Posted: Aug 12, 2007 8:29 am
So not to dredge up this comatose subject but...
I did a paper on chemical controls of cave (i.e. rock type and purity) (after White and Rauch) last december for New Jersey and eastern Pa. One of the things I had to come up with was a useful standard for inclusion. That is to say - how small a cave was I going to let into the study?
Let too small a cave in and your study leans towards the isolated vug rather than the interconnected system. (and lets face it, you can get vugs anywhere). A previous monogrpah, by Dalton, did just that and came up with some unusual answers. (NSS bulletin, i think in 1974). Make the criteria too LARGE and you knock out almost all the caves and have too small a statistical sample. (especially in the place i was looking at)
I eventually picked 50 feet as an answer (White and Rauch's paper used 100'). for the study area, this was considered the best comprimise between length and sample.
I did a paper on chemical controls of cave (i.e. rock type and purity) (after White and Rauch) last december for New Jersey and eastern Pa. One of the things I had to come up with was a useful standard for inclusion. That is to say - how small a cave was I going to let into the study?
Let too small a cave in and your study leans towards the isolated vug rather than the interconnected system. (and lets face it, you can get vugs anywhere). A previous monogrpah, by Dalton, did just that and came up with some unusual answers. (NSS bulletin, i think in 1974). Make the criteria too LARGE and you knock out almost all the caves and have too small a statistical sample. (especially in the place i was looking at)
I eventually picked 50 feet as an answer (White and Rauch's paper used 100'). for the study area, this was considered the best comprimise between length and sample.