klenke

Cutthroat on the left, Golden Horn peeking on right shoulder of Cutthroat, Tower Mountain at right. Next.

"Who better to quantify what's a lake and what isn't." Not if he's an irresponsible geologist or dumbass geologist.

Dru, that's why I put the third option in the poll ("It is a tarn AND a lake"). My Unabridged Random House dictionary, which is by no means definitive since other dictionaries may say something else, defines as follows: 'tarn: a small moutain lake or pool, esp. one in a cirque.' My Abridged Webster's says, 'a small steep-banked mountain lake or pool.' This second definition sort of jives with Forrest's comment. Meanwhile, Random House says a lake is 'a body of fresh or salt water of considerable size, surrounded by land.' My Webster's says pretty much the same thing. Now what is considered considerable is what remains subjective. In terms of defining the highest lake in the state, one might wish to qualify with "highest lake that has an official name." Clearly, this lake (so called "Cardinal Lake" but probably not officially) is not a named lake on a map. If it is, it shouldn't be.

Heck, if you're on foot, who needs the bridges anyway? Both creeks can be stone-hopped, or forded if necessary.

Yeah, that picture I posted is of the tarn at the head of the South Fork of Bear Creek. Poll: Is this picture of a lake or a tarn by your definition?

Is this the "lake" you're talking about: click here? This is the tarn ESE of Cardinal Peak's summit. The tarn eventually drains to Bear Creek, but it is not in Bear Creek proper (this creek is north of Cardinal). See attached map. It is about the only place that could hold a tarn. The head of Bear Creek itself--at least at elevations required to hold the highest lake in the state--is not flat anywhere.

Very interesting. You learn some of the oddest things on this site. When movie trailers proclaim "Based on a True Story," I usually take this to mean liberties were taken but the inspiration was based on an actual event. Whether the eras were the same is not as important. In the case of the original Chainsaw Massacre movie, the setting is the early 70's. Ed Gein was committing his atrocities in the 50's mostly.

Mox Peak, East Face has been discussed recently at around page 3 of this thread. Lowell posted a picture of the East Face on page 3.

Blake, the highest lake question came up in this thread. I've seen 7,618-ft Libby Lake (in the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness), and 7,760-ft Tranquil Lake and 7,800-ft Isolation Lake (near Aasgard Pass). To me, the one that most qualifies as a respectable lake is Libby. The other two present themselves more as large tarns than lakes. This is all in the interpretation of the beholder though. Comment about Mesahchie Peak: gee, if I had known that mesahchie meant such vile things, I would have chosen to exclaim, "Mesahchie, mesahchie, mesahchie!" instead of other four letter words while descending that peak's super-choss gully down from the Mesachchchchchchie Glacier Couloir Col.

Yeah, I guess the arborist in you loves the clearcut stumps. The amorist in you loves the chainsaw.

Why don't you just stand naked in your own shower with ice cold water coming down on you instead? No waste of gas and no heavy pack to carry in.

More photos from our climb of Twin Peaks: Perry Creek Headwall Gully/Dike South Face of Twin Peaks, West The South Face Gully Brian in the Gully Brian on the Slab The 5.8+ Zigzag Crack Brian Zagging up the Zig Brian at the Summit View East from the Summit Other views from that day: Sloan Peak Bedal Peak Chokwich & Pugh Forgotten & White Chuck Hall Peak Silhouetted

My (not so) secret project is a FWA of the Space Needle. I dare you to climb it before me. I dare you. I double dare you. I dare you to knock these copper top batteries off my shoulders.

Yes, Harry, I would recommend you disregard non-objective commentary from certain individuals on this site. Though they may think they do, they do not speak for the majority of this site's users--especially those interested in this thread. For what it's worth, I have generally found your posts to be objective and fact-based (or mostly so). I have not seen you slight FB in any way. You have only presented information about him based on what you know of the man (statistically or otherwise). However, it is probably true what others have said that FB has no doubt done many things he fails to mention for himself. Of course, I say this not knowing how thorough he is/was in that regard. If he's like me, then he has logged EVERY mountain climb he has ever undertaken. Albeit, I do not log crags I've climbed at Leavenworth, for example. Regardless of its meaning, I was very surprised to see FB has not climbed Bonanza Peak, the non-volcanic high point of the Washington Cascades. To each their own. Your well-thought-out inputs to this thread are more important whatever the subject matter than the posts of the naysayers or contentious personalities. It takes a little time to develop a thick cc.com skin. It takes time to realize or get over those cyber personalities on this site that rub you the wrong way. This has no doubt scared off many a lurker who had at one time thought about regularly posting on this site. With this site, you have to wade through the quag to get to the fruit-laden tussock at center. Keep up the good work.

Matt: I would complain. I would complain because I'm only a bumblygumby. Good point about the fantasy names for the Enchantments. I've often wondered: why are there so many Deer Creeks and Bear Creeks and Goat Lakes and Crater Lakes? Talk about unimaginative feature namers. What, the people first in the valley saw six deer and decided to call it Deer Creek? Deer are everywhere, so calling a creek Deer Creek says nothing in particular about that creek. I've been in Swamp Creek. The ground is indeed swampy quite a distance away from the banks of the creek. That's a good creek name, then. Another peeve: naming a peak after a valley that is below it, as if to say the valley is way cooler than the peak. Example: Rock Creek Butte in The Elkhorn Mountains of NE Oregon. The valley ought to be called Rock Butte Creek in my opinion. There's a humorous example out there too: In the Pasayten just east of Mt. Lago, there is a Butte Pass. This Butte Pass is right next door to a Pass Butte. I suppose we've got Mr. Wernstedt to credit for this whimsical application. Is that the case Harry?

I was climbing in the area southwest of Stuart yesterday. The new snow level started at about 5,000 ft. About two inches on the ground at 5,800 ft. Snow was wet and, except for in shaded areas, proceeded to melt in the next few hours I was up at that level. I'd expect you'd find lingering patches of snow at Lake Colchuck (5,570 ft) if it has been sunny. If it has been shaded (overcast), I'd expect two or three inches on the ground. Keep in mind though that where I was by Cle Elum Lake may be totally different to the Colchuck Lake area.

Doesn't anybody ever heed my advise? "What am I a clown to you? Do I make you laugh?" [name that movie, name that actor]

Wanker Sprayer: you can still view the fotos. Simply click on the picture itself (where the box with the red X shows up) and it will reload as a larger photo. If I have one complaint it is that Ernie didn't scale down the photos first, as they are too large for efficient viewing.

Ernie, you should put those pictures in the CC.com Events Gallery. To do this, select Edit Photo for each entry then go to the Change Category Box. The events gallery is where a lot of the other events photos have been put. Plus they'll be easier to find later, if need be.

Pretty funny website, nonanon. I especially like the last career choice in Section IV "Careers for Evil Doers": The Spammer. Yep, these guys are so despicable not even the evil people like them. "Warning: This is without a doubt the most depraved, foul, insidious and malevolent of all possible evil professions. If you choose this job you will be hated by good and evil-doers alike, becoming the lowest of all possible lows, with vigilantes hunting you and entire religions springing up devoted to your destruction. And not without good reason. You will need: 'Special $200 CD with email addresses lifted from USENET! All completely legal! Really!' Also required: Overall worthlessness, wretched stench, complete and utter lameness, heart of darkness, unending depravity, lack of a soul, I.Q. the equivalent of pond scum, and the charm of a three-day-dead rat left festering in the sun that even the maggots won't touch because it's so goddamn ugly and repulsive. We won't actually go into the details of this job as it's far too disgusting, even for us. Nevertheless, as a spammer you will now honestly be able to say your downfall from humanity is complete, that your eternal damnation is assured and that none exist who can surpass you in vileness. Now get away from me."

Maybe the problem is the formaldehyde in your head. Solution: get ice pick from kitchen drawer. Shove pick into skull. Drain formaldehyde through hole. If bleeding persists, call a doctor. Maybe Norman_Clyde will make a house call.

Hey, thanks for that advice. Let me try those: µ ø Ø Cool! Can you send me a complete list of stroke commands? That would be much appreciated. Even so, I'm not going to go back and edit my main analysis post.

Yeti: a climber's normal force N is NOT constant throughout the climb. Only his or her weight W is constant. The normal force is highly dependent on the location of one's center of gravity and the applied line of force to the wall (usually through the legs). Lean too close to the wall and you are in effect changing the line of application of the normal force AND decreasing N because more of your weight is directed ALONG the wall. In the limit as your center of gravity coincides with the wall (i.e., you're hugging the wall), there is no longer a normal force into the wall, only a downward force onto whatever foothold(s) you're standing on. Someone else made a comment about getting your butt out to increase the contact surface of your shoes against the wall. This is only partially correct. In friction analysis, the total area of contacting surface does not play into the friction force. That is, it neither increases nor decreases the available friction force. Getting your butt out simply increases the all-important normal force. However, if you lean out, you may be able to get more of that sticky stuff that makes up the sole of your rock shoes on the wall whereby it can "grip." I use grip here as something other than friction alone. Grip would imply a shoe deforming around a nubbin, such as is possible when you flex your toes.

Engineering with nothing better to do finds his way to a keyboard and types away... Forgive me but I can't seem to get Greek symbols to show up so I've tried to mark them in different colors instead. q = theta phi = phi ms = mus and mk = muk Increasing your weight while slipping, be it by eating rapidly or picking up a barbell, will not necessarily cause you to stop slipping. Here's why: The assumption here is for an ideal case where there are no external forces to the system. There is no wind force or muscular force or a pull force from a rope; "things of that natua" as A'nold would say. All that is present is one's weight due to gravity [W]. This weight causes a normal force [N=Wcosq], a surface-parallel force [F=Wsinq], and a static frictional force [f = (ms)N], where q is the angle of inclination of the rock from the horizontal. Now, for the sake of argument, let's assign a value to the coefficient of static friction. This coefficient can range from 0.0 to 1.0. A null value denotes a perfectly frictionless surface, something that is generally impossible to achieve in practice. A value of 1.0 would correspond to being riveted or epoxied to the mountain. Let us therefore choose ms = 0.6. I have no idea if this is a good ballpark figure for rock. (Some rock is lichen covered, some is very rough.) But for the sake of argument the exact value doesn't matter. Furthermore, mk must be less than ms, so let's choose mk = 0.4. Now, for any given value of ms (in the absence of forces other than one's weight, W) there is an angle of repose, phi. For sliding to be impending (about to happen), F must be exactly opposed by f. This requires Wsinq = (ms)N = (ms)Wcosq. W cancels out. With ms known, the angle of repose at which impending motion is about to occur can be calculated as phi = q = arctan (0.6) = 31 degrees. This means that for rock inclinations <= 31 degrees, no motion will occur. For inclinations >31 degrees, motion will occur and the magnitude of the frictional force will instantaneously drop to f = mkN = mkWcosq. It may appear, based on this last equation, that increasing W (your weight) will increase the friction force and you can therefore use this increased force as an impetus to stop sliding. The problem is that W is also a factor in the sliding force F (i.e., F=Wsinq). For equal values of W for both equations, it can be seen that F increases as q increases; but f decreases as q increases. This is true for all values of W. The result is that F gets bigger while f gets smaller. Not a good thing for avoiding slipping or the continuance thereof. Conclusion: (scenarios) 1. If you're slipping because the inclination of the rock you were trying to climb up exceeded the angle of repose, then you cannot regain a static condition simply by increasing your weight. 2. However, if you're slipping because you unintentionally lowered the available friction by way of decreasing your own normal force (because you leaned into the rock too much instead of keeping your butt out as is required), then you can possibly stop sliding just by getting your butt back out where it's supposed to be. In this case, the inclination of the rock is less than the angle of repose. Getting your butt back out simply increases N, thereby increasing f. 3. Scenario 2 can also be remedied by increasing your weight, which would increase f quicker than it increases F. 4. If the rock inclination is greater than the angle of repose then it really doesn't matter where your butt is. That is, even at maximum N value (maximum butt extension), you're going to slide and won't be able stop yourself. Limits: (asymptopes) 1. In theory, mk can have a value of unity (1.0) like ms, but this is really not practicable. If mk could be 1.0, however, then this would result in a maximum angle of repose of phi = arctan (1.0) = 45 degrees. This means that for rock inclinations > 45 degrees friction alone will not and cannot save you and you therefore better come up with a different constraining force. A pro placement above you or a hand or foothold would work well for this. 2. For a ms value of 0.0 (hence mk = 0.0) the contact surface must be horizontal. Any slight tilt will induce sliding. Furthermore, since this is a frictionless surface (ms = 0.0), no value of W will stop the sliding. The only way to stop the sliding would be to introduce an external force such as a shepherd's crook. Speaking of shepherd's crook, I see one coming in from my side. Later, boys and gir....

Not an audio tape I'd like to hear thank you very much.