expoweb/years/2023/Fishface-SMK.html

221 lines
11 KiB
HTML

<!DOCTYPE html>
<!-- saved from url=(0057)https://www.fuw.edu.pl/~rwaszkiewicz/fishface/report.html -->
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width">
<title>Fishface → SMK</title>
<link href="./Fishface-SMK_files/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet" integrity="sha384-GLhlTQ8iRABdZLl6O3oVMWSktQOp6b7In1Zl3/Jr59b6EGGoI1aFkw7cmDA6j6gD" crossorigin="anonymous">
<style>
.cover-container {
max-width: 70em;
}
emph {
font-style: italic;
font-weight: 800;
}
quote {
font-style: italic;
font-weight: 200;
}
img {
margin: 1em;
}
</style>
<style>[id*='google_ads_iframe'],[id*='taboola-'],.taboolaHeight,.taboola-placeholder,#credential_picker_container,#credential_picker_iframe,.google-one-tap-modal-div{display:none!important;min-height:0!important;height:0!important;}</style><script type="text/javascript" data-name="TokenSigning" data-by="Web-eID extension" src="chrome-extension://ncibgoaomkmdpilpocfeponihegamlic/token-signing-page-script.js"></script></head>
<body class="d-flex h-100 text-white bg-dark">
<div class="cover-container d-flex w-100 h-100 p-3 mx-auto flex-column
justify-content-center">
<h1>How to go about connecting <i>Fishface</i> to <i>SMK</i> system</h1>
<p>by Radost Waszkiewicz (8 March 2023)</p>
<h2>My goals</h2>
<p>
</p><ul>
<li>When in Austria, work towards the goal of connecting Fishface to
the
SMK system more effectively.</li>
<li>Make survey data more informative. Expand current connection
approach beyond measuring straight line distance.</li>
<li>Assess the efficacy of the <emph>deep connection</emph> target for
the
upcoming expo.</li>
<li>Refresh my memory of Fishface system, Survex, QMs and survey
wallets.</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<h2>Analysis of the current situation</h2>
<p>CUCC expoers often refer to horizontal levels and connections between
them when talking about exploration in Austria and many have played
around with Survex/Aven trying to align (by eye) different cave-rich
levels to get a better understanding of what's going on. I tried to
quantify
this method using the avaliable svx data with a particular emphasis on
the
Fishface area.</p>
<p>I have imported all the survey legs in <emph>290 291 204</emph> and
<emph>161</emph>,
and produced a histogram of the directions in which these legs were
shot. After eliminating short legs (less than 3m) and the vertical legs,
you can plot them using an equal area projection (according to wikipedia
apparently used also by some geologists). On such a histogram, the
sphere containing all possible shot directions is mapped onto a disk of
radius 2 with equator being mapped onto a circle of radius sqrt(2) --
marked on the figure, and since this is equal area projection, higher
density means acually higher density in reality (and not just
transformation artifacts).</p>
<div class="d-flex justify-content-center">
<img src="./Fishface-SMK_files/shot_directions.svg" style="width: 50em; height: 30em;">
</div>
<p class="fst-italic">Figure: Survey shot directions displayed using
Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection. Dashed circles correspond to
horizontal and vertical shots, while solid circle shows tilted
cave-rich.</p>
<p>As expected, typical, non-vertical legs are roughly horizontal, but
there is a systematic deviation from that horizontal pattern -- legs
shot westward are more likely going down. The overrepresented directions
line up on plane which, in this projection, is a near-circular loop.
(Equations of great circles in this projections are surprisingly hard to
find.) Additionally, I have marked normal direction to the plane of
interest to make it easier to see how much and in what direction this
plane is tilted.
</p>
<p>The cave-rich plane is tilted down by 13.5° in the direction of 120°
(roughly ESE). As a result, for each meter we travel in the approx
eastward direction, we are expected to drop down by 24cm. With
Fishface-SMK gap being at least 150m, this gives 35m elevation change.
</p>
<div class="d-flex justify-content-center">
<iframe src="./Fishface-SMK_files/cave_with_layers.html" title="3D widget in iframe" style="width: 50em; height: 30em;"></iframe>
</div>
<p class="fst-italic">To see working 3D plot, visit the original copy of
this page at <a href="https://www.fuw.edu.pl/~rwaszkiewicz/fishface/report.html">
www.fuw.edu.pl/~rwaszkiewicz/fishface/report.html</a>
<p class="fst-italic">3D Figure: Fishface+Happy butterfly in relation to
204 and 161 colored by levels. Note vertical shift in the levels due to
east-west gap (at 15° slope we get 30cm up per meter distance). The
proposed connection strategies are marked in red and pink respectively.
'Shallow' connection strategy lines up with light-green cave-rich level.</p>
<h2>'Shallow' connection strategy</h2>
<p>
My proposed strategy is to continue from <emph>290.whipingbalconysarse.27</emph>
(QMC 2.5mx1m) towards <emph>204.midlevel.pretzelpassage2.31</emph> for
300m at a gradient of 14.5°.
<b>or</b>
from <emph>290.redlight.9</emph> via QMB (3mx2m tube across a traverse)
towards <emph>204.midlevel.pretzelpassage2.31</emph> 280 meters away at
a gradient of 16°.
</p>
<p>
<emph>290.whipingbalconysarse.27</emph> looks like heading in the right
direction and drafting in the Fishface direction (consistent with higher
entrance of Balcon), albeit not a great lead by Rob Watson's description.
<a href="http://expo.survex.com/logbookentry/2022-08-07/2022_s40">Source:</a>
<quote>After setting up the cave link and failing to send/recieve
anything we had a curry. Then Mike and I headed off to survey
Balcony's arse while Luke and the Jape fettled the Cave Link. Got very
muddy in the Arse only to break out at a junction, where we elected to
look at the meander rather than the small tube higher up. Left a QMC
pissing off upstream then back to camp for noodles. Schnapps and bed.
</quote><br>
<img src="./Fishface-SMK_files/robs_notes.png" style="display:inline; max-width: 30em;">
<img src="./Fishface-SMK_files/whiping_plan.jpg" style="display:inline; max-width: 30em;">
</p>
<p>
<emph>290.redlight.9</emph> large phreas heading in the right direction
in a area with good draft. Surveys further down mention no draft so it
seems it has to dissapear (hopefully into that QM).
<a href="http://expo.survex.com/logbookentry/2022-08-02/2022_s18">Source:</a>
<quote>[...] but became too difficult to continue without a traverse
line but promising [phreas] visable 50m further along.</quote><br>
<img src="./Fishface-SMK_files/redlight_plan.jpg" style="display:inline; max-width: 30em;
max-height: 60em;">
</p>
<p>
<emph>204.midlevel.pretzelpassage2.31</emph> great looking QMA with
stones rumbling for 8 seconds. From the description (and drawing)
starting with a large void. Not explored further because it was partly a
derig trip and run out of time. Looking at the drawing it might go in
the right direction (west).
<a href="http://expo.survex.com/logbookentry/2012-08-27/2012_s66">Source:</a>
<quote>This led along an attractive thick cracked mud floor to ...
another large chamber with the sound of much water. We though this
might well be the same chamber we'd encountered on our initial survey
though when the data went in we were less convinced as the two ends
were 43m apart but it is still plausible.</quote><br>
<img src="./Fishface-SMK_files/pretzel_plan.png" style="display:inline; max-width: 30em;
max-height: 60em;">
</p>
<h2>Deep connection alternative</h2>
<p>
Greedily searching for two points in respective systems underground that
are closest together gives different potential connection endpoints with
<emph>204.deepsouth.razor11.13</emph> near <emph>204.deepsouth.razor12</emph>.
This location is literally as deep as it gets -- it's a traverse over a
pool of water with some QMs in the ceiling and is unlikely to be
explored from this side. We might emerge here if we start from Fishface
side but starting here seems unwise.
<a href="http://expo.survex.com/logbookentry/2007-07-19/2007_s73">Source:</a>
<quote>Andreas rigged a traverse where the slot began to widen +
reached a stance overlooking a deep, dark pool of water.</quote><br>
<img src="./Fishface-SMK_files/razor_elev.jpg" style="display:inline; max-width: 30em;
max-height: 60em;">
</p>
<h2>Strategic considerations</h2>
<p>The way I interpret CUCC expos mission, we should prioritize two things:
</p><ul>
<li>itroducing new cavers to expeditioning,</li>
<li>Expo long term sustainability.</li>
</ul>
In my opinion, both of these are better served by pushing shallow leads
and connecting Fishface to SMK as soon as possible. A few years ago, one
of the targets was to search for a new 'east' surface camp to aid
exploration in Homecoming, which is really quite far from the
Stonebridge. One of the arguments for deep caving is that we'll have
underground camp reducing crowds in the Stonebridge -- perhaps a better
way to go about that is to have another surface camp near Fishface (or
even better between Fishface and Homecoming)?
<p></p>
<h2>Conclusions</h2>
<p>
</p><ul>
<li>Cave-rich levels are real (duh!) and can be seen on shot direction
histogram.</li>
<li>Cave-rich planes are tilted in ESE direction by about 15°.</li>
<li>We should aim higher in Balcony than in Fishface because of E-W
distance.</li>
<li>Mid-level balcony has a QMA+ in a favourable location.</li>
<li>Deep Balcony is bottomed. We're unlikely to find another cave-rich
plane containing current bottom.</li>
<li>I'm strongly advocating for 'shallow' conneciton strategy over
'deep' connection strategy.</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
</div>
<hr />
<p>PS If the iframe does not work for you, here is a static snapshot:
<img src="static-3d-plot.png">
</body></html>