On Feb 10, 2008 10:54 AM, SCOTT BRYAN <tsbryan_380 at msn.com> wrote: > > Well now -- My photos are all slides so I have nothing to attach here -- > but unless there have been some pretty dramatic changes in the last few > years (well, OK, 30 years, so possible) including considerable excavation of > the ground AND significant deposition of sinter, I cannot believe the #14 is > radiator. Maybe I just haven't paid attention recently, and I guess I have > to try to look this summer. > I started to write a message agreeing with Scott that that sure doesn't look like Radiator, when I remembered that I had gone digital photo crazy last summer, and, among other areas, I took a whole bunch of photos of the features near Daisy. I decided to try to find one of the Radiator area. Turns out I didn't take one, but I _did_ find a couple that resolved the identity of #14 to my satisfaction. Radiator is actually a good distance off to the right from the photo. The erupting feature is sometimes mistaken for Radiator, but is actually unnamed, as far as I know. The hole into which it is draining, however, _is_ named, and even used to have a sign identifying it (can't remember whether it still did last summer). Also, if it was behaving as I'm used to, Daisy had just erupted when #14 was taken. So... name that empty hole? David Schwarz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20080210/79eb833b/attachment.html>