Talk:Sediment

message: If we assume that r is the radius of the particle, the constant in the formula should be 2/9 (4.5) rather than 1/18, because this is true for the diameter being squared in the formula.
The Stokes forumla only applies to small particles (fine sand and smaller), in which the wake behind the settling particle is laminar.  For large particles (coarse sand and gravel), an emperical equation to account for flow turbulence should be used over the Stokes formula (e.g., see Dietrich, 1982).
:The Settling article agrees with you, don't know why the difference. Settling through still fluid as opposed to a flowing fluid? hmm... no reference given. I'll change it and see if anyone disagrees. _Vsmith 00:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ferguson and Church (2006, I believe) have a new formula that analytically gives the same result as Dietrich (1982)'s result and fits all of their data by combining the drag law with Stokes' law, and connecting the two with a transition zone. And if we start talking about sediment transport and bedload vs. suspended load, we should talk about fall velocity and about shear velocity and the Rouse number. Maybe in order to actually do the subject of sediment transport justice without muddling "sediment" with two much complexity, a new page should be made about it and "sediment" should link to it. Awickert (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm following up and re-vamping sediment transport. See this article and Sediment transport. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: See Talk:Alluvium Vsmith 17:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Formula

message: These processes are very similar, and are already discussed in this article to some degree.
Also, this article doesn't have a clear distinction between transportation and deposition, as it is kind of mixed together in a mess.<Looks like this has been cleared up> It would also be nice to mention the basic [latin] diagenetic types: colluvium, fluvium, alluvium, and eluvium. +mwtoews 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Transportation (sediment)]] and [[Deposition (sediment)]] 

message: The topic of bedload needs its own article, since bedload often consists of pebble and gravel materials (which can be transported within the stream as well as deposited). Cuvette 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article needed for [[Bedload]]

message: The picture of carbonate precipitation in a stream in Switzerland is not an example of sedimentation, but rather a chemical process due to chemical saturation. The picture should be removed, as it is not an example of mechanical sedimentation. 
193.64.21.60 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rhone/Lake Geneva image? Where does it state that is a carbonate precipitate? And even if it is, then it would be a chemical sediment - and still appropriate. Although the article doesn't discuss such chemical sediments. Vsmith (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The caption was definitely wrong, so I changed it.  The pale color of the waters of the upper Rhone is almost entirely due to glacial flour, not the product of poor land use or industrial development.  It is not chemical saturation either, the rocks of the high Alps along the upper Rhone valley are not high in carbonate content.  See the Wikipedia writeup on the Arve River for a similar image of high sediment loads from another high alpine source (and a correct explanation of their source). Douglas W. Jones (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture illustrating "sedimentation"