<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#000080><SPAN class=764501616-23082004>Isn't the concept of geyser gazing to gather and disseminate data in order to promote greater understanding?  So, why bicker over slightly dissimilar events?  Shouldn't we be looking for the greatest number of commonalities?  Nevertheless, thanks for sharing the info.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#000080><SPAN class=764501616-23082004></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face="Brush Script MT" color=#000080 size=6>Udo Freund</FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <P> <DIV></DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> geysers-bounces@wwc.edu [mailto:geysers-bounces@wwc.edu] <B>On Behalf Of </B>TSBryan@aol.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, August 22, 2004 3:39 PM<BR><B>To:</B> geysers@wwc.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Geysers] Regarding Fan and Mortar<BR><BR></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV>I shall let readers determine what is more important, subtle detail or general facts, but I feel that I must be allowed to respond to the comments made by Lynn Stephens to my report about Saturday's Fan and Mortar eruption. In any case, Lynn argues that that Fan and Mortar eruption was not a "carbon copy" of the eruption of Thursday, August 19, citing "...some, at least subtle, differences between the two starts."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, picky is as picky does. Somebody who evidently saw both eruptions -- perhaps it was Barry Leedy, but I'm not certain of that -- made a statement that I at least interpreted as "carbon copy." Maybe it was something akin to "essentially identical." Whatever, the carbon copy process (for those who don't remember it !) never did produce exact replicas of an original -- there were always a few smudges and such. In dealing with these eruptions of F&M, I certainly did not mean that there were no differences between them. However, too, I believe the differences to have been so slight as to make the posted comments inane.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One important fact, for example, is that Angle Vent did go into the loud steam phase during the lock. It was long-lasting during the preliminary activity to both eruptions. That it briefly (evidently, very brief) went back into water phase on Thursday and did not do so on Saturday seems awfully unimportant to me. The fact is that the two steam phases were __ highly similar __.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Main Vent evidently required a few more and _maybe_ somewhat stronger surges to trigger the Thursday eruption than it did on Saturday. Wheee. Both eruptions were in fact triggered by Main Vent surging and, "somebody" did indeed orally state the (paraphrased equivalent, no doubt): "That's what it did on Thursday." Who, really, cares exactly how many surges there were? The trigger was __  highly similar __.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Frying Pan Vent on Thursday was _maybe_ (quote I ... may have missed it. unquote) not on before the surges on Thursday. On Saturday, it came on less than a minute before the surges, and then only weakly so. In fact, it might have been on on Thursday and in any case the two episodes were __  highly similar  __.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Both eruptions happened at the end of Fan Vent locks, one of more than 10 minutes and one more than 11 minutes. Both near or at record-setting. __  Highly similar  __.</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even within this season, people (including Lynn) have begun packing up their things to leave the area if an eruption had not started within 25 minutes of a River Vent start. Here, we have both 26 minutes and 33 minutes and -- gee -- eruptions happened. Both historically overly-long. __  Highly similar  __.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In the above time frame, supposedly the only way that F&M could possibly start to erupt was via Upper Mortar surging. But here, or so I was told, on Thursday (I was told) and on Saturday (as I observed myself) there was no-zero-zip action in Mortar, Upper or Lower, during Fan's lock. Mortar had, for all intents beyond being part of the system, nothing to do with the start of F&M on either date. __ Highly similar __.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lynn cites the difference between 26 minutes (Thursday) and 33 minutes (Saturday) from River Vent on to eruption time as being a quantifiable 25% difference. OK. I am so often glad that I am not a mathematician, nor a statistician. Bearing in mind that here we are dealing only with the minutes and not the seconds, this difference between 25% and the actual 26.92307% is 7.69228%, a value I've repeatedly been told would be highly significant. And so........oh, shoot, for get it........</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The important point is that Fan and Mortar have had two consecutive eruptions that occurred during event cycles that involved __ highly similar __ events. That's what matters. No doubt they'll be different next time, since "they are geysers."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry if I got a bit hot, but gee whiz...... how about if next year we all calculate Old Faithful's average interval to the 1/1000 second -- that's what Hutchinson did 30 years ago, and surely we're more accurate today!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scott Bryan</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>