|
Home > Archive > Architecture > September 2006 > Wind mills & Nimby(ism)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Wind mills & Nimby(ism)
|
|
|
|
| RicodJour 2006-09-04, 5:25 pm |
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> 400' windmills on mountain tops in Vermont,
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060903...rmont_s_dilemma
>
> Is it fair to object? What is progress?
More importantly, what is the point of a 400' tall windmill on top of a
mountain? Certainly twice as tall as it needs to be.
R
| |
| Roarmeister 2006-09-04, 8:25 pm |
| On 4 Sep 2006 11:51:15 -0700, "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
A better question would be "What are the alternatives for Vermont?"
Coal? Natural gas? Oil? Nuclear? Hydro? Well guess what - open strip
mining for coal is a whole lot uglier than a few wind mills and Vermont
currently has no coal mines or coal generators. Natural gas would have to
be bought from Canada, not that we would mind :-) Oil transported from the
Middle East or Venezuela? That's big time politics. Nuclear energy is
even more expensive and then you have to deal with the long term effects of
nuclear material storage and the possible target of terrorists? Hydro
generated power is expensive to construct and affects the environment MUCH
MUCH MORE than even coal.
[color=darkred]
>More importantly, what is the point of a 400' tall windmill on top of a
>mountain? Certainly twice as tall as it needs to be.
Larger windmills are more efficient at generating energy. And a high point
in the land generally has the highest and most consistent wind speed so it
makes sense to locate them there. The larger they are and the lighter the
vanes on the unit the more wind that can be transferred into electricity.
The above article speaks of a "few" windmills - 11 to be exact. In my
province we have 3 wind farms - the smallest of which is ONLY 11 turbines,
the largest is 83. We currently have the largest windmill farm in Canada
turning out enough power for 64,000 homes and 5% of our total provincial
generation.
http://www.saskpowerinternational.c...entennial.shtml
However, even this is paltry in comparison to what Quebec is building. They
are presently constructing a wind farms totally 2000 MW or about 13x the
energy. And a Quebec First Nation is also developing a SINGLE massive wind
farm in the 1650 MW range.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet...bd-8b1a4f26fa2c
Quebec doesn't need the power for their own use as they are also increasing
the size of their hydro generated power. They WANT to sell the power to
the US and specifically Vermont/NY which are just across the river. But
this is also part of an ongoing commitment to reduce hydrocarbon generation
of energy and meet Kyoto goals. Vermont doesn't have a whole lot to worry
about in terms of ***WHERE*** to buy power from. It's more of a choice of
whether they want to buy from Quebec or build their own. The article is
being a bit disingenuous in it's viewpoint.
To put wind generated power into perspective, wind farms on land are small
compared to wind farms on the oceans. There the windmills are even larger
and can be assembled relatively out of sight and mind. However, since you
lose a fair amount of energy transferring this power back to where it is
consumed - in the urban centres, it is less efficient than land based wind
farms. A windmill is also considered to be only 30% efficient in power
generation as the speed of the wind fluctuates. The wind could subside at
inopportune times and leave power grids without power. It is for these
reasons that wind generation should not be greater than 15-20% of total
generation. In fact, Denmark has the largest proportion of wind generation
of just under 20% and are proving this hypothesis. The world's largest
producer of wind generated power is actually the US but it only comprises
about 1% of total generation.
There are 2 real problems with wind generation beyond the above.
1) The NIMBY syndrome where people object to having them built. Opinion
will vary as to the "beauty" or "ugliness" of the windmills. I like them -
as well as the farmers who lease their land for the equipment to be
installed on them.
2) They are very expensive to build, in fact they are a bit more expensive
than building hydrocarbon based generators.
I viewed our latest wind farm located about 150 km from my home (flat
prairies). They are very impressive structures from a distance but when
you get up close you really start to get a handle on their size. At the
wind farm they also have a spare wind vane on the ground as an exhibit.
That thing is HUGE - spanning about 30 m and weighing about 7 tonnes and
made entirely of a graphite composite.
I drove through a small town in Washington state - Vantage. I saw that
they have a wind farm as well but it has to be at least 35 turbines from
what I could see with plans for a total of 136 outputting 220 MW.
http://www.horizonwind.com/projects.../wildhorse.aspx
| |
|
| "Roarmeister"> wrote
> There are 2 real problems with wind generation beyond the above.
> 1) The NIMBY syndrome where people object to having them built. Opinion
> will vary as to the "beauty" or "ugliness" of the windmills. I like
> them -
> as well as the farmers who lease their land for the equipment to be
> installed on them.
I have no issue with the *looks*, no more so than a cell tower or any other
large stand alone man made object.
I might have an issue with *noise* produced by a wind mill.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-09-05, 9:25 am |
|
Roarmeister wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2006 11:51:15 -0700, "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> A better question would be "What are the alternatives for Vermont?"
>
> Coal? Natural gas? Oil? Nuclear? Hydro? Well guess what - open strip
> mining for coal is a whole lot uglier than a few wind mills and Vermont
> currently has no coal mines or coal generators. Natural gas would have to
> be bought from Canada, not that we would mind :-) Oil transported from the
> Middle East or Venezuela? That's big time politics. Nuclear energy is
> even more expensive and then you have to deal with the long term effects of
> nuclear material storage and the possible target of terrorists? Hydro
> generated power is expensive to construct and affects the environment MUCH
> MUCH MORE than even coal.
>
>
> Larger windmills are more efficient at generating energy. And a high point
> in the land generally has the highest and most consistent wind speed so it
> makes sense to locate them there.
Yes, but I'm afraid to make this a physics debate,
engineers have created guidelines, it may be up
to architects to make these more acceptable as
the objection seems to be the appearance of a
building.
> The larger they are and the lighter the
> vanes on the unit the more wind that can be transferred into electricity.
> The above article speaks of a "few" windmills - 11 to be exact. In my
> province we have 3 wind farms - the smallest of which is ONLY 11 turbines,
> the largest is 83. We currently have the largest windmill farm in Canada
> turning out enough power for 64,000 homes and 5% of our total provincial
> generation.
> http://www.saskpowerinternational.c...entennial.shtml
>
> However, even this is paltry in comparison to what Quebec is building. They
> are presently constructing a wind farms totally 2000 MW or about 13x the
> energy. And a Quebec First Nation is also developing a SINGLE massive wind
> farm in the 1650 MW range.
> http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet...bd-8b1a4f26fa2c
> Quebec doesn't need the power for their own use as they are also increasing
> the size of their hydro generated power. They WANT to sell the power to
> the US and specifically Vermont/NY which are just across the river. But
> this is also part of an ongoing commitment to reduce hydrocarbon generation
> of energy and meet Kyoto goals. Vermont doesn't have a whole lot to worry
> about in terms of ***WHERE*** to buy power from. It's more of a choice of
> whether they want to buy from Quebec or build their own. The article is
> being a bit disingenuous in it's viewpoint.
> To put wind generated power into perspective, wind farms on land are small
> compared to wind farms on the oceans. There the windmills are even larger
> and can be assembled relatively out of sight and mind. However, since you
> lose a fair amount of energy transferring this power back to where it is
> consumed - in the urban centres, it is less efficient than land based wind
> farms. A windmill is also considered to be only 30% efficient in power
> generation as the speed of the wind fluctuates. The wind could subside at
> inopportune times and leave power grids without power. It is for these
> reasons that wind generation should not be greater than 15-20% of total
> generation. In fact, Denmark has the largest proportion of wind generation
> of just under 20% and are proving this hypothesis.
Yes, that's a problem, we're awaiting good rechargeable
battery's :-) to pour the surplus into, even if it's solar-day
charging.
> The world's largest
> producer of wind generated power is actually the US but it only comprises
> about 1% of total generation.
> There are 2 real problems with wind generation beyond the above.
> 1) The NIMBY syndrome where people object to having them built. Opinion
> will vary as to the "beauty" or "ugliness" of the windmills. I like them -
> as well as the farmers who lease their land for the equipment to be
> installed on them.
> 2) They are very expensive to build, in fact they are a bit more expensive
> than building hydrocarbon based generators.
>
> I viewed our latest wind farm located about 150 km from my home (flat
> prairies). They are very impressive structures from a distance but when
> you get up close you really start to get a handle on their size. At the
> wind farm they also have a spare wind vane on the ground as an exhibit.
> That thing is HUGE - spanning about 30 m and weighing about 7 tonnes and
> made entirely of a graphite composite.
>
> I drove through a small town in Washington state - Vantage. I saw that
> they have a wind farm as well but it has to be at least 35 turbines from
> what I could see with plans for a total of 136 outputting 220 MW.
> http://www.horizonwind.com/projects.../wildhorse.aspx
Thanks for the info.
Ken
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-09-05, 9:25 am |
|
Don wrote:
> "Roarmeister"> wrote
[color=darkred]
> I have no issue with the *looks*, no more so than a cell tower or any other
> large stand alone man made object.
Yup, owning one of those "prestine" views of mountain
tops, it wouldn't bother us, I think they're neat looking and
fun to watch.
> I might have an issue with *noise* produced by a wind mill.
Ok, but what is an acceptable tolerance?
- living near an airport or under a flight path?
- piston planes landing and taking-off from
your lake?
- a nearby interstate or highway?
- a train + whistle?
- helicopters buzzing my house, looking for fires
or grass.
I would suppose there needs to be a decibel
standard. But the company could compensate
the close home owner through a deal like a
monthly payment. Anything is possible for a
small fee :-).
Ken
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:edjnp401oqa@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Roarmeister"> wrote
>
>
> I have no issue with the *looks*, no more so than a cell tower or any
> other large stand alone man made object.
> I might have an issue with *noise* produced by a wind mill.
>
There is a cell tower in NH near the Louden racetrack disguised as a large
fir tree, but it is twice the height of nearby trees and has a fence around
it ;) I laugh every time I drive by. Maybe we could have spinning branches.
As I live a mile from the runways and under the flight path of a major
airport, I have never noticed noise much. BTW Logan airport has replaced
windows and soundproofed houses near the airport for many years. I had it
done about 6 years ago. Always thought the city was quiet when I lived
there.
EDS
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1157384169.703559.179800@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> 400' windmills on mountain tops in Vermont,
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060903...rmont_s_dilemma
>
> Is it fair to object? What is progress?
> Ken
>
First large wind generator in the US was installed in Vermont in 1930's.
Lost a blade during the war and never was replaced.
EDS
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-05, 1:25 pm |
| "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1157384169.703559.179800@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> 400' windmills on mountain tops in Vermont,
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060903...rmont_s_dilemma
>
> Is it fair to object? What is progress?
> Ken
>
If people refuse to make even the absolute minimum of lifestyle changes (as
in, switching to CFLs), they IMO they ought to shut their dang faceholes.
If more of this kind of thing *was* in their back yards, maybe they'd
actually spend a millisecond or two thinking about how to use fewer
resources than they do.
One interesting point - everyone thinks the windmills in Holland are so
picturesque; maybe thesedays, we just need our aesthetics tweaked <G!>
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-05, 1:25 pm |
| "eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in
news:sMCdne1o2s2hFGDZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:edjnp401oqa@news4.newsguy.com...
> There is a cell tower in NH near the Louden racetrack disguised as a
> large fir tree, but it is twice the height of nearby trees and has a
> fence around it ;) I laugh every time I drive by. Maybe we could have
> spinning branches.
Have local artist paint designs, pictures, and so on, onto them =:-)
> As I live a mile from the runways and under the
> flight path of a major airport, I have never noticed noise much. BTW
> Logan airport has replaced windows and soundproofed houses near the
> airport for many years. I had it done about 6 years ago. Always
> thought the city was quiet when I lived there.
> EDS
>
Just out of curiousity: What materials and procedures did they do in
the retrofits? I'm curious about that. Windows could be triple-paned,
but what could they do to a pre-existing house or apartment building to
soundproof it?
| |
|
|
Roarmeister wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2006 11:51:15 -0700, "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> A better question would be "What are the alternatives for Vermont?"
>
> Coal? Natural gas? Oil? Nuclear? Hydro? Well guess what - open strip
> mining for coal is a whole lot uglier than a few wind mills and Vermont
> currently has no coal mines or coal generators. Natural gas would have to
> be bought from Canada, not that we would mind :-) Oil transported from the
> Middle East or Venezuela? That's big time politics. Nuclear energy is
> even more expensive and then you have to deal with the long term effects of
> nuclear material storage and the possible target of terrorists? Hydro
> generated power is expensive to construct and affects the environment MUCH
> MUCH MORE than even coal.
>
>
> Larger windmills are more efficient at generating energy. And a high point
> in the land generally has the highest and most consistent wind speed so it
> makes sense to locate them there. The larger they are and the lighter the
> vanes on the unit the more wind that can be transferred into electricity.
> The above article speaks of a "few" windmills - 11 to be exact. In my
> province we have 3 wind farms - the smallest of which is ONLY 11 turbines,
> the largest is 83. We currently have the largest windmill farm in Canada
> turning out enough power for 64,000 homes and 5% of our total provincial
> generation.
> http://www.saskpowerinternational.c...entennial.shtml
>
> However, even this is paltry in comparison to what Quebec is building. They
> are presently constructing a wind farms totally 2000 MW or about 13x the
> energy. And a Quebec First Nation is also developing a SINGLE massive wind
> farm in the 1650 MW range.
> http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet...bd-8b1a4f26fa2c
> Quebec doesn't need the power for their own use as they are also increasing
> the size of their hydro generated power. They WANT to sell the power to
> the US and specifically Vermont/NY which are just across the river. But
> this is also part of an ongoing commitment to reduce hydrocarbon generation
> of energy and meet Kyoto goals. Vermont doesn't have a whole lot to worry
> about in terms of ***WHERE*** to buy power from. It's more of a choice of
> whether they want to buy from Quebec or build their own.
Does the power come biligural or just in French :-))
The article is
> being a bit disingenuous in it's viewpoint.
>
> To put wind generated power into perspective, wind farms on land are small
> compared to wind farms on the oceans. There the windmills are even larger
> and can be assembled relatively out of sight and mind. However, since you
> lose a fair amount of energy transferring this power back to where it is
> consumed - in the urban centres, it is less efficient than land based wind
> farms. A windmill is also considered to be only 30% efficient in power
> generation as the speed of the wind fluctuates. The wind could subside at
> inopportune times and leave power grids without power. It is for these
> reasons that wind generation should not be greater than 15-20% of total
> generation.
This is what NY does with "excess power" to store it. Maybe could use
the same for windmills.
http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/blengil.htm
In fact, Denmark has the largest proportion of wind generation
> of just under 20% and are proving this hypothesis. The world's largest
> producer of wind generated power is actually the US but it only comprises
> about 1% of total generation.
>
> There are 2 real problems with wind generation beyond the above.
> 1) The NIMBY syndrome where people object to having them built. Opinion
> will vary as to the "beauty" or "ugliness" of the windmills. I like them -
> as well as the farmers who lease their land for the equipment to be
> installed on them.
> 2) They are very expensive to build, in fact they are a bit more expensive
> than building hydrocarbon based generators.
But probably a lot cheaper to operate because you don't need to by
fuel.
>
> I viewed our latest wind farm located about 150 km from my home (flat
> prairies). They are very impressive structures from a distance but when
> you get up close you really start to get a handle on their size. At the
> wind farm they also have a spare wind vane on the ground as an exhibit.
> That thing is HUGE - spanning about 30 m and weighing about 7 tonnes and
> made entirely of a graphite composite.
>
> I drove through a small town in Washington state - Vantage. I saw that
> they have a wind farm as well but it has to be at least 35 turbines from
> what I could see with plans for a total of 136 outputting 220 MW.
> http://www.horizonwind.com/projects.../wildhorse.aspx
| |
|
|
|
| "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1157477410.363383.7290@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roarmeister wrote:
>
> Does the power come biligural or just in French :-))
>
> The article is
>
> This is what NY does with "excess power" to store it. Maybe could use
> the same for windmills.
> http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/blengil.htm
Wow that is an awesome example of the use of potential and kinetic energy.
Never though of using it that way in such a large scale. Its like a giant
battery! Very interesting discussion here though. I am of the thought that
these wind farms don't bother me as far as looks go. We have huge ones here
near Palm Springs that we see on our way to the Colorado River. Really
amazing things to see. There are also quite a few near Mojave in and around
the hills. Those seem to be space right and spread out enough to make them
not look so massive.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Roarmeister 2006-09-05, 9:25 pm |
| On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 07:41:15 -0400, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
wrote:
>"Roarmeister"> wrote
>
>
>I have no issue with the *looks*, no more so than a cell tower or any other
>large stand alone man made object.
>I might have an issue with *noise* produced by a wind mill.
There is really very little noise associated with them - unless your house
is right underneath. :-) If you are more than 1 km away, you would never
hear it over the wind even if you were downwind of the wind farm.
| |
|
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:BmhLg.15231$Qf.3651@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:sMCdne1o2s2hFGDZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>
> Have local artist paint designs, pictures, and so on, onto them =:-)
>
>
>
> Just out of curiousity: What materials and procedures did they do in
> the retrofits? I'm curious about that. Windows could be triple-paned,
> but what could they do to a pre-existing house or apartment building to
> soundproof it?
>
Double paned windows plus storms. Wood and/or PVC windows. Well sealed storm
doors. 90% of the noise came through the windows and doors. We had the
option of a "quiet room" that would have 6" of insulation and 2 layers of
5/8" GWB (Gypsum wallboard) applied to the inside of that room's exterior
walls. Seemed excessive and reduced the room size so we compromised with
3/4" GWB on all exterior walls in bedrooms over the plaster. Everything is
quiet now until we open a window <G> Frankly I was happy to have 28 windows
replaced free.
EDS
| |
|
| "eds"> wrote
> 3/4" GWB on all exterior walls in bedrooms over the plaster.
3/4" gyp bd. hooo-doggies
Them boys earned their wages that day!
Whats a 4'x8' bd of gyp weigh these days, 80lbs?
The ceilings would be killer......
| |
|
| "Edgar"> wrote
> "Pat"> wrote
>
> Wow that is an awesome example of the use of potential and kinetic energy.
> Never though of using it that way in such a large scale. Its like a giant
> battery! Very interesting discussion here though. I am of the thought
> that these wind farms don't bother me as far as looks go. We have huge
> ones here near Palm Springs that we see on our way to the Colorado River.
> Really amazing things to see. There are also quite a few near Mojave in
> and around the hills. Those seem to be space right and spread out enough
> to make them not look so massive.
There's something missing from that scenario.
They are describing erpetual motion, and such a thing canot exist.
What is the cost to pump the water back up the hill to the upper resevoir?
Most likely more than the revenue the falling water produces.
If the upper resevoir was fed by a river or something, THEN they'd have it
made.
I know someone right now that is developing such a system, privately on his
own property.
He has a lake and it spills over a man-made fall that is 55' high, into
another lake (man made).
The upper lake is spring fed (from under the ground) so it is continuously
renewing itself, and no pumping water back up the hill is necessary.
He is using rewound (by hand) washing machine motors as generators and there
will be 20 of them.
I don't remember all the details but he has it all worked out, on paper.
| |
|
| "Roarmeister"> wrote
> "Don"> wrote:
>
> There is really very little noise associated with them - unless your house
> is right underneath. :-) If you are more than 1 km away, you would never
> hear it over the wind even if you were downwind of the wind farm.
Even if a flock of them loud talkin' Canadian Geese fly into it? ;-)
| |
|
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:edmdq4020sb@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Edgar"> wrote
>
>
> There's something missing from that scenario.
> They are describing erpetual motion, and such a thing canot exist.
> What is the cost to pump the water back up the hill to the upper resevoir?
> Most likely more than the revenue the falling water produces.
> If the upper resevoir was fed by a river or something, THEN they'd have it
> made.
>
> I know someone right now that is developing such a system, privately on
> his own property.
> He has a lake and it spills over a man-made fall that is 55' high, into
> another lake (man made).
> The upper lake is spring fed (from under the ground) so it is continuously
> renewing itself, and no pumping water back up the hill is necessary.
> He is using rewound (by hand) washing machine motors as generators and
> there will be 20 of them.
> I don't remember all the details but he has it all worked out, on paper.
>
As they explained it, they use power in off-peak time to renew the
"battery", and they only let out power when it is needed. It probably uses
more power to put the water back up, but then they can charge more for the
power coming down at peak times. I think.
--
Edgar
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-06, 1:25 pm |
| "eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in
news:tumdnWuwTMgDqWPZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:BmhLg.15231$Qf.3651@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[...][color=darkred]
> Double paned windows plus storms. Wood and/or PVC windows. Well sealed
> storm doors. 90% of the noise came through the windows and doors. We
> had the option of a "quiet room" that would have 6" of insulation and
> 2 layers of 5/8" GWB (Gypsum wallboard) applied to the inside of that
> room's exterior walls. Seemed excessive and reduced the room size so
> we compromised with 3/4" GWB on all exterior walls in bedrooms over
> the plaster. Everything is quiet now until we open a window <G>
> Frankly I was happy to have 28 windows replaced free.
> EDS
>
I was wondering.
This place has aluminum windows (dunno why, but aluminum seems to be all
you can get here...) I've thought in passing whether there would be any
advantage/merit to making some styrofoam "frames" to go over the
aluminum where it meets the window-frame (with a smooth white finish to
go with the aluminum color and the window-sills).
It seems to me (but I can't of course say for sure) that high-quality
vinyl-framed windows are quieter than aluminum-framed ones.
| |
|
|
Edgar wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:edmdq4020sb@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> As they explained it, they use power in off-peak time to renew the
> "battery", and they only let out power when it is needed. It probably uses
> more power to put the water back up, but then they can charge more for the
> power coming down at peak times. I think.
I think that's basically it. They use "excess" hydro that they already
have to pump it up the hill overnight and let it come back down during
the day when there are peak loads.
>
> --
> Edgar
>
> --
> Edgar
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
|
eds wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:edjnp401oqa@news4.newsguy.com...
> There is a cell tower in NH near the Louden racetrack disguised as a large
> fir tree, but it is twice the height of nearby trees and has a fence around
> it ;) I laugh every time I drive by. Maybe we could have spinning branches.
> As I live a mile from the runways and under the flight path of a major
> airport, I have never noticed noise much. BTW Logan airport has replaced
> windows and soundproofed houses near the airport for many years. I had it
> done about 6 years ago. Always thought the city was quiet when I lived
> there.
> EDS
They are doing a similar pine tree in the Adirondacks. Huge and ugly.
They call it a Franken-pine.
Best camo for a cell town: Inside a BIG flag pole. Added benefit: flag
poles are legal in most zoning classifications. Also, inside church
steeples.
I've seen a few that they put on the side of a hill and don't have the
tower peak over the crest. Pretty effective camo because it is barely
noticable.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-06, 1:25 pm |
| "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in
news:1157558189.864210.112620@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> eds wrote:
[snip]
> They are doing a similar pine tree in the Adirondacks. Huge and ugly.
> They call it a Franken-pine.
>
> Best camo for a cell town: Inside a BIG flag pole. Added benefit:
> flag poles are legal in most zoning classifications. Also, inside
> church steeples.
>
> I've seen a few that they put on the side of a hill and don't have the
> tower peak over the crest. Pretty effective camo because it is barely
> noticable.
>
>
You'd think that someone could come up with some sort of decorative
thing to do to such structures. A fake giant tree does not sound at all
decorative to me. IMO, any good idea would rpobably have to integrate
the structure, not merely try to make it look like something else (as
per the saying "just slap some lipstick on that pig").
Other and previous cultures found ways to integrate potentially ugly
things into their cityscapes (and I assume landscapes). I can';t
beelive that no modern people can conceive of some reasonable ways to
integrate our utilitarian structures. ANd by "integrate", I don't just
mean "try to hide".
OTOH, a giant tent, or the sort of things they use to cover radomes,
both sound better than a fake pine tree =:-p ... Heck, cover it with
Sunbrella (TM?) fabric. If you can't hide it (i.e. make it
"disappear"), might as well celebrate it.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-09-06, 1:25 pm |
|
Don wrote:
> "eds"> wrote
>
> 3/4" gyp bd. hooo-doggies
>
> Them boys earned their wages that day!
> Whats a 4'x8' bd of gyp weigh these days, 80lbs?
> The ceilings would be killer......
Put up one end at a time, 80/2 =40#, fairly easy for one guy,
(two is always easier).
I place a 2x4 frame a couple of inches from the ceiling,
and slip the panel into it, then screw it up to the ceiling.
Usually use the wall to attach the frame and move the
frame along. The trick is to have some soap-opera on
a little tube, then the time fly's.
Ken
| |
|
|
Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in
> news:1157558189.864210.112620@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> You'd think that someone could come up with some sort of decorative
> thing to do to such structures. A fake giant tree does not sound at all
> decorative to me. IMO, any good idea would rpobably have to integrate
> the structure, not merely try to make it look like something else (as
> per the saying "just slap some lipstick on that pig").
>
> Other and previous cultures found ways to integrate potentially ugly
> things into their cityscapes (and I assume landscapes). I can';t
> beelive that no modern people can conceive of some reasonable ways to
> integrate our utilitarian structures. ANd by "integrate", I don't just
> mean "try to hide".
>
> OTOH, a giant tent, or the sort of things they use to cover radomes,
> both sound better than a fake pine tree =:-p ... Heck, cover it with
> Sunbrella (TM?) fabric. If you can't hide it (i.e. make it
> "disappear"), might as well celebrate it.
A few pictures of the "trees".
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net...ames;read=37603
http://www.psotd.com/posts/1139154132.shtml
http://www.apnmag.com/winter_2005/frankenpine.php
| |
|
| "Pat"> wrote
> Best camo for a cell town: Inside a BIG flag pole. Added benefit: flag
> poles are legal in most zoning classifications. Also, inside church
> steeples.
>
> I've seen a few that they put on the side of a hill and don't have the
> tower peak over the crest. Pretty effective camo because it is barely
> noticable.
What if it looked like an ICBM that dove into the ground but didn't explode?
An ICBM with fins from a 59 cadillac........yowza........
| |
|
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1157558000.387212.249410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edgar wrote:
>
>
> I think that's basically it. They use "excess" hydro that they already
> have to pump it up the hill overnight and let it come back down during
> the day when there are peak loads.
Well thats the whole thing right there, the fact that you can't produce more
than the cost.
If you could, everybody would be rich!
Could you imagine, leaving in your car on a journey and returning with MORE
gas than you left with?
I'm liking the idea of the conversion motor in Atlas Shrugged (which I am
reading right now) that grabs static electricity out of the air and converts
it into power. Arrr arrrr arrrrrr............
| |
|
| "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> Put up one end at a time, 80/2 =40#, fairly easy for one guy,
> (two is always easier).
> I place a 2x4 frame a couple of inches from the ceiling,
> and slip the panel into it, then screw it up to the ceiling.
> Usually use the wall to attach the frame and move the
> frame along. The trick is to have some soap-opera on
> a little tube, then the time fly's.
> Ken
They have jacks for such things that can be rented at Lowes, etc.
They cost about $400 (I checked) and thats too much for a small job.
You can rent one for about $50/day.
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> You'd think that someone could come up with some sort of decorative
> thing to do to such structures.
They should be smaller, much, much smaler.
Remember back in the 70's when the *rich* people had 12' satellite dishes in
the yard?
Now everybody has the 16" dishes.
The cellphone towers could also be *laid down*.
I also remember back in the 70's when some people had 102" whip antennaes on
their rides for the CB radio. Then some genius found out that radio waves
are stupid and didn't care if that 102" antennae was really just 12" long
but all coiled up inside.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-06, 8:25 pm |
| "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in
news:1157574639.676008.265090@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> A few pictures of the "trees".
>
> http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net...?noframes;read=
3
> 7603 http://www.psotd.com/posts/1139154132.shtml
> http://www.apnmag.com/winter_2005/frankenpine.php
>
>
Yikes, the first one was bad enough, but the second and third are
ghastly and each would have looked better as, well, a pole. They'd've
been much better off, IMO, just painting it sky-blue.
Or, heck, paint it like a giant peppermint stick. Let someone go and
paint vines and leaves on it. Let graffitti doodz have a go at it.
*Anything* but that stupid phony pseudo-pine junk, which merely makes
the thing stand out as even more of an eyesore than it' otherwise would
have.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-06, 8:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:edng6b0243p@news3.newsguy.com:
> "Pat"> wrote
>
> What if it looked like an ICBM that dove into the ground but didn't
> explode? An ICBM with fins from a 59 cadillac........yowza........
>
*Now* we're getting some creative ideas! Or howzabout adding quarrels so
it looks like a giant arrow was fired "from above" <g!>
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-06, 8:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:edngc6024e5@news3.newsguy.com:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> They should be smaller, much, much smaler.
> Remember back in the 70's when the *rich* people had 12' satellite
> dishes in the yard?
> Now everybody has the 16" dishes.
> The cellphone towers could also be *laid down*.
I don't think they'd work. I'm picturing the propagation of
electromagnetic waves - I'm pretty sure they have to be Line Of Sight.
It'd be interesting to hear from someone with expertise in the area, tho',
because I really don't know.
>
> I also remember back in the 70's when some people had 102" whip
> antennaes on their rides for the CB radio. Then some genius found out
> that radio waves are stupid and didn't care if that 102" antennae was
> really just 12" long but all coiled up inside.
>
If it'd work, it'd be great - heck, don't "build" anything, hand the
receiving apparati in trees - then there'd be no drive to make fake trees
;)
| |
|
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:edng1q023r0@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:1157558000.387212.249410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Well thats the whole thing right there, the fact that you can't produce
> more than the cost.
> If you could, everybody would be rich!
> Could you imagine, leaving in your car on a journey and returning with
> MORE gas than you left with?
>
> I'm liking the idea of the conversion motor in Atlas Shrugged (which I am
> reading right now) that grabs static electricity out of the air and
> converts it into power. Arrr arrrr arrrrrr............
>
How many years into it are you  . I finished it, but in the end I was
thinking, she figured out a way to tell you the same thing over and over
again about a million different ways.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
|
Don wrote:
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:1157558000.387212.249410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Well thats the whole thing right there, the fact that you can't produce more
> than the cost.
> If you could, everybody would be rich!
> Could you imagine, leaving in your car on a journey and returning with MORE
> gas than you left with?
>
> I'm liking the idea of the conversion motor in Atlas Shrugged (which I am
> reading right now) that grabs static electricity out of the air and converts
> it into power. Arrr arrrr arrrrrr............
I think a avoid that book in Philosophy 101. Chauk it up to a
Catholic, liberal arts education. We learned what to avoid.
I always thought they should put cell antennas on high voltage lines --
they are there already. You know how if you walk under a power line
with a flourecent light it will glow from the field. Always wondered
why they didn't use that "wasted" energy to power the cell phone equip
on the tower. Makes sense to me, and I didn't waste all of those
years studying engineering or physics (or philosophy).
| |
|
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:N4ILg.7403$bM.3891@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:edng6b0243p@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>
>
> *Now* we're getting some creative ideas! Or howzabout adding quarrels so
> it looks like a giant arrow was fired "from above" <g!>
Can we assume *quarrels* aren't about wives and husbands arguing about money
but rather the feathers on the end?
| |
|
| "Edgar"> wrote
> "Don"> wrote
>
> How many years into it are you . I finished it, but in the end I was
> thinking, she figured out a way to tell you the same thing over and over
> again about a million different ways.
Its 1068 pages and I'm 2/3 into it over the past 3 weeks.
Its a paperback and the font is small and difficult.
Yes, this book could be edited down to half those pages and not lose the
gist of the meaning.
You gotta respect anyone though that can put such a thing together.
Was reading the board over at www.imdb.com and the movie is supposed to get
done next year.
I'm appalled at who will play the main roles.
Brad & Angelina.
Surprise surprise!
He will be out of his element and I find her looks repulsive.
In my minds eye I see Dagney Taggart as Jan Smithers, who was **Bailey
Quarters on WKRP in Cinncinati, though she'd be to old to play the role.
(prolly before your time-heh)
**Bailey Quarters was to Jennifer (Loni Anderson) as Maryanne was to Ginger
on Gilligans Island.
| |
|
| "Pat"> wrote
> I always thought they should put cell antennas on high voltage lines --
> they are there already. You know how if you walk under a power line
> with a flourecent light it will glow from the field. Always wondered
> why they didn't use that "wasted" energy to power the cell phone equip
> on the tower. Makes sense to me, and I didn't waste all of those
> years studying engineering or physics (or philosophy).
Will a flourescent really light like that?
If so, it seems to be a waste of electricity.
Seems like they could have a shield around the wire to keep all that stuff
inside.
I mean, what leaks out, can't be sold. Right?
| |
|
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ednoa302fla@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Edgar"> wrote
>
> Its 1068 pages and I'm 2/3 into it over the past 3 weeks.
> Its a paperback and the font is small and difficult.
> Yes, this book could be edited down to half those pages and not lose the
> gist of the meaning.
> You gotta respect anyone though that can put such a thing together.
> Was reading the board over at www.imdb.com and the movie is supposed to
> get done next year.
> I'm appalled at who will play the main roles.
> Brad & Angelina.
> Surprise surprise!
> He will be out of his element and I find her looks repulsive.
> In my minds eye I see Dagney Taggart as Jan Smithers, who was **Bailey
> Quarters on WKRP in Cinncinati, though she'd be to old to play the role.
> (prolly before your time-heh)
>
> **Bailey Quarters was to Jennifer (Loni Anderson) as Maryanne was to
> Ginger on Gilligans Island.
>
Like I said I finished it, but by the end I was getting pissed off and
actually skipping whole pages that basically said the same thing as the last
page. That got me through it.
As for the movie, well I'm of the opposite mind. The more I can see of
Angelina the better . Not sure they would work well in that movie though.
Still seems like it would make a pretty good movie.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
|
Don wrote:
> "Edgar"> wrote
>
> Its 1068 pages and I'm 2/3 into it over the past 3 weeks.
> Its a paperback and the font is small and difficult.
> Yes, this book could be edited down to half those pages and not lose the
> gist of the meaning.
> You gotta respect anyone though that can put such a thing together.
> Was reading the board over at www.imdb.com and the movie is supposed to get
> done next year.
> I'm appalled at who will play the main roles.
> Brad & Angelina.
> Surprise surprise!
> He will be out of his element and I find her looks repulsive.
> In my minds eye I see Dagney Taggart as Jan Smithers, who was **Bailey
> Quarters on WKRP in Cinncinati, though she'd be to old to play the role.
> (prolly before your time-heh)
Oh come on, I'm not that young (but I wish I were). That was classic
TV. Johnny Fever as the DJ; the newsman with his imaginary wall/door:
and of course the histerical show where they dropped turkeys from a
hellicopter. I used to love it.
Interestingly, when "Coach" was on, I never thought is was very good.
Now in reruns, I think it's one of the best shows ever made. Teams
Craig Nelson and Gerry Van Dyke together doing anything would be a hit
-- heck I'd watch them read the phone book together. And Dauber went
on to bigger and better things -- he's now the voice of Patrick in
Sponge Bob.
I also remember watching the very first episode of Mork and Mindy and
thinking "what the h*%# is this". It was like nothing that was ever on
before. Wonder what Pam Dawber is up to these days....
Ahhh. Back when TV was worth watching.
>
> **Bailey Quarters was to Jennifer (Loni Anderson) as Maryanne was to Ginger
> on Gilligans Island.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-07, 1:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:ednnpl02f35@news3.newsguy.com:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:N4ILg.7403$bM.3891@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Can we assume *quarrels* aren't about wives and husbands arguing about
> money but rather the feathers on the end?
>
Of course ;) !
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-07, 1:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:ednoa302fla@news3.newsguy.com:
> "Edgar"> wrote
>
> Its 1068 pages and I'm 2/3 into it over the past 3 weeks.
> Its a paperback and the font is small and difficult.
> Yes, this book could be edited down to half those pages and not lose
> the gist of the meaning.
> You gotta respect anyone though that can put such a thing together.
> Was reading the board over at www.imdb.com and the movie is supposed
> to get done next year.
> I'm appalled at who will play the main roles.
> Brad & Angelina.
> Surprise surprise!
Are you serious?!?! Geez, glad I haven't eaten yet today =:-p
Well, what should we expect.
I'm just amazed and surprised that they didn't pick Leonardo DiCaprio.
> He will be out of his element and I find her looks repulsive.
Not to mention that neither of them at all looks the part. My
neighbor's wiener-dog would look more the part - *either* role =:-o
And, to add insult to injury, I can just imagine the chop'n'blend job
they'll do on the story =>:-p - most likely, they'll ravage it and gut
it the same whay they ravaged and gutted "Dr. Zhivago" ((after having
read it in the original Russian, I was incapable of sitting through that
horrible travesty of a film when they showed it on tv)). Heh, knowing
Hollywood, they'll not only reduce it to nothing more than some dumb@$$
"love" story - they'll probably turn it into a "romantic comedy" ((is
there an emoticon for "puking my guts out"...?))
And people wonder why I almost never go to the movies.
> In my minds eye I see Dagney Taggart as Jan Smithers, who was **Bailey
> Quarters on WKRP in Cinncinati, though she'd be to old to play the
> role. (prolly before your time-heh)
>
> **Bailey Quarters was to Jennifer (Loni Anderson) as Maryanne was to
> Ginger on Gilligans Island.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-07, 1:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:ednoeq02g1k@news3.newsguy.com:
> "Pat"> wrote
>
> Will a flourescent really light like that?
> If so, it seems to be a waste of electricity.
Electricity...?
Isn't it the magnetic field induced by the flow of electrons (i.e.
electricity) through the power lines...?
It'd be interesting to find out whether it'd be strong enouch to be
converted back into electricity, but if I recall correctly, a coil of
copper wire would have to be spun inside the field...not sure tho'...
> Seems like they could have a shield around the wire to keep all that
> stuff inside.
> I mean, what leaks out, can't be sold. Right?
I'm not sure that all of the field can be shielded. I know that some
shielding is put around wiring, but to be honest, I'm not sure whether it's
supposed to keep the flowing electrons well-behaved, or block the magnetic
field...it's been about 3 decades since I took physics and about half that
since I read much of anything about electronics.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-09-07, 1:25 pm |
|
Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:ednoeq02g1k@news3.newsguy.com:
>
Power transmission towers are situated for
service by qualified personel, Cell towers
situated for height and require different
personel qualifications. If I had to service
a Cell tower, I wouldn't want to shut-off the
grid!
[color=darkred]
Been told so, but don't know for sure.
[color=darkred]
> Electricity...?
> Isn't it the magnetic field induced by the flow of electrons (i.e.
> electricity) through the power lines...?
Yup.
> It'd be interesting to find out whether it'd be strong enouch to be
> converted back into electricity, but if I recall correctly, a coil of
> copper wire would have to be spun inside the field...not sure tho'...
Again I've heard a coil of wire near a 60 cycle
high voltage line will induce a current in a
nearby coil.
For very long range transmission DC (Direct Current)
is used to cut radiation losses that 60 Hz AC have.
It's way to expensive to shield 100,000+ Volt wire,
you would need a thick insulator then a grounded
shield like a co-axial cable has.
[color=darkred]
> I'm not sure that all of the field can be shielded. I know that some
> shielding is put around wiring, but to be honest, I'm not sure whether it's
> supposed to keep the flowing electrons well-behaved, or block the magnetic
> field...it's been about 3 decades since I took physics and about half that
> since I read much of anything about electronics.
Shielded cable is used to block unwanted signals,
and also to reduce transmission losses, it's actually
quite specialized.
Ken
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-07, 1:25 pm |
| "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1157648970.448903.164070@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
[...]
>
>
> Yup.
>
>
> Again I've heard a coil of wire near a 60 cycle
> high voltage line will induce a current in a
> nearby coil.
Hmmm, so this is an interesting thought:
current running through a wire induces magnetic field; place coil of Cu
wire into mag. filed, position a Cu rod or wire inside the coil.
THis should, in theory, generate current through the wire inside the
coil, *but*, if the new current also generates a magnetic filed, what
happens?, what effect do the fields have on each other? Do they cancel
out? Intensify?
I have no idea.
>
> For very long range transmission DC (Direct Current)
> is used to cut radiation losses that 60 Hz AC have.
> It's way to expensive to shield 100,000+ Volt wire,
> you would need a thick insulator then a grounded
> shield like a co-axial cable has.
>
>
> Shielded cable is used to block unwanted signals,
> and also to reduce transmission losses, it's actually
> quite specialized.
> Ken
>
Hmm, I can understand that for signal transmission, but what about plain
old electrical transmission - I'd though insulation in that case was
only intended to keep people from getting shocked while handling
electrical cords.
Interesting stuff, tho' ;)
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-09-07, 1:25 pm |
|
Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> news:1157648970.448903.164070@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> [...]
>
> Hmmm, so this is an interesting thought:
> current running through a wire induces magnetic field; place coil of Cu
> wire into mag. field, position a Cu rod or wire inside the coil.
>
> THis should, in theory, generate current through the wire inside the
> coil, *but*, if the new current also generates a magnetic field, what
> happens?
Well this is elementary "Transformer Theory", one coil
called the primary induces current in the secondary
using a varying magnetic field. That's about the same
thing as a generator. A coil moving within a fixed magnetic
field generates a current and voltage in that coil OR the
coil is stationary and the magnetic field changes,
it's the same thing *relatively*, and was part of the
reason for Einstein's Special Relativity paper in 1905.
A really good example I used when teaching was a plain
ordinary speaker...check this out,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudsp...ic_loudspeakers
The speaker obviously makes sound when an AC current
is applied to the speaker, but it works in reverse too, a
sound applied into the speaker generates an AC current
out of the voice coil, so a speaker can be used as micro-
phone, in essence a mini-generator.
> what effect do the fields have on each other? Do they cancel
> out? Intensify?
> I have no idea.
Details can get complicated, but for technician's
and laymen it's straightforward.
>
> Hmm, I can understand that for signal transmission, but what about plain
> old electrical transmission - I'd though insulation in that case was
> only intended to keep people from getting shocked while handling
> electrical cords.
Yes of course, but as the voltage increases one
needs thicker insulation.
> Interesting stuff, tho' ;)
Good to review every once in a while, since it's
so useful.
Ken
| |
| Charles Jones 2006-09-14, 1:25 pm |
| In article <g3XLg.8562$xQ1.8084@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
me@dowmuff.in says...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:ednnpl02f35@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>
> Of course ;) !
Kris,
I think you mean fletching? Quarrels are the bolts from a crossbow, not
the feathers on an arrow.
--
Charles Jones [ charlesj@frii.com ]
Loveland, Colorado, USA
AIM: LovelandCharles MSN: charlesj68@passport.com
http://www.myspace.com/charlesj68
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-09-15, 1:25 pm |
| Charles Jones <charlesj@frii.com> wrote in news:12gj7bb85mnq261
@corp.supernews.com:
> In article <g3XLg.8562$xQ1.8084@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> me@dowmuff.in says...
>
> Kris,
>
> I think you mean fletching? Quarrels are the bolts from a crossbow, not
> the feathers on an arrow.
>
Oh... Well, whichever works best, arrow or bolt, given that it's a big
pole ;)
((Fletching, hmmm, I'll have to look this all up. I'd though 'quarrels'
worked for arrows but I'll look that up...))
|
|
|
|
|