Fritz Holt said:
I'm sure that there must be an explanation why these formations grew at such a
rapid rate.
And George Nincehelser said:
Or phrased another way, why do we always seem to assume formations must grow slowly?
Under favorable conditions, is fast growth possible?
I think there is great variability in the rate at which formations grow.
Some do indeed grow very slowly, while others obviously grow quite rapidly. I
have seen manmade artifacts covered with flowstone in a cave in only a hundred
years or so. Calcite ice can grow back on cave pools that have been disturbed
in only a few months. Under optimum conditions with steady water flow and
proper alkalinity and pH formations should grow quickly, but in caves the
conditions are likely not always optimum, and may vary considerably from season
to season or year to year. Some formations are definitely very old based on
various dating techniques, but that doesn't mean they've been growing at a
uniform rate all of that time. I think one can more accurately talk about how
old something is rather than how long it took to form.
Mark Minton
From: George Nincehelser
Sent: Tue 7/17/2007 11:34 AM
To: Texas Cavers
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] [Bat "Caught" by Stalactite]
Or phrased another way, why do we always seem to assume formations must grow slowly?
Under favorable conditions, is fast growth possible?
Has anyone tried to grow "artificial" formations under controlled conditions?
George
On 7/17/07, Fritz Holt <fh...@townandcountryins.com> wrote:
I am waiting for a knowledgeable geologist or someone to tell us that these formations are not formed by the same minerals or in the same manner in which cave formations are formed. I'm sure that there must be an explanation why these formations grew at such a rapid rate.
Fritz with questions.
