1,000 Boats To Push Flood Waters From Chao Phraya River

[ResX]

No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy?

ResX

Please please stop. You are so wrong it is impossible to put you on the right track. You need to divert your energies elsewhere. You are not gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the situation, so you are wasting your time. There are tens of pages of complete and utter BS on this thread and it is all just futile.

Let me listen from you. If I'm wrong you can prove me wrong using well establish physics. No speculation. Here is my stand. If you add additional kinetic energy at one particular cross sectional area with the flow, the water at that cross sectional area will move faster. I will stop here since I don't where I'm wrong, as you say. If you say it is ok then I will continue. If it is not ok than show me what when wrong.

ResX: It's best to ignore GentlemanJim. I don't know what his game is.

I don't think you are wrong up to the point you mentioned. The water at that cross section of flow will move faster (have a higher KE/inertia).

What do you think happens after that?

BTW, I've had pause to consider the mechanism of the transfer of energy by a tsunami. Relatively high speed for long distances and, apparently little energy loss in the process.

Very little. Don't rely on tsunami to lose is kinetic energy even you are 1000km away to be safe. You know that for sure.

Then it loses its potential energy. (At that cross sectional area). See Bernoulli Continuity Equation. Since energy with the flow is constant and two forms of energies exist together (potential and kinetic) then the flow will lose its potential energy. Its water level at that cross sectional area will go down. Then it creates additional pressure gradient with inland water (up to the point of influenced (This is tricky part). Therefore, the flow rate from inland (Up to the point of influenced) will increase. That is how you can influence river flow by using a 1000boats. There is no diff with ordinary pumping process. Very similar.

Ok. I stop here for today. This is actually the same thing that I have mentioned before. See you again next time.

P/S: I'm preparing PPT for presentation. Coincidentally, it is also about a hydro dynamic model in one particular area I'm good at.

Edited October 19, 2011 by ResX

[WarpSpeed]

Eh? So a jet engine is not designed to create rearward thrust? You're losing credibility here Buckaroo...

Thrust is not linear flow. If you want me to post wing turbulent flow I will but really it is a waste of time. The basis of all these arguments are about linear flow of thrust which is not the case. The thrust from props or jets are turbulent in nature.

I agree posting wing turbulence is just a waste of time, nobody is talking about wing turbulence just try and stand behind a jet engine at full throttle some time, with brakes on before take off and once you've stopped tumbling like a ping pong ball in Patong a few hundred yards later and get up to wipe down your bloody arms (and that's not just using a British euphemism) then tell us again how it doesn't have rearward thrust! But don't take my word for it take theirs!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyR6kuqfzU

Jet engine blows away truck

Lack of concentration must be your excuse. Wing turbulence and prop turbulence are pretty much the same thing except it is a lot easier to see wing turbulence. A prop is a set of vertical wings same as a helicopter rotor is a horizontal set of wings. Turbulence in air and water are the same thing.

What say you? I thought you were going to bed? You sound tired and incoherent..

Edited October 19, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[BuckarooBanzai]

What say you? I thought you were going to bed? You sound tired and incoherent..

Tired but certainly not incoherent...

[MaxYakov]

2004 tsunami causing earthquake released in Earth's surface 26 megatons of TNT, 1500 times of Hiroshima BUT the total energy released was whopping 550 million times of Hiroshima. So these 1000 boats are not going to make any difference in this flood. Drop of a drop in bucket.

So you're bringing in 550 x 10⁶ * (what was Hiroshima?) 15 x 10³ tons TNT to compare with the 1.1 x 10³ diesel boats on the Chao Phraya?

Why didn't bring in the Sun as a comparison? Hell, don't stop there, bring in the whole Galaxy!

[WarpSpeed]

ResX

Please please stop. You are so wrong it is impossible to put you on the right track. You need to divert your energies elsewhere. You are not gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the situation, so you are wasting your time. There are tens of pages of complete and utter BS on this thread and it is all just futile.

Let me listen from you. If I'm wrong you can prove me wrong using well establish physics. No speculation. Here is my stand. If you add additional kinetic energy at one particular cross sectional area with the flow, the water at that cross sectional area will move faster. I will stop here since I don't where I'm wrong, as you say. If you say it is ok then I will continue. If it is not ok than show me what when wrong.

ResX: It's best to ignore GentlemanJim. I don't know what his game is.

I don't think you are wrong up to the point you mentioned. The water at that cross section of flow will move faster (have a higher KE/inertia).

What do you think happens after that?

BTW, I've had pause to consider the mechanism of the transfer of energy by a tsunami. Relatively high speed for long distances and, apparently little energy loss in the process.

Very little. Don't rely on tsunami to lose is kinetic energy even you are 1000km away to be safe. You know that for sure.

Then it loses its potential energy. (At that cross sectional area). See Bernoulli Continuity Equation. Since energy with the flow is constant and two forms of energies exist together (potential and kinetic) then the flow will lose its potential energy. Its water level at that cross sectional area will go down. Then it creates additional pressure gradient with inland water (up to the point of influenced (This is tricky part). Therefore, the flow rate from inland (Up to the point of influenced) will increase. That is how you can influence river flow by using a 1000boats. There is no diff with ordinary pumping process. Very similar.

Ok. I stop here for today. This is actually the same thing that I have mentioned before. See you again next time.

P/S: I'm preparing PPT for presentation. Coincidentally, it is also about a hydro dynamic model one one particular area I'm good at.

Yes I agree ResX and I have too very early on in the thread.. Your example of the rise in water momentum at the end of the waves journey due to bottom gradient is similar to what I just posted and though it is an extreme example given the force of an earth quake, the principal and forces behind it are still applicable..

[WarpSpeed]

2004 tsunami causing earthquake released in Earth's surface 26 megatons of TNT, 1500 times of Hiroshima BUT the total energy released was whopping 550 million times of Hiroshima. So these 1000 boats are not going to make any difference in this flood. Drop of a drop in bucket.

So you're bringing in 550 x 10⁶ * (what was Hiroshima?) 15 x 10³ tons TNT to compare with the 1.1 x 10³ diesel boats on the Chao Phraya?

Why didn't bring in the Sun as a comparison? Hell, don't stop there, bring in the whole Galaxy!

Some do get extreme don't they? Yet still can't understand when an extreme example is provided as that doesn't suit the rhetoric..

[ResX]

The river is probably many meters deep and those 1000 boats only affect less than one meter surface water. Then the extra kinetic energy dissipates quite soon, water is very hard substance to move around long distances. If they turned the boats against the river flow, they would see quickly how futile this is.

In what forms....

[MaxYakov]

When fact equals trolling then the entire framework of TV posts collapses. Do you really think science is a troll in search of the gullible? I will admit I am somewhat entertained by the lack of common sense exhibited here. What are your credentials? Chief science officer of the Thai Science Ministry?

Hey! Aren't you supposed to be out testing your 'personal thrust' or something like that?

Credentials? Credentials?! I no need show you no stinkin' credentials!

My thrust capability and credentials are all in order. I have not doubt your credentials are stinkin!

I thrust everything you thay.

[AleG]

I call BS!! 200meters? That truck was still being well pushed well beyond 200meters and the only reason it stopped was because it hit the water, what kind of airliner were you standing behind, a drone? And still it isn't about AIRFLOW that was just used to counter his point in an extreme example that, a propeller doesn't push flow rearwards it only pushes the boat forward and that is just bunk, it's counter forces that create the boats forward movement..

If memory serves right it was a Boeing 767, I just checked in Google Earth and the distance from the runway and the fence at Phuket International Airport is 180 meters.

I guess you can take my word for it or call me a liar, up to you.

The reason the truck was thrown all the way to the water is, I presume, because it picked up enough momentum when closer to the jet blast; and surely a hollowed out chassis (notice no engine) is quite light compared with the surface area presented to the exhaust.

Not calling you a liar, just calling you misinformed. So it was significantly more then 200 meters as pointed out because the jets don't take off at the end of the runway they stage for take off several hundred meters further down the runway just for this reason, I mean come on, doesn't it stand to reason they'd begin staging at a safe distance from any potential spectators or equipment? I've been all around Phuket airport and I don't know anywhere you can get directly behind a jet while at take off?

Also a jet during take off is only momentarily stationary and then it is moving away at a rapid rate of speed from you so it's not a reasonable test as if it was stationary for any length of time and the engines momentum was washing over you..

Let's see, should I believe my own lying eyes or what some bloke on the internet says I must have seen and experienced... I'll go with my own senses, thank you very much. I also have the video I took at that time somewhere, but I'm not going to bother digging it up an uploading somewhere.

By the way, aircraft take off at the end of the runway, not several hundred meters from it; I have no idea were you are getting your "facts".

[WarpSpeed]

I call BS!! 200meters? That truck was still being well pushed well beyond 200meters and the only reason it stopped was because it hit the water, what kind of airliner were you standing behind, a drone? And still it isn't about AIRFLOW that was just used to counter his point in an extreme example that, a propeller doesn't push flow rearwards it only pushes the boat forward and that is just bunk, it's counter forces that create the boats forward movement..

If memory serves right it was a Boeing 767, I just checked in Google Earth and the distance from the runway and the fence at Phuket International Airport is 180 meters.

I guess you can take my word for it or call me a liar, up to you.

The reason the truck was thrown all the way to the water is, I presume, because it picked up enough momentum when closer to the jet blast; and surely a hollowed out chassis (notice no engine) is quite light compared with the surface area presented to the exhaust.

Not calling you a liar, just calling you misinformed. So it was significantly more then 200 meters as pointed out because the jets don't take off at the end of the runway they stage for take off several hundred meters further down the runway just for this reason, I mean come on, doesn't it stand to reason they'd begin staging at a safe distance from any potential spectators or equipment? I've been all around Phuket airport and I don't know anywhere you can get directly behind a jet while at take off?

Also a jet during take off is only momentarily stationary and then it is moving away at a rapid rate of speed from you so it's not a reasonable test as if it was stationary for any length of time and the engines momentum was washing over you..

Let's see, should I believe my own lying eyes or what some bloke on the internet says I must have seen and experienced... I'll go with my own senses, thank you very much. I also have the video I took at that time somewhere, but I'm not going to bother digging it up an uploading somewhere.

By the way, aircraft take off at the end of the runway, not several hundred meters from it; I have no idea were you are getting your "facts".

Ok I tired to use sense and sensibility and that didn't work so now I'll have to cut you lose ..

This is off topic so it'll be last post on it. Here's another video of you tube so you don't have to take my word for it.

At 37 seconds in they make their turn onto the runway and take off and there is no end to the runway in sight when they turn to take off..

I might also add they're moving when they take off so there's no way you'd get a realistic feel of the jet wash..

Edited October 19, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[Thaddeus]

The chat up lines on this thread are priceless.

Have any of you had sex recently?

If so, how long did it last, what was the thrust to noise ratio, how much heat was generated and how far did the fluids progress.

You may use diagrams to illustrate.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Thaddeus

[WarpSpeed]

The chat up lines on this thread are priceless.

Have any of you had sex recently?

Can I count myself?

Edited October 19, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[AleG]

Ok I tired to use sense and sensibility and that didn't work so now I'll have to cut you lose ..

This is off topic so it'll be last post on it. Here's another video of you tube so you don't have to take my word for it.

At 37 seconds in they make their turn onto the runway and take off and there is no end to the runway in sight when they turn to take off..

I might also add they're moving when they take off so there's no way you'd get a realistic feel of the jet wash..

Phuket airport runway has two extremes, one shown on your video and the other were I stood watching a plane take off, here it is:

See? from the fence to the point airplanes take off is 180 meters.

[JetsetBkk]

The boats are moored

it doesn't make a blind bit of difference!

It does if they are pulling on their mooring and heading upstream.

[JetsetBkk]

Please. Stop the BS. Take a reading 200 meters away and you will witness the dissipation of the energy.

If you think thrust will move the water all the way down to the mouth of the river you are beyond help.

No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy?

There are quite a few people here beyond help, but none is you, ResX.

I think this "News item" ought to be moved to the Farang Pub - it has turned into that sort of thread.

[JetsetBkk]

No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy?

ResX

Please please stop. You are so wrong it is impossible to put you on the right track. You need to divert your energies elsewhere. You are not gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the situation, so you are wasting your time. There are tens of pages of complete and utter BS on this thread and it is all just futile.

It's no good saying someone is wrong without saying why and if you can't be bothered then why post?

I think you are the one who is wrong, and you know it but you are too embarrassed to change your views on the subject.

[WarpSpeed]

Ok I tired to use sense and sensibility and that didn't work so now I'll have to cut you lose ..

This is off topic so it'll be last post on it. Here's another video of you tube so you don't have to take my word for it.

At 37 seconds in they make their turn onto the runway and take off and there is no end to the runway in sight when they turn to take off..

I might also add they're moving when they take off so there's no way you'd get a realistic feel of the jet wash..

Phuket airport runway has two extremes, one shown on your video and the other were I stood watching a plane take off, here it is:

See? from the fence to the point airplanes take off is 180 meters.

You're right I'm the liar and the person who should take the word of some "bloke" on the Internet instead of my believing my own eyes because you posted a still photoshop, google maps jpeg of the runway minus the planes instead of the official video of a truck being blown several hundred yards away and still going .. Does that make your day now? I know it made mine ..

Fortunately for me we're talking about water movement by a propeller and not a massively strong engine like a jet ..

[cdnvic]

One insult post removed.

[maidu]

If a propeller or any other machine could push water for any distance in a flat body of water (the sea, for example) , then why not push fresh water from the Antarctic up to places like Somalia, where it's needed? Years ago, the Saudis were seriously thinking of tethering icebergs from Antarctica, and towing them up to their dunes. Perhaps the long tail boats along the Chao Praya could subcontract (to Aramco?) to push fresh water up from the South Pole to places where its needed. Just hope the Somali pirates don't interfere and cordon the water off for ransom.

[tim73]

That river is about 10 meters deep on average and 200 to 1200 meters wide. The propellers of 1000 boats are only going to speed up some surface water down to one meter depth and for limited distance, maybe 50 meters before the extra energy is completely dissipated. Boats are also be spaced apart. So even at best case something like way less than one percent of the water will be handled. Not worth the trouble.

Edited October 20, 2011 by tim73

[AleG]

You're right I'm the liar and the person who should take the word of some "bloke" on the Internet instead of my believing my own eyes because you posted a still photoshop, google maps jpeg of the runway minus the planes instead of the official video of a truck being blown several hundred yards away and still going .. Does that make your day now? I know it made mine ..

Fortunately for me we're talking about water movement by a propeller and not a massively strong engine like a jet ..

I'm sorry facts offend you, can't be helped though.

[MaxYakov]

If a propeller or any other machine could push water for any distance in a flat body of water (the sea, for example) , then why not push fresh water from the Antarctic up to places like Somalia, where it's needed? Years ago, the Saudis were seriously thinking of tethering icebergs from Antarctica, and towing them up to their dunes. Perhaps the long tail boats along the Chao Praya could subcontract (to Aramco?) to push fresh water up from the South Pole to places where its needed. Just hope the Somali pirates don't interfere and cordon the water off for ransom.

Because pushing the water uphill would consume too much energy. Better to push the water downhill from the Arctic. The only other alternative is to invert all the maps (and a lot of other things) in existence to get an efficient downhill situation from the Antarctic to Africa.

The thing about an iceberg being held for ransom is that they would probably be just smart enough to demand immediate payment .

[GentlemanJim]

No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy?

ResX

Please please stop. You are so wrong it is impossible to put you on the right track. You need to divert your energies elsewhere. You are not gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the situation, so you are wasting your time. There are tens of pages of complete and utter BS on this thread and it is all just futile.

It's no good saying someone is wrong without saying why and if you can't be bothered then why post?

I think you are the one who is wrong, and you know it but you are too embarrassed to change your views on the subject.

I have gone to great lengths and spent time doing so elsewhere in this thread. I am not going to repeat myself again, nor will I waste my time wading through this thread again.

Caio

[GentlemanJim]

Please. Stop the BS. Take a reading 200 meters away and you will witness the dissipation of the energy.

If you think thrust will move the water all the way down to the mouth of the river you are beyond help.

No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy?

There are quite a few people here beyond help, but none is you, ResX.

I think this "News item" ought to be moved to the Farang Pub - it has turned into that sort of thread.

The Best comment to be stated on this thread. Mods, can you please oblige.

[MaxYakov]

That river is about 10 meters deep on average and 200 to 1200 meters wide. The propellers of 1000 boats are only going to speed up some surface water down to one meter depth and for limited distance, maybe 50 meters before the extra energy is completely dissipated. Boats are also be spaced apart. So even at best case something like way less than one percent of the water will be handled. Not worth the trouble.

Can you define 'dissipated' for us? You can reference BuckarooBanzai's definition from last night if you need to.

Edited October 20, 2011 by MaxYakov

[BuckarooBanzai]

I call BS!! 200meters? That truck was still being well pushed well beyond 200meters and the only reason it stopped was because it hit the water, what kind of airliner were you standing behind, a drone? And still it isn't about AIRFLOW that was just used to counter his point in an extreme example that, a propeller doesn't push flow rearwards it only pushes the boat forward and that is just bunk, it's counter forces that create the boats forward movement..

Just to clarify something you keep bringing up. I said a prop was designed to push the boat forward and not to push the water backwards. If they were designed to push the water backwards they would produce a linear flow of water. This is not the case. They produce a turbulent flow of water which is very inefficient in moving water backwards for any distance. Try keeping things in context.

[tim73]

That river is about 10 meters deep on average and 200 to 1200 meters wide. The propellers of 1000 boats are only going to speed up some surface water down to one meter depth and for limited distance, maybe 50 meters before the extra energy is completely dissipated. Boats are also be spaced apart. So even at best case something like way less than one percent of the water will be handled. Not worth the trouble.

Can you define 'dissipated' for us? You can reference BuckarooBanzai's definition from last night if you need to.

You can model this quite easily. Each propeller could be seen as 40 cm diameter pipe. So the cross section area of that pipe is is 0.20*0.20 * pi = 0.1256 m2. Each boat has two engines so that times 2000 gives 251 square meters of pipe total. Except the water goes after propeller like a cone, so the forward speed is not even like in a pipe. The cross section of the river at least is 200 m * 10 m= 2000 m2. More likely 5000 m2 on average. (width is 200 to 1200 meters according to google).

So this "grand" experiment of 1000 boats results in adding maximum of 12.5 PERCENT to the total flow area. (2000 m2), more likely less than five percent.Then this is not even exactly adding, it is more like pushing water in the water in the same "pipe".

Edited October 20, 2011 by tim73

[OZEMADE]

Well if I dropped the USS Enterprise in the river, the displacement would overflow the river for a start and the Ship would act as a dam and create more flooding and slow the flow down. Thats how I see the Idea.

[TommyDee]

That river is about 10 meters deep on average and 200 to 1200 meters wide. The propellers of 1000 boats are only going to speed up some surface water down to one meter depth and for limited distance, maybe 50 meters before the extra energy is completely dissipated. Boats are also be spaced apart. So even at best case something like way less than one percent of the water will be handled. Not worth the trouble.

Nice one

ask yourself this.. if the water is coming in at X speed and leaving at Y speed, what is the reason? the answer of course is RESISTANCE. No matter what you do with boat probs the effect will be minimal to say the least. the maximum ability of the river to carry the water is of course determined by its width, depth, fall and the weeds and crap that are clung to it.

Everything has a maximum capability, however defined, and the river in BKK is running at its max. very little can be done to speed it up at this stage and, widening. clearing and deepening apart ( which isnt going to happen now) there is NOTHING anyone can do to speed up the flow. The water is entering at a faster speed than it can leave.. result, rsing water and end result.. overflow

But I am sure the inventor of the idea of the boat props was a great PR guy and motivator

Edited October 20, 2011 by TommyDee

[MaxYakov]

That river is about 10 meters deep on average and 200 to 1200 meters wide. The propellers of 1000 boats are only going to speed up some surface water down to one meter depth and for limited distance, maybe 50 meters before the extra energy is completely dissipated. Boats are also be spaced apart. So even at best case something like way less than one percent of the water will be handled. Not worth the trouble.

Can you define 'dissipated' for us? You can reference BuckarooBanzai's definition from last night if you need to.

You can model this quite easily. Each propeller could be seen as 40 cm diameter pipe. So the cross section area of that pipe is is 0.20*0.20 * pi = 0.1256 m2. Each boat has two engines so that times 2000 gives 251 square meters of pipe total. Except the water goes after propeller like a cone, so the forward speed is not even like in a pipe. The cross section of the river at least is 200 m * 10 m= 2000 m2. More likely 5000 m2 on average. (width is 200 to 1200 meters according to google).

So this "grand" experiment of 1000 boats results in adding maximum of 12.5 PERCENT to the total flow area. (2000 m2), more likely less than five percent.Then this is not even exactly adding, it is more like pushing water in the water in the same "pipe".

Hmmmm. So the boats are adding momentum to the 'flow area', huh?

I think you're material for the Ministry of Science and Technology.

You begged my question of what your definition of 'dissipation' is in relation to 'extra energy' in your first post.

Come to think of it, what is 'extra energy'?

Focus, focus, focus please.