[Geysers] Re: Grand geyser sillyness

[Paul Strasser]

Scott:

 

Difference between T and C:  At least in one year (no, I don't remember the
year -1984? '85? Whatever) Heinrich had put all of his geyser data into his
Mac.  Suzanne and I were at his place in Cupertino fiddling around with a
statistics program, where we could instantly compare bursts to time of day.
that sort of thing.  Some things had obvious correlations, like first burst
length to number of bursts.  Others didn't.  On a whim, I told H that I
always thought that Turban initiated eruptions had more bursts than Grand
initiated eruptions.   So he shrugged and compared those variables.  Lo and
behold.  Statistically significant difference.  

 

Has this been done since?  I don't know.  I don't care.  

 

 

(And there was no statistically significant relationship between duration
and the following interval.)

 

 

C vs. Q.  The only interesting thing about this statistic is that over time,
the average length of a C eruption has diminished substantially.   But the
average duration of both has decreased substantially.  For instance, the
average duration in 1978 was 12 min 29 sec.  

 

And long eruptions that are C are - as you indicated - the source of
afterbursts.  

 

The significance of afterbursts?  They're cool.  Other than that, I don't
know.  Heck.  You can say the same thing about gazing in general.

 

(I'm baffled that anyone would be ticked at Scott for his bit of levity.
Jeez - I wonder what people think of some of my stuff.  Please - don't
answer that.)

 

Paul Strasser

 

  _____  

From: geysers-bounces at wwc.edu [mailto:geysers-bounces at wwc.edu] On Behalf Of
TSBryan at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 8:52 AM
To: geysers at wwc.edu
Subject: [Geysers] Re: Grand geyser sillyness

 

Hi, All:

 

Well, now I've received a few -- only four, actually -- responses to my
tongue-in-cheek posting of a hypothetical, insanely long, clearly
meaningless code for logging an eruption of Grand Geyser. Two laugh and
support my poking fun at the "institutionalized... gibberish" of "people who
take themselves just a little too seriously."

 

Two, however, thought that I was being frivilous and that my post should not
have been promulgated as it (in the words of one) "needlessly made fun of a
legitimate quest for understanding." Oh, crud.

 

I honestly believe that there are some gazers who hate (not too strong) such
posts by me. OK. Do let me say that I think the basic notation (for example:
D3/T2Q) is fine. I routinely log such things and so on. But I personally
doubt if there is any validity to noting the different between what are
perceived as long vs short second bursts (* or no-*), third bursts, etc.
C'mon folks. Who decided that an apparently arbitrary difference of 1 second
-- 44 versus 45 -- is significant? Do even the most dedicated of gazers
_always_ watch their watch consistently enough to even say that it honestly
was 44 versus 45 seconds, that such would be judged as "statistically
significant" (which seems to be vital to some)?

 

Indeed, after many years and _thousands_ of logged eruptions (and it truly
is into the thousands by now), I have yet to hear of any significant meaning
to T versus G, C versus Q and etc. Sometimes, if an eruption is closely
watched, a series of afterbursts can be anticipated, BUT is there any
meaning to afterbursts?

 

The only reasonably solid things I can recall as being at least minimally
discussed recently, are: 

-- a bit of a relationship between total duration (regardless of the number
of bursts) and following the following interval;

-- a relationship between total Vent-Turban action after Grand and refill
time.

Will I follow up on these? Probably not, as I certainly do not now possess
either the data or the will to spend the necessary time at Grand. But some
people around -- quite a few -- wouldn't miss Grand for anything. So......

 

Here, really, is the point to this whole thing......

 

If anybody out there is able to show meaning in any of this stuff, then why
have they not -- not once so far -- promulgated the information. Why? The
venues have been available -- The Sput was started in 1987, and the first
Transactions came out in 1989.

 

If anybody _does_ have info on the significance of any of the above, then
I'm sure that many other people would be happy to learn of it. Gee -- maybe
a note to the Sput, or a Transactions article. Or even a list post.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

Scott Bryan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20050125/9f51d4e9/attachment.html>