NH Forty What?

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
nartreb said:
As for prime number elevations, that's a waste of time. Even if there were surveys accurate to a foot (there aren't), the meaning of "sea level" is pretty arbitrary. You've got a choice of models that differ from each other by meters.
Click to expand...

At what point does the degree of 'arbitrari-ness' of what we do become an exercise in reductio-ad-absurdum?

Even in base 3.1415, you could say "show me the fifty highest peaks in the region" and you'd still end up with the NH48 or the ADK46 (plus two or four, respectively).

I'd guess it's that Dr. Wu needs to have different-colored dots on the teeth he throws out. Categorizing the peaks by apparently-odd logarithms may be arbitrary, but that's what they're there for, right?

Now, is there anyone else out there I can speak for?
 
--M. said:
At what point does the degree of 'arbitrari-ness' of what we do become an exercise in reductio-ad-absurdum?

Even in base 3.1415, you could say "show me the fifty highest peaks in the region" and you'd still end up with the NH48 or the ADK46 (plus two or four, respectively).
Click to expand...
Like I said, I was just curious about the data that I saw on the USGS site. I never even completed the 48 so I don't care either way.

However, if you want, I think a list can be good at a motivator or as a means to visit different places. Sure, you could just point at anything on the map and say, "I'm going here" but if you're trying for something with reasonably attainable benchmarks a list makes sense. And with that, you might want some specific criteria with which for formulate the list.

"Show me the fifty highest peaks in the region" and you'd still end up with the NH48... is not exactly true because, again, it's how you define "highest." If you relax the col rule to say 50' or 100' you're going to have to include the various Adams sub peaks, SW Twin and so on -- peaks that right now only exist on the Trailwrights 72 List and if you're going to limit the list to 48 peaks, ones like Isolation will drop off the list. Conversely, if you want the 48 highest peaks in the White Mountains and you specify a stricter col rule of say, 500' or 1000' you're going to have a lot of 3K's and maybe even some 2k's on the list and a lot of subpeaks like Lincoln, West Bond, North Twin etc., will fall off your list. The "NH48" as it is with its 200' col rule has become such the standard that we automatically think that basically that's all there is. In reality it's not.

For a while I've avoided the "lists" and simply pointed at the map. But I'm thinking of coming up with a couple of lists to my own liking. The NH48 is ok, all the peaks are great on it, but I guess I want something with a little more variety, more bushwhacking, but yet since I might be having motivational problems, I don't want something with 3349 peaks on it. I don't think anyone is trying to redefine anything here. The NH48 is what it is but like Chlorox, it's a brand that has become a standard definition. In reality though you can define "highest" in any infinite number of combinations and still be right as long as that's what you want to do.

-Dr. Wu
 
FWIW, this is, roughly, what the NH48 would look like with a 400' col rule:

1 Mount Washington 6288
2 Mount Adams 5774
3 Mount Jefferson 5712
4 Mount Madison 5366
5 Mount Lafayette 5240
6 South Twin 4902
7 Carter Dome 4832
8 Mount Moosilauke 4802
9 Mount Carrigain 4680
10 Middle Carter Mountain 4600
11 Mount Garfield 4480
12 Wildcat Mountain 4422
13 Mount Hancock 4400
14 Kinsman Mountain 4358
15 Mount Flume 4328
16 Mount Osceola 4320
17 Mount Field 4320
18 Mount Cabot 4160
19 North Tripyramid 4160
20 Cannon Mountain 4080
21 Mount Hale 4054
22 Mount Moriah 4049
23 Mount Passaconaway 4043
24 Owls Head 4025
25 Mount Waumbek 4006
26 Mount Tecumseh 4003
27 Mount Whiteface 4000
28 Sandwich Mountain 3960
29 Mount Nancy 3926
30 Mount Weeks 3901
31 Scar Ridge 3774
32 Mount Kancamagus 3762
33 Shelburne Moriah Mountain 3735
34 Hutchins Mountain 3730
35 Mount Dartmouth 3727
36 Mount Lowell 3720
37 Mount Anderson 3720
38 Mount Huntington 3680
39 Mount Deception 3671
40 Long Mountain 3661
41 Terrace Mountain 3655
42 Stub Hill 3627
43 Whitcomb Mountain 3615
44 Pliny Mountain 3606
45 North Baldface 3600
46 Mount Hitchcock 3600
47 Cherry Mountain 3554
48 Sable Mountain 3519

Looks different! This might not be 100% accurate. I did a 10 second cut, reshuffle and paste.

-Dr. Wu
 
Last edited:
This is the NH 48 with a less rigorous col requirement -- probably about 10'. The second number (after elevation) is prominence.

1 Mount Washington 6288 6148
2 Ball Crag 6106 31
3 Mount Adams 5774 836
4 Mount Jefferson 5712 753
5 Nelson Crag 5635 35
6 Sam Adams 5585 93
7 Mount Clay 5533 139
8 Boott Spur 5492 92
9 John Quincy Adams 5410 56
10 Mount Monroe 5372 254
11 Mount Madison 5366 466
12 Adams 4 5348 33
13 Adams 5 5256 0
14 Mount Lafayette 5240 3320
15 Mount Lincoln 5089 169
16 Mount Truman 5000 80
17 Mount Franklin 5000 25
18 South Twin 4902 1502
19 Carter Dome 4832 2821
20 Slide Peak 4806 6
21 Mount Moosilauke 4802 2932
22 North Twin 4761 281
23 Mount Eisenhower 4760 335
24 Little Haystack 4760 0
25 Mount Bond 4698 298
26 Mount Carrigain 4680 2223
27 Mount Hight 4675 115
28 Middle Carter Mountain 4600 700
29 Mount Lethe 4584 44
30 Mount Guyot 4560 160
31 Mount Blue 4529 129
32 Mount Moosilauke-South Summit 4523 43
33 West Bond 4520 160
34 North Carter Mountain 4520 40
35 Mount Garfield 4480 800
36 Mount Liberty 4459 379
37 Wildcat Mountain 4422 1034
38 South Carter Mountain 4420 220
39 Mount Hancock 4400 1200
40 Kinsman Mountain 4358 2398
41 Mount Flume 4328 408
42 Mount Osceola 4320 2000
43 Mount Field 4320 1681
44 Wildcat “B” 4320 40
45 South Hancock 4319 159
46 Mount Clinton 4310 235
47 Wildcat “C” 4298 138
48 Kinsman Mountain-North Peak 4293 253

You can see what gets cut off and what gets added as a result of lowering the col requirement but still cutting off at 48 (which by now would seem illogical because it A) doesn't include all the 4k's at that point and B) 48 is a rather dull number).

-Dr. Wu
 
And finally, here is a list of the highest peaks in NH with 2000' prominence. No need for an arbitrary cutoff (besides 2000') as there are only 12. Some big surprises present:

1 Mount Washington 6288 6148
2 Mount Lafayette 5240 3320
3 Carter Dome 4832 2821
4 Mount Moosilauke 4802 2932
5 Mount Carrigain 4680 2223
6 Kinsman Mountain 4358 2398
7 Mount Osceola 4320 2000
8 Mount Cabot 4160 2660
9 Smarts Mountain 3238 2178
10 Grand Monadnock 3150 2130
11 Mount Shaw 2990 2330
12 Mount Kearsarge 2920 2080

Second column is prominence. They (except Washington) might not be the tallest, but they are, by this particular definition, the largest in NH. Now again, this is just a numerical way to define and redefine a physical entity. The mountains are what they are. Now, we don't have a list that represents volume do we?

-Dr. Wu
 
that last list is kind of cool, there has always been this line of thinking that monroe is not a mountain, but a subpeak of Washington, like South Moosilauke, which no one thinks of as a "mountain"

I guess you've got to draw the line somewhere or else a whole range gets consolidated, or every bump is a summit
 
dr_wu002 said:
"Show me the fifty highest peaks in the region" and you'd still end up with the NH48... is not exactly true because, again, it's how you define "highest." If you relax the col rule to say 50' or 100' you're going to have to include the various Adams sub peaks, SW Twin and so on -- peaks that right now only exist on the Trailwrights 72 List and if you're going to limit the list to 48 peaks, ones like Isolation will drop off the list.

-Dr. Wu
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true, if a bit of a run-on (not like this sentence!); and I like this last list, too. A different look at who're the big kids in the neighborhood.

And Neil, man, that's cold! Funny, but cold.
 
Hey Pete,

Mmmmmmm, nevermind. I was trying to think of a snarky reply, but I've got nothing ..... except for OUCH! :eek:
 
Willoughby said:
Is this the time to point out that New Hampshire itself is an arbitrary construct? :D
Click to expand...
Except for some guy named Ethan Allen & friends, NH might have gained 5 more to the W
For example, how come Old Speck is a White Mountain but not in New Hampshire...
Click to expand...
The original list of 46 approved by the provisional 4k committee and sent to the AMC council included Old Speck, until a gadfly named Roderick Gould discovered that S Hancock should be added so Old Speck was removed to keep the list at 46. Gould was given credit in Mike & Steve's book as the first to finish the new list although I'm not sure how they knew that neither of the 2 "grandfathered" people hadn't. Gould was killed climbing in the Alps before he caused the club any more trouble. (Source - old editions of Appalachia)
 
DougPaul said:
Anyone have a list of 4K peaks in octal*?
Click to expand...
After due consideration, I thought it more appropriate to round to 10,000' peaks in octal. It also seemed more reasonable to use a col depth that is a binary fraction of the height closest to the 5% used by those decimal folks so I chose 400' (octal) with fudging like the FTFC uses to account for the fact that the contour maps are in decimal so 240 (base 10) will count. Anyway, here's a possible list:

14220 WASHINGTON
13216 ADAMS
13120 JEFFERSON
12410 MONROE
12367 MADISON
12214 LAFAYETTE
11446 TWIN, SOUTH
11340 CARTER DOME
11302 MOOSILAUKE
11254 EISENHOWER
11231 TWIN, NORTH
11134 CARRIGAIN
11132 BOND
11002 CARTER, MIDDLE
10624 GARFIELD
10553 LIBERTY
10516 CARTER, SOUTH
10506 WILDCAT
10504 HANCOCK
10406 KINSMAN, SOUTH PEAK
10364 FIELD
10364 OSCEOLA
10350 FLUME
10326 PIERCE [CLINTON]
10305 KINSMAN, NORTH PEAK
10275 WILLEY
10244 ZEALAND
10124 TRIPYRAMID, NORTH PEAK
10112 CABOT
10074 OSCEOLA, EAST PEAK
10054 TRIPYRAMID, MIDDLE PEAK
10004 CANNON
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

roadtripper
Tips for hiking the NH 4000-Footers
Replies
8
Views
7K
Grey J
Grey J

Latest posts

Top