|
<br />IV. DATA
<br />
<br />Table 2.-Compressed-scale Weighing Gage Data-Precipita-
<br />tion in Inches of Water.
<br />
<br />Day January February March April
<br />I 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,02
<br />2 ,00 .01 ,00 ,02
<br />3 ,00 ,01 ,01 ,0:3
<br />4 ,07 ,02 ,m , 12
<br />5 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,50
<br />6 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,02
<br />7 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,06
<br />8 ,00 ,16 ,03 ,05
<br />9 ,04 ,00 .40 ,15
<br />10 ,24 ,07 ,02 , 10
<br />11 ,40 ,04 ,02 ,01
<br />12 ,01 ,07 ,Of) ,04
<br />13 ,00 ,10 ,05 ,02
<br />14 ,00 ,25 ,07 ,04
<br />15 ,03 ,02 ,02 ,00
<br />16 ,01 ,02 ,30 ,00
<br />17 ,01 ,02 ,10 ,00
<br />18 ,01 ,01 ,03 ,41
<br />19 ,01 ,02 ,02 ,05
<br />20 ,01 ,03 ,01 ,00
<br />21 ,11 ,OI ,00 ,00
<br />22 ,03 ,07 ,42 ,01
<br />23 ,01 ,09 ,11 ,14
<br />24 ,77 ,01 ,10 ,00
<br />25 ,25 ,01 ,If) ,00
<br />26 ,02 ,Ol ,12 ,02
<br />27 ,17 ,04 ,30 ,01
<br />28 ,80 ,on ,01 ,02
<br />29 ,57 ... . ,0:) ,01
<br />30 ,10 ... . ,O-l- .... . , ,
<br />31 ,06 " , , , " ' ,O-l- ..... . , ,
<br /> ---
<br />Monthly total, , , , , " , 3,73 1.20 2,52 1.86
<br />Total for period, , , , , , ....... . . . . . . . . . , , , ,9,31 inches.
<br />
<br />29
<br />
<br />practical reasons, and a power equipment failure
<br />later in the season caused a I-month down time.
<br />The absence of radar data is disappointing in that
<br />we wanted to correlate radar return with the snow-
<br />rate at ground stations, in addition to tracking
<br />storm systems through the measurement network.
<br />The absence of rawinsonde data is partially com-
<br />pensated by the Grand Junction values and the sur-
<br />face values at Buffalo Pass, Rabbit Ears Pass and
<br />Emerald Mountain.
<br />
<br />Hydrological Data
<br />Ridge station snowcourse runs began on 15 Janu-
<br />ary 19fiEi, and valley station courses about 10 Febru-
<br />ary 19fi5. A 5-day measurement cycle was used for
<br />most stations. The valley thaw occurred in mid-
<br />April and the ridge thaw about 1 May; values be-
<br />yond these dates are not used for analysis purposes.
<br />Stream gage installation was neg-otiated by the
<br />Bureau of Reclamation with the U.S. Geological
<br />Survey in February 1965; there was no practical pos-
<br />sibility of installing useful gages during Phase 1.
<br />
<br />Artificial Nuclei Generator Data
<br />Table 3 lists the characteristics of the artificial
<br />nuclei generators tested on Emerald Mountain.
<br />Calibration data for the Colorado State University
<br />Skyfire-type generator came from CSU. Mr. Donald
<br />Fuquay, U.S. Department of Agriculture, furnished
<br />the data for the Hi-Output Skyfire-type generator
<br />based on type-tests of several units. All three units
<br />are to be recalibrated by the Colorado State
<br />University in mid-August.
<br />
<br />Table 3.-Artificial Nuclei Generator Characteristics.
<br />
<br /> Output
<br /> Percent
<br /> AgI in Propane Effective
<br />Type solution Fuel flow pressure nuclei/sec. Temperature
<br />CSU Skyfire , , , , , , , , ' 4 400 ml/hr.." , , , , , 5 psi""", " 2 X 1015/g.. , , , ' , , , ' , ' . . . . . . . . _200 C,
<br /> (CSU calibration)
<br />Modified Sky fire , , , , . 4 400 ml/hr.. " , ' , , , 5 psi"" ... . 2 X 1015/g" , " ...... . _200 C,
<br /> (assumed)
<br />IE-Output Sky fire , , , , 4 2,000 ml/hr.."", 5 psi.... ..' 3 X 1013/sec, , ......... . -200 C.
<br /> 7 X 1012/sec" , ' ............. . -150 C.
<br /> 3 X 10 II /sec.. ' , , , , , , , , ' , ' , ' , , _100 C.
<br /> 4 X 1OIO/sec, , ' , , , , , , ' , ' .... . - 80 C,
<br /> (Fuquay type test average)
<br />
|