[matty]

http://www.ouramazin...ath-amazon.html

This report seems to be about the most responsible, since many others love to jump to 'hundreds of times wider,' when it seems even the 'discoverer' didn't want to rush to conclusions until a projected 2014 date. But it was all over the news and cool so I thought I'd bring it in.

[toastywombel]

matty, on 13 November 2011 - 12:35 AM, said:

http://www.ouramazin...ath-amazon.html

This report seems to be about the most responsible, since many others love to jump to 'hundreds of times wider,' when it seems even the 'discoverer' didn't want to rush to conclusions until a projected 2014 date. But it was all over the news and cool so I thought I'd bring it in.

This is so interesting. It is a whole new ecosystem to explore. I can only imagine that there are many undiscovered species that may possibly exist in such underground water sources.

[michel123456]

It looks more like an aquifer than a river. Many aquifer have a flow.

[matty]

toastywombel, on 22 November 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

This is so interesting. It is a whole new ecosystem to explore. I can only imagine that there are many undiscovered species that may possibly exist in such underground water sources.

I know, I was super excited about this one, I'll be following it!!!

michel123456, on 22 November 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

It looks more like an aquifer than a river. Many aquifer have a flow.

Aquifer, what's that?lol. But if you mean to reference the depth--wasn't it said they thought it quite shallow by comparison?--then, sure, little less exciting but still!--Makes me wonder what else might be going on underneath our feet. I love news like this!

Now that you mention it, I think somewhere in the collection of other bits of coverage they did suggest it may be an aquifer, rings a bell.

This post has been edited by matty: 24 November 2011 - 08:24 AM

[michel123456]

You know there is a wrong impression when you look at a river, you believe that the river is only what you see. Most of the times the river is much wider and profound, like in the following sketch showing a section of a river.



There is an underground "river" that extends far from the edges and far beneath, depending on the amount of water and of the kind of soil. If you build a house at point B, the foundations will disturb the flow. If you build many houses, or if you build a bridge for example with some pillars, all these will be obstacles to the underground flow (making a kind of dam) and you may experience floodings.
The underground "river" has a flow, like the river you look at, but much slower because it goes through the soil.

In this case (the OP), it looks like the 2nd river is far beneath the amazon, it looks more to a groundwater aquifer than anything else. Aquifers are not necesseraly standing still, they may flow like a river, but very slowly. And in this case, they don't have a level surface but a curved one.

This post has been edited by michel123456: 24 November 2011 - 03:59 PM

[matty]

The sketchy-thing, actually is one of the things I like most about this forum.

Yes, I'm a bit of a river person, canoed and/or kayaked most of my life now and the river certainly is deceiving, including flow/current. Not necessarily so, what's readily seen to the naked eye but that's a big part of the draw in its magnificence. You're right, this is very much also good reason to use caution, it's quite on the side of dangerous as it is beautiful. Like you're saying, there is all this to think of and then deeper yet is the issue of the soil, for example. It may appear solid where you see bottom but that's often, in actuality, a formiddable layer of muck and silt three or four feet thick where I come from. Very key point if you tip either a canoe or kayak.

We have a lot of ecological law of the land here, not mentioning building code where I'm at, many river-specific enforced guidelines protecting both, I've wondered in the past why these are used so much as a template in other, disaster-plagued areas...

Yeah, this 'river' flows faar beneath the Amazon, it was that and the fact it ran parallel that piqued my interest, so cool, beyond words, I was surprised it didn't get more coverage.

This post has been edited by matty: 24 November 2011 - 07:35 PM

[Moontanman]

toastywombel, on 22 November 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

This is so interesting. It is a whole new ecosystem to explore. I can only imagine that there are many undiscovered species that may possibly exist in such underground water sources.

Any new species would probably be microscopic, such a "river" would actually be flowing through sand gravel and porous rocks, it would not be a cave like channel beneath the surface river. There are other such "rivers" that flow underground that have little or no association with surface rivers. This does not mean there are no under ground channels or areas where water flows through the ground but for the most part these water flows go slowly through porous materials not an open cave like channel...

[Appolinaria]

Moontanman, on 24 November 2011 - 11:15 PM, said:

Any new species would probably be microscopic, such a "river" would actually be flowing through sand gravel and porous rocks, it would not be a cave like channel beneath the surface river. There are other such "rivers" that flow underground that have little or no association with surface rivers. This does not mean there are no under ground channels or areas where water flows through the ground but for the most part these water flows go slowly through porous materials not an open cave like channel...

Yeah, and at 13,000 ft. below the surface, wouldn't temperatures be slightly beyond the boiling point of water? We'd probably only find thermophiles, or whatever they're called. No Chupacabras... Boring.

[michel123456]

Appolinaria, on 24 November 2011 - 11:57 PM, said:

Yeah, and at 13,000 ft. below the surface,

I wonder when people will stop using that kind of units?

[Moontanman]

michel123456, on 25 November 2011 - 07:38 AM, said:

I wonder when people will stop using that kind of units?

In the USA probably never...

[Appolinaria]

I don't get it.

[michel123456]

Appolinaria, on 25 November 2011 - 07:41 AM, said:

I don't get it.

If this is an international science forum, members should use the International System of Unit (SI).

[Moontanman]

Appolinaria, on 24 November 2011 - 11:57 PM, said:

Yeah, and at 13,000 ft. below the surface, wouldn't temperatures be slightly beyond the boiling point of water? We'd probably only find thermophiles, or whatever they're called. No Chupacabras... Boring.

I'd think you'd have to go a bit deeper than 4000 meters in most places to get 100c temps but I wonder if there is an error about the depth and maybe an extra few zeros were added to the miles measurement?? I messed up. 4000 meters would be 2.4 miles.... I can't even get my measurements right.... but 4000 meters still seems quite deep....

This post has been edited by Moontanman: 25 November 2011 - 07:56 AM

[Appolinaria]

michel123456, on 25 November 2011 - 07:48 AM, said:

If this is an international science forum, members should use the International System of Unit (SI).

I don't see anything in the rules about using SI, but I do see a rule about the usage of acronyms, Mr. IIRC.

Moontanman, on 25 November 2011 - 07:50 AM, said:

I'd think you'd have to go a bit deeper than 4000 meters in most places to get 100c temps but I wonder if there is an error about the depth and maybe an extra few zeros were added to the miles measurement?? I messed up. 4000 meters would be 2.4 miles.... I can't even get my measurements right.... but 4000 meters still seems quite deep....

I disagree. I think 4000 meters would bring you to past boiling temp.

"Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is 25–30°C per km of depth in most of the world."


http://en.wikipedia....hermal_gradient

[michel123456]

The temperatures at large depth are not well known. The expected theoretical values do not seem to coincide with actual measurements because very few deep holes have been made so far.
The world record of depth is the Kola superdeep borehole at 12,262 metres (40,230 ft).

Quote

The initial target depth was set at 15,000 m (49,000 ft). On 6 June 1979, the world depth record held by the Bertha Rogers hole in Washita County, Oklahoma, at 9,583 m (31,440 ft)[3] was broken. In 1983, the drill passed 12,000 m (39,000 ft), and drilling was stopped for about a year to celebrate the event.[4] This idle period may have contributed to a break-down on 27 September 1984: after drilling to 12,066 m (39,587 ft), a 5,000 m (16,000 ft) section of the drill string twisted off and was left in the hole. Drilling was later restarted from 7,000 m (23,000 ft).[4] The hole reached 12,262 m (40,230 ft) in 1989. In that year the hole depth was expected to reach 13,500 m (44,300 ft) by the end of 1990 and 15,000 m (49,000 ft) by 1993.[5][6] However, due to higher than expected temperatures at this depth and location, 180 °C (356 °F) instead of expected 100 °C (212 °F), drilling deeper was deemed unfeasible and the drilling was stopped in 1992.[4] With the expected further increase in temperature with increasing depth, drilling to 15,000 m (49,000 ft) would have meant working at a projected 300 °C (570 °F), at which the drill bit would no longer work.

emphasis mine.

Appolinaria, on 25 November 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

I don't see anything in the rules about using SI, but I do see a rule about the usage of acronyms, Mr. IIRC.

Fair enough.

This post has been edited by michel123456: 25 November 2011 - 08:21 AM

[matty]

Appolinaria, on 25 November 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

I don't see anything in the rules about using SI, but I do see a rule about the usage of acronyms, Mr. IIRC.



I disagree. I think 4000 meters would bring you to past boiling temp.

"Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is 25–30°C per km of depth in most of the world."


http://en.wikipedia....hermal_gradient

Lol, waitaminute, I gotta catch up, what are they talking about--Units--?? --Feet?!lol

Oh, meters?--hopefully never, pretty standard unit and easy to visualize.

[Moontanman]

Appolinaria, on 25 November 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

I don't see anything in the rules about using SI, but I do see a rule about the usage of acronyms, Mr. IIRC.



I disagree. I think 4000 meters would bring you to past boiling temp.

"Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is 25–30°C per km of depth in most of the world."


http://en.wikipedia....hermal_gradient

You are correct Appolinaria but I still question the actual depth, I bet 4000 meters is a typo of sorts...

[lahan]

It is great. But, I have a dought, how can we find a underground river or aquifers?

[slavenenco]

Does anyone know where other examples like this could be found geographically speaking

[Arete]

slavenenco, on 10 March 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Does anyone know where other examples like this could be found geographically speaking

The great artesian basin?

http://en.wikipedia...._Artesian_Basin

This post has been edited by Arete: 10 March 2012 - 04:23 PM