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

[WarpSpeed]

Maybe they're using the wrong kind of boats. What they should be using is 1,000 stern wheel paddle steamers.

.

I see many well intentioned efforts in this thread at calculating the river flow characteristics. I note also that the Thai government has a large hydrology department devoted to the study and management of Thailands river systems, although they don't seem to have much to say on the present situation. The fact is that this kind of flooding is beyond the scope of simple calculation. The only realistic way to predict the progress of this kind of flooding is to look at records of previous flooding events and to extrapolate from that.

There's another aspect of this situation that seems to have attracted little attention so far. If the water treatment and sewage treatment works of a city are inundated you can rapidly find yourself without either drinking water or working sewers. In a city of 12m people that's not a good thing. Also, I know that the MRT was designed to resist flooding events, but if the flooding gets out of control this too could be in danger.

All good points...

[Buchholz]

This topic should be closed: they came they tried and had no effect (that anyone can see). Are they still using the boats to push the water? No?

They said they were keeping it going for at least a couple of weeks more from this news.

Water Drainage by Boats to Continue until Month's End

Officials expect that the strategy of using boats' propellers to accelerate the drainage of water out to the sea will be required through the end of October due to runoffs from the North and rain, which will continue to cause water levels to rise.

-- Tan Network 2011-10-17

[WarpSpeed]

100% correct. they have totally hijacked and destroyed the thread. ResX has gone from not knowing anything at the start to now seeming to profess to hold a PhD in hydrodynamics. The whole thread for the last 15 pages is complete arse. It is like being in a pub watching a bunch of pi**heads trying to solve the question to life and the Universe. Utter drivel and the thread should have been moved to the farang pub forum days ago.

I think you are right,mate.I also think,that ResX holds phd.

Close to but yet there. Master degree is a little bit too low, since to date 2 phd students used to seek my advice in their works. A few phd holders asked my advice too. But in one specific area that I'm very good at about surface water flow management.

To correct the statement that one of our friends made about me. No I did not learn about hydro dynamics over the last one week. I can recall it correctly. It is exactly 31 years 6 months.

I was being flippant about your qualifications ResX. If what you say is even remotely true then I am afraid it just makes matters even worse. If you possess any form of scientific background then you would not make such ridiculous statements, assumptions and "just making number up". Your approach to the entire problem concerning the OP is completely absolutely wrong, and the assumptions you make and attempt to solve the problem using the most basic and fundamental maths and equations proves without doubt you have no grasp on the complexities involved with the solution of the problem. Because of that it is a waste of bandwith, time and energy wading through the thread. I can only come to one of two conclusions, a) you are trolling to try and wind people up by continuing to come up with non applicable physics and statements, or you really believe that you are on to something...you are not. Sorry, this is hard, but it's fair.

So instead of ranting and accusing, how's about posting your own counter equations and theories for debate instead? Clearly you have them as you must be using something to make such abrasive and steadfast claims.

Edited October 21, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

This topic should be closed: they came they tried and had no effect (that anyone can see). Are they still using the boats to push the water? No?

The topic somehow bothers you? Don't come back then no need to waste your time or bandwidth just to post a nonsensical comment. The forum is for 'discussion' we are discussing..

[GentlemanJim]

Warpspeed

"extra effort" LMAO!

Look, I am not going to even attempt to throw any equations or maths at you. I have said much earlier on that I studied Physic and pure maths. The reason I am not willing to get involved is that you cannot simplify the problem. To make as many assumptions and exclusions as you are (along with the other Three Musketeers) you are discussing a problem that bears no relationship at all to the subject of this post. For the third time I have said this on this thread, it would take a professional applied mathematician between a week and a month of solid work to come up with a 'number' relating to what is happening at 'the river moutn' in terms of 'extra water' that may or may not be spewing out.

This is roughly how I envisage any two of the 'four Musketeers' on this thread, and shows all the reasons why this thread should now be banished to the farang pub forum.

Edited October 21, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[longway]

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

[WarpSpeed]

^^Riveting discourse you're providing and yes in a debate such as this it is inconsiderate and inconvenient "extra effort" required just to respond to YOUR individual post. If it isn't then WHY didn't you put in the maximum amount of effort to make your point properly . Instead you put in the minimum amount of effort..

Edited October 21, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[GentlemanJim]

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

A sound grasp of Physics and Maths and a huge dose of Common Sense.

[WarpSpeed]

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

Ban! Too much logic applied!

[WarpSpeed]

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

A sound grasp of Physics and Maths and a huge dose of Common Sense.

:cheesy: None of which you've applied or shared with us in this thread..

Edited October 21, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[kennkate]

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

Because a lot of people are still wast deep in water.

[longway]

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

A sound grasp of Physics and Maths and a huge dose of Common Sense.

Or blind prejudice.

With 1,000 moderately powered boats they can conservatively output almost 1/3 of the KE of the Chao Phraya per day, the effect of it will be difficult to calculate without a doubt, but its hard to believe it has no discernible effect. There are very likely very good reasons why it will not work, but I have not come across anyone in this thread who has put one forward.

[longway]

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

Because a lot of people are still wast deep in water.

I spoke too soon!

[ResX]

Warpspeed

"extra effort" LMAO!

Look, I am not going to even attempt to throw any equations or maths at you. I have said much earlier on that I studied Physic and pure maths. The reason I am not willing to get involved is that you cannot simplify the problem. To make as many assumptions and exclusions as you are (along with the other Three Musketeers) you are discussing a problem that bears no relationship at all to the subject of this post. For the third time I have said this on this thread, it would take a professional applied mathematician between a week and a month of solid work to come up with a 'number' relating to what is happening at 'the river moutn' in terms of 'extra water' that may or may not be spewing out.

This is roughly how I envisage any two of the 'four Musketeers' on this thread, and shows all the reasons why this thread should now be banished to the farang pub forum.

You are an academician right? Have you ever heard that a complex mathematical problem can be solve by breaking it down to a few sub problems and solve them recursively. Even academicians say so.

Edited October 21, 2011 by ResX

[Thaddeus]

The reason I am not willing to get involved is that you cannot simplify the problem.

I believe that you can simplify the problem.

Fire a hose pipe at a brick wall and watch what happens, the water will go in all directions, eventually down being the only one.

The river is the hose pipe, the brick wall is the very very large mass of water that they are trying to force more water into.

Most of the number juggling performed by some protagonist on this thread assume that the linear movement of the water always has somewhere to go..... which it quite plainly doesn't.

[ResX]

So let me get this straight. You guys claim to be trying to solve an incredibly complex mathematical problem (by using the most basic of models, most ridiculous assumptions and blatant ignoring of systems that would affect the outcome), but you can read a statement from Max in Black and a response from me in Red. The mind truly boggles. IQ's definitely in double figures.

Ok. The flood equation is so complex to explain. It depends on how many people fishing, the position & the distance of the sun, the position & the distance of Alpha Century, wind blow direction, rainfall, runoff, dams releases, how many people bath and so on. It could be 1,000,000 ++ factors. Wait... let me see. Let me lump all these factors and I will present the flood equation in a "black box" model. See how good I can explain the flood as an event and my model can be used to mitigate flood.

Flood at any flood plain occurs when a steady state stream (SSFC) flow condition between incoming flow to the flood plain equals to its outgoing and such SSFC is achieved when water level at it outgoing exceeds the level that can cause flood to the surrounding areas.

Any objection?

[GentlemanJim]

Warpspeed

"extra effort" LMAO!

Look, I am not going to even attempt to throw any equations or maths at you. I have said much earlier on that I studied Physic and pure maths. The reason I am not willing to get involved is that you cannot simplify the problem. To make as many assumptions and exclusions as you are (along with the other Three Musketeers) you are discussing a problem that bears no relationship at all to the subject of this post. For the third time I have said this on this thread, it would take a professional applied mathematician between a week and a month of solid work to come up with a 'number' relating to what is happening at 'the river moutn' in terms of 'extra water' that may or may not be spewing out.

This is roughly how I envisage any two of the 'four Musketeers' on this thread, and shows all the reasons why this thread should now be banished to the farang pub forum.

You are an academician right? Have you ever heard that a complex mathematical problem can be solve by breaking it down to a few sub problems and solve them recursively. Even academicians say so.

Well if I were an Academician how would you know? I am not, nor am I an Academic. I work hard for a living thank you very much. Break down your problems as simplistic as you like, it just means there are a lot more to solve as they are all interdependent.

ThaddeusI believe that you can simplify the problem.

Fire a hose pipe at a brick wall and watch what happens, the water will go in all directions, eventually down being the only one.

The river is the hose pipe, the brick wall is the very very large mass of water that they are trying to force more water into.

Most of the number juggling performed by some protagonist on this thread assume that the linear movement of the water always has somewhere to go..... which it quite plainly doesn't.

sigh! I hope you have better luck getting through to them than many of us have had Thaddeus.

[ResX]

The reason I am not willing to get involved is that you cannot simplify the problem.

I believe that you can simplify the problem.

Fire a hose pipe at a brick wall and watch what happens, the water will go in all directions, eventually down being the only one.

The river is the hose pipe, the brick wall is the very very large mass of water that they are trying to force more water into.

Most of the number juggling performed by some protagonist on this thread assume that the linear movement of the water always has somewhere to go..... which it quite plainly doesn't.

Unfortunately that so called "brick" moves to sea mouth EVEN without any boat to help. If it can move without any outside help at all why it is so difficult to believe that it will move even faster if additional force is induced along the direction of it moves.

If we push a bus with 40 passengers, alone, then I doubt many or us here manage to make it move. If the bus just travels 1m/s and we are trying to push to make it travel at 2m/s do you think it is beyond reached?

There is an old theory about inertia.

[MaxYakov]

Agree with WarpSpeed. Additionally, water 'flows into a 3D loop back into the depression upstream of the intake'? Are we talking meteorology here? Would that be tropical depression? The law of inertia have been suspended as well to support this? The accelerated water has mass, velocity and direction. If it didn't, boats could not be propelled efficiently, or at all.

I've been out of it folks due to a sprained ankle. Have been loosely following things and have been working on my energy model which is based on an ideal situation, to reduce nattering, what I consider, unimportant details. I don't want to post all the details/math in this post, but will give a summary:

500 boats delivering 1000 HP at propeller output (not at shaft input and addresses ONLY the Chao Phraya river - not the other two).

This simplifies/eliminates distractions such as fuel-to-engine efficiency, propeller efficiency, etc which I consider

to be a separate issues.

Recent flow-rate for Chao Phraya at 420 x 10⁶ m³/day

Speed of Chao Phraya river used: 1 m/second - This is an estimate and, perhaps, too low/slow.

Changes in this value are a square factor by the kinetic energy formula and will have a large affect the total KE of the river

and the total KE percentage increase by the total 500,000 HP (at propeller output, not engine HP).

========> Kinetic energy of river is increased by about 15%

Note: If most of the kinetic energy added is directed with the current flow and there is minimal loss of energy due to transformation to heat and energy does not 'disappear', then (since the mass of the water has not changed) the energy increase of the river water can only be manifested only as a higher velocity of the river water.

Incidentally, given the above parameters, several of you could apply the KE formula to validate the 15% result. HP-to=Joules conversion that I used is: 1 HP = 746 Joules (from an internet converter).

500,000 HP, directly into the Chao Phraya has got to have some effect, wouldn't you think? I let you folks kick around what that effect would/might be.

Comments?

You are missing several factors, most importantly what I pointed out earlier: most of the boats used on this operation where in mid river, not moored to anything, therefore as long as they were not accelerating the thrust from the propeller is a force equal and opposite to the drag of the hull, so the net sum of force and energy delivered to the flow of water is ZERO. In simple terms the boat is pushing as much water as it is slowing down.

Second, most of the boats used are nowhere close to 1000HP in engine power, not even close. Those small river "buses", in my uninformed opinion, shouldn't have more than 100HP at most, although someone with actual data may want to chime in.

Third, the vector of the thrust at the propeller point is rearwards, but it doesn't stay that way for long due to turbulence, if it would then you wouldn't see the water churning around behind a propeller, it would be a linear flow. Some of the energy is vectored downriver, most of it is diverted in all other directions. I would guess that the net result, after you subtract the "useful" vector from the hull drag in the water you end up with a pittance of benefit out of the effort.

Fourth the Chao Phraya meanders a lot, so even if the flow from the propeller would follow the thrust line for a significant distance, then it would only end up lapping some shore or another.

Fifth the water pushed back from the propellers would find resistance from slower water in the river flow, since you can't compress water (meaningfully) the way the resistance manifests is in a local rise in the water level which will try to settle in all directions, not just down the thrustline, so you have a bulge behind the prop that spreads back, to the sides and also forward. This contributes called recirculation or a vortex ring state, where the water (or fluid) assumes a donut shaped flow around a propeller, reducing efficiency significantly. (I get to suffer that phenomena regulary flying RC helicopters). The higher the difference in speed between the propeller downwash and the surrounding fluid the more likely it is to develop recirculation, thus the anchored boats going full gas should be suffering a significant loss of efficiency from this.

I should have stressed that the 15% is for an 'ideal' situation. The energy that may contribute to increased flow will only be less than that under all other circumstances. All other factors can only subtract from that value. As we all suspect, the actual effect is probably much, much less than 15%. The main reason is that the Minister's pumping fleet probably doesn't come anywhere near the size and power of this 'ideal'. Also, the velocity of the Chao Phraya may be more than the value used in the calculation that produced the 15%.

1) All boats I've seen on Thai TV have been obviously moored. Those not obviously moored had zero speed relative to land, indicating that the were somehow also moored. This should be common knowledge by now. I agree that if the boats are NOT moored it is an entirely different physics problem.

Are we working on the same physics problem?

2) Again, this is an 'ideal' situation, using only the 500 boat number from his claim. Whether the Minister's 500 boats are equivalent is indeterminable and not even important to this model. There is also a claim that the river(s) flow was increased by 50 x 10⁶ m³/day with some number of boats. That claim is also not part of this model. However, the model could be used as a starting point to establish the increased flow under these 'ideal' (not necessarily realistic) conditions.

Perhaps you can give us some insight w/r to the Minister's actual pumping fleet. If it is fewer than 500@1000 HP (at prop output), which it probably is, then this model could be adjusted accordingly with a proportionate lowering of the 15% 'ideal' result.

3) If there are materially untoward energy transformations due to prop wash turbulence, then perhaps that can be removed from this model through various means (like substituting a jet boats which may have less turbulence). Otherwise, that effect of this turbulence should be quantified and the 15% value adjusted downward. Can you quantify it? Hull drag is not a factor since the boats are moored for this model. The model's boats and the Minister's boats are effectively floating (but not moving) water pumps.

Can you quantify the energy transformations from turbulence that would reduce the downstream velocity of the water?

4) This is an interesting subject area which ResX and I were attempting to clarify the other evening. How, exactly, the prop wash water interacts with the river water, both immediately and over time, was not firmly established. My gut feeling is that energy transfer occurs between the accelerated water and the river water at some identifiable rate due to friction. I do not have values for that rate, but if the transfer occurs completely, before the water reaches the Bay, then all we're talking about is accelerated river water where the accelerated water cannot be easily differentiated from the non-accelerated river water.

Do you have anything to contribute in this area except the lapping of water on the river's shores? Remember that in spite of the direction changes and any 'lapping', the river is still currently delivering 420 x 10⁶ m³/day to the Bay.

5) Again, this model removes propeller inefficiencies from the calculations, not the turbulence inefficiencies. Those would also, like anything and everything else, deduct from the 15% calculated under ideal model. Can you verify the prop wash recirculation beyond 'more likely'? Remember that the prop wash is operating under physical laws of inertia and is moving at a relatively high velocity.

Can you quantify these inefficiencies and cite references?

Much Appreciate Your Comments

Edited October 21, 2011 by MaxYakov

[ResX]

Well if I were an Academician how would you know? I am not, nor am I an Academic. I work hard for a living thank you very much. Break down your problems as simplistic as you like, it just means there are a lot more to solve as they are all interdependent.

I didn't mean anything mate. It inferred to me many occasions academicians refused to make any assumption to solve the demanding problem because they worried to get a hlf truth solutions. They are willing to let the problems unsolved rather than to work with limited information so that at least 25% of the problems can be solved.

Edited October 21, 2011 by metisdead
Repaired quote tags.

[longway]

Warpspeed

"extra effort" LMAO!

Look, I am not going to even attempt to throw any equations or maths at you. I have said much earlier on that I studied Physic and pure maths. The reason I am not willing to get involved is that you cannot simplify the problem. To make as many assumptions and exclusions as you are (along with the other Three Musketeers) you are discussing a problem that bears no relationship at all to the subject of this post. For the third time I have said this on this thread, it would take a professional applied mathematician between a week and a month of solid work to come up with a 'number' relating to what is happening at 'the river moutn' in terms of 'extra water' that may or may not be spewing out.

This is roughly how I envisage any two of the 'four Musketeers' on this thread, and shows all the reasons why this thread should now be banished to the farang pub forum.

You are an academician right? Have you ever heard that a complex mathematical problem can be solve by breaking it down to a few sub problems and solve them recursively. Even academicians say so.

Well if I were an Academician how would you know? I am not, nor am I an Academic. I work hard for a living thank you very much. Break down your problems as simplistic as you like, it just means there are a lot more to solve as they are all interdependent.

ThaddeusI believe that you can simplify the problem.

Fire a hose pipe at a brick wall and watch what happens, the water will go in all directions, eventually down being the only one.

The river is the hose pipe, the brick wall is the very very large mass of water that they are trying to force more water into.

Most of the number juggling performed by some protagonist on this thread assume that the linear movement of the water always has somewhere to go..... which it quite plainly doesn't.

sigh! I hope you have better luck getting through to them than many of us have had Thaddeus.

If the sea was a brick wall, why does it accept any water from the river in the first place?

[BangkokBP]

I just had to submit this to Mythbusters.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776/m/78219326901

Would love to see them rip this idea to shreds in a "scientific" way!

[wintermute]

I just had to submit this to Mythbusters.

http://community.dis...6/m/78219326901

Would love to see them rip this idea to shreds in a "scientific" way!

I really hope they pick this up. It'll be nice having some real experts take a look at this and confirm what we've all been thinking.

[MaxYakov]

I've been out of it folks due to a sprained ankle.

How did you sprain your ankle, trying to count to twenty?

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

Dude! The word was that the surf was up at Don Muang. So I ran the board out to 'hang ten' (didn't need 20), got into a nice pipeline and then Whoa!, dude, slammed into a newly-placed sandbag wall. So, you surfer dudes, watch out! The sandbag dudes are really gnarly and muy rapido these days.

Couldn't resist it, eh? How about some simple Math for you?:

(quality-of-posts factor) = 1 / (posts per day)

Edited October 21, 2011 by MaxYakov

[metisdead]

A post using bold red font has been removed as well as the subsequent replies. As per forum netiquette:

1. Please do not post in all capital letters, bold, unusual fonts, sizes or colors. It can be difficult to read.

[ResX]

If we allow flood water to flow down naturally it will follow free surface flow equation Q= cLH^1.5. Q is volumetric flow rate, cL empirical constant and H height of water column above riverbed. Or you want to use Manning equation.... This is actually the natural way water can transport itself given even a slight pressure gradient for it to move. It builds up itself layer by layer to increase H so that Q increases. Allow it undisturbed, the higher the flood flow the higher it builds up H. This nature of water flow that makes the flood looks the way we usually see.

,

If you observe free surface flow equation you can see that the water velocity higher on the top and zero at the bottom. If this equation governs out going discharge of a a bottleneck cross section the flood plain just upstream will be flooded. The water velocity is almost zero and hydraulic gradient between the bottle neck section and upstream end of the "pond" has been created is very small. It may take a long time before the this pond to be emptied. The nature of this discharge formula in fact is used for flood control for a very big reservoir (surprisingly your Bhumibol does not have this kind of flood control gate-as far as I can see-This is one of the reasons why the flood is soooo big) to slow down water release to downstream. But you don't want this equation dominates at downstream. What shall you do? Let we make up some numbers for one of the bottle necks.

Q= 4500m3/s. H =5m. Then cL 866. That makes Q=866H^1.5. Assuming the flood plain water surface area 5km2. Then we have about 25million cubic meter of water that need to be drained out based on that equation. How we can make a 25million m3 above faster? Just put t pump and suck the water out via the bottle neck. So the discharge equation for the pond becomes

Q = 866H^1.5 + pump discharge. Then the pond water level is going down faster. Or just force the water out using boat propeller. The equation becomes:

Q= 866H^1.5 + propeller discharge.

Either one the discharge will be higher. As long as the flood plain of this kind that propellers can provide meaningful impact. Otherwise .....

I am loving this semi-useless thread but I am also very very stupid, i am not sure if there is a conection HOWEVER, in your mathmatics and phyics i just have one question. well probably 2.

you, regardless of the amount, state that the exit for the water is a bottle neck. you assume that exit capacity to be Q

you now partially block that exit with a static mounted propeller.

therefore add resistance to the natural flow lets call that reduction amount Y

so regardless of the efficiency of the new propeller unit, your equasion cant be right, because you have not deducted the loss Y.

so wouldnt it be.. Q-y+ propeller discharge ( which i still think is a small amount)??

at the end of the day I admit to being a complete idiot so have probable misread all of this and need to go back to page one

Nice remark. I will right back soon.

1. Yes if you put the propeller static there then you increase resistance. But if we put energy to propeller it rotates. What the impeller of the propeller does is it provides water with momentum to move across its impeller. Thus the water travels faster. There is NO different with transfer pump concept. We provide water with kinetic energy then it moves faster.

Many people here have conceptually wrong view by believing that only the water near the propeller can be moved. The water movement vector naturally (forget about any propeller) parabolic in nature if view from the top of a straight straight river. For the river of equal depth and symmetry around its center the maximum velocity is achieved exactly at the center of the river. Near both of the river the banks that is a phenomenon called "a boundary layer effect". Water velocity is theoretically zero or close to zero.

If you look from site maximum water velocity occurs at around 0.7 X Depth (Can remember exactly but I promised I'm not far off) . Why I'm telling you this? There is theory that so called a shear stress & boundary of water. In our case that theory explains why the water just near the bank tries to maintain its zero velocity due to friction with river bank. The next layer of water tries to do so but there is not enough friction force to hold its position. Thus it travels slightly higher than zero. At the center, boundary layer effect has the least. Therefore the water travels at the maximum velocity for the given pressure gradient. Similar thing happens looking from side of the flow. Since boundary layer friction between air and water is smaller than of any solid wall (riverbed) therefore its maximum velocity does not lie symmetry with the dept.

Similar thing happens when you try to drag the water at any section to move. The water nearby will be dragged too but it will not move at the same velocity as the section you drag. It may form a very "thin" shaped parabola. I'm not really sure whether I'm right about it shape. But I can assure you I'm conceptually right This does not in any way violate conservation of energy since the some of kinetic energy being supplied to water at any point shall be equal to sum of kinetic energy for all tiny masses of water + losses.

Google parabolic water flow (image)

[MaxYakov]

I just had to submit this to Mythbusters.

http://community.dis...6/m/78219326901

Would love to see them rip this idea to shreds in a "scientific" way!

Me too. They've done some great work using empirical approaches. You won't see a lot of theoretical physics math in their episodes - bad for ratings, I'd imagine. I'd bet also they would do just as I did to get a feel for the problem, grasp the scale and the complexity of measuring the outcome on the Chao Phraya (not to mention the logistics and other obvious problems of filming in Thailand) and decide to reproduce it on a smaller scale ... in a California irrigation canal, perhaps.

[Thaddeus]

The reason I am not willing to get involved is that you cannot simplify the problem.

I believe that you can simplify the problem.

Fire a hose pipe at a brick wall and watch what happens, the water will go in all directions, eventually down being the only one.

The river is the hose pipe, the brick wall is the very very large mass of water that they are trying to force more water into.

Most of the number juggling performed by some protagonist on this thread assume that the linear movement of the water always has somewhere to go..... which it quite plainly doesn't.

Unfortunately that so called "brick" moves to sea mouth EVEN without any boat to help. If it can move without any outside help at all why it is so difficult to believe that it will move even faster if additional force is induced along the direction of it moves.

If we push a bus with 40 passengers, alone, then I doubt many or us here manage to make it move. If the bus just travels 1m/s and we are trying to push to make it travel at 2m/s do you think it is beyond reached?

There is an old theory about inertia.

Making the same basic mistake again, you cannot make a comparison with pushing a bus. Pushing the bus has little or no resistance to it, air just gets out of the way.

Trying to move water into the sea by force, is not the same at all.

Of course water flows into the sea all the time, but at the rate it will accept, if it is moving horizontally at sea level.

[longway]

^ If it flows in all the time, its not like a brick wall at all then.

The river is flowing into the sea by force all the time.

[ResX]

The reason I am not willing to get involved is that you cannot simplify the problem.

I believe that you can simplify the problem.

Fire a hose pipe at a brick wall and watch what happens, the water will go in all directions, eventually down being the only one.

The river is the hose pipe, the brick wall is the very very large mass of water that they are trying to force more water into.

Most of the number juggling performed by some protagonist on this thread assume that the linear movement of the water always has somewhere to go..... which it quite plainly doesn't.

Unfortunately that so called "brick" moves to sea mouth EVEN without any boat to help. If it can move without any outside help at all why it is so difficult to believe that it will move even faster if additional force is induced along the direction of it moves.

If we push a bus with 40 passengers, alone, then I doubt many or us here manage to make it move. If the bus just travels 1m/s and we are trying to push to make it travel at 2m/s do you think it is beyond reached?

There is an old theory about inertia.

Making the same basic mistake again, you cannot make a comparison with pushing a bus. Pushing the bus has little or no resistance to it, air just gets out of the way.

Trying to move water into the sea by force, is not the same at all.

Of course water flows into the sea all the time, but at the rate it will accept, if it is moving horizontally at sea level.

How do you think Bhumibol & Sirkit dams discharged out all the flood water they have collected lately. Why the dams did not flooded?