Difference in Level at each end of a Sump

[bograt]

Why should you put in more dye? Just hang a tiny tea bag with some active charcoal in it. The passing dye will be captured in the charcoal. After you removed the tea bag with the active charcoal you can make the dye again visible with some chemicals. (But I Always forget the name of the chemicals ;-))

Dagobert

Doesn't it show up under UV light?

 

[Leclused]

Why should you put in more dye? Just hang a tiny tea bag with some active charcoal in it. The passing dye will be captured in the charcoal. After you removed the tea bag with the active charcoal you can make the dye again visible with some chemicals. (But I Always forget the name of the chemicals ;-))

Dagobert

Doesn't it show up under UV light?

I don't think so. Particles will be very small and absorbed by the charcoal.I never tried anyway. In all test I've been helping in the last 10 years we've always used this methode for our own hobby test. If we need some more details or scientific data we try to work together with a hydrologist.

 

[martinm]

Why should you put in more dye? Just hang a tiny tea bag with some active charcoal in it. The passing dye will be captured in the charcoal. After you removed the tea bag with the active charcoal you can make the dye again visible with some chemicals. (But I Always forget the name of the chemicals ;-))

Dagobert

Doesn't it show up under UV light?

Yes it does Terry, if there's high enough concentration. After the test I did from Redhurst to Ladyside, I waded across  and took a water sample. Took it home and shone a UV light on it and it fluoresced with the lights off.

With the charcoal detectors you need to extract the dye from the charcoal to see the results, etc.

The link Leclused posted earlier looks very useful. Will read up on it on there later today. I still have a litre of dye solution, (I used a litre for the Ladyside test), but with the amount of water going through the system when the rivers are at the right (flood) levels you need a load of dye to test from Wetton Mill main sink.

When PM did the test from Deepdale, it turned the river green from Ladyside Wood downstream, lol. It's non-toxic, so best use too much than too little, saves having to redo the test. I'll send you a copy of the map I've just been working on later.

This is all a bit off-topic though, (from the OP.)

Regards, Mel.

 

[graham]

Doesn't it show up under UV light?

Are you thinking of optical brighteners? These have been used in tracing; the samples are collected on cotton wool & will fluoresce under UV. It's a crap technique for most of the UK, though, 'cos they are found in soap powders & so any leaks or spillage from any farm washing machine will screw your results mightily.

 

[graham]

It's non-toxic, so best use too much than too little

Umm, in the 1960s a certain brewery in South Wales had to close down 'cos it didn't know what was causing the bright green colouration in its water input from the river.

And in the 1970s, just up the road, an entire trading estate closed down for the same reason. the nearby village had to get its water from bowsers for a day or two. The person responsible (it wasn't me) was not very popular for a while.

The problem in the second of those was that the link thus proven was not the one expected & so the 'recipients' were highly unlikely to have been prepared for it.

 

[martinm]

Doesn't it show up under UV light?

Are you thinking of optical brighteners? These have been used in tracing; the samples are collected on cotton wool & will fluoresce under UV. It's a crap technique for most of the UK, though, 'cos they are found in soap powders & so any leaks or spillage from any farm washing machine will screw your results mightily.

Indeed, which is why a visual or preferably charcoal detector test is best. Yeah cotton wool does fluoresce under UV, wouldn't use it.

Trust me, 3 of us watched the river turn green 1.5hrs after putting the dye in, proving a link I have  thought existed for 30yrs!  8)

 

[Pitlamp]

Doesn't it show up under UV light?

Are you thinking of optical brighteners? These have been used in tracing; the samples are collected on cotton wool & will fluoresce under UV. It's a crap technique for most of the UK, though, 'cos they are found in soap powders & so any leaks or spillage from any farm washing machine will screw your results mightily.

Sorry Graham; I have to point out that OBA is an excellent water tracing agent in the right circumstances (e.g. northern upland streams). It also has the advantage of not requiring laboratory reagents to process the detectors and involves far less chance of anything being noticed by those who would be alarmed by a fluorescein stained river. It is possible to buy non fluorescent cotton wool - but it's wise to check this anyway in U V light before use. It's also wise to deploy pre-test detectors (before the OBA is injected) to see if the anticipated risings are contaminated with fluorescent reagents from other sources.

 

[graham]

Doesn't it show up under UV light?

Are you thinking of optical brighteners? These have been used in tracing; the samples are collected on cotton wool & will fluoresce under UV. It's a crap technique for most of the UK, though, 'cos they are found in soap powders & so any leaks or spillage from any farm washing machine will screw your results mightily.

Sorry Graham; I have to point out that OBA is an excellent water tracing agent in the right circumstances (e.g. northern upland streams). It also has the advantage of not requiring laboratory reagents to process the detectors and involves far less chance of anything being noticed by those who would be alarmed by a fluorescein stained river. It is possible to buy non fluorescent cotton wool - but it's wise to check this anyway in U V light before use. It's also wise to deploy pre-test detectors (before the OBA is injected) to see if the anticipated risings are contaminated with fluorescent reagents from other sources.

I said most of the UK, Pitlamp, not those bits only inhabited by you & the odd sheep.

 

[mulucaver]

That would be the Island of Argostoli where seawater diasappears underground and travels under the Island. There it is mixed with fresh water what makes it brackish end less dense allowing it to resurface higher then where it went underground. The water even powered a mill

Dagobert (SC Avalon)

Argostoli is the capital of Kefalonia.

 

[cavermark]

Is Fluorescein completely non toxic?

 

[graham]

Is Fluorescein completely non toxic?

From its wikipedia page:

opical, oral, and intravenous use of fluorescein can cause adverse reactions, including nausea, vomiting, hives, acute hypotension, anaphylaxis and related anaphylactoid reaction,[7] causing cardiac arrest[8] and sudden death due to anaphylactic shock.

So, no, not completely. But then few things are and given that it is used intravenously means it's pretty unlikely to harm in the sort of concentrations found in tracing experiments.

 

[cavermark]

Yes the wikipedia ref. confused me, Graham. The Materials Safety Data Sheets online didn't shed much more light on it, either. I looked it up a while ago and the reference on Wikipedia about Chicago stopping using it on St. Patricks day to protect wildlife was what made me wonder. This thread reminded me of the question..

 

[Duncan Price]

Is Fluorescein completely non toxic?

From its wikipedia page:

opical, oral, and intravenous use of fluorescein can cause adverse reactions, including nausea, vomiting, hives, acute hypotension, anaphylaxis and related anaphylactoid reaction,[7] causing cardiac arrest[8] and sudden death due to anaphylactic shock.

So, no, not completely. But then few things are and given that it is used intravenously means it's pretty unlikely to harm in the sort of concentrations found in tracing experiments.

A certain big name/nose cave diver was given fluorescein intravenously to use to inspect the back of his eyes for damage to blood vessels arising from deep diving.  He reported that his vision went orange for a brief moment and that when he and his mates when for a pint in the pub afterwards his wee was fluorescent (much to the alarm of the bloke standing in the bog next to him!).

For OBA's, tampons make good absorbers since the cotton is OBA free.  Many pubs have suitable UV tubes where one can inspect the sampling devices later (thanks to Alien for both bits of info).

Absinthe is the preferred method for water tracing in certain parts of France.

 

[graham]

Yes the wikipedia ref. confused me, Graham. The Materials Safety Data Sheets online didn't shed much more light on it, either. I looked it up a while ago and the reference on Wikipedia about Chicago stopping using it on St. Patricks day to protect wildlife was what made me wonder. This thread reminded me of the question..

Well, having gone about 18 miles off topic, we might as well continue ...

I suspect the Chicago think was some nutter not wanting to use chemicals. No, it is pretty non-toxic. the problems in S. Wales in my previous examples were more to do with lack of knowledge of what the stuff was rather than its toxicity or lack of same per se.

 

[graham]

Absinthe is the preferred method for water tracing in certain parts of France.

Sadly not in the bit that I'm in at the moment.

 

[bograt]

In the old days there was a debate about water tracing stuff, back then it was either Rhodamine B, Flourosceine, or Lycopodium Spores. Rhodamine was the nasty one (toxic, carcogenic?), Flourosceine thought to be the safest (used by water boards), whatever happened to Lycopodium?

 

[Chocolate fireguard]

Also, 4 miles is enough to have a noticeable effect from the curvature of the Earth, though I'm posting this from my bed on my birthday so can't be bothered to calculate it.

Graham, given that you were talking about the depth of cave passages beneath the surface, I don`t understand how the curvature of the Earth can matter at all.

 

[bograt]

Also, 4 miles is enough to have a noticeable effect from the curvature of the Earth, though I'm posting this from my bed on my birthday so can't be bothered to calculate it.

Graham, given that you were talking about the depth of cave passages beneath the surface, I don`t understand how the curvature of the Earth can matter at all.

Good point, if reference points where taken from contours for instance, these references would be subject to curvature also?

 

[martinm]

Doesn't it show up under UV light?

Are you thinking of optical brighteners? These have been used in tracing; the samples are collected on cotton wool & will fluoresce under UV. It's a crap technique for most of the UK, though, 'cos they are found in soap powders & so any leaks or spillage from any farm washing machine will screw your results mightily.

Sorry Graham; I have to point out that OBA is an excellent water tracing agent in the right circumstances (e.g. northern upland streams). It also has the advantage of not requiring laboratory reagents to process the detectors and involves far less chance of anything being noticed by those who would be alarmed by a fluorescein stained river. It is possible to buy non fluorescent cotton wool - but it's wise to check this anyway in U V light before use. It's also wise to deploy pre-test detectors (before the OBA is injected) to see if the anticipated risings are contaminated with fluorescent reagents from other sources.

John, can u enlarge on this? Eg:- What OBA's, where can you get them from? Are they non-toxic?  Where would I get  non fluorescent cotton wool? (Oh, I think someone mentioned tampons above, if so, then cool,  I will buy some and check them with my UV light, lol.)

Would it then fluoresce under a UV light, (guess they would), which I have got. Of course, using a non-visual method would require "pre-test detectors (before the OBA is injected) to see if the anticipated risings are contaminated with fluorescent reagents from other sources." Any info would be gratefully received. Ta.

Also, " has the advantage of not requiring laboratory reagents to process the detectors". Tell me more! It might be on the page that Leclused posted so apols if so. Not had chance to read it fully yet.

Regards, Mel.

 

[graham]

Also, 4 miles is enough to have a noticeable effect from the curvature of the Earth, though I'm posting this from my bed on my birthday so can't be bothered to calculate it.

Graham, given that you were talking about the depth of cave passages beneath the surface, I don`t understand how the curvature of the Earth can matter at all.

'cos the surface ain't flat and over these distances that not flatness becomes significant.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you have a cave which is linear, six miles long and with a sink, a rising and a mid-way entrance all of which are at the same height above sea-level. If that is the case (extreme example, not realistic) then although the three points are the same ASL, they are not in the same plane. Indeed the middle one will be about three feet above the plane of the other two.

So, if you use standard survey software to crunch your survey data - and there are no other errors, inaccuracies or whatever - there will still be a difference between the actual and the calculated positions of the entrances which has to be allowed for.