<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2> <DIV>The following is in response to some aspects of a _Geothermics_ article that was mentioned here previously. Many thanks to Randy Marrett (U Texas) for sending the complete article to me. And although I still haven't read it really thoroughly, I make the following comments now (since Betty and I will be off tomorrow for five days of play in Death Valley).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is the article that discusses eruptions occurring due to rising Taylor bubbles; that is, bubbles that occupy the entire diameter of a plumbing tube, so that their rising toward the surface has no option but to live the entire water column ahead of them = eruption. With this, boiling within a subsurface chamber is not required. The model in this article is the Wilson Street Well, at Te Aroha, New Zealand.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>OK, I've long accepted that this -- eruptions that originate within a straight tube -- can happen. I've seen, for example, intermittent eruptions by a couple of wells at Steamboat Hot Springs, Nevada, and the "perpetual" well eruptions at Beowawe. However:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1. It seems obvious to me that a simple conduit cannot account for most natural geyser systems, where subsurface connections clearly exist in what must be a complex network of tubes/channels.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2. I find it impossible to rectify extended steam phase action, such as at Castle or Giantess, with the lack of some sort of voluminous chamber.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3. I suppose those with strong physics background can find ways, but what about bi-modal intervals (Old Faithful, Riverside, maybe Fountain) that clearly are not a matter of simple variation within a range.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4. And the volume. Given the known constraints of the real, natural setting in Yellowstone (at least), where it is believed that the greatest depth of individual plumbing systems is not more than 400 feet, it again seems obvious to me that the simple no-chamber model cannot account for the huge volumes ejected by the largest of geysers (Giant, Steamboat).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I conclude that some natural geysers might well erupt from within "straight" tube plumbing systems where there is little or no chamber-like storage volume. But I think that such a case would be unusual and not applicable as a general model.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I will end by pointing out that I think there is a significant difference between "geyser" and "geysering." the definition of "geyser," as devised by White and repeated with little or no modification worldwide, demands intermittent boiling within a natural plumbing system. That is not the case in drilled wells (hor or cold), nuclear reactors, or rocket-engine fuel systems (as cited in the article). In those systems, there might be some sort of eruptive action, e.g. "geysering," but they are NOT geysers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scott Bryan</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>P.S. This article (Geothermics 34 (2005) 389-410) is the one that includes in its references the Transactions VII article about Geysir by Gudmundur Palamson and the Transactions IX article about cold water geysers by Alan Glennon and Rhonda Pfaff</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>