Bullpot Farm Rain Gauge - Not Working?

It'll be pretty wet underground.
1000005131.jpg

Twas a bit damp at Fall Pot last night!
 
Morning Samouse, here's a pretty poor-quality snap of the same place after heavy rain taken several years ago. I've been trying to work out how wet it was by comparison with yours, but can't quite work out the angles / water levels; what do you reckon?
 

Attachments

  • Fall Pot-lake.jpg
    Fall Pot-lake.jpg
    311.4 KB · Views: 168
For anyone heading out on a new year's day caving trip, just be aware that the BPF rain gauge has clocked around FIVE INCHES of rain during the weather event yesterday and overnight. It'll be pretty wet underground.
Is there any chance these figures could have been 'enhanced' by happy NY celebrants at the farm ... ?
 
Morning Samouse, here's a pretty poor-quality snap of the same place after heavy rain taken several years ago. I've been trying to work out how wet it was by comparison with yours, but can't quite work out the angles / water levels; what do you reckon?
The rock with the plaque on, on the left in your photo, is the rock that I (the model not the photographer) am stood on in the picture, so a good 10m higher yesterday!!! The high tide mark was about 2m higher than water level during the time we were there, and it dropped about half a meter or so in the 15 minutes we were stood or swimming around.
 
Far gearstones also recorded just under 4 inches in last 24 hours (rainfall would be more useful if it displayed yesterday's total as well)
 
Thanks Sam . . . hell's bells!!! That means the water must have been – what – some 25 m above the streamway? (Although the water level was dropping as we got there, and had been a fair bit higher.)
 
Wow.
(rainfall would be more useful if it displayed yesterday's total as well)
If you use the Metoffice WOW website, you can view a graph with rainfall rate and daily accumulation by using the filters. It allows previous day, week, and month timescale.


1735734047959.png
 
Thanks Sam . . . hell's bells!!! That means the water must have been – what – some 25 m above the streamway? (Although the water level was dropping as we got there, and had been a fair bit higher.)

Indeed. A long time ago, when we were diving the downstream Lancaster Hole sump regularly, we had equipment stashed down there. One item was a French pot (which some refer to as a Daren Drum) bolted to the wall. When we went back down it was totally crushed, with the shape of a breathing regulator impressed into the wall. We looked closely at all the signs of what level the system had flooded to and calculated that the downstream sump had backed up 30 m vertically . So the tub had been subjected to 4 bars pressure, which clearly hadn't done it any good!
 
Hi Samouse, I've had another look at the pictures, and in fact that rock on which you were standing to take the picture – where my 'model' is standing – was not far above the water – only a metre or so, so if you were standing on that rock (with dry feet?) then the water would 'only' have been a metre or two higher.
 
Hi Samouse, I've had another look at the pictures, and in fact that rock on which you were standing to take the picture – where my 'model' is standing – was not far above the water – only a metre or so, so if you were standing on that rock (with dry feet?) then the water would 'only' have been a metre or two higher.
The photo was taken from the ledge overlooking Fall Pot, reached before you climb/abseil down into it from the Lancs side. The boulder the caver is stood on in the picture is (Im 99% sure) the boulder that the plaque is affixed to. The plaque was definitely under water. I may go back to take another picture for a side by side comparison.
 
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the situation; if the plaque was under water then yes, it was a lot deeper than in my shot (where it's clearly visible).
 
Back
Top