Water Infiltration

Discussion in 'Turf Renovation' started by Smallaxe, Nov 29, 2013.

  1. Skipster

    Skipster LawnSite Bronze Member
    Messages: 1,086

    So, you picked 10 numbers from 0.1 to 0.01 and plotted them decreasing by 0.01 each time. Of course you'll get your precious 1:1 ratio, generally speaking.

    The bottom line is that you ignored the abundance of factors that influence infiltration and you chose to claim that particle size was the end-all-be-all. While particle size certainly plays a role, you chose to ignore all the other factors and give a totally unrepresentative view of the concept.

    No matter how much you try to manipulate the numbers (anyone can cherry pick numbers like you just did) or try to backpedal, your statement was wrong.

    We all know it was wrong and you posted evidence that you were wrong -- you just didn't read it first. You have now been held to the same standard you hold everyone else to. Move on.
  2. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 18,335

    I didn't pick "numbers", I plotted 10 possible Ksat values from the referenced NRCS range of values for the bulk density and soil texture shown.

    It would not have mattered if I plotted 5, 13, 23, etc.... Ksat values, or if I spanned the values across textures or groups, as long as the difference between values is the same.

    I could also choose values that do not show a 1:1 relationship. Does that mean a linear correlation does not or cannot exist ...... NO! This is obviously a concept you are really struggling with here, as is evidenced by the numerous mistakes you have made in your "arguments".

    Further, I already pointed this out to you when I linked the data the first time, and you were unable to wrap your head around it then, and you are still unable to wrap your head around it now. So either you don't know how to read a textural triangle, you don't understand the NRCS data, you don't understand what a range is, or all of the above. My vote goes to all of the above.

    You continue to put words in my mouth .... as usual.

    I did not ignore anything nor did I ever make any such claim. In the context of the question that I answered the statement was accurate. How many times do I have to point that out skip before you actually understand it?

    Further. infiltration rate is largely a factor of particle size, especially given particle size directly influences/impacts many of the other factors I listed. Is particle size the "only" factor that influences infiltration .... absolutely not and I NEVER said it was.

    I pointed out these factors in my first response to you, and asked for discussion on those factors from you .... and you still avoid any intelligent discussion on anything here.

    Where is the discussion skip? Why is it that someone who claims to be an expert in this field doesn't understand the referenced equations or how to use them?

    Yet another display of your intellectual dishonesty. How exactly did I manipulate the numbers? Can you substantiate that statement? Are you implying the Ksat values chosen from the range of potential values are not possible? Again we find you exposing your lack of understanding on how ranges and the textural triangle works.

    Actually skip, I just showed I was not wrong .... AGAIN. Further, I did not post any "evidence" that contradicts what I stated. Once more we find you are completely unable to exhibit even the smallest amount of intellectual honesty here.

    You have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of comprehension with regard this subject matter. You have misrepresented referenced equations and data because you simply don't have the background or training you want everyone to believe you have.

    You don't understand the relationship between infiltration rate and saturated hydraulic conductivity, you don't understand how to use infiltration equations, nor what they represent, yet you claim to have helped developed smart controllers for Rainbird and Toro. You even mangled your attempt to make this discussion about golf and greens.

    Quite simply, the errors you have made in this discussion are too numerous to list.

    You have dug a hole so deep here there is no hope of you ever climbing out of it .... so indeed skip, you should move on.
  3. Skipster

    Skipster LawnSite Bronze Member
    Messages: 1,086

    Anyone can choose a 1:1 ratio out of that number range. You didn't back your assertion, which was that it absolutely had to be a 1:1 ratio (thus directly proportional).

    If you understand that the ratio may not necessarily be 1:1, then you know that it is NOT directly proportional, but is some other type of proportion.

    It all hinges on your use of the word directly. This is not a semantic point, but a very important one. Each word matters.
  4. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 18,335

    So we come full circle and you continue to put words in my mouth and take my statement out of context. You are getting really desperate here skip.

    I did not say absolutely or anything that even resembled an absolute condition, I said generally speaking.

    On the other hand you have made numerous "absolute" statements in this thread that are completely and utterly wrong .... just for the record.

    I have no responsibility or burden here to substantiate an assertion I never made. If I were to speak absolutely, then I would not have said yes and no, and I most certainly would not have said Generally speaking.

    In the context of the question answered the statement is valid. Your continued attempts to take my statement out of context and put words in my mouth is nothing short of pathetic and has grown quite tiresome. You can whine and cry all you want skip, but at the end of the day the statement will still be true within the context it was presented.

    This discussion is over as I am fed up arguing with a layman.
  5. Skipster

    Skipster LawnSite Bronze Member
    Messages: 1,086

    You're having trouble seeing the forest because all the trees are getting in your way.

    When you said that infiltration rate is directly proportional to particle size, you expressly said that infiltration rate varies in a 1:1 ratio with respect to particle size, which means that ANY variation in infiltration rate MUST include a variation in particle size and that infiltration rate can not vary independent of particle size (if it could, then the direct proportionality (the 1:1 part) wouldn't exist. You expressly prohibited any of a host of factors from having any influence on infiltration rate, which we know is false.

    You're trying to rely on your favorite qualifier (generally speaking) to get you out of a jam here. By putting "generally speaking" in front of "infiltration rate is directly proportional to particle size," you said "sometimes infiltration always depends only on particle size."

    Statements like yours are common among people who don't understand a topic very well but want to impress others by making them think they know what they're talking about.

    It seems like you sometimes always do this.
  6. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 18,335

    Happy holidays layman.
  7. Skipster

    Skipster LawnSite Bronze Member
    Messages: 1,086

    Sometimes always Merry Christmas, generally speaking, of course!

Share This Page