[Texascavers] Vandals kill endangered bats in Kentucky cave :

[JerryAtkin]

 
More than 100 endangered bats killed in eastern Ky.  cave
The Associated Press
OLIVE HILL, Ky. --
More than 100  federally endangered Indiana bats were found dead at Carter 
Caves State Resort  Park in eastern Kentucky.  
State and federal wildlife authorities said vandals went into a cave at  
Carter Caves State Resort Park near Olive Hill and hit hibernating bats with  
rocks on two different occasions in late October. Some bats were crushed, while 
 
others died after falling into a stream. 
Authorities believe the first incident occurred between Oct. 21 and 24, while 
 the second incident was reported Oct. 27 and may have happened the previous  
night. 
Indiana bats have been protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1966. 
 Until recently, their numbers have decreased steadily. The caves at Carter 
Caves  State Resort Park harbor the largest hibernating population of Indiana 
bats in  Kentucky. 
Violations of the Endangered Species Act can result in a maximum penalty of a 
 $100,000 fine and a year in prison.  
_http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/231945.html_ 
(http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/231945.html) 



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

RE: [Texascavers] Interested in Global Warming?

[Louise Power]

Other things to outlaw: McMansions (who needs a house in excess of 15K sq ft?); 
Hummers and other vehicles that use like 1 gal/mi; motorhomes (see Hummers) 
unless you're going to park it somewhere and live in it; more construction in 
areas where you have to steal water from other areas in order to support the 
larger population and increased activities (LasVegas, Tucson, Phoenix and 
certain places east); building more homes, condos, apartments, etc in areas 
where there are already suitable homes, condos, apartments that are unoccupied. 
And similar wasteful activities.
 
Other things to do: learning to tell the difference between needs and wants
Yours for a smaller footprint.
 
Louise 
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:00:42 -0600> From: fh...@townandcountryins.com> To: 
> dlocklea...@gmail.com; texascavers@texascavers.com> Subject: RE: 
> [Texascavers] Interested in Global Warming?> > Hey David,> > As previously 
> mentioned by someone, the best way to affect a remedy for> this perceived 
> problem is to limit procreation so that there will be> fewer people doing all 
> of these harmful things which of course serve no> useful purpose. Get the law 
> on the books and let me know when you see a> difference.> > Your wise-ass 
> friend, Fritz> > -Original Message-> From: David Locklear 
> [mailto:dlocklea...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:42 PM> 
> To: texascavers@texascavers.com> Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Interested in 
> Global Warming?> > It is my opinion that if society is going to get serious 
> about> the fuel effect on the environment, that we should outlaw> activies 
> like NASCAR, boat racing, bonfires, christmas trees over 4 foot> tall, ( no 
> more city hall christmas trees ), drag racing,> extreme sports that use fuel, 
> and maybe some sort of restriction> on private planes, such as no more stunt 
> shows.> > But doing that would be such a small percentage of gain to the 
> problem.> > However, that being said,> > I would be in favor of more space 
> launches,> which would counter-affect any gains from all of that. I thought> 
> those new Japanese photos of the earth-rise and earth-set over the> moon were 
> awesome.> > I think the militaries fuel consumption world-wide from all 
> countries,> could be> reduced to nearly zero, and that would be a big help. 
> Imagine ...> > David Locklear> > 
> -> Visit 
> our website: http://texascavers.com> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> texascavers-h...@texascavers.com> > > > > 
> -> Visit 
> our website: http://texascavers.com> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> texascavers-h...@texascavers.com> 

Re: Non-caving related: A raffle to win an airplane!

[Emily McGowan]

Excellent!  I am going over to the Museum this Saturday for an event, so I'll 
take your stuff over then.  Thanks again!! 

Emily


  Emily, I received the stub, thank you very much!

RE: [Texascavers] Interested in Global Warming?

[Fritz Holt]

Hey David,

As previously mentioned by someone, the best way to affect a remedy for
this perceived problem is to limit procreation so that there will be
fewer people doing all of these harmful things which of course serve no
useful purpose. Get the law on the books and let me know when you see a
difference.

Your wise-ass friend, Fritz

-Original Message-
From: David Locklear [mailto:dlocklea...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:42 PM
To: texascavers@texascavers.com
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Interested in Global Warming?

It is my opinion that if society is going to get serious about
the fuel effect on the environment, that we should outlaw
activies like NASCAR, boat racing, bonfires, christmas trees over 4 foot
tall, ( no more city hall christmas trees ), drag racing,
extreme sports that use fuel, and maybe some sort of restriction
on private planes, such as no more stunt shows.

But doing that would be such a small percentage of gain to the problem.

However, that being said,

I would be in favor of more space launches,
which would counter-affect any gains from all of that. I thought
those new Japanese photos of the earth-rise and earth-set over the
moon were awesome.

I think the militaries fuel consumption world-wide from all countries,
could be
reduced to nearly zero, and that would be a big help.  Imagine ...

David Locklear

-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com




-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

[Texascavers] from the surface ?

[Gill Ediger]

At 01:25 PM 11/15/2007, Lyndon Tiu wrote:
For example, the ground directly below a big cave would have less 
gravity because gravity is related to mass and if you have a void, 
there will be less gravity. You weigh less (just a very tiny bit) 
standing on the surface above a big cave. You can measure this 
slight change in gravity to determine what could (speculative) be 
underneath the surface.


Well, yes, you will weigh less if there's less gravity tugging on you 
from below. But you have to consider all the things tugging on you 
from above, as well. Consider all the billions of stars out there and 
the planets and whirling asteroids. Whether singly or in aggregate 
they must be pulling on you dynamically, as you are a part of the 
entire gravitational structure of the universe--you have mass, too, 
and they are sucking on it. When the Moon is overhead (not 
necessarily full) you will be pulled by the Moon's gravity just as 
the Earth's oceans and toilet bowls are, causing high tides 
vertically upward in your various organs and soft tissue. This should 
not be ignored by your analyst. You are ever so slightly 
taller--something which could affect your pants length. Then consider 
the Sun. When it comes up in the morning (figuratively, of course) 
your soft and pliable parts will be pulled to the east, no matter 
which way you're facing. These things all roll up to toward the top 
as noon approaches and then pooch out to the west as the day wears 
on. It has all the attributes of a soapy sponge being kneaded--only it is you.


This brings us to the even more important matter, the caving portion 
of our program. When you are in a cave gravity is working on you in 
both directions--and to the left and right and forwards and 
backwards. It is pulling you down, but the rock mass above you is 
also pulling you up. The walls are tugging away. You weigh 
substantially less--including your brain, or what's left of it. And 
whether there are passages in the rock above or below you also plays a part.


As your brain is stretched and massaged about it creates some very 
strange forces within it, possibly accounting for a few of the obtuse 
comments we see from certain subscribers to CaveTex. These vertical 
forces, or lack of them, will affect, say, how big your smile or 
frown is, how much a breast will sag or point upward, how big will be 
your jowls or love handles, and the hang of some other accouterments. 
Much of this is relevant to people's happiness, yet many of them 
never consider it. If you have a tendency to sag it might be best to 
go out in public only during the high tide. Almanacs and local 
newspapers and the Weather Channel make this information available. 
Use it. Many people take horoscopes lightly because they have 
experienced anomalies between the generic  predictions and what 
actually transpired. I would strongly suggest that horoscopes and 
astrology are related to the entire cosmology due in large degree to 
the amalgamated gravity (and, of course, light--some of it very very 
old light, formed before Einstein refined his theory, and perhaps 
much stronger than newer light) and that on certain days the Sun and 
Moon and planets just don't line up right above where you are 
standing in your own little gravitational field on the surface of the 
Earth, while it may be right for somebody else with the same sign as 
you and who happens to be standing in, or over in the case of caves, 
exactly the right place for their gravity. So, there are many factors 
to factor in and factor out. This is not stuff to be taken lightly; 
if you'll allow me little pun. Yes, all this, and how much beer you 
drank, would definitely have an effect on your kidney, bladder and 
other questionable body parts.


--Ediger


-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] Interested in Global Warming?

[David Locklear]

It is my opinion that if society is going to get serious about
the fuel effect on the environment, that we should outlaw
activies like NASCAR, boat racing, bonfires, christmas trees over 4 foot
tall, ( no more city hall christmas trees ), drag racing,
extreme sports that use fuel, and maybe some sort of restriction
on private planes, such as no more stunt shows.

But doing that would be such a small percentage of gain to the problem.

However, that being said,

I would be in favor of more space launches,
which would counter-affect any gains from all of that. I thought
those new Japanese photos of the earth-rise and earth-set over the
moon were awesome.

I think the militaries fuel consumption world-wide from all countries, could be
reduced to nearly zero, and that would be a big help.  Imagine ...

David Locklear

-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] Interested in Global Warming?

[Diana Tomchick]

I would be wary of anyone who also claims that

1) there are no adverse affects of second-hand smoke;
2) there is no connection between the use of chlorofluorocarbons and  
ozone depletion;

3) there is no connection between UV-B radiation exposure and melanoma.

Singer was a professor of environmental science and an engineer and  
physicist by training, not a clinical medical researcher, cell  
biologist or molecular biologist. He has conveniently made dissenting  
claims on subjects that are beyond his scope of expertise as a  
scientific researcher. That alone makes me question his views on  
environmental science.


Don't get the idea that just because the man has University  
credentials, that his opinions are based on sound scientific fact,  
and that his arguments hold water. His book is not a peer-reviewed  
scientific journal article, after all.


I just did a Medline search on this author. It seems that his  
publication record (apart from one letter to the editor in Science  
magazine in 2003) ended with an article in December 1972 in the  
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:


"A study of optimum population levels--a progress report." PNAS vol.  
69, pp. 3839-48 (1972).


The paper he published prior to that one is:

"Will the world come to a horrible end?" Science vol. 170, p. 125  
(1970).


So, while Professor Singer has been "seriously studying global  
warming for more than thirty years," he hasn't seen fit to publish  
his results in a peer-reviewed academic journal. How did he manage to  
keep his job for so long, you might be asking? Such are the wonders  
of tenure! Once you've got it, you've got a job for life, and you can  
simply stop doing research and focus all your efforts on classroom  
teaching and administrative duties. It also leaves you a lot of time  
to write crackpot books for the lay audience, and found the Science &  
Environmental Policy Project, which debunks findings by the  
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Diana



On Nov 15, 2007, at 3:34 PM, Gill Ediger wrote:


This suggestion just appeared elsewhere:

---fwd>
From: Bruce Bannerman 

For those of you who wish a bit of substance and citations to back  
up the claims, may I suggest
"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1.500 years" by S. Fred Singer  
and Dennis Avery.


S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at  
UVA and Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University,  
with his Ph.D. from Princeton . He has been seriously studying  
global warming for more than thirty years.


Bannerman


-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana R. Tomchick
Associate Professor
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Department of Biochemistry
5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
Rm. ND10.214B   
Dallas, TX 75390-8816, U.S.A.   
Email: diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu
214-645-6383 (phone)
214-645-6353 (fax)


-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

[Texascavers] Interested in Global Warming?

[Gill Ediger]

This suggestion just appeared elsewhere:

---fwd>
From: Bruce Bannerman 

For those of you who wish a bit of substance and citations to back up 
the claims, may I suggest
"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1.500 years" by S. Fred Singer and 
Dennis Avery.


S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at UVA 
and Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University, with 
his Ph.D. from Princeton . He has been seriously studying global 
warming for more than thirty years.


Bannerman


-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] Canon has less sensor noise at higher ISO Re: [Texascavers] Digital (cave) Photography

[Don Cooper]

I'd like to throw my opinion in on this subject -
I think low sensor noise is even MORE important than density. (i.e. high
number of pixels)
It seems to be frequently left out of specifications and 8 megapixels ain't
jack if they're noisy!

I have a reasonable Leica lensed Panasonic camera which takes good rich,
sharp images but when called on to use higher resolution than 1200 x 1600 -
"grainyness" comes into play and 2400 x 3200 pixels isn't much of an
improvement.

Ideally, I figure you could extract full frame images from a tiny section of
a wide field 6400 x 9600 pixel image (virtual digital zoom) but it doesnt
seem like it works like that - and digital zoom itself (at least in my
camera) seems horribly grainy and worse at higher ISO.

-WaV

On Nov 15, 2007 10:00 AM, Nigel Dyson-Hudson  wrote:

> Scott,
>
> Check out dpreview.com and robgalbraith.com.
> www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page23.asp
> * Canon has less sensor noise at high ISO.
> * Canon has more IS, image stabilized, lenses available.
> * Canon has more of the big glass. Witness how many white lenses are on
> the cameras at sporting events.
> * To be fair, most of the photographers at a weekend photo workshop I was
> just at were shooting with Nikon.
>
> I would say avoid the Digital Camera lenses that can only be used on small
> sensor, 1.6x magnification, cameras, unless you really need a 10mm, 16mm
> actual, wide angle lens.
>
> Watch the ads from the big electronic retailers. I just got a Canon 40D
> kit with the IS 28-135 lens for ~$1250 from Circuit City, $ off plus a 10%
> discount plus 12 months same as cash.
>
> If you really want a compact camera for point and shoot cave photos then
> look at the Canon G9. It now has RAW mode, 4096 exposure levels vs. 256
> exposure levels in JPEG (12 bit RAW vs 8 bit images for JPG). There are
> times when a 30D or a 40D is too much of a tank and it is really nice to
> have the G9 in a jacket pocket or cave pack. Also you can get the G9
> converted to take visible, IR and UV photos,
> www.maxmax.com/powershot_g9.htm. According to their guy doing the
> conversions, the G9 is his recommended P&S to convert at this time. Although
> they will convert a number of P&S and DSLR models.
>
> nigel
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons because you are crunchy and taste
> good with Dinosaur barbecue sauce.
>  -
> Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail:
> texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] cave mapping from the surface ?

[John P Brooks]

That doesn't seem like much fun. Wouldn't that take all the mystery and 
excitement out of cave exploration?
  I think we should protest this intrusion on our domain.

David Locklear  wrote:
  There was something in the news this week about the launching
of a big research vessel that would map the underground layers of the
earth as it traveled around the ocean. I barely caught a glimpse
of the news story, but it indicated they could map deep voids in
the earth.

If this is true, do geologist have a similar device to map
caves from a surface driven vehicle?

Or is the technology old news?

Or did I miss something?

David Locklear

-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] cave mapping from the surface ?

[Lyndon Tiu]

Once upon a time, when I was still in-school, we had a small ground penatrating 
radar (GPR) unit. As part of our lab work, we went to a garden on campus and 
proceeded to map the sub-surface using the unit.

What we saw was that the ground we surveyed was solid for about 30 feet, but 
then it seems that the ground gave way to a void after 30 feet. We found out 
later that the void was actually the underground causeway between two 
buildings. People use it to walk from one building to another. Kind of like the 
underground tunnels in downtown Houston.

GPR can be used to map caves that are not too deep below the surface as it has 
a limited range into the ground. I don't remember how deep the limit is.

If you want to map deeper undergroud, you use various forms of seismic, up to 
the center of the earth, even to the other side of the globe!


On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:25:09 -0800 l...@alumni.sfu.ca wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Petroleum geologist and geophysicists have been using various seismic
> methods to map the sub-surface since the end of WWII (plus/minus).
> 
> The new ship probably has a more advanced/more capable version of an
> old technology.
> 
> There other technologies. There is ground penetrating radar. There is
> EM, magnetic and gravity survey techniques, to name a few. 
> 
> For example, the ground directly below a big cave would have less
> gravity because gravity is related to mass and if you have a void,
> there will be less gravity. You weigh less (just a very tiny bit)
> standing on the surface above a big cave. You can measure this slight
> change in gravity to determine what could (speculative) be underneath
> the surface.
> 
> It's called geophysics - the application of the laws and principles of 
> physics to the study of the earth. Being in Texas, there are a lot of
> geophysicists around that can help explain how you map the underground 
> using various technologies. I'm not one. Perhaps there is a
> geophysicist on this mailing list that can explain a bit more.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:12:41 -0600 dlocklea...@gmail.com wrote:
> > There was something in the news this week about the launching
> > of a big research vessel that would map the underground layers of the
> > earth as it traveled around the ocean. I barely caught a glimpse
> > of the news story, but it indicated they could map deep voids in
> > the earth.
> > 
> > If this is true, do geologist have a similar device to map
> > caves from a surface driven vehicle?
> > 
> > Or is the technology old news?
> > 
> > Or did I miss something?
> > 
> > David Locklear
> > 
> > -
> > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
> > For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> Lyndon Tiu
> 
> -
> Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
> 


--
Lyndon Tiu

-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

[Texascavers] RE: cave mapping from the surface ?

[Minton, Mark]

  Lyndon Tiu said:

>the ground directly below a big cave would have less gravity because gravity 
>is related to mass and if you have a void, there will be less gravity. You 
>weigh less (just a very tiny bit) standing on the surface above a big cave. 
>You can measure this slight change in gravity to determine what could 
>(speculative) be underneath the surface.

  Long ago, back in the '70s, I wrote an article on this very effect and 
its usefulness to cavers.  I've copied it below for your enlightenment.  ;-)

Mark Minton


THE BOVINE FLUX THEORY OF CAVE LOCATION
 
It has been well known among certain members of our Grotto that the 
course of subterranean passages could be ascertained by observing the grazing 
patterns of the local fauna, gener­ally cattle, although any large species of 
animal would do.  Not only is this phenomenon useful in locating caves, but in 
seeing how they relate to surface features and in predicting connections and 
new entrances. The animals needn't actually be present, in fact, to take 
advantage of this unique geol­ogic aid. The areas most heavily grazed may be 
obvious amid the less cropped flora, and the tell-tale dung piles are an­other 
evidence (the cow pie are squared corollary, but I di­gress...). 
 
The bovine flux theory, then, states that cattle tend to align 
themselves above cave passages rather than above "solid" ground. Sound 
scientific facts are responsible for this behavior. To wit, the force of 
gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the object exerting said 
gravity, here the earth. Now since a cavern is essentially a void in the earth 
(air has a density of only 1.3 kg/m3 compared to 2.75 x 103 kg/m3 for 
limestone) it follows that the gravity above a cave passage will be slightly 
less than above "solid" ground, and hence less effort is required by the cow to 
support its now decreased weight if it stands above the cave. (Even water, with 
a density of 1x103 kg/m3, will give this effect, but to a much smaller extent 
than with air filled passage.)

To calculate the magnitude of this effect, we call upon a lit­tle 
elementary physics:
 
F = GM1M2 / R2
 
where F is the force due to gravity (weight), G is the uni­versal gravitational 
constant, M1 and M2 are the masses of the object and the body attracting it 
(here cow and earth) and R is the distance between them. We see immediately 
that the deeper the cavern lies below the surface, the smaller the effect. (In 
going from 20 m to 80 m below the surface, the effect diminishes 94%.)  Thus 
only passages fairly near the surface will show sig­nificant bovine 
correlation. It is also obvious that a large animal is required since as M1 
decreases, the effect decreases. Thus man is, unfortunately (or fortunately - 
could you see a cow caving!), not heavy enough (physically, not 
philosophically) to perceive these small differences in gravity. For an 
average, ball-park feeling of this effect, let us use 460 kg as the mass of a 
cow. For our cave let us use 2 m by 1 m cross sectional area, and a segment 2 m 
long (average length of a cow). This is a vol­ume of 4 m3, or 11,000 kg of 
limestone. Obviously larger passages will show higher correlation and smaller 
passages lower. The effect of the above void beneath the cow at a depth of 50 m 
below the surface results in a reduction of 1.35 x 10-7 newtons of force, 
equivalent to a reduction of 1.38 x 10-8 kg in mass.
 
Exactly how a cow can distinguish this minute difference (only 3 
billionths of a percent of its mass) is at present unknown, but is being 
pursued by members of the scientific community. The many variables presented 
(depth below the surface, passage dimensions, air- or water-filled) as well as 
the effects of the various rock strata with their differing densities, all lead 
to a relatively low correlation and reliability for this method. However, when 
used in connection with other data, the bovine flux theory of cave location can 
be a valuable scientific aid. And in more ideal locations, these variations can 
be turned to advantage to predict yet undiscovered rooms, siphons, lakes, pits, 
upper and lower levels, sandstone and mud fills, etc.
 
Perhaps if there is sufficient interest, a future paper will deal 
with another valuable but little known item, the surface penetration theory of 
cave extension, the use of which can lead to previously unknown connections and 
correlations between seemingly unrelated systems.

Re: [Texascavers] cave mapping from the surface ?

[Lyndon Tiu]

Hi Dave,

Petroleum geologist and geophysicists have been using various seismic methods 
to map the sub-surface since the end of WWII (plus/minus).

The new ship probably has a more advanced/more capable version of an old 
technology.

There other technologies. There is ground penetrating radar. There is EM, 
magnetic and gravity survey techniques, to name a few. 

For example, the ground directly below a big cave would have less gravity 
because gravity is related to mass and if you have a void, there will be less 
gravity. You weigh less (just a very tiny bit) standing on the surface above a 
big cave. You can measure this slight change in gravity to determine what could 
(speculative) be underneath the surface.

It's called geophysics - the application of the laws and principles of physics 
to the study of the earth. Being in Texas, there are a lot of geophysicists 
around that can help explain how you map the underground using various 
technologies. I'm not one. Perhaps there is a geophysicist on this mailing list 
that can explain a bit more.



On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:12:41 -0600 dlocklea...@gmail.com wrote:
> There was something in the news this week about the launching
> of a big research vessel that would map the underground layers of the
> earth as it traveled around the ocean. I barely caught a glimpse
> of the news story, but it indicated they could map deep voids in
> the earth.
> 
> If this is true, do geologist have a similar device to map
> caves from a surface driven vehicle?
> 
> Or is the technology old news?
> 
> Or did I miss something?
> 
> David Locklear
> 
> -
> Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
> 


--
Lyndon Tiu

-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

[Texascavers] OT -- Edwards Aquifer fauna

[Linda Palit]

 

 

Here is a link to a news story on Zara Environmental's upcoming research on
Edwards Aquifer fauna. Click the button to hear the radio clip.

 

http://www.kut.org/items/show/10603

 

 

RE: [Texascavers] Photoshop

[Louise Power]

Jerry, Last summer I bought a Canon PowerShot A630 as my first digital 
camera--just to get the feel of one before they don't make film anymore. I 
immediately bought a 2G card for it. Although I don't go caving anymore for a 
variety of reasons, I find the camera lightweight, easy to handle and have used 
it to shoot photos for some of the publications I've done. It has an 
articulated viewscreen which fold flat against the back of the camera (I hate 
the ones that stick out on the side) and for less than $200 you can get a 
waterproof case that will allow you to photograph down to 40 meters (good for 
photographing those long underground rivers and streams). So far I've been 
really happy with it. For more info:
 
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A630/A630A.HTM
 
One of the features I'm anxious to try is the one which will stitch several 
photos together into a panorama--no more cutting and pasting in the lab or in 
Photoshop. Do you think a panorama produced by the camera instead of in the lab 
or on the screen is still a faithful representation? 
Louise


From: JerryAtkin@aol.comDate: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:23:20 -0500To: 
cvreel...@austin.rr.com; texascavers@texascavers.comSubject: Re: [Texascavers] 
Photoshop


I believe any photo can usually be improved with a bit of touch up;  whether 
you did it in the dark room in the olden days, or in PhotoShop at present is 
irrelevant.  You are still working with a single exposure in which the photons 
that were captured, document an instant in time that was selected and 
engineered by the photographer - for better or worse.  It's takes experience 
and talent to select the appropriate lighting, camera angle, exposure, and 
composition for that single photo.  Only so much can be added or deleted in 
subsequent digital manipulations.
The digital photos that give me pause are the composites, where several 
exposures are combined and edited into a final version.  To be fair,  a lot of 
talent is required to set up and engineer the shots; and to digitally merge 
them into a beautiful photo.  But something unnatural has been added I think.  
You'll never see those scenes in the cave, however magnificent they are.  To a 
purist, they are unfaithful representations of the underground, and pass into 
the realm of pure art.  This is neither bad nor good, but certainly different 
then traditional photography.
 
Jerry.
 
 
In a message dated 11/14/2007 9:45:41 P.M. Central Standard Time, 
cvreel...@austin.rr.com writes:
use Photoshop to some degree on all my cave shots. You can brighten  
underexposed areas & bring out detail, you can darken overexposed  areas, & 
generally improve the quality of the final image with a  little work. It's just 
the fake over-saturation of colors that  weren't that bright in the actual 
setting that gets to me a bit. If  you underexposed by an f-stop, by all means, 
lighten the shot up a  bit, if it makes it presentable -- but show the cave as 
it really is.I do this with my scanned slides as well as shots from the new  
digital (Yes, I highly recommend the Nikons) so the "real film vs.  digital" 
debate is kind of moot. The best thing about digital in the  preview screen. It 
sure is nice to be able to look at the image and  say "Okay, I'm going to open 
'er up an f-stop, and point that flash  you're holding about 5 degrees more to 
the left, and hold it up  higher. Ok, THAT's a keeper." (having a memory card 
that'll hold 275  RAW files is nice, too)CV

 


See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Texascavers] cave mapping from the surface ?

[David Locklear]

There was something in the news this week about the launching
of a big research vessel that would map the underground layers of the
earth as it traveled around the ocean. I barely caught a glimpse
of the news story, but it indicated they could map deep voids in
the earth.

If this is true, do geologist have a similar device to map
caves from a surface driven vehicle?

Or is the technology old news?

Or did I miss something?

David Locklear

-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: Non-caving related: A raffle to win an airplane!

[Charles Goldsmith]

Emily, I received the stub, thank you very much!

On 11/10/07, Emily McGowan  wrote:
>
>  Tee hee!  Indeed.  I forgot to ask you to send me a SASE to send you back
> the form, but it's no problem ... I'm gonna fill out your form today and
> mail the stubby part (!) to you for you to hang on your wall.   :)
>
> Thanks again, and good luck!!
>
> Emily
>
>
> Ok, just making sure that it didn't get lost in the mail :)
>
> On 11/9/07, Emily McGowan  wrote:
> >
> >  Oh, I'm so sorry.  I thought I responded!  Yes, I did receive it, and I
> > shall be writing it up this weekend.  I will be going to the Museum next
> > weekend for an event, so I'll take your stub and credit card info then.
> >
> > I am so sorry for not writing you back!
> >
> > Thanks again!  More soon ...
> > Emily
> >
> >
> >
> > Emily, I never received a response from my last email to you from a week
> > ago with payment details, did you receive that email?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Charles
> >
> >
>

[Texascavers] Canon has less sensor noise at higher ISO Re: [Texascavers] Digital (cave) Photography

[Nigel Dyson-Hudson]

Scott,
 
Check out dpreview.com and robgalbraith.com. www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page23.asp
* Canon has less sensor noise at high ISO.
* Canon has more IS, image stabilized, lenses available.
* Canon has more of the big glass. Witness how many white lenses are on the cameras at sporting events.
* To be fair, most of the photographers at a weekend photo workshop I was just at were shooting with Nikon.
 
I would say avoid the Digital Camera lenses that can only be used on small sensor, 1.6x magnification, cameras, unless you really need a 10mm, 16mm actual, wide angle lens.
 
Watch the ads from the big electronic retailers. I just got a Canon 40D kit with the IS 28-135 lens for ~$1250 from Circuit City, $ off plus a 10% discount plus 12 months same as cash.
 
If you really want a compact camera for point and shoot cave photos then look at the Canon G9. It now has RAW mode, 4096 exposure levels vs. 256 exposure levels in JPEG (12 bit RAW vs 8 bit images for JPG). There are times when a 30D or a 40D is too much of a tank and it is really nice to have the G9 in a jacket pocket or cave pack. Also you can get the G9 converted to take visible, IR and UV photos, www.maxmax.com/powershot_g9.htm. According to their guy doing the conversions, the G9 is his recommended P&S to convert at this time. Although they will convert a number of P&S and DSLR models.
nigelDo not meddle in the affairs of dragons because you are crunchy and taste good with Dinosaur barbecue sauce.



-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] Re: Good Cave Photos

[Ted Samsel]

Only Ediger is obtuser.

T.

-Original Message-
>From: Alex Sproul 
>Sent: Nov 15, 2007 10:29 AM
>To: texascavers@texascavers.com
>Subject: [Texascavers] Re: Good Cave Photos
>
>Exiled Samsel said:
>>You missed my joke.. I use Photoshop everyday,, 
>
>Admit it, Ted:  Your humor is always rather obtuse!  :^D
>
>Alex
>
>
>
>
>-
>Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
>For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
>


http://home.infionline.net/~tbsamsel/

-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

[Texascavers] Re: Good Cave Photos

[Alex Sproul]

Exiled Samsel said:
>You missed my joke.. I use Photoshop everyday,, 

Admit it, Ted:  Your humor is always rather obtuse!  :^D

Alex




-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] Houston borehole

[CaverArch]

I've canoed the Buffalo Bayou route that Sleaze describes many times, and I can 
report on another abundant predator in and about the Bayou.  I'm a Floridian by 
birth, and there's not a place in the lower 48 (even Texas) that is better turf 
for a diversity of snakes than the Sunshine State.  But despite countless days 
in the swamps there, I've never seen a higher concentration of moccasins than I 
did on one trip down the Bayou through Tanglewood and River Oaks (two of the 
most exclusive sections of Houston).  They were festooning every log and limb.

And Sleaze, you should back off on Houston.  (Yes, I know the rest of the list 
other than us GHG folks probably feel the same way.)  But Houston has come a 
long way toward remedying its some of worst sins in the last 15 years, and its 
cultural advantages are hard to beat.

But nothing will ever change the fact that we gotta drive a long way to cave 
country.

Roger Moore
Houston


In a message dated 11/15/07 07:31:56 Central Standard Time, 
mark.al...@l-3com.com writes:
Great story, yet again, Sleaze!

RE: [Texascavers] Digital (cave) Photography

[mark . alman]

 
Your TCR pictures looked great to me, Gregg.
 
Please look for them and a SLEW of more photos from TCR by a cadre of talented 
cavers and photographers in a special edition TEXAS CAVER, coming to your mail 
box in early December.
 
If you don't want to miss out on this issue, there's still time to join the TSA!
 
Go to http://www.cavetexas.org/TSA/join.html immediately, if not sooner to 
rectify this.
 
 
Mark
Editor - The TC
 



From: Gregg [mailto:iar...@io.com]
Sent: Thu 11/15/2007 8:31 AM
Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Digital (cave) Photography




All of my TCR images were taken with a $450 Canon SD850 that fits in my
pocket.  I can't imagine what I could do if I had the money to spend on
a digital camera that actually had parts.


Gregg

Re: [Texascavers] Photoshop

[John P Brooks]

I agree...using photoshop is neither good or bad. It is just another tool for 
creating images.
  As for the extraordinary cave photos that prompted this discussion; I thought 
they were stunning. They were executed with a sound understanding of 
composition, color and most important; art was present. I thought there was a 
painterly quality to them that is seldom seen in more "pure" traditional cave 
photography. The use of light and luminous color reminded me of many of the 
paintings of the Rennaisance.
  In my humble opinion, I say bravo. Well done. Thanks to Oztotl...someone is 
finally pushing the edges of cave photography!

jerryat...@aol.com wrote:
I believe any photo can usually be improved with a bit of touch up;  
whether you did it in the dark room in the olden days, or in PhotoShop at 
present is irrelevant.  You are still working with a single exposure in which 
the photons that were captured, document an instant in time that was selected 
and engineered by the photographer - for better or worse.  It's takes 
experience and talent to select the appropriate lighting, camera angle, 
exposure, and composition for that single photo.  Only so much can be added or 
deleted in subsequent digital manipulations.
  The digital photos that give me pause are the composites, where several 
exposures are combined and edited into a final version.  To be fair,  a lot of 
talent is required to set up and engineer the shots; and to digitally merge 
them into a beautiful photo.  But something unnatural has been added I think.  
You'll never see those scenes in the cave, however magnificent they are.  To a 
purist, they are unfaithful representations of the underground, and pass into 
the realm of pure art.  This is neither bad nor good, but certainly different 
then traditional photography.
   
  Jerry.
   
   
  In a message dated 11/14/2007 9:45:41 P.M. Central Standard Time, 
cvreel...@austin.rr.com writes:
  use Photoshop to some degree on all my cave shots. You can brighten  
underexposed areas & bring out detail, you can darken overexposed  
areas, & generally improve the quality of the final image with a  
little work. It's just the fake over-saturation of colors that  
weren't that bright in the actual setting that gets to me a bit. If  
you underexposed by an f-stop, by all means, lighten the shot up a  
bit, if it makes it presentable -- but show the cave as it really is.

I do this with my scanned slides as well as shots from the new  
digital (Yes, I highly recommend the Nikons) so the "real film vs.  
digital" debate is kind of moot. The best thing about digital in the  
preview screen. It sure is nice to be able to look at the image and  
say "Okay, I'm going to open 'er up an f-stop, and point that flash  
you're holding about 5 degrees more to the left, and hold it up  
higher. Ok, THAT's a keeper." (having a memory card that'll hold 275  
RAW files is nice, too)

CV

  
   




-
  See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Re: [Texascavers] Digital (cave) Photography

[Gregg]

A lot of the fun/pain of digital photography for many people is 
interface dominated.  The same is true for film cameras with 
computerized controls.  If the interface of that really nice camera 
doesn't jive with the way you think, or controls you use all the time 
are buried in layers of menues to it takes 45 seconds to take a picture 
all the time, you'll get mad.  Make sure you actually use the camera as 
much as you can, or at least cameras in the same series made by the same 
manufacturer, so you can get some idea of how it really works for you.


If you take a lot of pictures, you'll need a big hard drive.

There's some kind of WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get) problem with 
Nikon that some caused some rather serious photographers I know to each 
abandon several thousand dollars of Nikon lenses and start over 
completely with Canon when they went digital.  I don't remember exactly 
what it was but it involved using a CCD in the camera that was the wrong 
size (or something like that) so that although the pre-digital lenses 
and digital cameras were mechanically compatible and billed as such, 
that the images were not produced correctly in the image plane, or the 
image in the viewfinder was not the same in the screen or photo, or 
there was distortion because the chip picked up the non-rectified part 
of the image from the lens, or something like that.  A friend of mine 
just bought a rather expensive "digital" version of a Nikon lens for his 
non-Nikon camera that uses Nikon lenses.  I don't know what this is 
really all about but if you have Nikon lenses you want to use with the 
D200, look before you leap.


The speed of throughput from digital camera to posted image on the 
Internet or printed image (via photo retailer or your own printer) is 
staggeringly fast compared to film.


All of my TCR images were taken with a $450 Canon SD850 that fits in my 
pocket.  I can't imagine what I could do if I had the money to spend on 
a digital camera that actually had parts.



Gregg


Scott Nicholson wrote:

Since the current topic is (Cave) Photography
 
I'm finally upgrading/updating my camera setup from film to digital. 
I've used Canon/Pentax/Nikon 35mm SLR gear for many years...and I'm in 
the middle of the learning curve about Digital SLR cameras.
 
I've /almost/ decided on the Nikon D200.
 
Does anyone out there have any feedback/suggestions as I make the leap 
into the digital photography world??
 
*Scott Nicholson*

*Broker/Waterboy*
*The Discovery Team*
*(512) 94-SCOTT {947-2688}*
*Keller Williams Realty*



-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

RE: [Texascavers] Houston borehole

[mark . alman]

Great story, yet again, Sleaze!
 
Enjoyed it immensely and I can't help but wonder if you've read a lot of
Hunter S. Thompson, as I have.
 
 
Keep postin'!
 
Mark
 



From: bmorgan...@aol.com [mailto:bmorgan...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:11 PM
To: texascavers@texascavers.com
Subject: [Texascavers] Houston borehole


Once upon a time I made the mistake of visiting Houston. I think it
might have been 1989. I wrote a story about it called "A business trip
to Texas". Here is an excerpt:

"Houston is a microcosm of all our urban sins, a Los Angeles about to
happen saved from critical mass only by the oil slump.  I sat in my
motel room in despair until I remembered Wild Bill Rupley, an old caving
friend that I met in Belize.  A comprehensive tour of all the punk rock
clubs and sleazy bars in town brought my spirits back.  The next evening
we were at a loss until I mentioned the great gray green greasy Buffalo
Bayou which flows through the oldest and most decrepit part of downtown
Houston.

Wildlife is where you find it, so we outfitted ourselves with headlamps
and canoe and set out to explore Houston the hard way.  The idea was to
explore the maze of sewage tunnels beneath the city, and to shine the
eyes of trolls, rats, bag ladies, and other wildlife. Beneath the
bridges.  The bayou was up due to recent flooding so we had a fine fast
ride through the suburbs.  Our first discovery was big borehole, a
vine-draped tunnel entrance at least ten feet in diameter leading back
into the bowls of tho city.  Not having taken the proper equipment
(rubber galoshes) we were finally stopped by a deep pool of poop that
flooded the passage.  We could hear a waterfall beyond, the passage
beckoned, but prudence dictated that this was a dry weather cave.
 
The beer supply was running low, but we managed to re-provision at an
all night 7-11, then continued on down the bayou.  Beneath the bridges
the ruins of ancient civilizations could be seen everywhere, but the
inhabitants had fled to join the Anasazi.  Only one vagrant was seen,
but he submerged into the debris upon our approach and escaped before we
could photograph him to determine the species.
 
Once we reached the tidal portion of the bayou, the wildlife changed.
Regular black rats were replaced by numerous semi aquatic wharf rats.
Were those the cute little fur bearing nutrias that I had envisioned
raising as a child? "Mommy, will you buy me a swamp so I can make big
money raising nutrias?"
 
We wondered about predators, supposing that the rats were at the top of
the food chain, when whuump sploosh one of them disappeared beneath the
greasy surface.  Shortly thereafter the mystery was solved when we ran
headlong into an alligator gar that attempted to turn the canoe over and
eat us.  It was at least seven feet long.  Bill, who was in the bow, was
visably shaken.  Now that Piranhas, Alligators, rats, and Mambas have
all had their moment of glory on the silver screen, I would recommend
Gars for the next scifihorrorflick extravaganza. "Just when you thought
it was safe to canoe down the bayou ... "
 
By the time we reached the last and greatest arched bridge our minds had
become as murky as the turbid waters of the bayou.  I chanced to knock
the paddle against the side of the canoe and thereby discovered that we
were in a gigantic echo chamber, the frequency of which depended on
where we were relative to the apex of the arch of the bridge.  The
senseless hoots and gibbers that followed were compounded by the weird
acoustical aberrations of the echo chamber.  The police left us alone,
supposing that we were only an errant band of gibbering gibbons,
siamangs out for a fling."

Sleazeweazel





See what's new at AOL.com 
and Make AOL Your Homepage
 .