[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: SOlution Fractions

Opps.  I sent you the wrong file.  Pl. use this.
There's 3x times the Cl- in B.

* Ranjan S. Muttiah                     * 
* Associate Professor                   *
* Texas Agricultural Experiment Station *
* 808 East Blackland Road               *
* Temple, Texas 76502                   *
* Tel: 254-774-6103                     *
* Fax: 254-770-6561                     *
* email: muttiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx          *

-----Original Message-----
From: David L Parkhurst [mailto:dlpark@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:09 AM
To: muttiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-Reply-To: <NFBBJFDDBBBCHIDBODCJEEJCCMAA.muttiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: SOlution Fractions

> The measurements are on A (Sumner,NM) and downstream of A
at B (Acme, NM) on the Pecos.
I put in all the anion/cation measurements at A and
B and get -200.2 for H2O mole transfer (see attached
for input file).

Attached input file has similar analyses for solutions 1 and 2. If there
has been significant evaporation, I would expect to see higher chloride
downstream (~5 times greater). Looks more like loss of water by seepage to
the ground-water system than evaporation.

> Looking at the stream flow record,
there's 80 cfs at A and 15 cfs at B on the days
of measurement.  I'm assuming
that the difference has been lost to evaporation
and channel loss.  The mixing ratio gives soln1:2
of 4.6:1 from the model.

When I run it, I get 1.0 mixing fraction?

> Should I take this to
mean that the model estimates that 3.6 kg (= 200.2/55.5)
of water was lost at B for every kg of water @ A
due to evaporation ? (the recorded stream
flow loss gives 80/15 = 5.7). How should I
interpret the 4.6 ratio ?

It means that 4.6 L of water at A is evaporated to leave 1 L of water at B.
The difference is approximately 3.6 L of water ~ 3.6 kg water ~ 200 moles
of water that has evaporated, which is the mole transfer of H2O(g). I don't
see this when I run your model, but if there is no significant channel
seepage the model would be describing the evaporation process. In this
case, the 4.6:1 should be similar to the flow ratios 5.7:1.


David Parkhurst (dlpark@xxxxxxxx)
U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25046, MS 413
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225

Project web page: https://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/GWC_coupled

Attachment: Pecos_SumnerAcmeSep1979.pqi
Description: Binary data

Project Home Page
Complete Water Resources Division Software
USGS Home Page
Water Resources Division Home Page
NRP Home Page
Help Page
USGS Privacy Statement       

Please note that some U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) information accessed through this page may be preliminary in nature and presented prior to final review and approval by the Director of the USGS. This information is provided with the understanding that it is not guaranteed to be correct or complete and conclusions drawn from such information are the sole responsibility of the user.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

The URL of this page is: https://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/GWC_coupled/phreeqc/mail/msg00023.html
Last modified: $Date: 2005-09-13 21:04:21 -0600 (Tue, 13 Sep 2005) $
Visitor number 2307 since Jan 22, 1998.