HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tratclif@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Tracy Ratcliff)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Ancient Chinese Deep-Drilling Technology ???
Date: 1 Jan 93 23:44:26 GMT
Organization: Ohio University CS Dept,. Athens

A popular reference would be _The Genius of China_ by Robert Temple, 1987,
ISBN 0-671-62028-2.  It's a popularization of Joseph Needham's _Science and
Civilisation in China_ encyclopedia.  By the way, I _did_ see something about
this in _National Geographic_, but I couldn't tell you when.
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids
From: furufuru@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Furue Ryo)
Subject: Is the word "downwelling" correct?
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 12:12:51 GMT
Organization: Center for Climate System Research, Univ. Tokyo, Japan.
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: kongming
X-Bytes: 712

I apologize if this is not suitable for this newsgroup.

I am a Japanese student of physical oceanography, and wondering whether
the word "downwelling" is correct.  For me, it sounds strange because
"to well" means "to rise to the surface" --- "to rise down???" ---.

So my questions are:

    1. Does "downwelling" sound strange?
    2. Is it common to English-speaking oceanographers?
    3. If not so, what is the word or phrase opposite to "upwelling"?

One can find "downwelling" in the article, Masuda & Uehara (1992),
Deep-Sea Research, Vol.39, No.9, pp.1453--1479, which is about oceanic
deep circulations.

Thanks in advance,
Ryo Furue, graduate student, University of Tokyo
furufuru@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids
Subject: Re: Is the word "downwelling" correct?
Date: 23 Dec 92 07:44:20 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

The term "downwelling" is in common use by english language oceanographers
to describe the subsidence of surface waters due to Ekman pumping,
boundary waves, or wind action.

Happy Holidays!

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids
From: A8721GAJ@vm.univie.ac.at (Osiander MEIXNER)
Subject: particle sampler in the sea
Organization: University of Vienna
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:10:52 GMT


Dear Reader,
 I am new to this forum, so I don't know if it's audience is the proper one for
my question to answer: We are doing a research in the Northern Adriatic Sea
Sampling techniques for up and down fluxes of particles (dead algae)  are well
develloped. Sampling of horizontal movements seems to be more difficult.
I thought of an apparatus like this:

       tube(outlet)
                tube (inlet)

       |  |              <------ moving water (horizontally)
       |  |              <------ carrying the particles
-------|  |----|  |-----------  this platform holds the tube and water with
2      |  |    |  |          1  particles should be sucked into th e tube-inlet
       |  |____|  |
       |___    ___|
           |  |
           |  |  "dead-end" tube into which the particles should settle down
           |__|
The idea behind is that there should be a pressure difference between in and out
let. The platform should lower the speed of the moving water and particles
should fall into the settling-chamber. A second paddle will turn the tube-system
into the current to make sure that the platform is looking from "2" to "1"
against the current.  Waht do you think about it ?
Sorry for my bad english, and I hope you can understand what i mean.

Osiander Meixner a8721gaj@awiuni11.edvz.univie.ac.at
Dept. Marine Biology, Univ. of Vienna, Austria
From: eliason@merlin.llnl.gov (Don Eliason)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids
Subject: Re: Antarctic Circumpolar Current
Keywords: ACC, transport, variability
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:17:31 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Originator: eliason@merlin.llnl.gov


In article <1992Dec30.192437.10815@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu>, 
jialbarr@ldgo.columbia.edu (javier albarracin) writes:
|> 
|> 	I'm trying to find the best time series of the transport of the ACC
|> in the last 40-50 years. It could be hydrographic or current meter data 
|> (anywhere around Antarctica). Or could be the time series of the zonnaly 
|> averaged wind 
|> on a certain latitudinal band (from model or observ. winds).
|> I'm particularly intersted in the period 1970-1974 and it's comparison with 
|> "climatological" values.
|> 	Any reference?

Some data reports from OSU (I don't know if these are the "best" references):

Pillsbury, R. D., J. S. Bottero and R. E. Still, 1976: Currents,
  temperature and pressure in the Drake Passage during FDRAKE 75,
  January - March 1975.  Data Rep. 65, Ref. 76-6, School of Ocean-
  ography, Oregon State University.

-----, -----, and -----, 1977: Currents, temperature and pressure
  in the Drake Passage during FDRAKE 75, February 1975 - February
  1976.  Data Rep. 67, Ref. 77-8, School of Oceanography, Oregon
  State University.

-----, F. Sciremammano, Jr., J. S. Bottero and R. E. Still, 1980:
  Currents, temperature and pressure in the Drake Passage during
  FDRAKE 77, 78.  Data Rep. 82, Ref. 80-11, School of Oceanography,
  Oregon State University.

-----, J. S. Bottero and R. E. Still, 1981: Currents, temperature
  and pressure in the Drake Passage during DRAKE 79.  Data Rep. 91,
  parts A and B, Ref. 81-17, School of Oceanography, Oregon State
  University.

Sciremammano, F. Jr., R. D. Pillsbury, J. S. Bottero and R. E. Still,
  1978: Currents, temperature and pressure in the Drake Passage
  during FDRAKE 76.  Data Rep. 68, Ref. 78-2, School of Oceanography,
  Oregon State University.
 
|> 	Thanks,
        You are welcome.
|> 
|> 
|> 					javier albarracin
|> 			jialbarr@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu
|> 			(914) 365-8529 (w)
        Donald Eliason
        eliason@merlin.llnl.gov
From: jialbarr@ldgo.columbia.edu (javier albarracin)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids
Subject: Antarctic Circumpolar Current
Keywords: ACC, transport, variability
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:24:37 GMT
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory


	I'm trying to find the best time series of the transport of the ACC
in the last 40-50 years. It could be hydrographic or current meter data (anywhere around Antarctica). Or could be the time series of the zonnaly averaged wind 
on a certain latitudinal band (from model or observ. winds).
I'm particularly intersted in the period 1970-1974 and it's comparison with 
"climatological" values.
	Any reference?
	Thanks,


					javier albarracin
			jialbarr@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu
			(914) 365-8529 (w)
From: an1060@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids
Subject: Book Wanted...
Date: 26 Dec 92 16:59:16 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: sci.geo.fluids

X-Anon-To: sci.geo.fluids


 
Hello All,
 
Does anyone have a copy of:
 
Mathematics Applied to Continuum Mechanics, by Segel & Handelman.
 
For those who attended RPI, this is the book used for Foundations of
Applied Mathematics II (FOAM II).
 
I am looking for an original copy, i.e. published by Macmillan,
the book is black hardcover with green lettering (yes, quite unattractive)...
 
If you have one in very good condition, please contact me.
 
Respond to:  mantell@ams.sunysb.edu
 
Thanks...
 
Abe Mantell
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Xref: sparky sci.geo.geology:2621 ca.earthquakes:1510
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Re: Planet Earth
Followup-To: sci.geo.geology
Summary: two hats off 
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 16:54:01 GMT

In article <1hmk1cINN5ns@morrow.stanford.edu> andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec26.155349.27561@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain) writes:
>>>	Has anyone more than perused the new book "Planet Earth" by
>>>Cesare Emiliani? It seems to be an interesting tome, but at first
>>>glance seems like written by a nut and/or a flamboyant Italian. It
>>>has material all the way from science and religion, basic physics,
>>>meteorology, and geology (planetary, historical...) to biological
>>>evolution. 107 of the 718 pages are tables.  (Cambridge U. Press,
>>>1992) 
(many lines deleted)
>  This report makes a very
>persuasive case for the importance of earth system science which I had
>previously considered to be the latest buzzword to sell stuff to
>congress.  So while a lot of other people are talking about the
>importance of this Cesare has gone and written the textbook for it.  My
>hat is off to him.

Two hats at least..


Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu   
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain

Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: "Bob Montante" <bobmon@sandshark.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Planet Earth
Organization: dyskaryotic
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:05:27 -0500

I am so pleased.

In 20,000 subjective years I never willhave seen so many distinct
disinformation campaigns focussed in the same domain.  I've never been
able to talk openly without fear of repercussions otherwhen, but this
mess could even obfuscate the loss of the Moon.  (Oops!  I better hope
it *does* cover up that one... heh heh heh... :-)

Surely we can't all be concealing the *same* futures... how many of
you people usuallly work this stellar group?
Xref: sparky sci.geo.geology:2651 ca.earthquakes:1521
From: richard@boltzman.logiconultra.com (Richard Bence)
Subject: Landsat - SPOT imagery sources
Keywords: Landsat, SPOT,images,costs
Organization: Logicon_Ultrasystems
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 22:13:20 GMT

We are preparing work to be submitted to PECORA 12 relating to methods and  
architectures we have developed for an image-library system here.  We  
would like very much to continue the research we are doing with "live"  
data but have no budget to acquire expensive landsat or SPOT scenes.

Is there anyone out there who knows of a source/sources of such image  
data, preferably in its "native format" that we could acquire to  
experiment with our system??

If so we would greatly value and happily acknowledge such a contribution,  
please contact me via e-mail...  

P.S. if native format is impossible we will still be interested in any of  
the multitude of other formats possible, particularly if available in  
individual spectral bands, at differeing resolutions etc.
From: mark@strider.tfo.arizona.edu (Mark W. Bultman)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
Subject: Land Remote Sensing Act of 1992
Keywords: imagery, landsat
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:45:27 GMT
Organization: tfo


Since the Crippen paper on the use of multi-temporal imagery in the
study of earthquake fault motion has created some interest in imagery, 
I thought I would post an article that appeared in comp.infosystems.gis.
It has to do with the recent re-acquistion by the Federal Government of 
LANDSAT data. It appears that this will greatly reduce the cost of 
LANDSAT imagery for some people, but as far as I know the final word
is not out yet.

 
>In reply to my query last week about the cost of LANDSAT data, I received
>the following reply from an 'unnamed government source'.
>
>>The Land Remote Sensing Act of 1992, now signed into existence by President
>>Bush, is a radical departure from (and in fact actually repeals) the Land
>>Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984. The act provides the following:
>>* All Landsat 4 and 5 data revert to the Government, and are available to
>>  scholars involved in Global Change research, government scientists, and some
>>  others at "the marginal cost of reproduction", generally agreed to be $200
>>per  scene.
>>* Landsat 6 remains the property of EOSAT, but its data (15 m in pan, otherwise
>>  the same as TM) will be provided at cost to the government.
>>* Landsat 7 will be designed, built, launched by NASA. DoD will handle some
>>  aspects of operations, and Interior (EROS Data Center) will archive and
>>  distribute the data at the marginal cost. The act explicitly forbits
>>  cost recovery from data sales. Landsat 7 is being discussed as having
>>  the same Enhanced TM as Landsat 6 plus a new instrument, the High Resolution
>>  Multispectral Stereo Imager. This instrument will have four ten meter
>>  bands, plus one panchromatic band with 4.5 meter resolution. The added
>>  capability of fore-and-aft plus left-to-right stereo means that stereo
>>  mapping with the onboard GPS will allow some afirly precise ground
>>  topographic  mapping. Landsat 7 data will be available to everyone and will be
>>  part of the
>>  EOSDIS at EROS. Launch date for Landsat 7 is 1998, for 6, January 1993.
>
>This is great news, in my own personal opinion.
>
>Alan Rea, Hydrologist         *    ahrea@csdokokl.cr.usgs.gov (USE THIS ONE!)
>U.S. Geological Survey        * "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those
>Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA  *  who falsely believe they are free" -- Goethe
>"Any opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer..."
>

The data used by Crippen was SPOT data, with panchromatic resolution of 10m. The
LANDSAT 4 and 5 thematic mapper data has 30m resolution, but more spectral 
information. 

Mark W. Bultman
U.S. Geological Survey

mark@strider.tfo.arizona.edu
"Any opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer..."
From: small@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Peter Small)
Subject: Re: Planet Earth
Organization: Boeing
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:48:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.050047.14921@netcom.com> alden@netcom.com (Andrew L. Alden) writes:
>I paid exceptionally close attention to Emiliani's book, being the
>editor Cambridge contracted to brush it up when it was in manuscript.
>His book was written because, he points out, science now has a <<complete
>explanation of the universe>> in all four dimensions that is authoritative
>and should supersede every religious myth.

...only to be replaced by a scientific myth.

When I see claims that science has a complete explanation of the universe,
it calls to mind all that science has not touched.  A scientist may claim that
anything that cannot be proven by scientific enquiry is not real, is a myth.
And yet, a scientist loves his/her children, which cannot be proved by any
scientific method.  What of the joy felt at seeing a beautiful sunset, or the
expectation and hope that arises before the start of a journey...  Subjective,
the scientist may say, and yet these are common features in humans.  So
mysteries abound, that do not fall under a complete explanation of the universe.

PS


-- 
------------------------------*************************************************
-- small@bcstec.ca.boeing.com | "Stand still, for truth cannot be fetched.
-- uunet!bcstec!small         |  It comes when you make demand of it."
------------------------------*************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: charvey@teal.csn.org (Chip Harvey)
Subject: Mathematical Geology
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:36:05 GMT

Can someone please send me the address (street & e-mail, if available)
and phone number for the professional society responsible for publishing
the journal Mathematical Geology?  Thanks in advance and happy winter
solstice!

Chip Harvey
National Park Service
charvey@csn.org
Xref: sparky sci.geo.geology:2649 ca.earthquakes:1519
From: zmyd02@hou.amoco.com (Denton Meredith)
Subject: Re: Unconfined shear strength of common roc
Reply-To: zmyd02@hou.amoco.com
Organization: Amoco
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:12:46 GMT


>In article 9oF@mach1.wlu.ca, jbeebe6@mach1.wlu.ca (john t beebe 9208 G) writes:
>>Hi there. I am looking for information on the unconfined shear strength of
>>common rocks and soils. If anyone can help, I would be most greatful. For
>>example, I need to find the unconfined shear strength of 
>>	limestone?
>>	granite?
>>	sandstone?
>>	quartz?
>>	topsoil?...etc.
>>
>>Please include units where possible.
>>
>>Is this information published anywhere in tabular format?
>>
>>Thanks for your help.
>>
>>Please respond to jbeebe6@mach1.wlu.ca rather than the net. I will summarize
>>if there is interest.
>>
>>John.
>
>
>
In article 23924@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au, simon@earth.monash.edu.au (Simon Cox) writes:
>
>The problem is that rocks, like many other pressure sensitive brittle 
>materials, do NOT usually fail in shear when unconfined - rather, a sample 
>will split with "tensile" fractures perpendicular to the zero stress direction.
>Who put you onto this?
>
>SImon Cox
>


Not quite true.  While they theoretically should (and sometimes do) fail with tensile fractures parallel to the loading axis, the majority of failures of unconfined materials are fractures inclined at some small angle (usually less than the "common" ~30 degrees in triaxial tests) to the load axis.  This is generally agreed to be due to virtually unavoidable end effects;  in order to split in a tensile fashion, the specimen must have the ability to slide against the loading pistons transverse to the load ax





is, and most rigs simply don't have a low enough coefficient of friction to allow this at the stresses required to fracture a given rock.  Thus, the specimens generally fail in a shear manner.


Meredith Denton
Amoco Production Company
Houston, Texas

(formerly of the Texas A&M University Center for Tectonophysics)
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
Subject: Re: Planet Earth
Date: 29 Dec 1992 22:21:42 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <51721@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.062126.3820@Princeton.EDU>, frank@wanda.princeton.edu (Frank Bilotti) writes:
>> >wrong, and I had Emiliani move his discussion of religion to the front
>> >of the book.
>> 
>> 	Several previous posts mention his views on religion vs science.  I was
>> told that a fellow student of mine had asked him which religion should he
>> practice and Cesare replied "the one that takes the least of your time"
>
>I have not yet seen this book, but it appears from these comments that the
>author has levelled a blast against religion in general.  I do not think
>that science should be in the business of doing this.  Science should only
.....

I think that we are starting to confuse Emiliani's personal views and what
is in the book.  What is in the book is a section on how religions had
viewed the creation of the earth and life.  That does relate to later
scientific developments as a history of mankind's thinking on this topic.
While he treats many topics, including science, with a degree of humor I
didn't read the section as being blatantly anti-religion in general.

Andy
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: Frank Bilotti <frank@wanda.princeton.edu>
Subject: Re: Planet Earth
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A76D1C12E001700D@rambo.princeton.edu>
Originator: news@nimaster
X-Xxdate: Sun, 3 Jan 93 22:41:22 GMT
Organization: Geology Dept, Princeton Univ
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:39:14 GMT

In article <1hqj1mINNot1@morrow.stanford.edu> Andy Michael USGS Guest,
andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <51721@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.062126.3820@Princeton.EDU>,
frank@wanda.princeton.edu 
>(Frank Bilotti) writes:
>>> >wrong, and I had Emiliani move his discussion of religion to the
front
>>> >of the book.
>>> 
>>> 	Several previous posts mention his views on religion vs science.  I
was
>>> told that a fellow student of mine had asked him which religion
should he
>>> practice and Cesare replied "the one that takes the least of your
time"
>>
>>I have not yet seen this book, but it appears from these comments that
the
>>author has levelled a blast against religion in general.  I do not think
>>that science should be in the business of doing this.  Science should
only
>.....
>
>I think that we are starting to confuse Emiliani's personal views and
what
>is in the book.  What is in the book is a section on how religions had
>viewed the creation of the earth and life.  That does relate to later
>scientific developments as a history of mankind's thinking on this topic.
>While he treats many topics, including science, with a degree of humor I
>didn't read the section as being blatantly anti-religion in general.
>
>Andy

Andy is right.  I didn't mean to imply that
claims, I was just telling a bit of a semi-related anecdote.  Sorry for
the confusion...

FRANK
__________________________________________
Princeton University-Dept of Geo, etc, etc
frank@wanda.princeton.edu
__________________________________________
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: rick@oas.stanford.edu (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: geo BBS
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 22:43:44 GMT


Will there be any tie-in to usenet with these proposed BBS?
Many of the academic types have better access to usenet than BBS.
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: jbeebe6@mach1.wlu.ca (john t beebe 9208 G)
Subject: Re:UCS of common rocks...
Summary: Where the Q came from + more detail
Followup-To: jbeebe6@mach1.wlu.ca  
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:38:14 GMT


Hi again. A couple of people have e-mailed me recently (THANKS) with
suggestions but have also requested more details. The question (relating to
the unconfined shear strength of common rocks and soils (clays, etc.)) comes
from my Ph.D. advisor as a sort of preparation question for my comps. 

It relates as thus. Given that a river can flood to a known depth (usually
estimated from paleoflood investigations (numerous references including
Scott and Gravlee 1968, Ritter 1967, Fahnestock 1963 and others)), and given
the slope of the valley that the flood occupied, the average bed shear
stress tao equals
	(specific weight of water*force of gravity)*mean depth*slope
and can be easily determined. The question is what is the relationship
between the calculated bed shear stress and the shear strength of known
rocks (limestone, sandstone, quartz...) and so on. 

I have been able to find data on the ultimate strength of rocks of every
kind. How does the shear strength of the rocks relate to the ultimate
strength? I know what the ultimate strength relates to, and I am aware of
the different types of tests (although I may be missing the obvious one) of
strength of rock. The problem is finding the values for shear strength of
rocks...or the conversion factor between ultimate, confined or tensile
strength with shear strength.

For example, the ultimate strength for quarts at 0 bars confinement is 0.35
Newtons /m^2. Yet the shear stress calculated for the Rubicon River Flood
(Scott and Gravlee, 1968 USGS) is ~52,000 N/m^2. Logically, all of the
material under the river must erode at those strengths. But the value for
the ultimate strength of quartz (which is the highest I found) is far lower
than the shear strength of the same material. 

Anyone able to shed some light on the subject? What am I missing here?

Please forward replies to jbeebe6@mach1.wlu.ca. I'll post an answer if I can
figure it out.

Thanks, and again...MERRY CHRISTMAS!

John

Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology