|
|
|
|
|
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here. |
|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Models (Read 1656 times)
|
CookieMonster
Member
Offline
Posts: 500
WWW
|
Models
« on: 12/02/11, 02:14 PM » |
|
Here's a simple model of basic backcountry technique:
Here's a simple model for weather trends:
Here's a simple model for snow metamorphism:
Here's a simple model for snowpack tests:
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12/02/11, 02:47 PM by CookieMonster »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcus
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 2237
WWW
|
Thanks Cookie -- can you explain how these models work a bit? I see what they're going for, but I'm not quite getting how the arrows relate...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
freeskiguy
Member
Offline
Posts: 171
|
Thanks for the models. I’ve been treating these like puzzle pieces and mixing them up, breaking bonds and adding other circles to see what the results are and what perceptions are altered. Here’s just one example.
|
|
|
|
|
CookieMonster
Member
Offline
Posts: 500
WWW
|
Nice models FreeSkiGuy, I like the LOVE<->EGO and RISK<->EGO metaphors!
***
Marcus, the models show the relationships between the factors.
* The continuous nature of the phenomena or activity is reflected by the continuous arrows.
* The forward/backward nature of relationships or stages is indicated by the bidirectional arrows.
The main idea is as follows: the factors are not discrete and the processes are ongoing. For example, you could present snow metamorphism as:
* Temperature. Some notes about temperature.
* Pressure. Some notes about overburden pressure.
* Radiation. Some nodes about radiation.
Presenting these items as a discrete list does not infer the relationships between the factors, nor the on-going nature of the phenomena arising from the factors.
Same goes for basic backcountry technique. Presenting basic backcountry technique as a "list of discrete items" misses the point:
* Plan. Some notes about planning.
* Observe. Some notes about observing.
* Decide. Some notes about deciding.
In reality, planning, observing, and deciding are related to each other and on-going. There isn't necessarily a first step, second step, or final step. Before a ski tour, you may plan first, then observe, then decide. During a ski tour, you may observe first, then plan, then decide.
For snowpack tests, there are relationships between the factors:
* Grain size. Look for large grain size or large relative differences in grain size.
* Hand hardness. Look for uniform hardness increases with depth.
* Shear quality. Look for quick, smooth shears.
***
* Taking all three factors into account, what can you write about snowpack tests?
* Can you relate the snowpack test model results to the snow metamorphism model?
* What about to the mountain weather model or weather trends model?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12/03/11, 05:46 PM by CookieMonster »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CookieMonster
Member
Offline
Posts: 500
WWW
|
Here's a more complete version, but it's not yet finished.
* It's an observation model in the shape of a snowflake.
* I'm not sure what the final version will be like.
* Criticism or other remarks welcome.
Here's a fairly fun quiz to test your knowledge:
Can you relate the factors to each other?
Grading scale:
A - You can relate nearly all the factors to each other.
C - You can relate most of the factors to each other.
D - You can relate some of the factors to each other.
Someone else can figure out the other grades.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12/03/11, 05:52 PM by CookieMonster »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mattski
Member
Offline
Posts: 102
|
As much as I like visuals, many of those factors shown do not carry equal weight in impacting stability or triggering, a better test would be to draw each of those factors to the scale of importance in decision-making and relevance.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CookieMonster
Member
Offline
Posts: 500
WWW
|
That's a cool idea!
Any chance you could you provide an example?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mattski
Member
Offline
Posts: 102
|
I am graphically challenged so here are few examples:
Terrain-big
Metamorphism-small
Trends Warming-big
Trends Cooling-small
Terrain-big
Exposure-small
Snowpack shear quality med, the rest small
Weather-big if it focuses on the main three-Precip/Temp/Wind
I also think metamorphism and snowpack should be in one unit, the micro divisions do not impact decision making and snowpack observations by Bruce Jamison's research yield little relevant data for safe travel.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
I also think metamorphism and snowpack should be in one unit...
I agree and would also split "Trends" between "Weather" and "Snowpack/Metamorphism".
snowpack observations by Bruce Jamison's research yield little relevant data for safe travel.
Is this true? It seems counterintuitive. I'm imaging a scenario where NWAC has a 'moderate' rating but you observe recent natural slides on unexpected slopes. In this situation it seems hard to deny that snowpack observation gives the most relevant information.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CookieMonster
Member
Offline
Posts: 500
WWW
|
Thanks for the suggestions!
Since this model is derived from the avalanche triangle, I feel the need to adhere to a similar uniform size presentation. But I can add colour coding. Do you think some circles should be reddish or similar? If you have PowerPoint, I'd be perfectly happy to make the PowerPoint version available for revisions; You could change colours, words, and sizes if you wanted. PM me if you're interested.
Also, I'm not clear on the classification changes suggested. Could you write the suggestions in a format such as:
Metamorphism
* This
* That
* Other
Snowpack
* Etc
* Etc
* Etc
This will make it easier for me to understand your suggestions.
***
In re: Jamieson. I'll stay out of this until Mattski/Micah sort out the questions. It won't be possible to combine snowpack and metamorphism into a single unit because the snowpack is a "thing" and metamorphism are phenomena. It's tough!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
Also, I'm not clear on the classification changes suggested. Could you write the suggestions in a format such as:
Metamorphism
* This
* That
* Other
Snowpack
* Etc
* Etc
* Etc
This will make it easier for me to understand your suggestions.
I am nearly the last person you would like designing your avalanche education materials (esp. among the posters here who typically have much more experience and knowledge than me). I think the bottom left side of your diagram is too snow-geeky for the recreational skier (and I would put my geekiness up against anyone on this board). I would simplify the whole thing:
Terrain
*propensity to slide
*consequences of slide
Snowpack
*current stability
*(near) future stability
Skiers
*aspirations
*communication
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CookieMonster
Member
Offline
Posts: 500
WWW
|
Thanks for the suggestions. Everyone is qualified to provide input! I'll see your geekiness and raise it to the second power.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you to our sponsors!
|
Contact turns-all-year.com
Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved
The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
|
Page created in 0.235 seconds with 20 queries.
|
RISK_MODEL.jpg
