Acme

Except that it is not a depression. Go to Imatfaal's post #2, follow his directions, and see this is a hill. Result attached. (Nice tip Imatfaal!)

My bad; I meant to say the coefficients are all 1. Variables -by definition- can vary in their values. Constants -by definition- do not vary in their value. One cannot 'just pretend variables as constants'. Oh... but you're loop holing it, so it makes perfect sense.

That equation does have constants; they are all 1.

10-4. You can't be any more confused than I. I like big rocks and I can not lie...

Mmmm...Wiki doesn't have a page on eolian ripples, but USGS does and it says this is a wind driven phenomenon. > Eolian Processes However, the debris flow mentioned is more plausible. Still, the immediate underlying material is not composed of debris likely to accompany the boulder according to the survey map notes: "Lake deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Unconsolidated black to gray silt, mud, and organic debris underlying wide flat valley; grade into fine-grained alluvium (Qa) and peat deposits (Qp); overlie gravel probably deposited by cataclysmic floods (Qfg) and hyaloclastic sedimentary rocks. The (Qfg) description is: "Gravel facies -- Unconsolidated bouldery pebble to cobble gravel ... Underlies creek valley, part of a large bar formed to the south. Poorly sorted; clast-supported; contains well-rounded to subangular clasts as large as 2.5 m diameter; some open-work gravel, but most contains matrix of basaltic to arkosic sand. Excavations reveal foreset bedding with west to northwest dips as great as 25°. Clast population dominated by Columbia River Basalt Group and Pliocene or younger basalts from the Cascade Range; commonly includes Tertiary volcanic rocks, pre-Tertiary granitic and metamorphic rocks, and quartzite. Well logs indicate that gravel grades into mixed sand and gravel. Soooo, if the boulder were the tip of an iceberg so to speak, there may me 15ft more of it below the surface that is surrounded by the sedimentary lake deposits but sitting more-or-less on top of cataclysmic flood or debris flow material that delivered it. ? A monolith wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Love the interest! So it takes a larger flow of water to move a boulder than a pebble, so when a flow sufficient to be moving a boulder slows below the threshold to move the boulder, the boulder will drop to the bottom of the channel, while pebbles will continue to be moved along. When the flow drops below the pebble threshold, the pebbles drop out while sand would keep flowing. Then sand drops out with more slowing, then silt particles still flow until water slows to stop. I think I linked to this article earlier, but it gives a more rigorous explanation so worth reposting. >> Graded bedding

First, thanks for having a look at this. So on the Missoula flood idea, see again what I quoted from a USGS geological survey map of the area where the boulder sits. I have bolded the pertinent part: What I am not understanding is if the boulder is a Missoula flood artifact, how is it sitting atop finer Missoula flood material since larger material would drop out first? Is my speculating on granular convection a non-starter? Roger that. As I responded to Arc, the boulder is too large to have fallen where it is as a bomb from either St. Helens or Adams, and could not have washed where it is from St. Helens. This leaves Adams as a source, but when a water flow sufficient to carry so large a boulder -the valley carries a creek at present- slows, the boulder should drop out first and the finer material should fall out later and bury it. Oui/no? By 'sharp' I presume you mean abrupt. If so, the boundaries are quite sharp and there does not appear to be any grading between phenocrysts and groundmass. I can add that I have no idea how much boulder is below the surface. While chipping a small piece was OK, any digging would require a formal permit application and approval. As the preserve is principally founded on biota and I am not suitably qualified to conduct geological research, I doubt such activity is in the cards simply to satisfy my idle curiosity. D'oh! Thanks for the input.

So you perpetuate the meme. Inappropriate. Leave the kid alone.

Yes, I collected a sample. It is pictured in the second 2 photos of my original post. I regularly report all my findings to state officials and seek their direction for dispensation of anything I collect. (My primary activity on the site is botanical in nature.) I don't think this is tephra as it is quite hard and dense. The apparent siliceous crystals do not appear to be cemented fragments as in a breccia, rather formed in situ during cooling as in andesite. The groundmass appears basaltic to me. Here, I am unsure of the minerals' ID. I no longer have a mineral handbook, but I do have a scratch plate and may have a go at getting some streak info. Ophiolite! You got your ears on? :-D Anyway, using an online calculator and using a volume of 728 ft3 (7'x8'x13') & presuming it is andesite as I surmised, the boulder would weigh approximately 125,000 lbs. (62 tons) and so by your own source could not have landed in its present location as a bomb from St. Helens which is ~50 miles(30km) north. Neither could the boulder have washed from St. Helens as the prairie drainage comes from the east and drainage south off of St. Helens goes into the Lewis R. drainage thence west to the Columbia. I would entertain the notion that the boulder's source was Mt. Adams which is ~ 60 miles NW, but again not as a bomb. (Eruptive history of Mt. Adams) The mystery of the boulder's mineralogy and source aside, I am mostly curious about how it came to be sitting on top of relatively young sediment. I have yet to check on the age of the nearby man-made lake, but as I say it is not very deep and from an engineering standpoint I would think workers would break it up if encountered rather than moving the whole shebang.

Presumably if not, she will be prosecuted. But but...you said bitching and complaining won't get us anywhere. Hey I know! Canada should build a wall on the northern border and get donny john to pay for it.

LOL Peaceful protest is a constitutionally guaranteed right. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." We got grievances with little Donny and we fully intend to assemble and petition for redress. That's not only for ourselves, but you Canookians as well.

Well, there are Missoula flood deposit there, but they underlie the prairie. (see geologic study quote in post #1) Those flood rocks in the boulder area are at most a couple feet in diameter and rounded. As the water spread and slowed in this area, the heavier stuff dropped out first, so if this boulder was from those floods it should be buried it seems to me. And 13,000 years of sediments washing down the valley since should have buried it too. ? There is a nearby manmade lake that they may have dug the boulder from, but it's not very deep. I'll have to go see if someone there knows any history on it.

Dude! I'm not questioning voter turnout in general, it's trump's -and now your- assertion that those in the womens' march didn't vote that I'm questioning. "Hey everybody, grab a bucket, we're going up to Jerry's. It's a pee party!"

So trumpian a response. The issue here is your parroting trump's tweetment 'Why didn't these people vote?'. Never mind if there is any evidence of the protesters' voting records or that anyone bothered to even check. Just say whatever contrary crap comes to mind. Good grief! The morning political shows were a circus as trumpian surrogates got pissy when asked by journalists why crowd size was so important to little hand Donny that he was pissy. To quote Jerry Seinfeld, 'why don't we just have a big pee party!?' LOL

No, they got out electoral colleged. As Ten oz pointed out, trump was outvoted. This is not contesting he won the election. What I am contesting is your 'if they did vote' and 'All these women ( led by privileged celebrities who are used to getting their own way ) who marched in protest yesterday should, maybe, have gotten off their asses and voted.' Millions of women -and men- protested; how many were not celebrities?

Hi Studiot. Erhm, Canada to Portland Oregon, thence a jog and wiggle to Pacifica Oceana. The exact location is on a preserve so I'm not inclined to give it as entry is restricted. (Yes, I have permission. ) However, the area is in Washington state more-or-less across the Columbia from Portland. I do not, other than likely the Cascade mountain range. My geology chemistry is rather rusty, and it wasn't all that shiny when I was studying. I'm hoping Ophiolite happens by and shares his wisdom. I do have something of an hypothesis, but I didn't give it as I didn't recall the terms. Anyway, I went looking and that terminology would be granular convection. Even so, this is an awful big rock and I'm not confident such convection could lift something this big. Granular Convection and Size Separation (Inverse)Graded bedding

Erhm... how do you know they didn't vote? Oh that's right; Donny said so.

So there is this boulder about 7 ft. tall, 8 ft. wide, and 13 ft. long sitting in a depression of a wet prairie remnant 5 miles from the Columbia River. The constituent rock is porphyritic and I'm thinking andesite. 1/2 mile NE of the boulder is a cinder cone dated at 575+-7KA and classified by geological study as "Olivine phyric basaltic andesite erupted from cinder cone... Light-gray, microvesicular, generally platy lava flow, consists of olivine phenocrysts (2-4 percent; 0.5 to 3 mm across; contains inclusions of chromian spinel; rims variably replaced by iddingsite) in a fine-grained trachytic groundmass of plagioclase, clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene, and Fe-Ti oxide; locally contains quartzite pebbles and small, dark, fine-grained clots that may be sedimentary xenoliths, both presumably derived from underlying gravels." (I have looked at samples of rock from the cinder cone stump and they do not resemble the boulder rock) The material underlying the boulder is described as "Lake deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Unconsolidated black to gray silt, mud, and organic debris underlying wide flat valley; grade into fine-grained alluvium (Qa) and peat deposits (Qp); overlie gravel probably deposited by cataclysmic floods (Qfg) and hyaloclastic sedimentary rocks (Ttfh); lower part may include Missoula-flood slack-water deposits (Qfs). Sparse well logs indicate deposit is less than 5 m thick." I am mystified as to how such a large and old boulder is sitting atop such fine, deep, and young sediments. ?

Sewer gas can be hazardous. Sewer gas I suspect, but have no evidence, that insurance companies may be responsible for promoting bans on bottle traps. The key complaint from my reading is that bottle traps are not self-scouring and so more prone to failure than P-traps which are self-scouring. Whether the risk is health or property damage related, less risk is better risk from an insurer's point of view. My pleasure.

I am not aware of any. I don't think animals have the reasoning ability to associate a track with any animal, let alone distinguish prey animals.

State of Minnesota for example. Illegal Plumbing Products in Minnesota

And this is the way I see it as well. Though you must admit that Dr. Hawkings is rather up a tree seeing his life's work go up in smoke with the discovery of particles that do not fit his standard models. Boy, you had to go back a ways to find that quote. As the old saying goes, if you see a theoretical physicist in a wheel chair up a tree, you know he didn't get there by himself.

Hi. Human sense of smell is nowhere as keen as that of most predators. Smell - Human Vs. Animal Smell Olfaction @ Wiki

No doubt the clog has been fixed, but I think an illustration of a P-trap will clarify J.C.MacSwell's explanation for seeing water in the lower pipe. Whether the clog is in, or downstream of, the P-trap is a matter of plumbing, whereas why a P-trap works is a matter of physics. Purposeful Plumbing: What is a P-trap? Pascal's Law

Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies [A Review]