 |
 |
Terry, Could you give us some idea of versions, costs, etc. Thanks, Bill C. ----- Original Message ----- From: Pavlis, Terry L To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:34 AM Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons. three words: solar panel + battery no problem; have done it for years in fly camps in Alaska, including on the ice. Terry Pavlis From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jann Beresford Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 5:30 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons. I have just jumped into this thread after being internet/computer/phoneless for a few weeks field working...and I apologise if this repeats the main point- to me at least- that I hope someone will have made before now...... is that all the high tech equipment in the world is worth sweet FA if there is no electricity to charge it's battery !!!!...... and when your GPS runs out of batteries there is no replacement for a good old compass clino......... thanks mr whalley for putting up with all my moaning as you taught me how to triangulate myself .... jann exploration geologist........ remote field camp -----Original Message----- From: Macdonald, Professor David I. M. <[log in to unmask]> To: GEO-TECTONICS <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 6:57 Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons. I have followed this thread with great interest. Like many, I have been a fence-sitter, and I appreciate the suggestions for digital field work that have been made. There are, however, a few points that need to be emphasized in favour of traditional methods. 1. I use a GPS myself for field work location, but I am confident that if the device fails I will be able to locate myself and get back to safety using a map and compass. If we do not teach our students these traditional relocation and navigation skills we put them at risk when we send them off to do their own independent mapping. A 4-6 week independent field project is the norm at British universities, on top of any taught field classes and we have a duty to prepare students for working alone in remote areas. 2. The costs of digital equipment are utterly prohibitive at undergraduate level. We are a mid-size department by UK standards (20 faculty, not all full-time), but we have at least 4,000 (four thousand) student-field days in a normal year: 100 second years doing 5 taught days, 70 third years with 20 taught days, and 60 fourth years with seven taught days, plus 60 students doing 35 days of independent work. At busy periods like the Easter break we can have 200 students in the field at once, in different areas of the country. Even if we gave them a cheap GPS unit each – the Garmin eTrex H at GBP64 (on Amazon this morning), we would need an initial capital outlay approaching fifteen thousand pounds (USD23,000) – perhaps you are richer in the US, but this is way beyond even fantasy budgets for us. 3. There is a strong pedagogic argument in favour of paper teaching to start with, which has been well-articulated by Maarten Krabbendam. I do not agree with Terry Pavlis’ response to Maarten’s post, as I hope an analogy will show. We run an internationally renowned taught masters programme in petroleum geoscience here in Aberdeen. Next year will mark its 50th anniversary, and in that time we have had students from more than 25 countries, so there is a cultural cross-check on results. We teach seismic interpretation across both semesters, but the first semester is entirely paper-based: our view is that if you cannot do it on paper, you cannot do it on a work station. More crudely, if you don’t know what you are doing, a workstation is just a device for getting into trouble more quickly. In that 50 years, nearly 1,000 students have done the programme, with the failure rate in geophysics well below 1% and no cultural bias in the results. I am of the firm opinion that the same approach holds good in field work to start with. 4. Since I have done most of my field work from tents in the Antarctic (7 seasons), Arctic (2), Falklands and Patagonia (4), and Russian Far East (6) I have developed a jaundiced view of the long-term robustness of many electronic gadgets: ten days of solid cloud and snow renders solar chargers useless, clumsy PhD students have dropped and broken two GPS units and a mobile mapper, and a distinguished colleague proved that a Panasonic Toughbook was not quite so tough when you drive a pickup truck over it (he has learned a valuable lesson: never leave two thousand pounds worth of computer on the wheel of a truck – the crunch is expensive). The message is that stuff happens, and we need backups! 5. As a final point, let me address field sketches. There has been a lot of talk along the lines of “I cannot draw”, “I have no artistic ability” etc. The first point is wrong: anyone can be taught to draw. In defence of this point, let me quote an interview with the artist David Hockney, interviewed by John Tusa on BBC radio: Hockney: … you can teach people to draw quite competently, anybody. To draw like you know Picasso or Rembrandt's something else. But I think, in a way what they were doing was teaching a craft, and not the poetry, they just accepted you could teach craft actually, which I think is perfectly straightforward ... Tusa: What, you can just discover the poetry later, but you need to know how to do the craft first. Hockney: Well you can't teach the poetry, but you can teach the craft The second point, about art, misses the point. When you do a field sketch you are absolutely not doing art, you are creating a cartoon. The aim of a field sketch is to make you look at thing properly. Students moan about having to do it, but in our experience everyone improves when forced to do it. The main student question is “Can’t I take a photograph?”. Answer: “NO, you then have a photo of something you don’t understand!”. Again, much easier to learn to sketch on paper. These are not intended as luddite points – I am a firm believer in the value of digital capture in research fieldwork – merely a plea on behalf of traditional methods. With best wishes David <-<<--<<<--->>>-->>-> David Macdonald Professor of Petroleum Geology University of Aberdeen Meston Building Aberdeen AB24 3UE Tel: 01224-273451 Mobile: 07909-611775 E-mail: [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julia Kramer Bernhard Sent: 13 April 2011 08:40 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons. Lack of time to teach things well at university is a good point. I would like to add, however, that lack of time is the usual state in industry. Industry requirements are clearly digital, and the time provided to learn on-the-job rather limited according to my experience. Industry is about outcomes. So if you don't learn what you need to know at university you'll learn it in your spare time after work anyway. Although I don't think that university should prepare students for all eventualities of their professional life, but with a good set of basic skills and the capability to develop further, I do think that curriculums at universities should be adjusted to current standards there and then. And whatever the 2D or 3D GIS software used, its usage is, I think, standard by now, no matter if it comes in during or after field work. And being proficient in its usage frees time to concentrate on the geological interpretation. Certainly the necessary balance between IT and geological skills can be discussed, but I think the need of IT skills is out of question. Julia Quoting Elisabeth Nadin <[log in to unmask]>: > I would like to add that since we probably don't have TIME to teach both > traditional and digital techniques WELL within the undergrad curriculum, we > default to the traditional because we want our students to understand and > use those techniques well by the time they get to field camp. > > Elisabeth > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Pavlis, Terry L <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I think all of us who learned with pencil and paper are apt to believe >> this, but it is not clear this is really true. If there is one thing I've >> learned in years of teaching, people learn very differently and one size >> doesn't always fit all. The problem is there is always a certain self >> selection process. Those of us who took up field geology in a big way did >> so because we enjoyed it and probably found it easier than many of our >> colleagues. That doesn't necessarily make us a good judge of the question >> of ideal learning tools. For us, is paper was the ideal way to learn, but >> is that a universal truth? >> >> Bottom line--I really don't think there is any hard data on this. >> Education specialists really need to look at this! >> Terry Pavlis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Krabbendam, Maarten >> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:51 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons. >> >> As to 'digital mapping in the field' there are two issues, that need to be >> separated: >> 1) teaching field skills to students; >> 2) using digital technology once you have the field skills. >> >> As to 1) let us not forget: >> When my kids were at primary school they were taught to write using a >> pencil and paper. Later on they learn to type on a keyboard. >> They learned the tables, and learned to do long division using pen and >> paper. Later they will surely use a calculator. >> At uni I learned to play with stereogrammes using pen, paper and a pin. >> Now I use a piece of software to do it. >> At uni I learned to do fieldmapping (very well) with pen and paper. Now I >> use a ruggedized tablet PC (with the SIGMA suite developed by BGS, running >> on Arc). I can play in the field with structural contours - but can only do >> so because I was taught structural contours with a piece of transparent >> paper. >> >> I firmly believe that you really need to UNDERSTAND what you're doing in >> the field and that learning to do this is still best done using pen and >> paper. >> >> Once a student can field map and will use it professionally or, say, for a >> PhD project - by all means go digital. Then the advantages over paper >> become clear quickly: faster data gathering, faster data transfer, weather >> proof (handy in Scotland - combined with GoreTex or similar, nowadays it's >> only the psychological determination of the geologists that stops one from >> carrying on in 'full conditions'!) etc. Every year I now use digitial >> mapping and I swear by it, but I still think that to learn things - be it >> reading, maths, stereogrammes or field mapping - pen and paper is best. >> >> >> Maarten Krabbendam >> BGS >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [ >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pavlis, Terry L [ >> [log in to unmask]] >> Sent: 12 April 2011 14:34 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons. >> >> another low cost alternative is a windows mobile phone or trimble handheld >> (juno); the latter has a good outdoor screen the former generally not. If >> the morons at ESRI would port arcpad to something other than windows mobile >> there would be more options, but such is the way of the tech companies. >> >> Arcpad is a good piece of inexpensive software for field use, it is just >> unfortunate that ESRI doesn't have the insight to move it to some other >> platform. That is a major reason that I, for one, am waiting on tech >> developments before trying to update any kind of field computer system. >> Terry Pavlis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of wrc >> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 8:20 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons. >> >> Mark, >> As I have already mentioned, the first issue is to have the student know >> where he/she is on whatever map you provide them. This you can do via a >> free >> hardcopy of a Google image - but you have to know how to overlay a >> convenient - and conveniently scaled - grid on the hardcopy. There is a bit >> of a learning curve (I can help here), but you can do this using ArcGIS >> (someone in you University must have a copy!), or some other cheap or free >> GIS package that will let you do the same. Garmin Etrex GPS units are >> currently retailing on the Web for less than $100. Admittedly low tech, >> but >> at least your students will be reassured that they know where they are on >> their map. They can easily track their outcrop locations, and using a cheap >> Silva compass even plot dips and strikes on the hardcopy as they go. The >> rest goes into their notebooks. >> Going up a large notch, buy a bluetooth GPS unit for $40 (rather than >> $300). >> However now you need a bluetooth computer such as an Asus EEE - Amazon has >> them for as cheap as $229, or $329 for the latest model. They have a long >> battery life and having used one for three years now they would seem to be >> rugged enough for the Arizona desert - and no sign of a blue screen! At >> this level you can also use Excel as well as Goops to record your data in >> whatever esoterically designed spread sheet you can come up with. Once the >> UTM data is in a spreadsheet it can be supplemented with bedding/cleavage >> dip and strike data, descriptions of rock and even thin section data. The >> data is secure and can easily be communicated to anybody. It can also be >> imported into most GIS or draughting programs. Going up an even larger >> notch to fully ruggedized computers will indeed, as you point out, cost big >> bucks - very nice but I am not sure so very necessary if you don't have the >> money. >> Good luck - know what you are up against! >> Bill C. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mark P. Fischer" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:46 AM >> Subject: Re: new thread: high tech field geology--pros and cons. >> >> >> > Like many others who posted, I concede that there is a huge advantage to >> > going digital. I wish I could do this. However, as a field camp >> > instructor at a mid-sized university, in a nearly bankrupt state, I have >> > never been able to solve the obvious problem that nobody has touched on >> > yet - cost. If I have a class of 40 students, and want to give each of >> > them any sort of meaningful time using this technology, I'm looking at >> > 20-30 ruggedized laptops, software, etc. (yup I know Move is free to >> > academics - I'll probably be contacting you soon). Realistically, I'm >> > looking at an annual replacement cycle of 2-3 years just to keep up with >> > hardware and software changes, not to mention damage (students already >> > lose or break my Bruntons ($275) and GPS devices ($300) at a rate of 1-2 >> > a year!). Even if I buy the lowest end ruggedized laptop, we're talking >> > about $10-$20k at least! This is simply not possible at my university, >> > and I imagine the same is true at many others. And, we have a >> relatively >> > small field camp. What will the big camps with 60+ students do? >> > >> > Writing an NSF or other grant can get you started, but after that, where >> > does one get the money to keep these things going? I'd love to hear how >> > folks do this. Is the replacement cycle much shorter than I imagine, >> the >> > hardware much cheaper, or am I missing something else? >> > >> > Ciao, >> > --Mark >> > >> > >> > Professor Mark P. Fischer, Ph.D. >> > Assistant Chair & Graduate Program Director >> > Dept. of Geology & Environmental Geosciences >> > Northern Illinois University >> > DeKalb, IL 60115-2854, USA >> > Phone: 815.753.7939 >> > FAX: 815.753.1945 >> > E-mail: [log in to unmask] >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Ryan Shackleton wrote: >> > >> >> I thought this experience might be worth sharing, from the perspective >> >> of a (formerly) curmudgeonly map-and-paper geologist. >> >> >> >> Midland Valley ran an internal field trip several years ago in which >> all >> >> of the company geologists mapped a well known area in northwest >> Scotland >> >> (in two different groups, so as not to leave the office unattended!). >> >> We had several goals for the trip, but one of the main goals was to >> test >> >> digital vs. traditional methods of field data collection. To this end, >> >> one geologist carried a rugged tablet with a sketching application >> >> (Windows Journal) to replace their field notebook, and map based >> >> software to replace their field map (2DMove, as this was before, and in >> >> preparation for, the development of FieldMove). The rest of us >> employed >> >> our own methods of traditional data collection on paper and field map. >> >> Being a more traditionally trained field geologist (and user of mylar >> >> maps, rapidographs, etc), I was VERY skeptical of the digital tablet. >> I >> >> thought using the tablet would be too slow, too difficult to use, and >> >> not worth the effort of bringing batteries into the field, etc. I >> won't >> >> go into any more detail about the field trip, but I basically changed >> my >> >> opinion of digital geology for the following reasons. >> >> >> >> At the end of each day in the field: >> >> 1) The digital geologist had their map and data fully computerized and >> >> integrated into structural modeling software, whereas the rest of us >> >> spent our evenings inking or copying our field maps and entering data >> >> into the computer. >> >> 2) As a consequence of 1), the digital geologist's field map and >> >> notebook were instantly backed up by copying files to a hard drive. >> >> 3) As a consequence of 1), the digital geologist was doing more >> >> analysis, using better tools, and developing better field plans for the >> >> next day than the rest of us. Most of the map and paper geologists >> >> spent a significant portion of their time entering data in the >> evenings, >> >> leaving less time to do analysis and plan for the following day. >> >> >> >> There were other advantages as well, but those were the most eye- >> opening >> >> because they improved the efficiency of time spent in the field, and >> the >> >> quality of the field interpretation on a daily basis. >> >> >> >> The main disadvantages of the digital geology tools (in my mind) are: >> >> 1) Batteries. Without them, the digital tools become useless, so >> access >> >> to civilization, or the ability to recharge every night are a must. >> >> 2) Ease of use: it's tough to beat the "user interface" of a paper and >> >> pencil, although with a little practice, I think this can be overcome. >> >> >> >> It's worth mentioning that no one is saying we should stop teaching >> >> traditional mapping techniques or leave our field notebooks at home. >> >> Those are still very valuable tools and skills, and I don't plan to >> give >> >> them up. However, from my very limited experience, mapping directly >> >> into the computer provides a lot of advantages that are well worth >> >> taking the time to explore. >> >> >> >> Cheers. >> >> >> >> Ryan >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Ryan Shackleton >> >> Software Engineer/Structural Geologist >> >> >> >> Midland Valley Exploration Ltd. >> >> 144 West George Street >> >> Glasgow G2 2HG >> >> United Kingdom >> >> >> >> Tel: +44 (0) 141 332 2681 >> >> Fax: +44 (0) 141 332 6792 >> >> >> >> www.mve.com >> >> The structural geology experts >> >> >> >> >> >> On 07/04/2011 4:36 PM, Pavlis, Terry L wrote: >> >>> I'd like to start a new thread, based on this discussion of mapping. >> I >> >>> love this discussion and I am glad it has come to this forum because >> >>> this is a topic that I think really needs to thought about more in our >> >>> community. It is really the whole subject of high tech field geology. >> >>> I'll start by shamelessly advertising a paper we published last year >> in >> >>> geosphere that outlines some experience with the subject--you can read >> >>> it for details. >> >>> >> >>> Here though, I think it might be interesting to have a discussion on >> >>> some specific issues. some of us were at a workshop last summer in >> >>> Montana on teaching field geology, and this whole subject launched a >> >>> huge, and as you might guess, very lively debate about the pros and >> >>> cons of the issue. I can't distill all that here, or all the issues, >> >>> but it would interesting to hear some opinions. As I see it there >> are >> >>> two different issues: >> >>> 1) use of computer mapping systems in a research environment (be it at >> >>> a geological survey, a university, or applied work like >> >>> exploration--anything done by professionals) >> >>> 2) an undergraduate teaching environment >> >>> >> >>> on #1: I will start by making the bold statement that there is NO >> >>> DOUBT the field computer systems can have a dramatic impact on results >> >>> in field studies that involve professionals. Using these tools you >> can >> >>> solve problems you could never solve with paper and pencil. How many >> >>> times have you made field sketches trying to work out some local >> >>> details of a little structural knot? I have endless sketches in old >> >>> field notes doing that sort of thing. Similarly, how often have you >> >>> fought the map shuffle problem? i.e. look at airphotos, back to topo >> >>> map, draw the line, look back at the air photo, no that isn't right, >> >>> erase, redraw line, etc. With modern field computer systems this >> sort >> >>> of thing is very easily avoided. For the little structural knot, you >> >>> can use real time gps to literally map out the knot. I have had >> >>> numerous aha moments doing this, including in places where I >> >>> previously tried to solve problems with the old fashioned sketch. It >> >>> really works. If you haven >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 't tried it you should! The airphoto shuffle is totally avoided, with >> >>> overlaying georeferenced imagery and maps, and with things like >> >>> fieldmove, real time 3d display. (and don't tell me you have been >> able >> >>> to do that for years with air photos, that is a very different >> >>> process!) So bottom line, if you haven't tried field computer systems >> >>> lately, you should try what is out there now. If you tried something >> >>> as recently as 2 or 3 years ago, look again. The technology just >> keeps >> >>> getting better and better. >> >>> >> >>> on #2: On the education issue, I think the jury is still out. We've >> >>> been teaching our field geology classes "all digital" now for about 3 >> >>> years. The results are mixed. My general appraisal is this (and this >> >>> is totally anecdotal, an education specialist would get on my case >> >>> about proper assessment techniques): Good students do even better >> when >> >>> introduced to high tech field tools, but poorer students generally do >> >>> even worse. That is very unsatisfying for an educator, and I confess >> >>> we haven't developed a solution yet. I think the problem lies in the >> >>> fact that the poorer students are already overwhelmed by the whole >> >>> field experience, and adding the tech side just makes it worse. One >> >>> thing we've started doing-- >> >>> which will make many in this group stand up and cheer since you've >> been >> >>> saying the same thing in this forum--is to force people to keep their >> >>> old paper notebook for sketching. You can sketch with these devices, >> >>> but it is always clunky--it makes inept artists like >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> me look even more inept! >> >>> >> >>> I will state another opinion here though: I think it is tremendously >> >>> important that we get students comfortable with this technology >> because >> >>> it is what they will use. I don't think there is any doubt about >> that. >> >>> I just wish we had a better idea how to teach with the technology. It >> >>> is also an important development for all of us from a philosophical >> >>> point of view (and there is more on this in the geosphere paper). >> >>> However, the point is this: Geologists have long had a bad habit of >> >>> being overly possessive about field data. This results from many >> >>> factors, not the least of which is there is a disconnect between >> >>> personal perception of the value of the field data vs the real value >> >>> to the broader community. I personally put a lot of value on a few >> >>> lines on a map there were obtained during miserable weather >> conditions, >> >>> bears tearing up my camp, etc. However, when you really get down to >> >>> it, it is just part of a broader knowledge base and it rather wasteful >> >>> when that informati >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> on dies with a person when his/her file draws are cleaned out after >> >>> they leave this life. A great advantage of using field technology is >> >>> the data are inherently archival, and so the information isn't really >> >>> lost. That also potentially leads to a different mind set in >> students, >> >>> because they can potentially begin to think in terms of collecting >> >>> information "for the ages". Now we all know that is an overly >> inflated >> >>> view of this, but my point is that with a different mindset that comes >> >>> from this technology, it might ultimately free us from one of the >> >>> cultural aspects of geology that has kept us back for a long time. I >> >>> always like to quote Mark Brandon on this, which is something like >> >>> "geologists are like cowboys and geophysicists are like mormons. The >> >>> geologists always want to fight it out whereas the geophysicists band >> >>> together to communally solve problems". (sorry Mark, it is a rough >> >>> quote) The point here is that there is a reason geophysicists are >> like >> >>> this, and we ge >> >>> >> >>> o >> >>> logy types are not, and it largely has to do with the nature of their >> >>> data. Field computer systems aren't the only solution to the problem, >> >>> but they may ultimately help solve this cultural problem. >> >>> >> >>> sorry for long commentary, I said yesterday I would shut up, but I >> >>> thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion. I'll sit >> by >> >>> for awhile now and see what come along. >> >>> Terry Pavlis >> > >> -- >> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only NERC >> is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents >> of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless >> it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to >> NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. >> > Dr. Julia Kramer Bernhard Scientific Staff Swiss Geological Survey swisstopo, Bern Tel: +41-31-963 2525 Mobile: +41-76-493 2413 email: [log in to unmask] http://www.linkedin.com/in/juliakramer ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.