Quote:
Originally Posted by AvaTech
Answer: YES! it always matters how fast you probe
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by AvaTech
Answer: YES! it always matters how fast you probe
What would be tits would be having a high-speed sampling thermocouple integrated into the thing, and have a relative temperature profile (I assume absolute would be difficult to make accurate based on the probe materials) down the profile, then you could also track relative changes and better understand facet development or strengthening.
I'll need to read the TAR paper to see if the addition of high-noise data ends up complicating the forecasting process rather than simplifying it. When I say "high noise," I mean that I anticipate lots of measurement variability in thin snowpacks due to micro terrain features, and I wonder if the increased sample size creates more questions than answers. Kind of like how if you sampled a large population of men for PSA, you would suddenly also have an increase in cancer diagnosis.
Are there good high speed thermocouples? An alternative might be to have several along the length and let it sit for a minute. That wouldn't give you detailed data by layer but it might be more useful overall.
I've been reading into this, and followed this forum, but it seems like identifying the hardness of layers has never been a really difficult problem. Identifying which ones are a hazard, and how much of a hazard seems far more important. I feel like this is an expensive toy that points out the obvious, If you need your probe to tell you slope angle, aspect, and gps coordinates, you have other issues. If you still have to dig a pit, which will show you the exact same thing as this in a minute, plus you get to examine what that layer actually is and what it's doing, why would anyone spend 1,500 on this thing? IF a ton of people adopt it and use it to log information onto a their AvaNet, there could be some use, but most avalanche centers already have a map based page showing observations.
^^^ a pit does indeed tell you the hardness, but only in a subjective form. 2 finger, 3 finger, etc. can't be compared between different people because how hard did each person push to get their two fingers to go in? This provides objective data that can be compared accurately between multiple people, which is highly important IMO for forecasters, guides, etc.
No, it does not identify hazard or tell you anything about the interaction between layers. So digging a pit is still necessary to perform stability tests and analysis. The AvaTech provides objective hardness data. The pit gives you stability data. THEN you can use the AvaTech to find out if the layering/hardness profile that you found in your pit is widespread over a lot of terrain, or confined to that one specific location. If you find a layering structure with the AvaTech that is highly similar to what you found in your pit, you can probably assume that the stability is going to be pretty similar in that location as it was in your pit. If the layering is significantly different, you can probably assume that stability is different too.
I don't think anyone, including AvaTech, think that this will be a replacement for digging a pit, I think it just has the potential to make pit data a lot more useful.
How many people commenting in this thread have actually learned SWAG observation protocols? This is not a tool for anyone who doesn't already know SWAG, in my opinion!
It certainly can be compared between people; it just has bigger error bars. Every measurement method has variability between testers. It may be small and negligible, but it exists. Automation will reduce the variability and decrease the time; but unless you are a dipshit middle manager it doesn't make something foolproof, really. Looking at this the bigger advantage would be time - quicker measurements = more measurements.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
Totally agree on both counts. Significantly decreases variability would have been a better way for me to put it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Conway
http://mtnweekly.com/reviews/avatech-sp1-review
I like this a lot, especially the idea of collecting data with the SkiTracks program at Montana State - http://www.montana.edu/wwwes/facilit...in=snowscience
This is win win for our community, more people are going out these days and we (yes maggots) need to help keep everyone safe
bump. this all looks updated.... http://avatech.com/
yes/no? new thoughts?
Oh look, it's only $1,500.