HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tgray@IGC.APC.ORG (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Subject: --Curacao Windfarm Sparks Debate
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:41:08 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <tgray@IGC.APC.ORG>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-From_: tgray  Wed Dec 16 08:41:01 1992
Comments:     Resent-From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Comments:     Originally-From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was mail2conf@IGC.APC.ORG

I believe the analogy here is to hydro turbines, and it seems pretty sound
to me.  There's no doubt that your definition is correct, but I think it
is too limited to encompass the ways in which "turbine" is normally used.
If you disagree, please explain why hydro turbines are not called hydro
mills.

Also, "wind turbine," "wind turbine generator," "aerogenerator," "wind
machine," and a series of other terms have been coined to distinguish
modern wind electric turbines from older wind-driven systems which
delivered mechanical rather than electrical power and thus seem more like
mills driven by water power.  Wind turbine is not exact, though (see below).

 > If the word "turbine" is used
 > when referring to conventional "propellor" wind MILLS, then what term
 > should be used for describing true wind turbines, i.e., fins enclosed
 > in a housing through which wind passes. These are not widely known
 > devices, however, they have been built (and are probably inadequately
 > researched) but I don't see what is gained in calling a WINDMILL a
 > WIND TURBINE.    John Martinson  Univ of Nevada, Reno

These are also typically called wind turbines.  I'm not sure why you are
focusing on the enclosure issue here.  The _American Heritage Dictionary_
defines "turbine" as "Any of various machines in which the kinetic energy
of a moving fluid is converted to useful rotational power by
the interaction of the fluid with a series of vanes arrayed about the
circumference of a wheel or cylinder."  No housing appears to be required.

As the chairman of the American Wind Energy Association's Terminology
Standards Subcommittee, I've pushed consistently for terms that are in
common usage to be taken up and formalized, rather than trying to force
people to use different terms than those already current.  This is such a
case.

The AWEA standard terminology deals with this issue by defining "wind
turbine" as follows:

"A rotating machine, including its support structure, for converting the
kinetic energy of the wind to another form of energy.  Often used
interchangeably with Wind Turbine Generator (WTG), though that term
properly applies to a wind turbine whose output is in the form of electric
power.  Other synonyms for wind electric turbine include aerogenerator,
Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS), Wind Turbine Generator System
(WTGS), wind machine, and wind system.  See Wind Energy Conversion System
(WECS), Wind Turbine Generator (WTG)."

(I was fighting a rear-guard action to obliterate WECS, by the way, which
was the Department of Energy's invention, and keep it from becoming
enshrined as the standard.  I am happy to say that I won the first round.)

Tom
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: BIOSPH-L
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:16:11 -0500
Reply-To:     Dan <JOHNSON@ABRSLE.AGR.CA>
From:         Dan <JOHNSON@ABRSLE.AGR.CA>
Subject:      mill ions

Thus spake John Martinson  Univ of Nevada, Reno:
> I'm curious about the practice of using the term "wind turbine" in
> describing what I would call wind mills as in the recent Curacao piece.
> ...I don't see what is gained in calling a WINDMILL a
> WIND TURBINE.

Etymologically speaking, was "windmill" coined because the wind is
used to drive a mechanism to do work, like milling?  Or was the act of
turning a shaft to break down grain called milling because it used a
"mill" to transfer the energy ?  The roots are older than either
"wind turbine" or "windmill", so neither one is obviously correct..

(On this note, do americans call moths millers, or millars, because they
 appear to be covered with flower, like the Miller?)

johnson@abrsle.agr.ca
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:29:27 +0000
Reply-To:     John Martinson <marty@EQUINOX.UNR.EDU>
From:         John Martinson <marty@EQUINOX.UNR.EDU>
Subject:      wind turbine etymology

I like Jeremy Whitlock's suggestion of "internal" and "external" as
qualifying terms to distinguish my WIND TURBINE and WIND MILL usage (though
I'm not sure the whole network got his message). In any case, I thank him and
will henceforth adopt those forms. However, I think the terminological
question is not the important one. I have seen photos of internal turbines
with housing (or cowling?) looking quite similar to aircraft turbines.
The important question is: how well do they work compared to traditional
"propellor" driven external wind turbines. After all, a prop aircraft
engine is a device into which you put energy in order to create wind.
Likewise a turbo engine. An external, i.e. prop, wind turbine is the
mirror device in that wind is the input and energy the output. Likewise,
therefore, an internal wind turbine. But are their analogous differences
in things like the power/weight ratio or the size of vanes (or propellor
arms) needed for a given energy output? I would welcome some enlightenment
in this area.  John Martinson  University of Nevada, Reno
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:21:12 +0100
Reply-To:     Doug Evans 83394079 <devans@NANCY.INRA.FR>
From:         Doug Evans 83394079 <devans@NANCY.INRA.FR>
Subject:      unsubscribe

please remove my name from this list,
I joined thinking it was for ecology (the science)
Doug Evans
****************************************************************************
* Doug Evans                                    DEVANS@NANCY.INRA.FR       *
* Laboratoire de microbiologie forestiere,      Tel 83 39 40 41            *
* INRA-Nancy,                                   Fax 83 39 40 69            *
* 54280 Champenoux,                                                        *
* France.                                                                  *
****************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:19:31 +0100
Reply-To:     sukhodol@MARCEL.CORIA.FR
From:         sukhodol@MARCEL.CORIA.FR
Subject:      Novelty in bio/env investigation

                  \                /
                    \   -----    /
                     |    N     |
                     |    O     |
                     |    V     |
                     |    E     |
                     |    L     |
                     |    T     |
                     |    Y     |
              -------------------------
               \                    /
                 \                /
                   \            /
                     \        /
                       \    /
                         \/

I have developed portable PC-connected laser spectrometer for
investigation of sizes and/or velocity of microorganisms or cells.
I wander if someone is interested in using such kind of instrument.
Any questions address direct me <sukhodol@marcel.coria.fr>.

Thanks for attention,
Anatoly Sukhodolsky
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-Vmsmail-To: BIO
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:49:39 -0500
Reply-To:     "Chris, HMP, x. 2-4965" <C_HANLON@UNHH.UNH.EDU>
From:         "Chris, HMP, x. 2-4965" <C_HANLON@UNHH.UNH.EDU>

Hello-

I am doing a bit of resarch on companies that produce cleaning products.  Does
anybody know of any resources available that evaluate such companies in regards
to their commitment to the environment?
Thanks for any suggestions.
Chris Hanlon
From: mwk@SYBIL.RISC.ROCKWELL.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Subject: Cr(VI)
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:13:00 GMT
Reply-To: mwk@SYBIL.RISC.ROCKWELL.COM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Does anyone know of the existance of a compilation of non
hexavalent processes for forming protective conversion
coatings on Al and Al alloys?

Martin Kendig
Rockwell International Science Center
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: biosph-l@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: BIOSPH
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:15:00 EST
Reply-To:     "TRACY LOGAN, LAFAYETTE COLLEGE,
              EASTON PA" <LOGANT@LAFAYETT.BITNET>
From:         "TRACY LOGAN, LAFAYETTE COLLEGE,
              EASTON PA" <LOGANT@LAFAYETT.BITNET>
Subject:      The German "Ecofridge" -- current situation in English

An English language story on the German "Ecofridge" is available
in *The German Tribune*, a weekly PR newsletter put out by the German
government (I believe).  The newsletter can be found in most college
libraries.

The story, "The ecological refrigerator imparts a glow of warmth
for eastern industry," is in the 27 November issue.  It is a
translation of an article in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung of November
12.

Nothing earth-shakingly new in the article, but a lot of detail
that may not have been accessible to non-readers of German.

Two points that may be reasonable new:

The prototype contains 20 grams of butane/propane. A typical
cigarette lighter contains 10 grams, suggesting that the fire/
explosion hazard is low.  And dkk Scharfenstein's "Works council
chairman" says "the accusation of high energy consumption no
longer holds water," according to the report.    -- tracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Logan    ( loganT @ LAFAYETT  loganT @ lafvax.lafayette.edu )
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:17:37 -0700
Reply-To:     Richard B Freeman <jeanbob@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
From:         Richard B Freeman <jeanbob@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
Subject:      re: No free bags at ALDI Foods

Hello people,

On Fri, 11 Dec 1992, Bill Arnett wrote:

> We have three different "warehouse" supermarket chains here.  At least
> one of them (Save-on-Foods, I think) has been charging 4 or 5 cents
> per bag for years.  The others give you a 4 or 5 cent discount when
> you bring the bags back.

I'm wondering, can poor folks buy these bags with food stamps?  I suppose
this question is rhetorical.  I mean for it to point towards the problem
that market-oriented solutions to environmental problems (i.e.,
"externalizing costs" in the neo-classical economic language) poses for
poor folks...who are, BTW, disproportionately non-white and female.  Are
our local solutions equitable?


Rick Freeman
Missoula, Montana
jeanbob@selway.umt.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:29:28 -0700
Reply-To:     "Tony C. Tweedale" <es__act@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
From:         "Tony C. Tweedale" <es__act@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: cleaning products

On Thu, 17 Dec 1992, Rumen with a View wrote:

> C. Hanlon has requested info on cleaning compounds.  Perhaps someone out there
> can enlighten me as well.  There seems to be a common perception "out there"
> that commercial detergents are less environmentally friendly than old
 fashioned
> cleaners that grandma used, like borax.
>
> Most commercial soaps are primarily sodium lauryl sulfate or
> similar fatty acid salts.  Since medium chain fatty acids are easily
 metabolized
> by microbes, the primary ingredients don't strike me as being particularly
> threatening.
>
> Borax, on the other hand, is a reasonably toxic element for mammals.
> Acceptable maximum tolerable levels for domestic animals:
>
> boron        150 ppm
> selenium       2 ppm
> mercury      2-3 ppm
> strontium  2,000 ppm
> chromium   1,000 ppm
> cadmium       0.5 ppm
> manganese    400 ppm (swine)
> uranium      400 ppm (rats)
>
> These numbers are subject to other mineral interactions and species variation.
> However, I don't know of anyone who would suggest washing clothes in uranium
> salts even if it were an effective cleaner.
>
> Lyle Rode
> Nutritionist
> Agriculture Canada

a reply:

synthetic detergents were at one time composed largely of branched long
chain "fatty acids". bugs could not eat their way around the side chains
and so the detergents did not degrade (does that cause a nutrients
problem--i guess not, that's due to inputs of phosphor in the cleaning
agents?).

and what about these new citrus oil solvents that are meant to be super
effective, ie can be used to replace industrial strength solvents eg
methylene chloride, cfc's, toluene, etc. (down w. chlorine!). i understand
they are terpene molecular units that do the cleaning (ie are the reactive
molecule in the formulation). take it they are similar to old fashioned
turpentine. degradable? toxicity (chronic, acute)?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-From_: tgray  Wed Dec 16 09:40:59 1992
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:41:05 PST
Reply-To:     Tom Gray <tgray@IGC.APC.ORG>
Comments:     Resent-From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Comments:     Originally-From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was mail2conf@IGC.APC.ORG
From:         Tom Gray <tgray@IGC.APC.ORG>
Subject:      --Curacao Windfarm Sparks Debate

I believe the analogy here is to hydro turbines, and it seems pretty sound
to me.  There's no doubt that your definition is correct, but I think it
is too limited to encompass the ways in which "turbine" is normally used.
If you disagree, please explain why hydro turbines are not called hydro
mills.

Also, "wind turbine," "wind turbine generator," "aerogenerator," "wind
machine," and a series of other terms have been coined to distinguish
modern wind electric turbines from older wind-driven systems which
delivered mechanical rather than electrical power and thus seem more like
mills driven by water power.  Admittedly, wind turbine is not exact (see below).

 > If the word "turbine" is used
 > when referring to conventional "propellor" wind MILLS, then what term
 > should be used for describing true wind turbines, i.e., fins enclosed
 > in a housing through which wind passes. These are not widely known
 > devices, however, they have been built (and are probably inadequately
 > researched) but I don't see what is gained in calling a WINDMILL a
 > WIND TURBINE.    John Martinson  Univ of Nevada, Reno

These are also typically called wind turbines.  I'm not sure why you are
focusing on the enclosure issue here.  The _American Heritage Dictionary_
defines "turbine" as "Any of various machines in which the kinetic energy
of a moving fluid is converted to useful rotational power by
the interaction of the fluid with a series of vanes arrayed about the
circumference of a wheel or cylinder."  No housing appears to be required.

As the chairman of the American Wind Energy Association's Terminology
Standards Subcommittee, I've pushed consistently for terms that are in
common usage to be taken up and formalized, rather than trying to force
people to use different terms than those already current.  This is such a
case.

The AWEA standard terminology deals with this issue by defining "wind
turbine" as follows:

"A rotating machine, including its support structure, for converting the
kinetic energy of the wind to another form of energy.  Often used
interchangeably with Wind Turbine Generator (WTG), though that term
properly applies to a wind turbine whose output is in the form of electric
power.  Other synonyms for wind electric turbine include aerogenerator,
Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS), Wind Turbine Generator System
(WTGS), wind machine, and wind system.  See Wind Energy Conversion System
(WECS), Wind Turbine Generator (WTG)."

(I was fighting a rear-guard action to obliterate WECS, by the way, which
was the Department of Energy's invention, and keep it from becoming
enshrined as the standard.  I am happy to say that I won the first round.)

Tom
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: BIOSPH-L
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:08:15 -0500
Reply-To:     Dan <JOHNSON@ABRSLE.AGR.CA>
From:         Dan <JOHNSON@ABRSLE.AGR.CA>
Subject:      empathic empiricism

re: meditative healing of the ozone layer and other geometaphysical events

So that we don't waste a great deal more discussion of what might be happening,
I propose a test.  All readers should concentrate on lowering the acceleration
due to gravity to 9 m/s.  Think lighter, lighter, lighter... the Earth is
giving up it hold on you, concentrate, concentrate, etc., etc.

We can all weigh something this week, or time its fall.  Next week we can
remeasure to find out whether we made a difference.  Let's end all talk of
meditative healing until the data are in, and decide then!
- Dan L. Johnson                                            ////////
Research Scientist                                          |~~  ~~|
Rangeland Ecology                 "Computers are useless.   |@ / @ ?
Research Station                   They can only give you   | /_   |
P.O. Box 3000 Main                 answers."                \ ___  /
Lethbridge, AB Canada T1J 4B1        - Pablo Picasso         \____/
phone (403) 327-4561, ext. 301                                ||||
facs. (403) 382-3156                                     |~~~~\  /~~~~|
                                                         |     \/     |
Internet johnson@abrsle.agr.ca                           |            |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:09:08 EST
Reply-To:     Chris Finney <CFINNEY@UVMVM.BITNET>
From:         Chris Finney <CFINNEY@UVMVM.BITNET>
Subject:      New Age Noise

Can we please keep the new age silliness down to a dull roar?  I'm sure
there must be a list designated for that purpose.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm a practicing Zen Buddhist and have no
no problems with the concept of meditation.  I just don't appreciate
the backwards way in which it has been applied on this list.  It seems
to me that one should meditate in order to be more AWARE of the ozone
hole, and that one should drink a pint of vodka in order to make it go
away.

Maybe this summer we can all go outside (when the planets are properly
aligned, of course) and meditate on the UV rays penetrating our skin
and knocking little bits out our chromosomes.  Then, forty years later,
we can truly BE the cancerous growths and cataracts which we have
consequently developed.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:35:21 -0700
Reply-To:     Richard B Freeman <jeanbob@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
From:         Richard B Freeman <jeanbob@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: empathic empiricism

RE the following (by Dan Johnson):

> So that we don't waste a great deal more discussion of what might be
 happening,
> I propose a test.  All readers should concentrate on lowering the acceleration
> due to gravity to 9 m/s.  Think lighter, lighter, lighter... the Earth is
> giving up it hold on you, concentrate, concentrate, etc., etc.

It worked!  I'm not kidding!  The National Enquirer's new (?) Instant
Weight Loss Diet research team needs to hear about this!  I lost 35 pounds
in seconds.

RE:
> We can all weigh something this week, or time its fall.  Next week we can
> remeasure to find out whether we made a difference.  Let's end all talk of
> meditative healing until the data are in, and decide then!

While I'm not much on feel-good methodologies (especially without
theories).......  ;0  ... I'm also uncertain about the ideal described by
"when all the data are in."  I think a good hearty critique of science and
inquiry reveals that all the data are related to all the metholodologies
(and, one would hope, the corresponding theory).  All these methodologies
require what some of us call indexicality...cultural assumptions
pertaining to everyday (including scientific) activity and communication.
Best to act thoughtfully...but the data will never all be in.

Later.

Rick Freeman
Missoula MT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: GW"biosph-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: RODE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:12:28 -0500
Reply-To:     Rumen with a View <RODE@ABRSLE.AGR.CA>
From:         Rumen with a View <RODE@ABRSLE.AGR.CA>
Subject:      cleaning products

C. Hanlon has requested info on cleaning compounds.  Perhaps someone out there
can enlighten me as well.  There seems to be a common perception "out there"
that commercial detergents are less environmentally friendly than old fashioned
cleaners that grandma used, like borax.

Most commercial soaps are primarily sodium lauryl sulfate or
similar fatty acid salts.  Since medium chain fatty acids are easily metabolized
by microbes, the primary ingredients don't strike me as being particularly
threatening.

Borax, on the other hand, is a reasonably toxic element for mammals.
Acceptable maximum tolerable levels for domestic animals:

boron        150 ppm
selenium       2 ppm
mercury      2-3 ppm
strontium  2,000 ppm
chromium   1,000 ppm
cadmium       0.5 ppm
manganese    400 ppm (swine)
uranium      400 ppm (rats)

These numbers are subject to other mineral interactions and species variation.
However, I don't know of anyone who would suggest washing clothes in uranium
salts even if it were an effective cleaner.

Lyle Rode
Nutritionist
Agriculture Canada
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:57:28 -0500
Reply-To:     babij@MAIL.BUCKNELL.EDU
From:         babij@MAIL.BUCKNELL.EDU

Please remove the following addresses from the list:

babij@mail.bucknell.edu

babij@bucknell.edu

Thank You
PGB
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:18:08 PST
Reply-To:     Tom Gray <tgray@IGC.APC.ORG>
From:         Tom Gray <tgray@IGC.APC.ORG>
Subject:      Re: --Curacao Windfarm Sparks Debate

Hmmmm.  My apologies for the duplicate postings, folks.  As you might
imagine, my mailing software was telling me that the messages had not been
sent, when in fact they were.

Tom
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU