Building a Pond with a Pump

Main forum for general non waterfowl discussions as well as general duck hunting information about travel, rules and regulations, and other duck hunting info along with the general topics.

Moderators: Tealer, Indaswamp, Dep6, La. Hunter, steve-o, #1wingnut, lostpup, Preacher1011

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby Underradar » Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:08 pm

Geologists are just as clueless as waterfowl biologists.
My lab died, and no one on Duckhuntingchat even cared.

Google I'm feeling lucky: DU biologist stole my car

You may win a fight, but you can never win an argument.
User avatar
Underradar
hunter
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Rut Coon, LA


Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby MODuckkiller » Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:32 pm

Underradar wrote:Geologists are just as clueless as waterfowl biologists.

Meh.
MIZ
-MODuckkiller
User avatar
MODuckkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Missouri, Louisiana

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby LongTom » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:53 pm

MODuckkiller wrote:
LongTom wrote:
MODuckkiller wrote:
LongTom wrote:
MODuckkiller wrote:
C.J. wrote:Wanted to get a few more opinions on this, I really think it could be a great setup, its moderatley sandy soil.

I hate this for you, but moderately sandy soil is not what you need; it's actually the most un-ideal scenario for you. A sandy soil's permeability is very high, and porosity is almost nonexistent. This means that water flows through it easily and it is not good at holding(retaining) water.

Like Woody said earlier, you want a clay soil. Clay has an extremely low permeability and a very high porosity. Water doesn't flow through it well, and it can hold an extremely large quantity of water (relative to size) in the pore spaces between clay particles.


Porosity is the space between particles, permeability is the ability for liquid or gas to flow through the spaces. Just because it is sandy doesn't mean it wouldn't make a good duck pond. 1. it could have a nonporous soil just below the surface. 2. Beside the river it could have a high water table and even if the soil has a high perk rate it may still take the water a long time to dissipate. 3. If it has even a one acre spot that can be flooded, an acre of water in the middle of 10 acres of feed can be a good place to kill a lot of birds.
Don't get your advice from this site, go to NRCS and use their professional help. That is what they are there for.

Please don't attempt to correct me and then define words in your correction that I had already previously defined in my original post and base your correction of my post on nothing more than assumptions. I am not pursuing a minor or 'focus' in hydrogeology on a mere whim.
HE said the soil was sandy and nothing of the water table (from what I read), so I told him what that meant from a geological standpoint.


Gladly, because I don't have the mental capacity to correct the likes of your statement.

FIFY :thumbsup:


hey thanks a bunch for fixing that for me, I will be forever grateful, I mean I sure owe you a lot! Gee your such a swell guy!
Now if you would just go back and fix your statement about sandy soil not having any porosity or how was it stated? "porosity is almost nonexistent" A statement like this could lead me to believe you haven't a clue as to what you were talking about. Oh dog gone it, I bet it was opposite day and no one thought to tell me, well if you would just fix that too it would be great.
User avatar
LongTom
hunter
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:48 pm

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby MODuckkiller » Mon Nov 25, 2013 12:25 am

LongTom wrote:
MODuckkiller wrote:
LongTom wrote:
MODuckkiller wrote:
LongTom wrote:
MODuckkiller wrote:
C.J. wrote:Wanted to get a few more opinions on this, I really think it could be a great setup, its moderatley sandy soil.

I hate this for you, but moderately sandy soil is not what you need; it's actually the most un-ideal scenario for you. A sandy soil's permeability is very high, and porosity is almost nonexistent. This means that water flows through it easily and it is not good at holding(retaining) water.

Like Woody said earlier, you want a clay soil. Clay has an extremely low permeability and a very high porosity. Water doesn't flow through it well, and it can hold an extremely large quantity of water (relative to size) in the pore spaces between clay particles.


Porosity is the space between particles, permeability is the ability for liquid or gas to flow through the spaces. Just because it is sandy doesn't mean it wouldn't make a good duck pond. 1. it could have a nonporous soil just below the surface. 2. Beside the river it could have a high water table and even if the soil has a high perk rate it may still take the water a long time to dissipate. 3. If it has even a one acre spot that can be flooded, an acre of water in the middle of 10 acres of feed can be a good place to kill a lot of birds.
Don't get your advice from this site, go to NRCS and use their professional help. That is what they are there for.

Please don't attempt to correct me and then define words in your correction that I had already previously defined in my original post and base your correction of my post on nothing more than assumptions. I am not pursuing a minor or 'focus' in hydrogeology on a mere whim.
HE said the soil was sandy and nothing of the water table (from what I read), so I told him what that meant from a geological standpoint.


Gladly, because I don't have the mental capacity to correct the likes of your statement.

FIFY :thumbsup:


hey thanks a bunch for fixing that for me, I will be forever grateful, I mean I sure owe you a lot! Gee your such a swell guy!
Now if you would just go back and fix your statement about sandy soil not having any porosity or how was it stated? "porosity is almost nonexistent" A statement like this could lead me to believe you haven't a clue as to what you were talking about. Oh dog gone it, I bet it was opposite day and no one thought to tell me, well if you would just fix that too it would be great.

Not quite sure what there is to fix there, pard. My statement of "almost nonexistent porosity" is pretty spot on for a sandy soil. I think you may be confusing spatial porosity with effective porosity.
Here is a link which may clear up the cloudiness that is your train of thought.
http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/datacoll/porosity.htm

And in an attempt to ward off any un-warranted arguments of yours in the future, you will see the only things listed with lower porosity than sands are types of bedrocks, and crystaline structires. (See table 3.1).

Sit down now, please. I think all the mind-blowing facts I've just presented you may make you a little dizzy. :hammer:
:lol3:
Tell me please, what were you thinking had a lower porosity than unconsolidated sand? Which, that's what a sandy soil is, unconsolidated. Unconsolidated meaning, in this case, loose, uncompacted, unstratified, uncemented, etc. If I need continue, please let me know.
You're funny.
MIZ
-MODuckkiller
User avatar
MODuckkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Missouri, Louisiana

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby ArkansasRobertson » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:12 am

MODuckkiller wrote:
LongTom wrote:
MODuckkiller wrote:
LongTom wrote:
MODuckkiller wrote:
LongTom wrote:
MODuckkiller wrote:
C.J. wrote:Wanted to get a few more opinions on this, I really think it could be a great setup, its moderatley sandy soil.

I hate this for you, but moderately sandy soil is not what you need; it's actually the most un-ideal scenario for you. A sandy soil's permeability is very high, and porosity is almost nonexistent. This means that water flows through it easily and it is not good at holding(retaining) water.

Like Woody said earlier, you want a clay soil. Clay has an extremely low permeability and a very high porosity. Water doesn't flow through it well, and it can hold an extremely large quantity of water (relative to size) in the pore spaces between clay particles.


Porosity is the space between particles, permeability is the ability for liquid or gas to flow through the spaces. Just because it is sandy doesn't mean it wouldn't make a good duck pond. 1. it could have a nonporous soil just below the surface. 2. Beside the river it could have a high water table and even if the soil has a high perk rate it may still take the water a long time to dissipate. 3. If it has even a one acre spot that can be flooded, an acre of water in the middle of 10 acres of feed can be a good place to kill a lot of birds.
Don't get your advice from this site, go to NRCS and use their professional help. That is what they are there for.

Please don't attempt to correct me and then define words in your correction that I had already previously defined in my original post and base your correction of my post on nothing more than assumptions. I am not pursuing a minor or 'focus' in hydrogeology on a mere whim.
HE said the soil was sandy and nothing of the water table (from what I read), so I told him what that meant from a geological standpoint.


Gladly, because I don't have the mental capacity to correct the likes of your statement.

FIFY :thumbsup:


hey thanks a bunch for fixing that for me, I will be forever grateful, I mean I sure owe you a lot! Gee your such a swell guy!
Now if you would just go back and fix your statement about sandy soil not having any porosity or how was it stated? "porosity is almost nonexistent" A statement like this could lead me to believe you haven't a clue as to what you were talking about. Oh dog gone it, I bet it was opposite day and no one thought to tell me, well if you would just fix that too it would be great.

Not quite sure what there is to fix there, pard. My statement of "almost nonexistent porosity" is pretty spot on for a sandy soil. I think you may be confusing spatial porosity with effective porosity.
Here is a link which may clear up the cloudiness that is your train of thought.
http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/datacoll/porosity.htm

And in an attempt to ward off any un-warranted arguments of yours in the future, you will see the only things listed with lower porosity than sands are types of bedrocks, and crystaline structires. (See table 3.1).

Sit down now, please. I think all the mind-blowing facts I've just presented you may make you a little dizzy. :hammer:
:lol3:
Tell me please, what were you thinking had a lower porosity than unconsolidated sand? Which, that's what a sandy soil is, unconsolidated. Unconsolidated meaning, in this case, loose, uncompacted, unstratified, uncemented, etc. If I need continue, please let me know.
You're funny.


MOduckkiller knows what he is talking about.
User avatar
ArkansasRobertson
hunter
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:35 pm
Location: Arkansas

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby ArkansasRobertson » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:14 am

TXducksanddeer wrote:My suggestion is to get someone who has done this before to help you. We have a guy that's working on one of are leaking tanks right now by putting more clay down.


I design retention and detention ponds for a living. Putting clay down is the correct way
User avatar
ArkansasRobertson
hunter
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:35 pm
Location: Arkansas

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby LongTom » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:33 pm

The Op has 10 acres of sandy field not sandstone so why bring consolidated or cemented sand into the equation. Since we are talking about unconsolidated sand the porosity giving you the permeability is the void between the individual sand grains and that is extremely high, not almost nonexistent. We could go into different grain size, uniformity coefficient, angularity, density and grain mineralogy but that wouldn't serve any purpose with this project. The hydraulic conductivity of medium loose sand is 9x10-7 to 5x10-4 and there for it would take more water than would be economical to "pump" (on 10 acres) even if you had such a source.
About 20 years or so ago I helped with a project on a Waterfowl NWR where we dammed a continuous flowing creek and diverted the water to a field of course sand with a hydraulic conductivity of 6x10-3. The volume of diverted water was more than enough to overcome water loss rates on this type of sand.
The websoilsurvey site post by ArkansasRobertson is a good source of info but shouldn't be used as a sole determining source of decision as other factors can come to play.
If you hired a qualified engineer in this area he would charge you $1500 a day to do the necessary surveys needed to make a calculated decision and I don't think that is in the OP plans, therefor I stand by my original statement, go to NRCS and get your help FREE.
MOduckkiller---you need to learn to think bigger than a grain of sand when talking porosity.
ArkansasRobertson--- I don't design retention and detention ponds for a living--- I build them for a hobby. The project I am about to start and should finish by the end of January is at 36.947135,-97,830433. We are hoping for 20 acres of water impoundment on this one. It hasn't been surveyed yet but I am guessing we will need to move some 50000yds of material, not a big job.
User avatar
LongTom
hunter
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:48 pm

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby OGblackcloud » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:52 pm

50000 yds , That's all ? PFFT I would shovel that in about a week . If its sandy might be even sooner
User avatar
OGblackcloud
hunter
 
Posts: 14460
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:38 pm

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby ArkansasRobertson » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:26 am

LongTom wrote:The Op has 10 acres of sandy field not sandstone so why bring consolidated or cemented sand into the equation. Since we are talking about unconsolidated sand the porosity giving you the permeability is the void between the individual sand grains and that is extremely high, not almost nonexistent. We could go into different grain size, uniformity coefficient, angularity, density and grain mineralogy but that wouldn't serve any purpose with this project. The hydraulic conductivity of medium loose sand is 9x10-7 to 5x10-4 and there for it would take more water than would be economical to "pump" (on 10 acres) even if you had such a source.
About 20 years or so ago I helped with a project on a Waterfowl NWR where we dammed a continuous flowing creek and diverted the water to a field of course sand with a hydraulic conductivity of 6x10-3. The volume of diverted water was more than enough to overcome water loss rates on this type of sand.
The websoilsurvey site post by ArkansasRobertson is a good source of info but shouldn't be used as a sole determining source of decision as other factors can come to play.
If you hired a qualified engineer in this area he would charge you $1500 a day to do the necessary surveys needed to make a calculated decision and I don't think that is in the OP plans, therefor I stand by my original statement, go to NRCS and get your help FREE.
MOduckkiller---you need to learn to think bigger than a grain of sand when talking porosity.
ArkansasRobertson--- I don't design retention and detention ponds for a living--- I build them for a hobby. The project I am about to start and should finish by the end of January is at 36.947135,-97,830433. We are hoping for 20 acres of water impoundment on this one. It hasn't been surveyed yet but I am guessing we will need to move some 50000yds of material, not a big job.

Yes I agree with you here.
User avatar
ArkansasRobertson
hunter
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:35 pm
Location: Arkansas

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby MODuckkiller » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:28 am

LongTom wrote:The Op has 10 acres of sandy field not sandstone so why bring consolidated or cemented sand into the equation. Since we are talking about unconsolidated sand the porosity giving you the permeability is the void between the individual sand grains and that is extremely high, not almost nonexistent. We could go into different grain size, uniformity coefficient, angularity, density and grain mineralogy but that wouldn't serve any purpose with this project. The hydraulic conductivity of medium loose sand is 9x10-7 to 5x10-4 and there for it would take more water than would be economical to "pump" (on 10 acres) even if you had such a source.
About 20 years or so ago I helped with a project on a Waterfowl NWR where we dammed a continuous flowing creek and diverted the water to a field of course sand with a hydraulic conductivity of 6x10-3. The volume of diverted water was more than enough to overcome water loss rates on this type of sand.
The websoilsurvey site post by ArkansasRobertson is a good source of info but shouldn't be used as a sole determining source of decision as other factors can come to play.
If you hired a qualified engineer in this area he would charge you $1500 a day to do the necessary surveys needed to make a calculated decision and I don't think that is in the OP plans, therefor I stand by my original statement, go to NRCS and get your help FREE.
MOduckkiller---you need to learn to think bigger than a grain of sand when talking porosity.
ArkansasRobertson--- I don't design retention and detention ponds for a living--- I build them for a hobby. The project I am about to start and should finish by the end of January is at 36.947135,-97,830433. We are hoping for 20 acres of water impoundment on this one. It hasn't been surveyed yet but I am guessing we will need to move some 50000yds of material, not a big job.

This is laughable. Permeability and porosity are totally separate issues. And I would appreciate it if you are going to quote me, you do it correctly. I said the porosity is almost non-existent, not the permeability. Both statements are not opinion, they are fact. Arguing against fact, well, that's just a bit silly.
"Permeability due to porosity".....this is laughable. :lol3:

Edit* and I brought cemented and compacted into the equation to put how far off in left field you were with your arguments. I realize that it was not totally on topic. I do apologize for not spelling that out for you earlier, I should have known that you wouldn't quite catch on....
MIZ
-MODuckkiller
User avatar
MODuckkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Missouri, Louisiana

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby MODuckkiller » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:40 am

But to end this nonsensical bickering, I admit, in certain aspects sandy soil may not necessarily be a bad thing, that in certain specific scenarios sandy soils can easily be overcome, and that there is indeed a bit of porosity in sandy soils (just not relative to the other soils types, sandy soil is the lowest). We need not bicker over this topic anymore.

Sandy soil has the lowest porosity of any other soil type, but with a little work could still make a good duck hole. :thumbsup:
MIZ
-MODuckkiller
User avatar
MODuckkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Missouri, Louisiana

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby 18javelin » Wed Nov 27, 2013 6:20 am

It will hold water or it wont 50/50..... right ? :yes:
Underradar wrote:Well, its sad really. One day he's happily posting pics of road killed coyotes he posed as if he shot them, the next, he's stomped down the shower drain like a soft turd.
User avatar
18javelin
hunter
 
Posts: 3783
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:01 am
Location: Eckerty IN

Re: Building a Pond with a Pump

Postby ArkansasRobertson » Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:04 am

MODuckkiller wrote:But to end this nonsensical bickering, I admit, in certain aspects sandy soil may not necessarily be a bad thing, that in certain specific scenarios sandy soils can easily be overcome, and that there is indeed a bit of porosity in sandy soils (just not relative to the other soils types, sandy soil is the lowest). We need not bicker over this topic anymore.

Sandy soil has the lowest porosity of any other soil type, but with a little work could still make a good duck hole. :thumbsup:


Totally agree.

And yeah, if I had sandy loam, I wouldn't even waste my time....
User avatar
ArkansasRobertson
hunter
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:35 pm
Location: Arkansas

Previous

Return to The Honey Hole

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests