the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Thiem team – Adolf and Günther Thiem, two forefathers of hydrogeology
- 1Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Hannover, Germany
- 2National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT), College of Science & Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
- 1Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Hannover, Germany
- 2National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT), College of Science & Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
Abstract. Adolf and Günther Thiem, father and son, left behind a methodological legacy that many current hydrogeologists are probably unaware of. It goes much beyond the Dupuit-Thiem analytical model for pump test analysis, which is connected to their name. Methods, which we use on a day-to-day basis today, such as isopotential maps, tracer tests and vertical wells were amongst the many contributions which the Thiems either developed or improved. Remarkably, this was not done in a university context but rather as a by-product of their practical work designing and building water supply schemes in countries all over Europe. Some of these water works are still active. Both Thiems were also great science communicators. Their contributions were read and applied in many countries, especially in the US, through a personal connection between Günther and O.E. Meinzer, the leading USGS hydrogeologist of the time.
Georg J. Houben and Okke Batelaan
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-427', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Feb 2022
My appologies for taking long to review.
Interesting, fun and relevant read. I have 2 comments:
- minor technical: I could not find the reference but I think Q is missing in the first term in equation 4.
- in general: to highlight/illustrate the relevance of their work maybe connect more (often) to recent work.
eg: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10040-020-02226-7 for lines 218-222-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Georg Houben, 26 Apr 2022
RESPONSE to Reviewer content:
- Interesting, fun and relevant read.
Response: Thank you for your kind words!
- I have 2 comments:
- minor technical: I could not find the reference but I think Q is missing in the first term in equation 4.
Response: indeed, Q is missing in the first term, this will be fixed
- in general: to highlight/illustrate the relevance of their work maybe connect more (often) to recent work.
eg: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10040-020-02226-7 for lines 218-222Response: good point, we will add more references to current work, including the one suggested for Lines 218-222
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Georg Houben, 26 Apr 2022
-
CC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-427', Anvar R. Kacimov, 05 Mar 2022
An excellent paper, which reveals and inspires.
a) New historical facts and Thiems' papers (in German) in subsurface mechancis, commingled with the history of science- hydrologic engineering in Europe, are super-interesting. In particular, I was amazed to learn about the "battle of ideas", related to the Darcy law and its applications to groundwater hydrology- well hydraulics. Before reading this review, I had a misconception that this law is a mathematically derived approximation, which followed from a relation between the hydraulic gradient and Darcian velocity.
b) The fate of the Thiems is tragic. In the Nietzschean sense: around the hero everything turns into a tragedy. The tragedy of oblivion of the Thiem's legacey is now converted by HESS into revelation. How? By meticulous revisiting Thiems' work. And by the spirit of the authors, viz. Houben and Batelaan. Scientiffic texts are forced to be written distilled, viz. "neither hot nor cold". In the Houben-Batelaan paper, I feel that they heard the message of the Angel of Laodicea.
Anvar Kacimov
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Georg Houben, 26 Apr 2022
RESPONSE
An excellent paper, which reveals and inspires.
Response: Thank you very much for your kind words
a) New historical facts and Thiems' papers (in German) in subsurface mechancis, commingled with the history of science- hydrologic engineering in Europe, are super-interesting. In particular, I was amazed to learn about the "battle of ideas", related to the Darcy law and its applications to groundwater hydrology- well hydraulics. Before reading this review, I had a misconception that this law is a mathematically derived approximation, which followed from a relation between the hydraulic gradient and Darcian velocity.
Response: indeed, several laws were proposed to describe the flow of water in porous media at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 20th century. The empirically derived Darcy law, which turned out to the most adequate one, was luckily one the earliest and thus dominated from early on. Only much later was its validity shown mathematically.
Darcy himself had already noticed that his law is not valid for very high gradients (or flow velocities) but had correctly assessed that this would be almost irrevelant for standard conditions in aquifers. Later authors, like Smreker added this missing velocity component, but overestimated its importance and considered the Darcy law to be utterly useless, which it - of course - is not. Ironically, the problem had already been solved by Forchheimer in his seminal 1901 paper, who had expanded the Darcy law to the Forchheimer law. This approach expanded the limits of the Darcy law, while retaining its core character. The Thiem-Smreker controversy was almost exclusively fought on in the German speaking world. It would be interesting to see whether Darcy also met opposition from authors outside of Germany.
b) The fate of the Thiems is tragic. In the Nietzschean sense: around the hero everything turns into a tragedy. The tragedy of oblivion of the Thiem's legacey is now converted by HESS into revelation. How? By meticulous revisiting Thiems' work. And by the spirit of the authors, viz. Houben and Batelaan. Scientiffic texts are forced to be written distilled, viz. "neither hot nor cold". In the Houben-Batelaan paper, I feel that they heard the message of the Angel of Laodicea.
Response: thank you for this literary assesment. It is indeed a bit tragic to see that several methods the Thiems devised or pioneered do not bear their names, with the exception of the Dupuit-Thiem law. It was the intention of our manuscript to raise awareness of their contributions. But the best legacy for these methods is that they are still being used today! They have stood the test of time!
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Georg Houben, 26 Apr 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-427', Maurits Ertsen, 05 Apr 2022
In order to allow the flow for the paper to continue, I have posted this general review. I will detail my considerations in the editorial comments I will post later. Apologies for this way of working, but I'll explain some more in the editorial comments. Maurits
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Georg Houben, 26 Apr 2022
Georg J. Houben and Okke Batelaan
Georg J. Houben and Okke Batelaan
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 643 | 241 | 20 | 904 | 9 | 11 |
- HTML: 643
- PDF: 241
- XML: 20
- Total: 904
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1