Tugboats Harnessed To Tackle Raging Floodwaters

[boggle]

How about this simple test while it's air and not water the test still applies, sit in front of a fan do you feel more air then with it not running? Simple isn't it?

and at a certain distance........... Nothing!

Edited September 25, 2011 by boggle

[Estrada]

I am an Engineer who has been dealing with Thai Engineers and politicians since 1982. They invariably come up with crackpot ideas like this that any schoolboy in the UK would tell you would not work. Of course the water would speed up immediately down stream of where the boats are moored, however the water would quickly slowdown. One thing is for certain, the boats themselves would displace a volume of water where they are moored and so the water level around and above the boats would tend to rise. In fact they would have been better removing all boats and objects floating on, or submerged in the water in order to increase the rivers capacity to hold water.

Having said that, these crackpot ideas are usually dreamt up so that they can make a financial killing, in this case boat rental, maintenance and fuel.

[phantomfiddler]

If the boats are presumably facing upriver, propelling the water downstream, then they must be securely anchored at the stern. I therefore see a serious danger of dragging the river bed upstream if too many boats are used, but if you manage to drag it far enough upstream to where it isn,t flooding, Eureka ! Success beyond one,s wildest dreams ! 55555555 !

[metisdead]

One post has been removed as it contained a link to Bangkok Post, which is not allowed:

31) Members are not allowed to quote news articles or material from Bangkokpost.com or Phuketwan inside topics on Thaivisa.com. Posts from members containing quotes will be deleted from the forum. Members posting links referring back to the sites is also not allowed and will be deleted.

[WarpSpeed]

How about this simple test while it's air and not water the test still applies, sit in front of a fan do you feel more air then with it not running? Simple isn't it?

and at a certain distance........... Nothing!

Air does not maintain momentum like already flowing water does.. Air dissipates energy much quicker. For those with the inability to extrapolate a larger example let's visualize a wind tunnel instead .. Or better yet a wave pool...... Ever seen a wave in open water flow backwards without hitting an object to change it's direction? Waves are perpetual motion..

[BuckarooBanzai]

I am three sheets to the wind and sailing down stream and so can only comment on what I see with the currents below my craft. A comment was made by me about ballistic - meaning calculations - which are two dimensional. Sadly I was in error, as the poster was only figuring in one dimension. Shame on me.

Chaos theory is beyond me but has everything to do with fluid dynamic flow systems.

What fun this thread is.

Lets lock down the local systems and prove the government is right.

This should be more fun than a trip down Sukumvit!

Edited September 25, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[WarpSpeed]

I will happily take on physics with anyone here. Since nobody has done a finite element analysis of the river, nobody has any idea of what the actual effect might be in reality. But let's take a hypothetical example and try to determine what the MAXIMUM effect might be. This is a river with in a channel with zero friction, and where 100% of the energy of the engine was transferred to the water.

Any one with a degree of understanding of physics will tell you that your logic is faulty. You made one very true statement "nobody has any idea of what the actual effect might be in reality" and then you went ballistic. Capture the real environment and then use your physics. Try again please.

I stand by my first statement "it works but at very low efficiencies.

OK...I'm happy to hear more about where my logic is faulty. I agree conservation of energy is not necessarily the most enlightening approach to the problem, but it could very easily have determined if the idea was a complete work of fiction.

As it is, my analysis implies that it may be possible. I originally shared your opinion that it sounded ridiculous, but I was specifically trying to decide if the announced statement, namely that they had increased the flow of the river 300% with 30 boats, was theoretically possible. Theoretically it seems it might be.

If we had more data, we could make a more detailed analysis. Since neither you nor I have that data, we can't. It is really as simple as that.

But I can find no obvious reason to discount the claims that the boats increased the flow of the river by the amount they claimed. If you can, please be my guest. Unlike many I am genuinely interested in whether or not this can work, and more importantly why or why not that is the case. I started out being completely dismissive of the idea as ludicrous, but having seen that it can't be ruled out by simple arguments, I now find myself wondering what the real answer is.

So please enlighten me. As I said...I will put my ability to understand physics up against anyone. Nothing intimidates me. Give it your best shot with real numbers. What exactly is the low efficiency you claim, and how did you arrive at your answer?

BTW, I hardly call applying a simple energy equivalence calculation as "going ballistic". Such simple analysis has allowed me in countless previous situations to immediately recognize someone who was full of fecal matter. It is a simple skill that everyone should learn.

Greg the opened minded thinking is much appreciated but where in your equation does it take into account water volume pushed? The pitch and size of the propeller and not just a Hp figure to determine the full on amount of water to be displaced is significant in this equation and without this data you don't have an accurate basis to begin your calculations..

The fact that you have discovered that it does have some credence without that data though is significant as I believe with it you'd find the displaced volume to be more significant..

[BillyBobThai]

The first picture is of the MV Mississippi, 6270 hp., the second picture is of the eight 400-horsepower tugboats tied to the pillars of Seekul Bridge across the Noi River in Bang Ban district of Ayutthaya accelerate to speed up the flow of the river as part of an effort to relieve flooding. The boat operation is scheduled from 8am to midnight and has been found to speed up flows in the river by 20%, but it costs 1,000 baht per boat per hour for fuel.

For myself, I think this is nothing more than a scam and some one is going to pocket quite a few baht on it. This is the product of the Thai. educational system.

[Livinginexile]

How about this simple test while it's air and not water the test still applies, sit in front of a fan do you feel more air then with it not running? Simple isn't it?

I'd also like to know how much water do these tugs push in 24 hours at maximum throttle? These are rhetorical questions for me by the way designed to make you think before you post more uninformed tripe..

Tugs have massive propellers and huge diesels designed for pushing torque so they push millions of gallons per hour..

Some links for YOUR education..

Tug boats and pulling capacity

Bollard pulling strength

Note that these measurements are stated in "tons of pulling power" and the article does not state what HP nor bollard pulling capacity these tugs have but suffice it to say that any tugs WILL make a difference..

How much water do you think has to be moved to measure tons of power?

I tend to agree.

The formular goes something like this:

Area X Velocity = volume.

Of course other factors need to applied like external static pressures but a river is an open free area so no K-factors are applied.

This is true whether a gas or a liquid

So...increase the velocity and you increase the volume.

The tugboat theory is actually workable.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Livinginexile

[StreetCowboy]

How about this simple test while it's air and not water the test still applies, sit in front of a fan do you feel more air then with it not running? Simple isn't it?

I'd also like to know how much water do these tugs push in 24 hours at maximum throttle? These are rhetorical questions for me by the way designed to make you think before you post more uninformed tripe..

Tugs have massive propellers and huge diesels designed for pushing torque so they push millions of gallons per hour..

Some links for YOUR education..

Tug boats and pulling capacity

Bollard pulling strength

Note that these measurements are stated in "tons of pulling power" and the article does not state what HP nor bollard pulling capacity these tugs have but suffice it to say that any tugs WILL make a difference..

How much water do you think has to be moved to measure tons of power?

I tend to agree.

The formular goes something like this:

Area X Velocity = volume.

Of course other factors need to applied like external static pressures but a river is an open free area so no K-factors are applied.

This is true whether a gas or a liquid

So...increase the velocity and you increase the volume.

The tugboat theory is actually workable.

THe problem I see is that you have to accelerate and keep moving the entire river for that flow to be sustained.

Since I could not figure that out, I took a hydrostatic approach and, given the flow of the river, how much additional 'head' could the tugs give the water. The reason for flooding in THailand is because the fall of the land is insufficient to support a good flow.

We had a similar problem in my dear old mother's house. The field drain which crossed the property was relocated to accommodate the house, and the increased distance meant that, after heavy rains it backed up and overflowed the inspection man-hole - probably also due to temporary partial blockage by light debris. So we (they) raised the level of the man-hole a quarter of a metre or so, and the extra head was sufficient to keep the flow going, and our property was no longer the first point of flooding. I don't think there was any flooding elsewhere either, but I could not be sure of that.

Anyway, I reckon that building the banks up half a metre up-river of the tugs' position would have the same effect, and would be a long-term solution, though I don't know how far up river you would need to go.

SC

[WarpSpeed]

The first picture is of the MV Mississippi, 6270 hp., the second picture is of the eight 400-horsepower tugboats tied to the pillars of Seekul Bridge across the Noi River in Bang Ban district of Ayutthaya accelerate to speed up the flow of the river as part of an effort to relieve flooding. The boat operation is scheduled from 8am to midnight and has been found to speed up flows in the river by 20%, but it costs 1,000 baht per boat per hour for fuel.

For myself, I think this is nothing more than a scam and some one is going to pocket quite a few baht on it. This is the product of the Thai. educational system.

Nice attempted twist but poor comprehension. That was the original boats in the original test, where did you get the info that these are the same boats/tugs exclusively being employed on the Chao Phraya? The article states 3200hp per tug so obviously not the same as 400 hp boats, there is much larger tugs available for that river since they have freighters in the Chao Phraya..

But just curious how much thrust (= water volume) do you think it takes to propel the Mississippi at 10knots per hour through water with a draw resistance to motion including currents, factoring in the weight as well? That's some serious water movement to achieve that goal and maintain it. If it were stationary all of that volume would be transferred directly to the movement of water only.. I'd suggest that is a pretty serious pumping station just on it's own merits but then multiply that times 30 or whatever number side by side?

As a boat owner though I have to say I'd need more then just fuel compensation if I'm working regularly as this is going to tax my engines significantly running them wide open continuously and it's going to cost me in real work as it's been long term at this point..

Edited September 26, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[Soutpeel]

The first picture is of the MV Mississippi, 6270 hp., the second picture is of the eight 400-horsepower tugboats tied to the pillars of Seekul Bridge across the Noi River in Bang Ban district of Ayutthaya accelerate to speed up the flow of the river as part of an effort to relieve flooding. The boat operation is scheduled from 8am to midnight and has been found to speed up flows in the river by 20%, but it costs 1,000 baht per boat per hour for fuel.

For myself, I think this is nothing more than a scam and some one is going to pocket quite a few baht on it. This is the product of the Thai. educational system.

Nice attempted twist but poor comprehension. That was the original boats in the original test, where did you get the info that these are the same boats/tugs exclusively being employed on the Chao Phraya? The article states 3200hp per tug so obviously not the same as 400 hp boats, there is much larger tugs available for that river since they have freighters in the Chao Phraya..

But just curious how much thrust (= water volume) do you think it takes to propel the Mississippi at 10knots per hour through water with a draw resistance to motion including currents, factoring in the weight as well? That's some serious water movement to achieve that goal and maintain it. If it were stationary all of that volume would be transferred directly to the movement of water only.. I'd suggest that is a pretty serious pumping station just on it's own merits but then multiply that times 30 or whatever number side by side?

As a boat owner though I have to say I'd need more then just fuel compensation if I'm working regularly as this is going to tax my engines significantly running them wide open continuously and it's going to cost me in real work as it's been long term at this point..

Typical 3200HP tug boat, specification....these are ocean going tug boats, certainly not whats is shown in the photos and would be burning somewhere in the region of between 3000 liters of fuel per day, no way are these the types of vessel they strung across the Chao Phraya to conduct a "test"

Loa 37.00 m

Lbp 29.60 m

Draft Design 4.40 m

Gross Tonnage 464 T

Net Tonnage 139 T

M/E 2 x Cummins KTA50-M2 (2 x 1600BHP @ 1800rpm,each)

Propeller 2 x FPP Propeller in fixed nozzle

Rudder 2 x Steamlined, double plate rudder

Speed 12 Knots

BP 40 Tons @ 5m/min

[StreetCowboy]

Can you imagine the mortification when the bridge comes down. We'll never hear the end of it...

SC

[Moonrakers]

I'm thinking of how a storm out at sea will generate large waves on the coast?

How is this much different in principle?

[WarpSpeed]

The first picture is of the MV Mississippi, 6270 hp., the second picture is of the eight 400-horsepower tugboats tied to the pillars of Seekul Bridge across the Noi River in Bang Ban district of Ayutthaya accelerate to speed up the flow of the river as part of an effort to relieve flooding. The boat operation is scheduled from 8am to midnight and has been found to speed up flows in the river by 20%, but it costs 1,000 baht per boat per hour for fuel.

For myself, I think this is nothing more than a scam and some one is going to pocket quite a few baht on it. This is the product of the Thai. educational system.

Nice attempted twist but poor comprehension. That was the original boats in the original test, where did you get the info that these are the same boats/tugs exclusively being employed on the Chao Phraya? The article states 3200hp per tug so obviously not the same as 400 hp boats, there is much larger tugs available for that river since they have freighters in the Chao Phraya..

But just curious how much thrust (= water volume) do you think it takes to propel the Mississippi at 10knots per hour through water with a draw resistance to motion including currents, factoring in the weight as well? That's some serious water movement to achieve that goal and maintain it. If it were stationary all of that volume would be transferred directly to the movement of water only.. I'd suggest that is a pretty serious pumping station just on it's own merits but then multiply that times 30 or whatever number side by side?

As a boat owner though I have to say I'd need more then just fuel compensation if I'm working regularly as this is going to tax my engines significantly running them wide open continuously and it's going to cost me in real work as it's been long term at this point..

Typical 3200HP tug boat, specification....these are ocean going tug boats, certainly not whats is shown in the photos and would be burning somewhere in the region of between 3000 liters of fuel per day, no way are these the types of vessel they strung across the Chao Phraya to conduct a "test"

Loa 37.00 m

Lbp 29.60 m

Draft Design 4.40 m

Gross Tonnage 464 T

Net Tonnage 139 T

M/E 2 x Cummins KTA50-M2 (2 x 1600BHP @ 1800rpm,each)

Propeller 2 x FPP Propeller in fixed nozzle

Rudder 2 x Steamlined, double plate rudder

Speed 12 Knots

BP 40 Tons @ 5m/min

That's right the picture shown is just a few 400 hp boats but the poster who posted it wants us to believe those are the tugs mentioned in the OP which were listed at 3200hp per tug. The ones pictured are the 400 or so hp boats they used on the small scale test near Ayutthaya a bit misleading that..

[Willeyeam]

Let me add a reply using my often twisted logic.

Surely any effect from the tugboats would depend upon the current flow rate of the water?

For example, if you had a tugboat in a stretch of water that was static, then turning on the motor would push water out the back, hence pushing the boat forward at an opposite rate, less efficiency losses, friction etc.

Therefore, if you moored the boat and performed the same action then yes, I agree, the boat would work like a pump and push similar ammounts of water downstream, accelerated by the props.

What I am curious about is what happens if the flow rate of the river is actually flowing faster than the boats propeller output? I.E. The water flow is faster than the boats could actually achieve, would this then not cause drag? and actually impede the flow? If the boats were pushing the water out the back, whilst being moored to the bridge in front, if they were really "pushing" water, why wouldn't they move forward?

Just a thought.

I'll shut up now.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Willeyeam

[BuckarooBanzai]

Can you imagine the mortification when the bridge comes down. We'll never hear the end of it...

SC

[Tanaka]

^ Ermmmm Cowboy I have !! I personally don't need to do the calcs just to prove my position as my more then 25 years experience in hydraulics does that for me.. But most others weeeeeeelll that's another issue ..

Besides if they are incapable of conceptualizing this procedure in the first place based on the concise explanations provided then a bunch of numbers will surely blind them ..

I can see that if the problem is localised and you are trying to get water over a natural wier (for example, if a bridge is forming a bottleneck) then the impellers might be very effective at forcing more water through that bottleneck. But that relies on being able to dissipate the water downstream.

If the problem is that the whole river gradient is too flat, then you would need to accelerate the whole river length; and if your river is flat and broad, then you have a lot of surface underneath to slow down the flow of water. You might be better to think of it as a hydrostatic problem, rather than a hydrodynamic problem, and think of the impellers as pumping to get a slight head on the downstream side, which would encourage the water to flow away. So you could do a calc to say "if there is 3,000 cubic metres of water flowing per second, what can 6 x 3200 HP (say 14 MW? (Can't check the calc without an envelope to hand) achieve? We could raise all that water

F x S = 14x10^6

(force on 3,000 tonnes water is approx 30x10^6 N)

S = 0.5 ish. So the tug boats would have the same effect as another half metre of rise on the river.

Now is that enough to put the water over the banks? A lot of riparian neighbours would see that as a bad thing.

But I would say, from that calc, that maybe it could work, but the key problem would be what to do with the water downstream. You might, for example, want to add more pumping stations to give another boost to the momentum of the water. Little and often will probably be more efficient and certainly safer than putting all your pressure in one spot.

Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I am sure that if the Thais were interested in educating us, they could tell us how much it helped. THough I am not sure how you would measure that objectively.

SC

SC

Yes as I mentioned earlier the optimum place to locate another set of tugs would be just upstream prior to the rivers mouth to complete the process.. Still I'm sure it is going to have some detrimental effect in terms of more local flooding downstream let's not forget as the flooding moves southward anyways it is already flooding the river banks so it's a virtual certainty that it will cause more flooding downstream.

The Dutch, which have been mentioned as flood experts and rightly so do this very thing understanding that there is no way to completely control the floods they face, they have designated neighborhoods they've prepared in advance for flooding that are sacrificial over the greater whole..

I always find it funny that in an attempt to use an elementary example like the swimming pool because the more complicated ones are sure to escape anyone who can't follow the simple example and it still gets glossed over and discounted .

WS. You claim to be the only one on this forum who understands anything about this. I take it your education is from thai schools and your long experience also in Thailand. However that does not give you any right to condemn and ridicule other people. That only shows your inability to understand.

Now, your refer to your example of the swimming pool as being an easy to understand example. You are of course right when you say that putting a small propeller in the water will move the water. But that has nothing to do with a river. Instead fit a water pump in the pool, one that is used to create a stream to swim against. Maybe you understand my meaning? Now put your little propeller into the water again at the end of the pool where the water is pumped from. And measure how much your pump is increasing the flow. You would find that the increase is unmeasurable.

Then you have an example with an air fan. "Sit in front of a fan and see if you feel the sir"! Yeawh, right. Instead you should put yourself at a distance of say, 15-20 meters and then say if you feel the airflow. You don't seem to realize that moving air is not the same as moving water. I shall try and make it easy for you. Fill a bottle with one litre of water and weigh it. It will be roughly one kilo heavier than without water. Now fill the bottle with one litre of air. How much more does it weigh? Nothing? Oooops, then something is very wrong in all your high horse remarks about people who do not understand what you are saying. Mainly because that most of what you claim is just <deleted>!

Albert Einstein, heard of him?, said that there are only two things that are indefinite, the universe and human stupidity. And he was not sure about the universe. And no, I am not comparing you to Einstein!

[WarpSpeed]

^ Ermmmm Cowboy I have !! I personally don't need to do the calcs just to prove my position as my more then 25 years experience in hydraulics does that for me.. But most others weeeeeeelll that's another issue ..

Besides if they are incapable of conceptualizing this procedure in the first place based on the concise explanations provided then a bunch of numbers will surely blind them ..

I can see that if the problem is localised and you are trying to get water over a natural wier (for example, if a bridge is forming a bottleneck) then the impellers might be very effective at forcing more water through that bottleneck. But that relies on being able to dissipate the water downstream.

If the problem is that the whole river gradient is too flat, then you would need to accelerate the whole river length; and if your river is flat and broad, then you have a lot of surface underneath to slow down the flow of water. You might be better to think of it as a hydrostatic problem, rather than a hydrodynamic problem, and think of the impellers as pumping to get a slight head on the downstream side, which would encourage the water to flow away. So you could do a calc to say "if there is 3,000 cubic metres of water flowing per second, what can 6 x 3200 HP (say 14 MW? (Can't check the calc without an envelope to hand) achieve? We could raise all that water

F x S = 14x10^6

(force on 3,000 tonnes water is approx 30x10^6 N)

S = 0.5 ish. So the tug boats would have the same effect as another half metre of rise on the river.

Now is that enough to put the water over the banks? A lot of riparian neighbours would see that as a bad thing.

But I would say, from that calc, that maybe it could work, but the key problem would be what to do with the water downstream. You might, for example, want to add more pumping stations to give another boost to the momentum of the water. Little and often will probably be more efficient and certainly safer than putting all your pressure in one spot.

Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I am sure that if the Thais were interested in educating us, they could tell us how much it helped. THough I am not sure how you would measure that objectively.

SC

SC

Yes as I mentioned earlier the optimum place to locate another set of tugs would be just upstream prior to the rivers mouth to complete the process.. Still I'm sure it is going to have some detrimental effect in terms of more local flooding downstream let's not forget as the flooding moves southward anyways it is already flooding the river banks so it's a virtual certainty that it will cause more flooding downstream.

The Dutch, which have been mentioned as flood experts and rightly so do this very thing understanding that there is no way to completely control the floods they face, they have designated neighborhoods they've prepared in advance for flooding that are sacrificial over the greater whole..

I always find it funny that in an attempt to use an elementary example like the swimming pool because the more complicated ones are sure to escape anyone who can't follow the simple example and it still gets glossed over and discounted .

WS. You claim to be the only one on this forum who understands anything about this. I take it your education is from thai schools and your long experience also in Thailand. However that does not give you any right to condemn and ridicule other people. That only shows your inability to understand.

Now, your refer to your example of the swimming pool as being an easy to understand example. You are of course right when you say that putting a small propeller in the water will move the water. But that has nothing to do with a river. Instead fit a water pump in the pool, one that is used to create a stream to swim against. Maybe you understand my meaning? Now put your little propeller into the water again at the end of the pool where the water is pumped from. And measure how much your pump is increasing the flow. You would find that the increase is unmeasurable.

Then you have an example with an air fan. "Sit in front of a fan and see if you feel the sir"! Yeawh, right. Instead you should put yourself at a distance of say, 15-20 meters and then say if you feel the airflow. You don't seem to realize that moving air is not the same as moving water. I shall try and make it easy for you. Fill a bottle with one litre of water and weigh it. It will be roughly one kilo heavier than without water. Now fill the bottle with one litre of air. How much more does it weigh? Nothing? Oooops, then something is very wrong in all your high horse remarks about people who do not understand what you are saying. Mainly because that most of what you claim is just <deleted>!

Albert Einstein, heard of him?, said that there are only two things that are indefinite, the universe and human stupidity. And he was not sure about the universe. And no, I am not comparing you to Einstein!

Oh gee look at what time of the night it is?? I guess after a few beers you worked up enough courage to post that eh?

Not even going to go there with you I haven't belittled a single person in this thread but if anyone deserves it, you do, so consider yourself belittled....

JFYI in spite of your juvenile attempt at attacking my education you really displayed how limited yours is by even making such a bigoted ASSumption..

Edited September 26, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[Tanaka]

SC

SC

Yes as I mentioned earlier the optimum place to locate another set of tugs would be just upstream prior to the rivers mouth to complete the process.. Still I'm sure it is going to have some detrimental effect in terms of more local flooding downstream let's not forget as the flooding moves southward anyways it is already flooding the river banks so it's a virtual certainty that it will cause more flooding downstream.

The Dutch, which have been mentioned as flood experts and rightly so do this very thing understanding that there is no way to completely control the floods they face, they have designated neighborhoods they've prepared in advance for flooding that are sacrificial over the greater whole..

I always find it funny that in an attempt to use an elementary example like the swimming pool because the more complicated ones are sure to escape anyone who can't follow the simple example and it still gets glossed over and discounted .

WS. You claim to be the only one on this forum who understands anything about this. I take it your education is from thai schools and your long experience also in Thailand. However that does not give you any right to condemn and ridicule other people. That only shows your inability to understand.

Now, your refer to your example of the swimming pool as being an easy to understand example. You are of course right when you say that putting a small propeller in the water will move the water. But that has nothing to do with a river. Instead fit a water pump in the pool, one that is used to create a stream to swim against. Maybe you understand my meaning? Now put your little propeller into the water again at the end of the pool where the water is pumped from. And measure how much your pump is increasing the flow. You would find that the increase is unmeasurable.

Then you have an example with an air fan. "Sit in front of a fan and see if you feel the sir"! Yeawh, right. Instead you should put yourself at a distance of say, 15-20 meters and then say if you feel the airflow. You don't seem to realize that moving air is not the same as moving water. I shall try and make it easy for you. Fill a bottle with one litre of water and weigh it. It will be roughly one kilo heavier than without water. Now fill the bottle with one litre of air. How much more does it weigh? Nothing? Oooops, then something is very wrong in all your high horse remarks about people who do not understand what you are saying. Mainly because that most of what you claim is just <deleted>!

Albert Einstein, heard of him?, said that there are only two things that are indefinite, the universe and human stupidity. And he was not sure about the universe. And no, I am not comparing you to Einstein!

Oh gee look at what time of the night it is?? I guess after a few beers you worked up enough courage to post that eh?

Not even going to go there with you I haven't belittled a single person in this thread but if anyone deserves it, you do, so consider yourself belittled....

JFYI in spite of your juvenile attempt at attacking my education you really displayed how limited yours is by even making such a bigoted ASSumption..

I was expecting something like this. First, the time, if you had the ability to read, was yesterday afternoon here in Thailand when I wrote. Also, as opposed to you, I dont drink. Second, it is common for people without arguments or intelligence to use personal attacks. Which you have just proved and it adds to what I said about you before. But of course you do not understand that either. Which was also expected. Ask someone to help you read my line about what Einstein said and then look in a mirror. And no, I won¨t tell you what you¨ll see. That would be futile.

Now, if you really did have something worthwhile to submit in the discussion about Chao Praya river, you had your chance. But of course you did not as you do not have anything to say that is worth reading. So please stop taking up space here with your drivel. Discussing with people with very limited intelligence and experience is just a waste of time. So I refrain from that as long as you keep trying to tell people you have something to prove.

[WarpSpeed]

Silly you, no mention of a propeller in a swimming pool anywhere like you previously mentioned and yet your still foolishly bleating on ..

[Crushdepth]

How about this simple test while it's air and not water the test still applies, sit in front of a fan do you feel more air then with it not running? Simple isn't it?

I'd also like to know how much water do these tugs push in 24 hours at maximum throttle? These are rhetorical questions for me by the way designed to make you think before you post more uninformed tripe..

Tugs have massive propellers and huge diesels designed for pushing torque so they push millions of gallons per hour..

Some links for YOUR education..

Tug boats and pulling capacity

Bollard pulling strength

Note that these measurements are stated in "tons of pulling power" and the article does not state what HP nor bollard pulling capacity these tugs have but suffice it to say that any tugs WILL make a difference..

How much water do you think has to be moved to measure tons of power?

A measurable difference? The contribution of the boats to flow rate in the Chao Phraya is absolutely trivial. In practical terms it will make no difference to the flooding outcome and is a total waste of time. Arguing the theoretical merits of it is just internet pedantry.

[WarpSpeed]

How about this simple test while it's air and not water the test still applies, sit in front of a fan do you feel more air then with it not running? Simple isn't it?

I'd also like to know how much water do these tugs push in 24 hours at maximum throttle? These are rhetorical questions for me by the way designed to make you think before you post more uninformed tripe..

Tugs have massive propellers and huge diesels designed for pushing torque so they push millions of gallons per hour..

Some links for YOUR education..

Tug boats and pulling capacity

Bollard pulling strength

Note that these measurements are stated in "tons of pulling power" and the article does not state what HP nor bollard pulling capacity these tugs have but suffice it to say that any tugs WILL make a difference..

How much water do you think has to be moved to measure tons of power?

A measurable difference? The contribution of the boats to flow rate in the Chao Phraya is absolutely trivial. In practical terms it will make no difference to the flooding outcome and is a total waste of time. Arguing the theoretical merits of it is just internet pedantry.

Really? So what calculations or practical experience do you have to back that assertion up with? With such a firm position, I assume you've been down there taking measurements and gathering data to support such presumptions? Please avail us of your immense aptitude on the topic don't hold back now..

Edited September 27, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[BuckarooBanzai]

Thailand's first attempt to speed up the Chao Phraya river took place in the early 1800's with the worlds first river pump. As I understand it the pump was powered by elephants on treadmills on both banks of the river.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Thailand's first attempt to speed up the Chao Phraya river took place in the early 1800's with the worlds first river pump. As I understand it the pump was powered by elephants on treadmills on both banks of the river.

This technology can still be seen in use in all the shrimp farms in Thailand. Ahead of their time!

[StreetCowboy]

Thailand's first attempt to speed up the Chao Phraya river took place in the early 1800's with the worlds first river pump. As I understand it the pump was powered by elephants on treadmills on both banks of the river.

This technology can still be seen in use in all the shrimp farms in Thailand. Ahead of their time!

I think on the shrimp / fish farms, the aim is to aerate the water, to support the fish.

Takes me back to my old days studying bubbles...

SC

[BuckarooBanzai]

Thailand's first attempt to speed up the Chao Phraya river took place in the early 1800's with the worlds first river pump. As I understand it the pump was powered by elephants on treadmills on both banks of the river.

This technology can still be seen in use in all the shrimp farms in Thailand. Ahead of their time!

I think on the shrimp / fish farms, the aim is to aerate the water, to support the fish.

Takes me back to my old days studying bubbles...

SC

Bubble technology is a first rate entrance to flow of a fluid. Wow - maybe we are on to something here!

[surayu]

Instead why don't you google up "pumping stations" ?

I did, but it just show up the address of a place in Soi Post Office in Pattaya, doesn't even mention the HP capabilities of such establishment , but honestly, why they didn't just throw enough ice cubes into it till it freeze up?

[StreetCowboy]

Instead why don't you google up "pumping stations" ?

I did, but it just show up the address of a place in Soi Post Office in Pattaya, doesn't even mention the HP capabilities of such establishment , but honestly, why they didn't just throw enough ice cubes into it till it freeze up?

Maybe we're looking at this from the wrong angle.

Add a little gelatin and take it our in trucks.

Add some cornflour, and plant rice in it.

Take out all the old shopping trolleys.

SC

[WarpSpeed]

Instead why don't you google up "pumping stations" ?

I did, but it just show up the address of a place in Soi Post Office in Pattaya, doesn't even mention the HP capabilities of such establishment , but honestly, why they didn't just throw enough ice cubes into it till it freeze up?

Maybe you should take the "Thailand" out of your search parameters ?