Home > Trip Reports > Nov 14, 2010, Chinook Pass

Nov 14, 2010, Chinook Pass

11/14/10
WA Cascades West Slopes South (Mt Rainier)
5140
12
Posted by JibberD on 11/14/10 10:09am
Friday's powder warmed to Sunday's chowder. Thick and grabby turns were had, sun came and went. Good times as always.

In Dr. Jarvis' lab:


Are the test results in professors J?
What observations were you able to make from the test pit?

author=shaman link=topic=17937.msg75926#msg75926 date=1289787399">
What observations were you able to make from the test pit?

See 2010-11-14 Report HERE (click on :Search Reports" button at the bottom).

Thanks for the observations.

Rank Speculation: High test scores probably a result of relatively small loads on those layers.

RonJ - Some analysis or comments?

Looks like the snowpack is cooking up nicely!

author=CookieMonster link=topic=17937.msg75954#msg75954 date=1289851282]
...Rank Speculation: High test scores probably a result of relatively small loads on those layers.
RonJ - Some analysis or comments?...


Me thinks I'm a tad reluctant to respond to this for a couple of reasons, Cookie...
1. I fear you may just be trolling me a bit, and
2. Even if you're not, I doubt I'm smart enough to come up with a intelligent response.  No offense meant, but I'm not even sure I understand your comment.

So when you are referring to "small loads" are you referring to the relatively (for us) thin snowpack?
I'm not much of a snow scientist (I was a simple mechanic back in another lifetime). I just look for and try to keep on top of (no pun intended) simple mechanical indications of the snowpack makeup and stratification.

So, to me, when doing strength tests on a pretty much isolated standard sized column I'm really just looking for some indication of the strength of bonding between the various (already) identified layers and how cleanly they separate when they fail. I guess as I think more about your comment, 4 ft of column over a specific weak layer may very well cause a lower test score than one ft of column over the same weak layer (assuming, of course, there is some slope angle involved).  But there are probably other factors to consider as well (such as slab cohesiveness/density/bridging effect, etc.) with such a comparison, again getting out of my league. In this case the bond between the layers was pleasingly strong, even with the thin snow pack. Identifying layers and the strength of bonding between them, for the day’s safety, as well as for future reference was my main objective in digging.

Here's hoping I didn't dig up a bigger can of worms than I intended :)



author=ron j link=topic=17937.msg75962#msg75962 date=1289861901]
Here's hoping I didn't dig up a bigger can of worms than I intended :)


Well by the depth of the snowpit you should not be surprised to have gotten a can of worms!  :D

It's always good to get back in the swing of things. Let's call it a look-see. It never hurts to get a pulse for the snowpack no matter what the case is.
Many years ago the leading avalanche forecasters did nothing more than just get out in the snow and get the feel of it. I know because I skied with many of them. Thankfully now days there is so much processed data that a pretty reasonable postulate of the snowpack can be made from a desk getting data from weather, temps field reports.

IMHO-Too much scientific stuff bores the hell out of me. So I'm not to into stagnation by over analyzation. Snowpack can be discussed into infinitum, but the actual means to an end is: If I tilt the current snow pack up is it going to slide? If I find a weak layer and if I put weight on it what will it take (how much weight) for it to slide if I expose myself. What escape routes do I have when I submit to testing by ski cuts. If it is to dicey looking from a test pit there is no need for a ski cut.

Thanks for the pictures and the post, Jibber, and the ride! Fun day.

Hey Ron,

The question was genuine. Your original post contains high quality obs, and I was just asking for some speculation I suppose, maybe on what you think would happen, general thoughts. Discussion, that sort of thing.

( If you were a mechanic, then I expect you would certainly have a great set of problem solving skills that would be an asset to these types of discussions. I'm a software developer, so I'm a mechanic too. I just work on virtual machines instead of physical ones. )

Anyway, this is exactly right:

author=
author=ron j link=topic=17937.msg75962#msg75962 date=1289861901]
So, to me, when doing strength tests on a pretty much isolated standard sized column I'm really just looking for some indication of the strength of bonding between the various (already) identified layers and how cleanly they separate when they fail. I guess as I think more about your comment, 4 ft of column over a specific weak layer may very well cause a lower test score than one ft of column over the same weak layer (assuming, of course, there is some slope angle involved).  But there are probably other factors to consider as well (such as slab cohesiveness/density/bridging effect, etc.) with such a comparison, again getting out of my league. In this case the bond between the layers was pleasingly strong, even with the thin snow pack. Identifying layers and the strength of bonding between them, for the day’s safety, as well as for future reference was my main objective in digging.



( For the general record, I can definitely be argumentative and snarky, but I do not troll. ) I occasionally post Q/A threads, but you'll notice that I mostly stay out of them and let the conversation flow without undue influence unless further discussion is warranted.

author=CookieMonster link=topic=17937.msg75971#msg75971 date=1289874138]

Anyway, this is exactly right:


( For the general record, I can definitely be argumentative and snarky, but I do not troll. ) I occasionally post Q/A threads, but you'll notice that I mostly stay out of them and let the conversation flow without undue influence unless further discussion is warranted.


Cookie you are the Alex Trebeck of avalanche related threads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcp439tno-s&feature=related

author=Scotsman link=topic=17937.msg75973#msg75973 date=1289875276]Cookie you are the Alex Trebeck of avalanche related threads.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcp439tno-s&feature=related


How about some random non-sequitors?

I like this one better: ( WARNING: NSFW Language. Profanity. It's from the Sean Connery / Nicholas Cage film "The Rock" )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-pIwA-E-UY

And one of my favourite songs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1xRPCiczNM

( This really happened to me. )

I was raised on James Bond movies. Once, years ago whilst listening to this song, I became so overcome by homesickness that I burst into tears.

author=CookieMonster link=topic=17937.msg75971#msg75971 date=1289874138]
Hey Ron,
The question was genuine.


My apologies, Cookie,  for questioning the sincerity of your attempt to promote further discussion.

author=ron j link=topic=17937.msg75976#msg75976 date=1289877294]
My apologies, Cookie,  for questioning the sincerity of your attempt to promote further discussion.


No apologies needed! Given the spicy flavour of my remarks on this board, your skepticism was warranted.

author=Scotsman link=topic=17937.msg75973#msg75973 date=1289875276]
Cookie you are the Alex Trebeck of avalanche related threads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcp439tno-s&feature=related


Let's not forget "The-rapist".  Classic.

Reply to this TR

7904
nov-14-2010-chinook-pass
JibberD
2010-11-14 18:09:13