 Superheat and Reheat and Pressure
    • 6 Efficiency, Mileage, and Oil Considerations
    • 7 Biomass for Engine Fuel
    • 7a Biomass-Ellen Simpson Article
    • 7b Letter to Department of Agriculture
    • 7c Letter from Glacier Log Homes
    • 7d Alaska Power Authority
    • 8 Coal for Engine Fuel
    • 8a Burlington Northern Railroad
    • 8b Coal, China
    • 9 "Green Car"
    • 10 Cost to America
    • 11 Department of Energy
    • 11a Cozby, RBIC, and DOE
    • 11b Catch-22
    • 11c Noncompliance DOE, DOC
    • 11c(1) Letter to Rep. Craig
    • 11d DOE Duplicity
    • 11e Addendum - DOE Duplicity
    • 11f Letter From DOE
    • 11g Axe DOE -- Sen. Bob Dole
    • 11h IC Engine Reality Check
    • 11i Advanced Rankine Engine Conundrum
    • 12 General Motors
    • 12a GM Letter
    • 12b GM Letter page 2
    • 12c GM Additional
    • 12d(1) Gasoline Engine Problems
    • 12d(2) Gas Engines Problems page 2
    • 12d(3) Gas Engine Problems page 3
    • 13 Uniflow Steam Engine
    • 13a Uniflow vs. Multi-Cylinder Compound, a Response
    • 14 References
    • 14a Material Balance
    • 14b Flow Diagram
    • 14c How an Advanced Rankine Engine Works
    • 14d Three Important Formulas
    • 14e Audels Quadruple Expansion Engine Plan
    • 14f Audels Quadruple Expansion Engine Revised
    • 15. Jukka
    • 16. Construction Zone
    • 16 - I Flow Diagram - Material Balance
    • 16-II Flow Diagram-Water and Steam Schematic Rev. 2
    • 16-IIa Combustion Gas Path-Start Up
    • 18-IIb Combustion Gas Path-Normal
    • 16-IIc Combustion Gas Path-Break
    • 16-III Anti-Freeze Schematic
    • 16a. Drawing No. I REV. 4, 9.4.13
    • 16b. Drawing No. 2
    • 16c. Drawing No. 3, REV. 2, 7.1.13
    • 16d Drawing No. 4, REV. 1, 7.1.13
    • 16e Drawing No. 5
    • 16f Drawing No. 6, REV. 1, 7.1.13
    • 16g Drawing No. 7
    • 16h Drawing Number 8
    • 16i Drawing Number 9
    • 16j Drawing Number 10
    • 16k Drawing Number 11
    • 16l Drawing Number 12
    • 16m Drawing Number 13
    • 16n Drawing Number 14
    • 16-o Drawing Number 15
    • 16p Drawing 16
    • 16-q Drawing Number 17
    • 16-r Drawing 18
    • 16-s Drawing 19 CAM Drive/Yoke Pump Rev. 1
    • 16-t Regenerative Pump Plan View Drawing 20
    • 16-U Drawing Number 21
    • 16-V Drawing Number 22
    • 16-W Gen. lay-out Side Elevation Drawing 23
    • 16-1 Jeep Engine 1
    • 16-2 Jeep Engine 2
    • 16-3 Jeep Engine 3
    • 16-4 Jeep Engine 4
    • 16-5 Jeep Engine 5
    • 16-6 Advanced Steam Engine Mock-Up 1
    • 16-7 Advanced Steam Engine Mock-Up 2
    • 16-8 Advanced Steam Engine Mock-Up 3
    • 16-9 Advanced Steam Engine Mock-Up 4
    • 16-10 Advanced Steam Engine Conceptual Drawing
    • 16-11 General Drawing Full Scale End View
    • 16-12 Full Scale Gen. Drawing, with David for perspective
    • 16-13 Cozby Brothers
    • 16-14 Revised And Updated End Elevation View
    • 16-15 Plan View
    • 16-16 Mock-Up Completion
    • 17 Steam Engines-Two Divergent Systems and Approaches
    • 18 Wikipedia - Advanced steam technology May 3, 2014
    • 19 Internal Memorandum for the Record
    • 20 2015 Report
    • 21 Dear Steam Engine Enthusiast
    • 22 Mock-Up part 2

     11e Addendum - DOE Duplicity

Addendum to: "Evidence of the Department of Energy’s Costly Duplicity"

John A. Cozby August 1, 2009 rev. 7.19.12

     The Department of Energy’s anti-Rankine bias is covered in the preceding pages, but the Department of Energy is not alone. As early as March 20, 1970 the Department of Transportation tipped its anti-Rankine prejudiced hand. On that day Carlos Villareal of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the U. S. Department of Transportation telephoned Bill Lear from Washington, D. C. Bill Lear was in Reno, Nevada. . . . . Villareal cried, "Bill . . . We want you to try it so we can say steam won’t work!"* It was the distinct intention of the Department of Transportation to discredit steam as far back as 42 years ago! That was seven years before the DOE report, "An assessment of the Technology of Rankine Engines For Automobiles", was published. The Department of Transportation was not interested in scientific advancement or the truth. They were too occupied with pushing their own preconceived agenda.  Such mentality is hard to overcome.

     In 1982 Cozby sent a disclosure to the Office of Energy Related Inventions which was under the National Bureau of Standards of the U. S. Department of Commerce. Our disclosure went to an investigator in the Office of Energy Related Inventions. I had some cordial conversations with the older gentleman who seemed genuinely interested, understanding, and sympathetic. On my last conversation the gentleman indicated that he understood what I was saying, but then he replied that: "Off the record, it really didn’t matter what we showed them or how good it was, because steam is dead."

     Sometime afterward I was given the name and address of persons within the Department of Defense to contact. We sent the Department of Defense a disclosure. We received a reply from them that showed that they had little understanding of and less regard for advanced steam power. They stated that, besides, the military had already tried steam and they were not interested. The military, Department of Defense, is not interested in new and novel innovation, advanced Rankine, or progress. (Perplexing, troubling, frightening)

     The Environmental Protection Agency complained grievously about serious air pollution. This agency should have been most interested in viable solutions, as they claimed that they were. I tried and tried to get the attention of the EPA. Their silence was deafening. Advanced Rankine does not seem to be in their vocabulary. This is the same agency that, it seems, can ignore and turn a deaf ear to even the U. S. Supreme Court. It is hardly surprising that they don’t hear us.

     With the concerted opposition of the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Commerce, and Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency it is extremely difficult to make progress in the area of advanced Rankine cycle engine technology. Advanced Rankine technology is good technology; it is needed technology.

     (This addendum is written to show how deeply ingrained the bias against advanced Rankine technology within these government entities is. Because of this demonstrated bias, none of these groups should be entrusted with such an important a matter as advanced Rankine cycle engine technology research and development. An institutionalized negative attitude is impossible to purge, work with, or overcome.)

*from: They Said It Couldn’t Be Done, by Victor Boesen, Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1971

 

 

 

Copyright 2012 COZBY ENTERPRISES, INC.. All rights reserved.

Web Hosting by Yahoo!

P. O. Box 1104
Anaconda, MT 59711

ph: (406) 563-5186
alt: (406) 560-0118

fbcanaconda@msn.com