From: Bruce Metelerkamp (BRUCE) To: SOWACS@aqua.ccwr.ac.za Date: Monday, July 1, 1996 4:52 pm Subject: Cracking clays and radio sensors! sowacs Sowacs : Two points for discussion today: 1) Can a pocket of sand be used in the immediate vicinity of TDR/FDR probes to prevent swell/shrink sensor-contact problems in clayey soils? 2) How can we avoid having miles of cable in the field when using electronic sensors? (Does this sound a bit like the much talked about promise of the "paperless office" that never happened?) 1) Johan Smit and John Johnston have both mentioned the dangers of using soil water sensors in cracking soils. Without intimate contact, various sensors are liable to different sources of error. Those that rely on being in hydraulic continuity with the soil solution obviously no longer are when the soil moves so that it is no longer in contact with the porous parts. TDR and FDR type instruments have very small spheres of influence and their measurement is affected most very close to the waveguides. Thus even minor shrinking away from the sensor will introduce [an unknown amount] of error. Johan suggested using a volume of sand into which the sensor is placed rather than risk the above problems. Sand is about the furtherest opposite extreme of the soil water retention characterisitic (WRC). The sand would tend towards the same matric potential as the clay, but definitely not the same volumetric water content - which is what sensors based on the TDR and FDR principles measure. Two alternatives come to mind: a) could one correct for the change in volumetric water content (with knowledge of the two soils' WRC). or b) assuming it therefore advisable not to use sand, but rather a clay material with as similar hydraulic properties as possible, just one chosen for lacking swell and shrink tendencies? Such as diatomatious earth or kaolinite? ===== 2) HELP! My field sensor installation recently got vandalised when thieves attempted to steal the cable. (They broke the sensors in their efforts, but fortunately didn't get away with my logger box!) Cables are also problematical when it comes to lightning; ploughs; rats; water; etc etc... I am looking at two possible solutions: both hi-tech and expensive (but cheaper than loosing an entire set of custom made imported sensors and weeks of data!?!) a) dedicated mini-dataloggers that can be buried (or placed in vegetation) where they are unlikely to get found/damaged. These will need their own stable power source and memory. These will require dedicated programmed loggers and as far as I know are currently only available for common measurements such as temperature and humidity (and so come with the sensor as part of the unit). For example Hobo and TinyTalk dataloggers are of this form. I know of none that are a datalogger as such without sensor attached. b) low power mini radio transmitters on each sensor and a receiver at the datalogger. This would allow the datalogger to be placed in a secure environment and run off mains power. This still means that the minidatalogger as discussed in a) is required, in addition to the transmitter. Option a) would need to be visited fairly often to collect the data, which is probably just as well - as most of us don't visit the field enough?!? The radio option would allow real-time data - as needed for scheduling for example to be collected by modem, particularly if the logger is housed in a building serviced by phone-lines. DOES ANYONE KNOW OF EXISTING OR SYSTEMS UNDER DEVELOPMENT? Thanks Regards -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. Bruce Metelerkamp SOIL WATER RESEARCH OFFICER Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, University of Natal, PO Box 100281 Scottsville, ZA3209 Rep. of South Africa Voice:27 331 62314 E-mail: bruce@icfr.unp.ac.za FAX:27 331 68905 URL http://www.icfrnet.unp.ac.za/~metele /SoWaCS.html /RR.html Host of SoWaCS (Soil Water Content Sensor) Discussion List. SEND info sowacs OR subscribe sowacs TO majordomo@aqua.ccwr.ac.za