Decay examples - Revision history

Admin: Set PropertyValue: Progress =

2015-10-22T10:35:24Z

Set PropertyValue: Progress =

Admin: Set PropertyValue: Progress = 10

2015-10-22T10:35:16Z

Set PropertyValue: Progress = 10

Admin at 11:04, 9 May 2015

2015-05-09T11:04:44Z

Admin at 11:04, 9 May 2015

2015-05-09T11:04:04Z

Admin at 11:02, 9 May 2015

2015-05-09T11:02:43Z

Admin at 11:01, 9 May 2015

2015-05-09T11:01:11Z

Admin at 11:00, 9 May 2015

2015-05-09T11:00:30Z

Admin at 10:59, 9 May 2015

2015-05-09T10:59:37Z

Thomas at 19:32, 13 April 2015

2015-04-13T19:32:30Z

Thomas at 19:29, 13 April 2015

2015-04-13T19:29:14Z

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 <!-- Do NOT Edit below this Line -->
 {{#set:
 	Type=Low}}

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 <!-- Add any wiki Text above this Line -->
 <!-- Do NOT Edit below this Line -->
-{{#set:|
+{{#set:
 	Type=Low}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Category:Task]]
-[[File:Trout.png|200px]]
+[[File:Trout.png|500px]]
 Here are some of Tom's results for an idealized catchment.  The turnover rate for the catchment is estimated by dividing the groundwater velocity by a catchment length scale.  For Groundwater velocity, I used Darcy's velocity (specific discharge) divided by porosity (assumed 0.35).  Darcy's velocity was estimated using the catchment hydraulic conductivity (assuming it is the same throughout the catchment and with depth---huge assumption), and using the land slope as the groundwater hydraulic gradient (big assumption, well data would be much better).  For the length scale, I used 1/2 x the sqrt(catchment area), which is rough--we can do better with shapefiles and some GIS work.   Given all that, here are some plots for decay rates of 0.0001 d^-1, 0.0005, and 0.001, for Big Muskelunge and Sparkling Lakes--I just wanted to try some with a significant difference in catchment size.
-[[File:TH_1st_catchment_calcs.png|200px]]
+[[File:TH_1st_catchment_calcs.png|500px]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Category:Task]]
-[[File:Trout.png|thumb]]
+[[File:Trout.png|200px]]
 Here are some of Tom's results for an idealized catchment.  The turnover rate for the catchment is estimated by dividing the groundwater velocity by a catchment length scale.  For Groundwater velocity, I used Darcy's velocity (specific discharge) divided by porosity (assumed 0.35).  Darcy's velocity was estimated using the catchment hydraulic conductivity (assuming it is the same throughout the catchment and with depth---huge assumption), and using the land slope as the groundwater hydraulic gradient (big assumption, well data would be much better).  For the length scale, I used 1/2 x the sqrt(catchment area), which is rough--we can do better with shapefiles and some GIS work.   Given all that, here are some plots for decay rates of 0.0001 d^-1, 0.0005, and 0.001, for Big Muskelunge and Sparkling Lakes--I just wanted to try some with a significant difference in catchment size.
-[[File:TH_1st_catchment_calcs.png|thumb]]
+[[File:TH_1st_catchment_calcs.png|200px]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Category:Task]]
-[[File:Trout.png]]
+[[File:Trout.png|thumb]]
 Here are some of Tom's results for an idealized catchment.  The turnover rate for the catchment is estimated by dividing the groundwater velocity by a catchment length scale.  For Groundwater velocity, I used Darcy's velocity (specific discharge) divided by porosity (assumed 0.35).  Darcy's velocity was estimated using the catchment hydraulic conductivity (assuming it is the same throughout the catchment and with depth---huge assumption), and using the land slope as the groundwater hydraulic gradient (big assumption, well data would be much better).  For the length scale, I used 1/2 x the sqrt(catchment area), which is rough--we can do better with shapefiles and some GIS work.   Given all that, here are some plots for decay rates of 0.0001 d^-1, 0.0005, and 0.001, for Big Muskelunge and Sparkling Lakes--I just wanted to try some with a significant difference in catchment size.
-[[File:TH_1st_catchment_calcs.png]]
+[[File:TH_1st_catchment_calcs.png|thumb]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:32, 13 April 2015
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Here are some of Tom's results for an idealized catchment. The turnover rate for the catchment is estimated by dividing the groundwater velocity by a catchment length scale. For Groundwater velocity, I used Darcy's velocity (specific discharge) divided by porosity (assumed 0.35). Darcy's velocity was estimated using the catchment hydraulic conductivity (assuming it is the same throughout the catchment and with depth---huge assumption), and using the land slope as the groundwater hydraulic gradient (big assumption, well data would be much better). For the length scale, I used 1/2 x the sqrt(catchment area), which is rough--we can do better with shapefiles and some GIS work. Given all that, here are some plots for decay rates of 0.0001 d^-1, 0.0005, and 0.001, for Big Muskelunge and Sparkling Lakes--I just wanted to try some with a significant difference in catchment size.		Here are some of Tom's results for an idealized catchment. The turnover rate for the catchment is estimated by dividing the groundwater velocity by a catchment length scale. For Groundwater velocity, I used Darcy's velocity (specific discharge) divided by porosity (assumed 0.35). Darcy's velocity was estimated using the catchment hydraulic conductivity (assuming it is the same throughout the catchment and with depth---huge assumption), and using the land slope as the groundwater hydraulic gradient (big assumption, well data would be much better). For the length scale, I used 1/2 x the sqrt(catchment area), which is rough--we can do better with shapefiles and some GIS work. Given all that, here are some plots for decay rates of 0.0001 d^-1, 0.0005, and 0.001, for Big Muskelunge and Sparkling Lakes--I just wanted to try some with a significant difference in catchment size.
		+
		+	[[File:TH_1st_catchment_calcs.pdf]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 13 April 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:

	[[File:Trout.pdf]]		[[File:Trout.pdf]]
		+
		+	Here are some of Tom's results for an idealized catchment. The turnover rate for the catchment is estimated by dividing the groundwater velocity by a catchment length scale. For Groundwater velocity, I used Darcy's velocity (specific discharge) divided by porosity (assumed 0.35). Darcy's velocity was estimated using the catchment hydraulic conductivity (assuming it is the same throughout the catchment and with depth---huge assumption), and using the land slope as the groundwater hydraulic gradient (big assumption, well data would be much better). For the length scale, I used 1/2 x the sqrt(catchment area), which is rough--we can do better with shapefiles and some GIS work. Given all that, here are some plots for decay rates of 0.0001 d^-1, 0.0005, and 0.001, for Big Muskelunge and Sparkling Lakes--I just wanted to try some with a significant difference in catchment size.
		+

	<!-- Add any wiki Text above this Line -->		<!-- Add any wiki Text above this Line -->