3 Point Problems, Strike Lines, and Apparent Dip

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 19

  • @accaribo2022
    @accaribo2022 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Honestly? Metric field data and then working in feet and inches? Only in the US......

  • @nwankpaprecious82
    @nwankpaprecious82 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Sorry but i'm confused, how did you get the units for A,B and C to be 100, 20 and 200m respectively?

  • @seanhager6424
    @seanhager6424 5 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Can you provide a digital copy of that page for those of us using your video to create study notes with examples?

  • @normangrimes4869
    @normangrimes4869 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Can you calculate the thickness of unit B and D for this map? please

  • @rubenaguilar1360
    @rubenaguilar1360 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    What dictates moving from point A to B as opposed to going from B to A when placing strike contact?

    • @zeags
      @zeags 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      i am also confused by this

  • @Yulanli-ne2wh
    @Yulanli-ne2wh 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I am not sure how you draw the 1000m strike line.how do you find that point on the left. Why It is 1155m from the 800 strike line ( also point A)
    and horizontally and vertically? I understand it should be perpendicular to the dip

  • @samuelasare2190
    @samuelasare2190 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Thank you very much

  • @sixtusbambol9207
    @sixtusbambol9207 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thank you for the Video Mme. Please your Volume is very low

  • @everettleslie693
    @everettleslie693 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    What we’re the units before that made her multiply 30 by 38.5

  • @rajkumarsiringi6777
    @rajkumarsiringi6777 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thank you so much

  • @ghidimark8671
    @ghidimark8671 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Nice but get a normal ruler 📐

    • @ryanc.6723
      @ryanc.6723 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It is a protractor and the right tool for many mapping calculations.

  • @fajardoalexxat.6485
    @fajardoalexxat.6485 11 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา

    Honestly, confusing

  • @sjgeo691
    @sjgeo691 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    was the last equation supposed to be 9.6 instead of 9.8 for apparent dip?
    thanks for the video

    • @kc_structuralgeology6992
      @kc_structuralgeology6992  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      No, you want to make sure you are using your true dip value in that equation, which is what I get in the work for the bottom triangle on the right hand side of the page. Good question.

    • @sjgeo691
      @sjgeo691 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@kc_structuralgeology6992 ok thank you that makes sense, in the video you say apparent dip but use the Tru dip value, thanks for the clarification