Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00078:3 <br /> <br />1I~ <br /> <br />,~f~\ <br />''''-.'7 <br /> <br />Table 1.--Net rise in observation well versus time for pond No. <br />Field Station at Five points--Continued <br /> <br />1, Westside <br /> <br />~~~~;~;l~ <br /> <br /> <br />y:::,-.,;,,~~'p ":';'- <br /> <br /> <br />tlti <br />~1<:>.;~?'.:\:;;:;' <br />g)J.{fl;i';:1 <br /> <br /> Elapsed days <br /> 28.993 32.993 35.993 40.993 45.993 48.993 55.993 63.993 <br />Well Well rise (in feet) above average head prior to elapsed day (-5.875) <br />No.2 <br /> 7A 1.24 1.14 1.06 0.90 0.79 0.70 0.50 0.47 <br /> 8 1.15 1.05 .98 .83 .70 .66 .48 .40 <br /> 9 1.04 .94 .89 .74 .63 .55 .40 .32 <br />10 1.33 1.20 1.12 .93 .80 .71 .55 .49 <br />11 1.24 1.13 1.06 .87 .74 .66 .48 .44 <br />12 1.10 1.02 .95 .77 .69 .59 .44 .36 <br />13 1.02 .95 .87 .72 .62 .53 .40 .30 <br />14 1.41 1.28 1.22 .99 .86 .77 .52 .55 <br />15 1.29 1.22 1.16 .94 .82 .91 .50 .52 <br />16 1.18 1.16 1.11 .87 .75 .67 .47 .50 <br />17 1.11 1.09 1.06 .82 .73 .65 .47 .48 <br />18 1.28 1.23 1.18 .93 .82 .73 .49 .46 <br />19 1.23 1.11 1.09 .86 .75 .70 .51 .44 <br />20 1.16 1.06 .78 .66 .69 .62 .45 .36 <br />21 1.27 1.16 1.09 .90 .78 .70 .53 .44 <br /> lAssumed as t = 0 for rising hydrographs. <br /> 2Por well spacing see figure 1. <br /> 3Casing failure in deep well supplying pond caused a cutback in input rate <br />(i) . <br /> 4Day that all surface water was drained from plot, therefore assumed as <br />t' = o for falling mound. <br /> <br />Iil."';;;;..."',.... <br /> <br />~';t;~.{c5;: <br /> <br />;.'--;'--.-" <.~-" <br /> <br />:.;<,'. <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />-,.'.',; ',.-:;.; <br /> <br />:~:~~;:;-;-j '. '. <br /> <br /> <br />.'~\.lSlll'illrJ{lt~~~tIiB~l~ <br />