Talk:Kauhakō Crater

Possible future refs

I'm planning on expanding this article in the near future. I'm just placing the following refs here for easy reference, mostly for my convenience. Thought it would be better than spamming the article with random refs. :-)

• https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/27157/158.pdf?sequence=1
• https://www.nps.gov/kala/planyourvisit/upload/geologyofkala.pdf
• https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/50cb5772e4b09e092d6f03dd
• http://manoa.hawaii.edu/hpicesu/techr/140/v140.pdf
• http://npshistory.com/publications/state-of-the-park/kala-2015.pdf
• https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc1988/pdf/1106.pdf
• https://themolokaidispatch.com/nps-investigates-sulfur-smells-kalaupapa-crater/

--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Odd text

SkyGazer 512, what does ... Observations on December 8 and show of December 12ed ... mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Fixed, thanks for catching that. I don't know how that managed to stick in there, considering I had proofread the article several times.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem, looks like a drag/drop text shift issue, happens to me all the time. Glad to have been of service. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, it does looks like you (TRM) were actually the one who accidentally created the problem in Special:Diff/868010215. That's why I had thought I proofread the article and didn't notice the error! But it doesn't really matter who exactly did it, it's fixed now. :-)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah really

I suppose that someone is trying to be some kind of jerk by concealing which of the Hawaiian islands this crater is located on.Lathamibird (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lathamibird: Why would you talk like that? This is a useful, interesting article written by someone who wants to share their knowledge with you. You could look it up on Google, and contribute to the article. FiftusTheSixth (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ratio

"The lake, as confirmed by the U.S. Navy, has a depth of 248 metres (814 ft) and a much lesser width of 50 metres (160 ft), making the depth to surface area ratio of the lake greater than any other lake in the world." That's less interesting when you realize it depends on how big a puddle has to be before we define it as a lake. Although the article specifies width but not area or length, the length must equal or exceed width by definition, so the depth to area ratio is unlikely to be much more than 0.1 m/m² (depending on shape). A puddle might have a length and width of 0.3 m and a depth of 0.1 m, for a depth to area ratio of over 1 m/m². Similarly, there are presumably ponds that break that "record", without attracting attention or being called lakes. Art LaPella (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Art LaPella: Hmm, to be honest, that's never something I really thought about. I just saw that from this source, the width was roughly 50 meters and the depth confirmed as 248 meters, and that multiple reliable sources, including the NPS, state that it has the greatest surface-to-depth ratio of any lake in the world. I haven't found any mention of relating it to ponds/puddles, so I've just stuck with WP:Verifiability, not truth. I'll explore further though; in particular, let me see if I can find the length or surface area of the lake. It may be worth stating in the article what you said. Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Art LaPella: So I did some more in-depth searching and found a few interesting things. I found this book, which state's that the lake's surface area is 0.35 ha. Interestingly, I also found this book, which states that the lake has the greatest relative depth of any natural body of water in the world, rather than just any lake.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This book also states that the surface area is 0.35 ha.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"Relative depth" can't mean depth divided by area because it says Zr=371%. I don't know what "Zr" is, but assuming relative depth means relative to length, 248 m/371%=66.8 m. Assuming an approximate rectangle, 50 m times 66.8 m is 3340 m² or 0.334 hectares, which is close enough to 0.35 ha for "about" 50 m.

Depth divided by area should be in the 0.1 range, not 371%, depending on what units were used. To come out to 371% the area and depth would have to be measured in some unit of about 37 meters, and there is no such unit used commonly enough. Art LaPella (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears that you're right. In that case, I don't really know. Apologies; I'm not much of an expert in this area.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest changing "depth-to-surface area ratio" to "relative depth" without defining it, to match the source. (Or just remove the claim.) Art LaPella (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Art LaPella: The thing is, like I mentioned before, multiple reliable sources specifically state that the depth-to-surface ratio is the greatest of any lake in the world; if that claim were false, I doubt that many RS would say that it's true. After searching around, I found this, which appears to be a reliable book, defining relative depth as "the ratio of the maximum depth (m) to the average diameter of the lake surface (m²), expressed as a percentage." I also found this, which specifically mentions Kauhako in specific, saying that it "has the greatest relative depth (ratio of depth to surface area) of any lake in the world." I'm not sure why the math isn't working out right; maybe we're missing something?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by math not working out right. If sources say it has the highest depth to surface area ratio of any lake, then we can keep the article as is. As I said that depends on the definition of a lake, because the highest depth to area ratio would have to be one of the smallest bodies of water that we consider to be a lake. If any body of water is a lake, then the highest such ratio would be one molecule of water, or more than one if they momentarily stacked up on each other. I brought it up because a fact that amounts to "This is one of the smallest puddles/ponds/whatever that we call a 'lake'" might not belong on the Main Page, which is no longer an issue. Art LaPella (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I had slightly misunderstood you. I struck the math part.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Art LaPella: does make a valid point. The surface area to depth ratio makes a great story, and it may well be true. However, the article needs to quote the numbers: average width, average length, area, maximum depth. Then the claim can be checked against other claims to having the greatest area to depth ratio, should anyone care to do that. However, a width to depth ratio is more easily understandable, and doesn't mix areas and linear distances. Isn't Wikipedia great? FiftusTheSixth (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Devils Hole far surpasses Kauhakō's depth to surface area ratio, although I doubt anyone would consider it a lake. 167.131.0.195 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

500 meters

The intro cites 500 meters. The "Lake" section says 50. Might be worth clarifying that. FiftusTheSixth (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I don't know how the heck I managed to add that extra 0 in there. Thank you so much for pointing that out, FiftusTheSixth, and sorry for that confusing silly mistake; I'll try my very best not to let something like that happen again!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Happy to help. Impressed that this is in real time. FiftusTheSixth (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, FiftusTheSixth, I've self-reverted the correction as I realized that it was, in fact, intentional. The crater's diameter is 500 meters, while the lake's is 50 meters. Hopefully that clarifies things. :-)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

227.37%

There's something wrong with the decimal point on the before_oxygen level isn't there? I wouldn't be sure enough to correct it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backep1 (talk • contribs)

Yes, 227.37% has to be a typo. FiftusTheSixth (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I won't vouch for it's accuracy, but it's what the reference's author intended. The reference confirms that figure, and says "After overturning, the surface water was saltier, more acidic, and most noticeably, lacking in oxygen (often > 100% saturated, now 2–3% oxygen)." Also, the article links to oversaturated which is also about >100% saturation. Art LaPella (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Depth

One section mentions it being 914 and another 1 814. Which is it,? 2603:7081:1500:79EF:70BE:2C61:910E:113D (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)