Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

G. E. Harbeck

Publications and source records attributed to G. E. Harbeck.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Discussion of “a comparison of several heat and mass transfer networks of interest in water conservation”

The use of electrical networks to describe heat‐ and mass‐transfer problems is an interesting concept and undoubtedly will be of considerable value in future water‐loss investigations, provided the processes involved can be represented, electrically, with sufficient accuracy. Although it is true that errors in measurement of water‐surface temperature may arise when there are steep gradients in the fluid, such a temperature profile will not be associated with high evaporation rates, as implied by Poppendiek and Tribus. High evaporation is associated with appreciable wind and a resultant stirring or mixing of the upper part of the fluid. Hence the possibility of making large errors in water‐surface temperature measurements during periods of high evaporation rates are minimized. The results of the first three months of operation at Lake Hefner, Oklahoma City, Okla. [Anderson, Anderson, and Marciano, 1950] indicate that any error in evaporation computed from either the mass‐transfer or the energy‐budget equations due to errors in the measurement of the water‐surface temperature are insignificant when total evaporation over a 24‐hour period is considered.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union

A note on costs of collecting hydrometric flow data in the United States

Information for comparing costs of collecting hydrometric data in different countries may promote efficiency of operations. The hydrometric programme in the United States consists of 8400 full-record stations and an equal number of partial-record stations operated by 47 district offices. A sampling of four districts selected to represent the range of hydrometric conditions in the country indicated that costs (in 1972) for installation of a full-record station intended for indefinite terms of operation ranged between $5000 and $10,000. Short-term stations range between $2500 and $4000. Costs of operation for full-record stations ranged between $800 and $1250 per year, whereas office costs for processing the record ranged between $500 and $1250. A very considerable emphasis is given in the programme to partial-record stations designed to furnish specific information for floods and droughts. Annual costs in terms of full-record stations range from only 5 per cent for a low-flow station, 15–20 per cent for a crest-stage record, to 50 per cent for a flood-hydrogram station. Publication costs average about $7 per page. This small sample survey shows considerable variations and even greater variations might be expected internationally. In any case, differences in costs nationally or internationally invite proper inquiry as to causes in the search for economy.

Hydrological Sciences Bulletin