I love waterfalls, because I like geology, I like the constant motion and the force of it. The sound. The water following every possible corner. The water flowing over a corner vs over a small part of an all-horizontal cliff. Unless it's longer than it is tall. Or really narrow compared to the height. So it's either a very tall waterfall, or it's like a long trail of water down the cliff. In many locations, waterfalls could be made larger by changing the landscape. But to rather preserve a natural waterfall, others could be made by excavation and linking it with a river. But for local arch cliffs near me, from prehistoric or occasional waterfalls, I just wish that the State would just dig out a well, install a pump to set water flowing over the edge, install another pump downstream to pump the water back to the top of the cliff to save water of excess. But meanwhile, continue to use water from the well to maintain the amount of flowing water against evaporation. As for electricity to power the pumps, as well as costs, install solar panels nearby but out of sight from the waterfall. Enough solar panels to not just to justify the monthly costs of electricity for the pumps, but enough solar panels to justify the entire project. Soon, even the costs of the solar panels, as well as annual taxes would be justified. A complete circular waterfall could even be made. And an arch in the cliff would allow the water to flow out. But it won't be visually noticeable, since the view of the hole in the cliff would be blocked by part of the waterfall. If the hole were entirely below the lower water level, extend past and beyond the waterfall, before extending up to the lower water level, then the outlet would not cause the lower water level to drop too low, where the outlet could be seen. And rather than the water flowing out where it can be seen, the water in the underground tunnel could be connected to the pump. So it would look like a complete circular waterfall, a lower water level, with no sight of where the water goes beyond, or where it returns to the top, nor any hint of the water at the bottom going anywhere. It would be sort of like a natural pool. With the water apparently not going anywhere. And the amount of water spilling down even adding to the amount of water at the bottom noticeably. Because the lower water level would never increase.
I love waterfalls! Thanks for this insight into why that might be so. Whenever my husband and I go hiking, seeing a water feature of some sort is always high on the destination list.
Thank you! I haven't researched the salt lamps - I did read in passing that they produce the negative ions and I seem to remember there being some skepticism in the post about whether it works, but the warm glow (and the fact that it's a gummy bear!) has to count for something, right!?
I love waterfalls, because I like geology, I like the constant motion and the force of it. The sound. The water following every possible corner. The water flowing over a corner vs over a small part of an all-horizontal cliff. Unless it's longer than it is tall. Or really narrow compared to the height. So it's either a very tall waterfall, or it's like a long trail of water down the cliff. In many locations, waterfalls could be made larger by changing the landscape. But to rather preserve a natural waterfall, others could be made by excavation and linking it with a river. But for local arch cliffs near me, from prehistoric or occasional waterfalls, I just wish that the State would just dig out a well, install a pump to set water flowing over the edge, install another pump downstream to pump the water back to the top of the cliff to save water of excess. But meanwhile, continue to use water from the well to maintain the amount of flowing water against evaporation. As for electricity to power the pumps, as well as costs, install solar panels nearby but out of sight from the waterfall. Enough solar panels to not just to justify the monthly costs of electricity for the pumps, but enough solar panels to justify the entire project. Soon, even the costs of the solar panels, as well as annual taxes would be justified. A complete circular waterfall could even be made. And an arch in the cliff would allow the water to flow out. But it won't be visually noticeable, since the view of the hole in the cliff would be blocked by part of the waterfall. If the hole were entirely below the lower water level, extend past and beyond the waterfall, before extending up to the lower water level, then the outlet would not cause the lower water level to drop too low, where the outlet could be seen. And rather than the water flowing out where it can be seen, the water in the underground tunnel could be connected to the pump. So it would look like a complete circular waterfall, a lower water level, with no sight of where the water goes beyond, or where it returns to the top, nor any hint of the water at the bottom going anywhere. It would be sort of like a natural pool. With the water apparently not going anywhere. And the amount of water spilling down even adding to the amount of water at the bottom noticeably. Because the lower water level would never increase.
I love waterfalls! Thanks for this insight into why that might be so. Whenever my husband and I go hiking, seeing a water feature of some sort is always high on the destination list.
I'm the same way! It's why I wanted to take our self-created tour for my birthday :-)
Thank you! I haven't researched the salt lamps - I did read in passing that they produce the negative ions and I seem to remember there being some skepticism in the post about whether it works, but the warm glow (and the fact that it's a gummy bear!) has to count for something, right!?