CFS vs Gauge Height Debate

[drew03cmc]

19 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

That just doesn't compute for me.  4.5' is considerably more than 35cfs.  

It wouldn't add up using Al's method either.  

How could it possibly be 6' at 240, and 4.5 at 35 ?      Not even possible is it?

I understand what you're saying. Just going off of the info from the gauge on the dates in question. I can't answer though.

[fishinwrench]

On 1/22/2020 at 8:07 PM, Al Agnew said:

(forget about the apps, they don't tell you nearly as much as the real gauge does, so figure out how to get the real gauge to load...I never have any problems with it)

The one I use (Riverflows.net) updates every hour and I assume they get the data from USGS.... it's just formatted into a more user friendly resource.  The only thing they don't show is "median flow" info. (actually it might, if set up correctly in the settings).  

Here's my face page.  Click on any one and it takes you to the real-time guage graph.  I highly recommend it, very useful.  

[snagged in outlet 3]

41 minutes ago, drew03cmc said:

I understand what you're saying. Just going off of the info from the gauge on the dates in question. I can't answer though.

Maybe they reset the gauge since then....

[fishinwrench]

Are y'all really gonna insist that, regardless of the topography, if there's 75 CFS of water moving....you can easily float the stream ?

So many variables there (width, degree of elevation drop, ect.)

How is CFS even accurately measured? I mean if you wanted to know with 100% accuracy how would you go about measuring it. What tools would you use?     

[Mitch f]

5 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

Are y'all really gonna insist that, regardless of the topography, if there's 75 CFS of water moving....you can easily float the stream ?

So many variables there (width, degree of elevation drop, ect.)

I think what they’re saying is using 75 cfs as a very minimum benchmark. You will probably still need to get out and drag a little.

[fishinwrench]

I'm assuming that CFS measurements are derived via a "calculation".  Does there exist a tool for truly measuring CFS?  

Because we have TOOLS to accurately measure the level (rise and fall) of the freakin' water!

[bfishn]

48 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

How is CFS even accurately measured? I mean if you wanted to know with 100% accuracy how would you go about measuring it. What tools would you use?     

https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/how-streamflow-measured?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

 

[fishinwrench]

4 minutes ago, bfishn said:

https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/how-streamflow-measured?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

 

As I suspected.  A calculation.  Highly speculative on a stream with an uneven bottom and ever changing width as water rises and recedes.

[Flysmallie]

27 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

I most certainly have the stones.   

 

I'm not here to defend Wrench but I can assure you he has the stones as you call them. What you get with Wrench online is what you get in person. No more, no less. Some of you might hide behind the safety of the internet but he doesn't.

Again I'm not defending him. He and I have had some serious differences in the past and it was way more serious than this crybaby stuff. But at least with him you get what you get no matter if you are online or right in front of him.

I used to use gauge height and it worked for me. Then I used CFS and that also worked for me, but it took me a little to get used to. Saying that either is superior to the other is pretty childish. It's like the Chevy/Ford debate. Use what works for you and leave everyone else alone to do what works for them. 

[Quillback]

Ok, went in and deleted the calling out of people stuff.  None of us should be doing that.