Talk:Soil liquefaction/Archive 1

Archive 1

rename

The name Soil liquefaction was created by me in error when i copied and pasted this article there rather than moving. now it's impossible to move this text there, to conform with standard capitalization. please move it there. thanks. Ungtss 02:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. Gdr 21:33, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Thank you, sir:). Ungtss 21:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

flood geology

the flood geology section and link were summarily erased, ostensibly because "there is already a page on it." there are also pages on all the other topics in which liquefaction is relevent and briefly summarized (earthquakes, quicksand, turbidity currents, and waveloading), so that is no justification for deleting this section. the accusation of pseudoscience is one pov among two, and is therefore also no justification for deleting the section. Ungtss 02:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that those are science articles. You yourself said in your comments on the other page that science does not matter there, that page is for (paraph.) "flood geology stuff" and no scientific comment was welcome. I'm leaving that alone. But this is a science page, not a religion page. All those other things have published scientific studies done on them. Please show me a published scientific study on this flood geology stuff and then we will work out a compromise. --DanielCD 16:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image

The image [[1]] appears to have no relation to the article. It needs to be removed. Vsmith 16:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

wave loading

removed ostensibly because they're unverifiable and "don't make sense." on the contrary, they are CORRECT, and RELEVENT. why were they deleted? Ungtss 18:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wave loading has to do with ressure exerted by water and essentially has nothing to do with liquefaction. I have done a lot of research and can find no references to it being used scientifically in regards to liquefaction. It is simply not relevant to the article. --DanielCD 19:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Wave loading has to do with ressure exerted by water and essentially has nothing to do with liquefaction.>>

non-sequitur. the paragraph describes exactly what the relationship is. the relief of wave pressure on the sand CAUSES liquefaction. i have a reference. why don't you tell me what your "mainstream scientists" think causes the sand to give way under our feet as the wave recedes, or causes beaches to form, if not wave-loading? Ungtss 19:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Its not important enough to be in the article because it's covered by the other material. When I say it has nothing to do, I mean practically. Sure pressure pushes up sediment, but having a section for it is like having a section on "seeing" in the eye article where you say "When an eye opens, things are seen. Opening the eye is called "Openeyeiism". and then having a paragraph explainig this "Openeyeiism". It's overkill. Using wave loading to decribe this process is a misuse of the term. --DanielCD 19:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and when sand gives way beneath your feet, it's called : "Sand giving way beneath your feet." A much simpler way to say it. Beaches form by waves pushing sand. Again, much simpler. --DanielCD 19:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Oh, and when sand gives way beneath your feet, it's called : "Sand giving way beneath your feet." >>

but that doesn't explain WHY it does it ONLY when the wave recedes, and not when it APPROACHES the beach. the explanation is LIQUEFACTION.

<<Opening the eye is called "Openeyeiism".>>

false analogy. It's another instance of the exact same phenomenon, and is therefore relevent, and downright cool. why do you want it cut out?

Source: “Breakthroughs in Science, Technology, and Medicine,” Discover, November 1992, p. 14. Ungtss 19:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The analogy is about the overkill relation. The term is not used anywhere else to describe this phenomenon. By using it in such an odd context, it's confusing. And yes, sand giving way is called liquefaction. You are right. No need to go into a complicated "Wave loading" explaination. The term may describe it, but it's like going into a complicated explaination about pressure against wood and metal when describing how an axe works. Sure the terms and such regarding pressure are relevant, but unessesary. On the pressure page it's relevant, if it's describing some principle. Its easier to say "an axe is used to chop wood" than to say "when the axe goes through the air, it experiences "negative wind force" as it approaches the tree. at the point of contact, an extreme pressure is exerted by the blade. This is "blade force". The pressure is caused by the chemical energy released in the person's muscles. The blade force moves the bark to the side as the axe enters... Just say when an axe hits a tree the wood is chopped. --DanielCD 20:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

okay, i omitted the term "wave-loading," but returned the material. liquefaction is called liquefaction:). Ungtss 20:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good compromise. --DanielCD 20:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out that i was using a non-standard definition:). Ungtss 20:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just wish I could come up with better analogies. These are kinda dorky, but best I could come up with on the spot. You spar well, and I am honored to spar with such a worthy opponent. Going through this process really forces a person to really think and clarify their own ideas. May we each help the other clarify our own convictions to ourselves... --DanielCD 20:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

indeed -- an honor sparring with you as well -- one of my favorite aspects of wikipedia is how it gives me unfettered access to brilliant individuals such as yourself -- dialectic is the best means to sharpen one's own mind, wouldn't you say:)? Ungtss 20:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

This article is rambling and wide-ranging. I would cut it up. I've added a link to my page of earthquake liquefaction. In geotechnical engineering (me), 'quick' conditions are different, such as piping below dams. --Zeizmic 14:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it's appropriate to have articles on the individual types of liquefaction, but also appropriate to have an article that briefly summarizes the varying incidents of the phenomenon. i think what we've got here is a brief summary. perhaps more detail would be appropriate on your earthquake page, without breaking this page up? Ungtss 14:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll start filling in the other geotechnical phenomena outlined here. I do not have comfort in using the USGS picture of Nigata because I never saw where they got it from. I'm sure it's a news photo, and was not taken by them. As for cutting this up, I'll leave it to the senior editors, but ideally it would something as a stub, leading to the other specific links, such as: 'Liquefaction is a general term referring to the production of a liquid from another state....' --Zeizmic 15:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. the page as it was provided a brief overview of the modes of liquefaction. the photos were high quality, and there were a good number of external links which you've summarily deleted. please discuss these massive changes. Ungtss 01:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved the old stuff over the Soil liquefaction. Hopefully this is a mutually agreeable solution. Ungtss 01:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, you did an improper copy and paste operation. Now the content exists on the new page without the proper history of its development or of its talk page and this is quite contrary to Wikipedia rules and presents rather serious problems. Now I'm going to try to undo the mess. -Vsmith 01:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you've made an honest mistake from time to time too, Mr. Smith? Ungtss 01:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I have, now if you want to you can properly move the content as I think I have undone the problem. Vsmith 01:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thank you:). Ungtss 01:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it won't move because the name's taken, so i gave it two caps, and i'll ask to have an admin move it to conform with cap conventions. Ungtss 02:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking that might happen - hope they can get the talk page tied to it correctly. Sorry 'bout being so brusk a bit ago, yes I've made my share of goofs :-) Vsmith 02:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks, man. sorry i screwed it up:(. Ungtss 02:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

This is fine, I just wikified a bit. I'm going to throw in something on Ottawa Leda Clay (Boston Blue Clay), which is wonderful stuff.--Zeizmic 13:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

awesome:). thanks:). Ungtss 13:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)