Reminds me of a level crew I saw in India when I was working there...7 men...2 rodmen, an umbrella man for the instrument, instrument man, recorder, party chief (did nothing), and a guy to carry the instrument (probably the I-man was above that task). Hey, when the minimum wage was $1.50 a day, why not? I also saw an endless line of guys pushing bicycles piled high with coal into the power plant. I asked why not use trucks, they said then all those guys would be unemployed. Makes sense, doesn't it?
There are days I'd like to have a bigger crew when running levels... I've yet to figure out a practical way to avoid all three men on a three man crew - IM and two RM - having to walk the entire length of each loop. The last time I carted a DiNi on a Tri-Max around on a 7,800' level loop I realized that I need to get out of the office more.
Jim Frame, post: 413512, member: 10 wrote: To date I've not had to scrub a run due to bad lighting, just futz and cuss for a couple of minutes on occasion. The rodman is already carrying an invar rod, a turning pin and a hammer. Adding an umbrella as well may be a bit much for the odd recalcitrant shot.
If you can get by, then good enough.
The post I was replying to suggested artificial lighting, and carrying a powerful enough light to compete with the sun would be harder than carrying an umbrella.
Lee D, post: 413519, member: 7971 wrote: I've yet to figure out a practical way to avoid all three men on a three man crew - IM and two RM - having to walk the entire length of each loop.
Not sure about the "practical" part.
From
Height and Gravity :
1983 ÛÒ 1987 : Motorized Levelling
Experience in Sweden indicated that motorized precise levelling could be very productive. In 1981 and 1982 a prototype system was built and tested, featuring three four-wheel drive vehicles. Production work was started in 1983 with the system equipped with an automated data recording system. After early development problems had been solved, the unit's greater productivity in comparison with levelling on foot (about 40 percent) soon became apparent. Despite increased productivity, the original motorized levelling system was retired in 1987 following unsuccessful attempts at privatization and commercialization.
party chef, post: 413539, member: 98 wrote: Not sure about the "practical" part.
From
Height and Gravity :
1983 ÛÒ 1987 : Motorized Levelling
Experience in Sweden indicated that motorized precise levelling could be very productive. In 1981 and 1982 a prototype system was built and tested, featuring three four-wheel drive vehicles. Production work was started in 1983 with the system equipped with an automated data recording system. After early development problems had been solved, the unit's greater productivity in comparison with levelling on foot (about 40 percent) soon became apparent. Despite increased productivity, the original motorized levelling system was retired in 1987 following unsuccessful attempts at privatization and commercialization.
When l ran levels, we kept the truck with instrument, and the rodmen walked. And usually the truck was left running. I switched that around, and #1 rod kept the truck, and I walked the instrument. Reason was I found engine heat near the gun a problem. We moved right along, 110 turns/day, Jena not digital, double simultaneous reciprocal and hp41 (reduced each turn before advancing) union 3 person crew. the arrangement in the photo has the instrument looking over the engine on foresights. Could be bias.
But this really doesn't apply to structure monitoring.
Bill93, post: 413520, member: 87 wrote: If you can get by, then good enough.
The post I was replying to suggested artificial lighting, and carrying a powerful enough light to compete with the sun would be harder than carrying an umbrella.
It has nothing to do with competing with the sun, it has to do with illuminating the rod.
Lee D, post: 413549, member: 7971 wrote: It has nothing to do with competing with the sun
If part of the rod is in sun and part in shade, and you are trying to add illumination so the shadow part has similar illumination (while probably also adding to the sunny part), I'd call that competing with the sun.
The motorized leveling thing never looked very practical to me. I know NGS did some fully-motorized leveling around 1980 and claimed a production increase of 30%. I suppose if you have hundreds of km to run it makes sense, but it seems so cumbersome and the specialized vehicles must cost a fortune.
imaudigger, post: 413490, member: 7286 wrote: I realize there are many things that could cause settlement...I was wondering what specifically triggered this work.
Seattle 😉
The number of RFPs I'm seeing for monitoring adjacent properties during construction, especially dewatering, has increased 3x since Seattle started sinking.
.005?
Good luck with that.
The ground is soft too... if someone sneezes the mud will shift five times the amount of tolerance.
Bill93, post: 413550, member: 87 wrote: If part of the rod is in sun and part in shade, and you are trying to add illumination so the shadow part has similar illumination (while probably also adding to the sunny part), I'd call that competing with the sun.
I guess I should have been more clear... the situations where I saw rod illuminators used were in low light conditions in applications such as tunneling.
