cap n chris
Well-known member
martinr said:
I get "Newt tail choking" ... and some other quite rude stuff.
Cheddar - Charterhouse on Mendip Main trunk Routes
- Thread starter whitelackington
- Start date
I get "Newt tail choking" ... and some other quite rude stuff.
Andy Sparrow
Active member
graham said:
True, but several Mendip cave digs have unintentionally become wells! The Stockhill mineshaft for one and, currently, Templetons.
A
andymorgan
Guest
I image the probabaility of hitting a stream passage in limestone is very high in some areas of limestone in the world. Well maybe not a stream passage, but at least cave passage.
Going back to the topic, isn't Wigmore and Tor Hole Swallet proved to feed Rodney Stoke and Goughs. Maybe Rodney Stoke is in the process of capturing from Goughs?
Going back to the topic, isn't Wigmore and Tor Hole Swallet proved to feed Rodney Stoke and Goughs. Maybe Rodney Stoke is in the process of capturing from Goughs?
Andy Sparrow
Active member
truescrumpy said:
Did you know that Balch at one time thought that Swildons went to Cheddar because of the alignment of the passage to Sump 1? There is just no way that you can predict the eventual resurgence of a cave by the direction it initially takes and rather naive to "dig into the direction of whichever the nearest resurgance happens to be". As I have referred to before there is a recurring trend in cave development - caves drain down-dip, often switching from joint to joint (frequently at 90 degrees to each other) until they make a final significant 90 degree turn, and then follow the strike (a notional line at right angles to the dip) to their resurgence. This is exactly what happens in Swildons at the big bend in Swidons 2. Look at surveys of major systems and you will see the pattern repeated again and again. It is entirely reasonable to expect the UF streamway to do the same thing - follow the dip southwards until it intercepts a main conduit from the Wigmore end of the catchment aligned east-west somewhere under Wellington Farm.
whitelackington
New member
As Far as Templeton is concerned (we will await Hughie to correct me)
The intention was to excavate a very, very, very, very deep hole, hoping it may intercept the supposed Swildons to Wookey watercourse.
Now last time I was informed it was about fifty metres deep, then soon after that started filing with water, which i belive is being sucked out with Achimedes screws.
They have not yet reached the very great depth, that they expect to dig to find the swildons/wookey watercourse.
The intention was to excavate a very, very, very, very deep hole, hoping it may intercept the supposed Swildons to Wookey watercourse.
Now last time I was informed it was about fifty metres deep, then soon after that started filing with water, which i belive is being sucked out with Achimedes screws.
They have not yet reached the very great depth, that they expect to dig to find the swildons/wookey watercourse.
Andy Sparrow
Active member
whitelackington said:
I think you'll find the intention was actually to dig a very, very, very, shallow hole and find a cave that would be conveniently open all the way down to the conjectured streamway. The critical question about Templetons is whether it is vadose or phreatic in origin. A vadose cave could be reasonably expected to continue downwards picking up feeders and increasing in size. And it would probably be associated with the modern hydrology. I suspect though that it is phreatic which is not good news. A phreatic cave will be very ancient and is less likely to connect with the Wookey/Swildons system. In fact (and I am really sorry to be mister miserable pessimist) it would be most likely to turn a typical Mendip sump 'elbow' and run, probably up-dip, back to the surface. This is what Hunters Lodge Sink does, the two converging arms being the same passage on either side of an elbow, rather than branching inlets. That's why there's water at the bottom of the cave - because there is no cave passage beneath the elbow for the water to drain into.
Hughie
Active member
whitelackington said:
Who told you that? The pump is a very old (almost as old as Archimedes) positive displacement Lister H2, that does the main water lift, and is fed by a hand diaphragm pump not dissimilar to a gusher pump. The H2 is going to be removed and degravelled shortly, and a couple of sediment traps installed to prevent the problem re-occuring. Failing that I'm going to buy a Sumo submersible (almost as expensive as your lithium hilti thing, Whitelackington) that will lift water to a head of 100m
Templeton is (currently) not a well - an inch of rain on the surface equals something like 17.6m3. Due to the nature of the dig nearly all of this must go down the hole. However - usually we only find no more than 4m3 at the bottom.
Pretty unimpressive well, methinks.
Arguably some of the water that lands on edges of the hole may well drain otherways, but would tend to take the easiest route, ie down. Any rain topside means certain deluge at the bottom. Natural drainage is initially fast, but eventually stops - 2 to 3 feet above the dig floor - regardless of how much we've lowered the dig floor. If there was no drainage, then surely the water level would return to a given height, regardless of the dig floor level.
Peter Burgess
New member
I think its called the "rest level" or similar.
When you pump water out, the rest level drops, and also in the surrounding strata, forming a "cone of depression" (I think). Haven't you noticed diggers getting depressed when the pumps are switched on?
Andy Sparrow
Active member
Sorry, Hugh, I should make it clear I was referring to water at the bottom of Hunters Lodge Sink. I wasn't trying to imply that the water ponding in Templetons is an indication that the dig wont go. It is of course entirely pausible that water will pond in any shaft with a mud plug at the bottom without any particular implications for the prospects of the dig.
whitelackington
New member
Hi Hughie & Anne, been pissing down here in Bracknell for forty eight hours now, just seen the weather on T.V. massive storm, working its was from Devonshire, over somersetshire, Wiltshire to Royal Berkshire.
Good job they are not racing at Royal Ascot today (a mile from my gaff)
as the horses would be up to their withers in mud!
Good job they are not racing at Royal Ascot today (a mile from my gaff)
as the horses would be up to their withers in mud!
Elaine
Active member
We were thinking of going up to Templeton to make a note of the water level after all the rain we have had this morning. However, it is cold and we'd rather stay in and light the fire!
Andy is right, initially we had hoped that we would not have to dig in too far before finding our passages measureless to man. After a few years we had got so used to just going down down down that we were not really expecting to find any side passages, and were content to go down as far as necessary.
As far as the water in the bottom of the hole is concerned, my theory is that we have just encountered a particularly thick band of clay that is slow draining. This may be a band of clay partly of our own making as our disturbances during digging have undoubtably caused a fair amount of clay to get washed down under us as we progressed.
I reckon that more than 2-3 feet of water at the bottom of the dig produces enough weight to push the water through quickly. This would explain why we do not see more than a few feet of water at the bottom of the dig unless we happen to be there shortly after it has rained.
It is my feeling that we do not have to dig more than another 4-5 feet down before we see a major change. I think that our dig is playing hard to get as we are nearly there and it refuses to give in gracefully!
Andy is right, initially we had hoped that we would not have to dig in too far before finding our passages measureless to man. After a few years we had got so used to just going down down down that we were not really expecting to find any side passages, and were content to go down as far as necessary.
As far as the water in the bottom of the hole is concerned, my theory is that we have just encountered a particularly thick band of clay that is slow draining. This may be a band of clay partly of our own making as our disturbances during digging have undoubtably caused a fair amount of clay to get washed down under us as we progressed.
I reckon that more than 2-3 feet of water at the bottom of the dig produces enough weight to push the water through quickly. This would explain why we do not see more than a few feet of water at the bottom of the dig unless we happen to be there shortly after it has rained.
It is my feeling that we do not have to dig more than another 4-5 feet down before we see a major change. I think that our dig is playing hard to get as we are nearly there and it refuses to give in gracefully!
whitelackington
New member
Hello Anne,
if u did not pump out the water in the pond at the bottom of Templeton, presumably, if it keeps raining over the autumn, if u diggers could allow yourselves to be patient, eventually, u may find that u have such a head of water, 40 metres say, that suddenly, the F*****G lot may all be washed through, in a single flood type event! :-\
if u did not pump out the water in the pond at the bottom of Templeton, presumably, if it keeps raining over the autumn, if u diggers could allow yourselves to be patient, eventually, u may find that u have such a head of water, 40 metres say, that suddenly, the F*****G lot may all be washed through, in a single flood type event! :-\
cap n chris
Well-known member
That would be popular in the showcave at Wookey! - how many people would/could it affect?
whitelackington
New member
Had not thought of that but as castle46 would say "They are only grockles"
