Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2019,03:51)|
|A part of my current problem was success in (as far as we know) never done before tracksite experiments that control the 100,000 PSI force of freezing water to frack/separate paper-thin trace fossil layers that can (when well weather worn) be lifted by hand and read through like a book. |
The project became months of making almost never ending emergency changes before a catastrophic freeze-up destroys the $350 circulation pump or other vital parts of an experimental system that has constantly had to change in response to what was learned from previous experiments. The physical labor in slippery frostbite conditions was often painful, but worthwhile. It's what I want and right now need to do. Horizontal water flow between the two boreholes and out sides of the two 20x20 foot blocks of bedrock has provided useful information regarding what goes on (to a depth of three feet) below the surface, of at least my chunk of the East Berlin Formation.
To keep 0 C water flowing fast enough to not freeze I'm now running a low friction 3/4 inch re-circulation loop through ~300 gallon "spray pond" basin used for chilling. Upon reaching freezing point the basin is iced over in all but most turbulent areas. A 12 volt valve (outlet has soft plastic 3/8 inch barb that gets pressed into the borehole) then automatically opens, allowing water to fill the horizontal voids. Cold air at the surface of the tracksite then has a chance to wet-freeze a foot or so deep into the bedrock, causing freeze-thaw cycle separation of layers that are normally too dry for internal weathering to occur.
With more science projects going on than I can ever finish before I drop dead from old age: my gripe is from being expected to on my own try to describe what fans out to thousands of pages of information into a few short pages that has to get published for free because I'm on my own for the funding of everything and don't have a few thousand bucks for that too! I'm expected to stop all the work on the never done before things that must be done or research work stops elsewhere, for theory that has already been well enough spelled out to at this point should be considered done and over with.
It's unreasonable to expect more and more from me without anyone even explaining how the hell to even structure a theory like this for a lab research type "paper" format. If I had known then the theory would have been published in a journal by now. In that case my constantly having to defend myself was a major setback, for what others believe is important even though it's the same as was already said and made sense to those who are able to fairly judge cognitive theory like that.
Congratulations, it sounds like you've found something that is worthwhile and a use of your skills.
"Even though I know the theory is very true"
As we've all noted before, the originator of an idea is not the person who gets to decide whether it is a theory, nor to declare that it is "true". Everybody thinks their pet hypothesis is correct, but the scientific method demands that the proposer provide some evidence that is sufficient to convince OTHER PEOPLE that the proposer has something worthwhile. That is best done by testing our hypotheses, although there other forms of supporting evidence, including modelling. However, the modelling has to be shown to be valid and relevant, via ground-truthing. You haven't done been willing to do any of that (and what you do have is incoherent and incomprehensible), so you don't have anything that scientists will ever find worthwhile.
However, again, congratulations on the freeze-fracking, and I hope it brings you satisfaction.