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

[WarpSpeed]

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.

You should try referencing Mythbusters season 8 to see the energy absorption capabilities of water versus concrete or in this case brick, it makes no difference..

[WarpSpeed]

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

Sir I commend your efforts and patience I couldn't be arsed to distinguish that rubbish post. Had sand bags to locate and put up, still didn't get enough yet , hope there's another chance tomorrow, the water's coming up pretty quickly now.. Also going to use some rice bags as well in certain situations in the house to block off the toilets and sinks for example.

[MaxYakov]

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

Sir I commend your efforts and patience I couldn't be arsed to distinguish that rubbish post. Had sand bags to locate and put up, still didn't get enough yet , hope there's another chance tomorrow, the water's coming up pretty quickly now.. Also going to use some rice bags as well in certain situations in the house to block off the toilets and sinks for example.

Thank you so much (my ankle is only part of my pain). I hope it goes well. Should I have the Minister send over a boat or two?

Still waiting here in Nana for our 'fair share'.

Edited October 21, 2011 by MaxYakov

[WarpSpeed]

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!

I would too just like the misconception people had about the plane that couldn't take off from a platform traveling in the opposite direction. I think as in that case those here thinking it has no effect are going to find themselves speechless or gobsmacked as the English would say.

Edited October 21, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

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.

No resistance to moving a bus?? Surely you jest? To start with there's rolling resistance from several huge tires far more then any resistance then any water will ever create. I leave it at just that but there is resistance in every one of the contacts points of the axles, the brakes and so on..

[TommyDee]

Say there ResX just curious what university?

edit - sorry, which university?

I'm not an academician. Not in Thailand.

Let me try to build up a simple idealized model regarding the subject we are currently discussing. We know that the current flow of CP river is 420 X 10^6m3 (4861m3/s). Assuming we can build a surface water tunnel (2km wide) right from Bhumibol dam up to the river mouth. The total distance is 500km (I just made up a number). At the Bhumibol side, water level elevation is 250m above sea level. Near river water level elevation is 2 m from the upper flow level and exactly zero from the riverbed. The water velocity for full laminar flow is 1.22m/s (it is definitely laminar anyway) . Don't worry I have calculated it for you the water velocity is correct. Note that too that the only driving force that that moves a huge amount of water is PRESSURE GRADIENT, assuming you can take for granted gravitational acceleration is there. .

I ask you a question: Why the water moves from the Bhumibol dam to its river mouth? If you answer because of the gravity, then I will give you half of the scores. Why? Because the water inside the glass of the Bhumibol staff does not make up the river mouth. The right answer is because of the present of pressure gradient 250 meter for every 500km horizontal distance (Hydraulic gradient =0.5m/km) and nothing stops the water to flow down due to gravitational force.

We let the water flow undisturbed. It flows down in harmony at the speed of 1.22m/s as long as 4,861m3/s is supplied by the Bhumibol dam. Let us start it from here the effect adding kinetic energy to the flow. First experiment. Let put the pump at the outlet. Let us assume the pump has discharge capability of 1000m3/s. I don't to put a boat for this test to prevent the other the other debated subject to enter into this conceptual discussion. What will happen next?

Anybody wish to try? Note that the actual scenario is definitely not as simple as this idealized model. But the Physics laws do not change just because the system of equations become more complex.

No prize for the right answer.

Hint: Please don't solve using the second order differential equation and using Navier -Stokes Equations. They are not required to solve this type of problem.

I did it with my fingers and only one foot. the answer is 4

right?

apple in the email sir xxx

[BuckarooBanzai]

Just thought I would say I am still here observing the flow. I have been so gobsmacked with the new physics as presented by those that have posted about 80% of the glorious discovery of new Thai Physics that I am just speechless. I am also speechless because I sprained my jaw muscles because of excessive laughter.

With ResX quoting laminar flow, speed limits of water on a slope, and parabolic water flow, I lost all sense of reality and also lost any desire to re-post what I have posted in the past due to an epidemic of deaf ear syndrome.

I believe repetition does not prove what is true and what is balderdash - unlike those that wish to re-post again and again what they perceive to be true.

[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.

Have you seen how a series of axial fans are used to discharge out exhaust gasses a from road tunnel? I have a few photos to share. Unfortunately I don't know how to attach them with my post. If you are interested to see this is the link. If the principle works for air why not it works for water? Just curious.

http://www.howden.com/en/Industries/TunnelVentilation/default.htm

[BuckarooBanzai]

Have you seen how a series of axial fans are used to discharge out exhaust gasses a from road tunnel? I have a few photos to share. Unfortunately I don't know how to attach them with my post. If you are interested to see this is the link. If the principle works for air why not it works for water? Just curious.

http://www.howden.com/en/Industries/TunnelVentilation/default.htm

A tunnel has laminar flow and intermittent input of energy will create a current that will go the length of the enclosed tunnel. This does not relate to the flow of an open system like a flood plane.

[ResX]

Say there ResX just curious what university?

edit - sorry, which university?

I'm not an academician. Not in Thailand.

Let me try to build up a simple idealized model regarding the subject we are currently discussing. We know that the current flow of CP river is 420 X 10^6m3 (4861m3/s). Assuming we can build a surface water tunnel (2km wide) right from Bhumibol dam up to the river mouth. The total distance is 500km (I just made up a number). At the Bhumibol side, water level elevation is 250m above sea level. Near river water level elevation is 2 m from the upper flow level and exactly zero from the riverbed. The water velocity for full laminar flow is 1.22m/s (it is definitely laminar anyway) . Don't worry I have calculated it for you the water velocity is correct. Note that too that the only driving force that that moves a huge amount of water is PRESSURE GRADIENT, assuming you can take for granted gravitational acceleration is there. .

I ask you a question: Why the water moves from the Bhumibol dam to its river mouth? If you answer because of the gravity, then I will give you half of the scores. Why? Because the water inside the glass of the Bhumibol staff does not make up the river mouth. The right answer is because of the present of pressure gradient 250 meter for every 500km horizontal distance (Hydraulic gradient =0.5m/km) and nothing stops the water to flow down due to gravitational force.

We let the water flow undisturbed. It flows down in harmony at the speed of 1.22m/s as long as 4,861m3/s is supplied by the Bhumibol dam. Let us start it from here the effect adding kinetic energy to the flow. First experiment. Let put the pump at the outlet. Let us assume the pump has discharge capability of 1000m3/s. I don't to put a boat for this test to prevent the other the other debated subject to enter into this conceptual discussion. What will happen next?

Anybody wish to try? Note that the actual scenario is definitely not as simple as this idealized model. But the Physics laws do not change just because the system of equations become more complex.

No prize for the right answer.

Hint: Please don't solve using the second order differential equation and using Navier -Stokes Equations. They are not required to solve this type of problem.

I did it with my fingers and only one foot. the answer is 4

right?

apple in the email sir xxx

Good answer Sir. You get it right. I will raise the stake now since you a good. How many pumps of similar capacity to bring down water level inside the tunnel for the first 4km from river mouth and where the pumps should be placed?

Edited October 21, 2011 by ResX

[ResX]

Have you seen how a series of axial fans are used to discharge out exhaust gasses a from road tunnel? I have a few photos to share. Unfortunately I don't know how to attach them with my post. If you are interested to see this is the link. If the principle works for air why not it works for water? Just curious.

http://www.howden.co...ion/default.htm

A tunnel has laminar flow and intermittent input of energy will create a current that will go the length of the enclosed tunnel. This does not relate to the flow of an open system like a flood plane.

In physics that is not a close conduit relative to those two fans. The diameter of the tunnel is vastly bigger than those two fans. You can't say this as an enclosed tunnel as far as the two fans are concern. Even if you think it is a closed system, the river cross sectional area also similar to this tunnel since it is enclosed by two banks and a riverbed.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Have you seen how a series of axial fans are used to discharge out exhaust gasses a from road tunnel? I have a few photos to share. Unfortunately I don't know how to attach them with my post. If you are interested to see this is the link. If the principle works for air why not it works for water? Just curious.

http://www.howden.co...ion/default.htm

A tunnel has laminar flow and intermittent input of energy will create a current that will go the length of the enclosed tunnel. This does not relate to the flow of an open system like a flood plane.

In physics that is not a close conduit relative to those two fans. The diameter of the tunnel is vastly bigger than those two fans. You can't say this as an enclosed tunnel as far as the two fans are concern. Even if you think it is a closed system, the river cross sectional area also similar to this tunnel since it is enclosed by two banks and a riverbed.

The difference is in laminar and turbulent flow which you cannot seem to get a handle on.

With a flood bypass channel, which is laminar in nature because it is smooth without obstructions, it is often necessary to slow down the speed of the river because in a laminar system the water continues to accelerate due to gravity.

But in a river and flood plane situation energy is expended in all directions and no significant velocity is achieved. A meandering turbulent river has a great deal of resistance to the flow of water from point A to point B. Trying to speed up the river is the same a using a fan to speed up the wind!

A laminar channel has no such resistance. Do you begin to see the difference?

Edit - as to the tunnel it is indeed a closed system and the fans can propagate the energy downstream so to speak. This is not the same as the CP river!

Edited October 21, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[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.

Sir... Water cannot flow horizontally if no energy is supplied and it has zero momentum. I think you are confusing with your own premise. First you said the water can move horizontally. Then you said the water cannot be made to move horizontally by any mean. Which one is which?

[GentlemanJim]

@ BuckarooBanzai

Mate, if you engage these people you will go mad I promise. They are making it up as they go along and laughing at the reaction.

Mods, can this be transported to the Farang Pub Forum yet?

More of the threads Four Musketeers!

[ResX]

Have you seen how a series of axial fans are used to discharge out exhaust gasses a from road tunnel? I have a few photos to share. Unfortunately I don't know how to attach them with my post. If you are interested to see this is the link. If the principle works for air why not it works for water? Just curious.

http://www.howden.co...ion/default.htm

A tunnel has laminar flow and intermittent input of energy will create a current that will go the length of the enclosed tunnel. This does not relate to the flow of an open system like a flood plane.

In physics that is not a close conduit relative to those two fans. The diameter of the tunnel is vastly bigger than those two fans. You can't say this as an enclosed tunnel as far as the two fans are concern. Even if you think it is a closed system, the river cross sectional area also similar to this tunnel since it is enclosed by two banks and a riverbed.

The difference is in laminar and turbulent flow which you cannot seem to get a handle on.

With a flood bypass channel, which is laminar in nature because it is smooth without obstructions, it is often necessary to slow down the speed of the river because in a laminar system the water continues to accelerate due to gravity.

But in a river and flood plane situation energy is expended in all directions and no significant velocity is achieved. A meandering turbulent river has a great deal of resistance to the flow of water from point A to point B. Trying to speed up the river is the same a using a fan to speed up the wind!

A laminar channel has no such resistance. Do you begin to see the difference?

Edit - as to the tunnel it is indeed a closed system and the fans can propagate the energy downstream so to speak. This is not the same as the CP river!

Given that Reynold number =20 what do you think the flow is laminar? How about Re =2000 will the flow is still laminar?

[BuckarooBanzai]

Sir... Water cannot flow horizontally if no energy is supplied and it has zero momentum. I think you are confusing with your own premise. First you said the water can move horizontally. Then you said the water cannot be made to move horizontally by any mean. Which one is which?

Perhaps you would like to explain a siphon? Water moving uphill? NoWayMan! If their is pressure on one side of a horizontal channel and a lack of pressure on the other side of the channel the water will flow. The energy comes from the differential in pressure. MyPenRai!

[BuckarooBanzai]

Given that Reynold number =20 what do you think the flow is laminar? How about Re =2000 will the flow is still laminar?

In fluid mechanics, the Reynolds number Re is a dimensionless number that gives a measure of the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces and consequently quantifies the relative importance of these two types of forces for given flow conditions.

Just what are you applying these Re numbers to?

[BuckarooBanzai]

@ BuckarooBanzai

Mate, if you engage these people you will go mad I promise. They are making it up as they go along and laughing at the reaction.

Mods, can this be transported to the Farang Pub Forum yet?

More of the threads Four Musketeers!

Sometimes the mentally challenged become a challenge!

Edit - took out media.

Edited October 21, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[GentlemanJim]

@ BuckarooBanzai

Mate, if you engage these people you will go mad I promise. They are making it up as they go along and laughing at the reaction.

Mods, can this be transported to the Farang Pub Forum yet?

More of the threads Four Musketeers!

Sometimes the mentally challenged become a challenge!

Edit - took out media.

I totally admire your resilience. I was beginning to wonder if they were the Borg!

[ResX]

Given that Reynold number =20 what do you think the flow is laminar? How about Re =2000 will the flow is still laminar?

In fluid mechanics, the Reynolds number Re is a dimensionless number that gives a measure of the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces and consequently quantifies the relative importance of these two types of forces for given flow conditions.

Just what are you applying these Re numbers to?

I think you have to goggle more. Anyway, you get it right but I know you just goggled it out. Do you thing Reynold is crazy? What does his dimensionless number has anything to do with water? I do beleive he is crazy. And the persons who keep on using his number as equally crazy.

Without knowing Reynold number you can't tell whether any flow is laminar or turbulence or in transition zone.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Given that Reynold number =20 what do you think the flow is laminar? How about Re =2000 will the flow is still laminar?

In fluid mechanics, the Reynolds number Re is a dimensionless number that gives a measure of the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces and consequently quantifies the relative importance of these two types of forces for given flow conditions.

Just what are you applying these Re numbers to?

I think you have to goggle more. Anyway, you get it right but I know you just goggled it out. Do you thing Reynold is crazy? What does his dimensionless number has anything to do with water? I do beleive he is crazy. And the persons who keep on using his number as equally crazy.

Without knowing Reynold number you can't tell whether any flow is laminar or turbulence or in transition zone.

Try taking the potential energy at point A and subtracting the kinetic energy at point B. The loss is Resistance. A laminar flow is one that has little loss over distance. Are you starting to get the picture now? If not have a couple of more tokes.

[ResX]

Given that Reynold number =20 what do you think the flow is laminar? How about Re =2000 will the flow is still laminar?

In fluid mechanics, the Reynolds number Re is a dimensionless number that gives a measure of the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces and consequently quantifies the relative importance of these two types of forces for given flow conditions.

Just what are you applying these Re numbers to?

I think you have to goggle more. Anyway, you get it right but I know you just goggled it out. Do you thing Reynold is crazy? What does his dimensionless number has anything to do with water? I do beleive he is crazy. And the persons who keep on using his number as equally crazy.

Without knowing Reynold number you can't tell whether any flow is laminar or turbulence or in transition zone.

Try taking the potential energy at point A and subtracting the kinetic energy at point B. The loss is Resistance. A laminar flow is one that has little loss over distance. Are you starting to get the picture now? If not have a couple of more tokes.

You must get the statement from goggles. Let me continue. Such loss can be expressed using Darcy-Weisbach equation

Delta H = fLV^2/(2gD).

FYI, I used to give lectures to Bachelor Degree students in this subject.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Try taking the potential energy at point A and subtracting the kinetic energy at point B. The loss is Resistance. A laminar flow is one that has little loss over distance. Are you starting to get the picture now? If not have a couple of more tokes.

You must get the statement from goggles. Let me continue. Such loss can be expressed using Darcy-Weisbach equation

Delta H = fLV^2/(2gD).

FYI, I used to give lectures to Bachelor Degree students in this subject.

Maybe you are an expert at plumbing but the Darcy-Weisbach formula is all about liquid flow in a pipe. Do you know the difference between a pipe and a river? Please explain why you are using Darcy-Weisbach which is inappropriate to river flow. By the way, it is Google not goggles.

Edited October 21, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[AleG]

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

The comment is that you are building castles in the air based on assumption upon assumption. Like the assumed power of the boat engines, the assumed efficiency of the propellers, etc, etc. What's going on in the river is neither an ideal situation nor a physics paper problem and actual fluid behavior is hellishly complex thus I haven't gone into pulling baseless numbers or such things.

So I'll address your points as succinctly as possible because this thread is already a juggernaut.

All boats I've seen on Thai TV have been obviously moored.

Some are, most aren't. See this video here, boats cruising along the river, not moored. Propeller thrust - drag = 0 Period. Zero river acceleration, nothing, zilch, nada, end of story right there.

Now for the minority of boats that are moored....

Points 2 and 3 are more assumptions, no data and as I said you can make the most fantastic castles in the air but without data its pointless. In point 3 you make a glaring error that shows why the assumptions you are making amount to bumpkin in the real world "Hull drag is not a factor since the boats are moored for this model." Like hell is not a factor, the hulls in the water flow create drag, if you want to evaluate how much energy this scheme imparts in the river flow you can't just wish away a fundamental variable as the drag produced by the boats blocking the river flow. Just because the boats are moored doesn't mean that they don't stand on the way of the flow and slow it down.

Point 4, undoubtedly energy is transferred to the river, the point is if its worth the effort for the minimal impact it has. Beyond theoretical figure the boats are burning real fuel, at a rate (if I remember correctly) of 1000 Baht per hour for the "bus" boats, that's a pretty big amount of change that should be going to more measurable and meaningful measures in this time of crisis. It's not a physics exercise, it's a waste of tax payers money.

The accelerated water from the propeller when encountering the slower undisturbed river water will pile up (bulge), this will "spill" in all directions, downstream, sideways and upstream. The only way you'll get useful increase in flow is if all the propellers pushing together create a standing wave across the river, effectively rising the level and increasing the gradient of the river so it can flow faster downstream. Obviously there's no such standing wave anywhere to be seen. (and still it would be a rather inefficient procedure)

Point 5, a propeller has a high pressure side and a low pressure side, fluid on the high pressure side will tend to spill around the prop disk towards the lower pressure side, the greater the difference the more circulation you'll see. This circulation is a well established principle in fluid dynamics.

Sir I commend your efforts and patience I couldn't be arsed to distinguish that rubbish post. Had sand bags to locate and put up, still didn't get enough yet , hope there's another chance tomorrow, the water's coming up pretty quickly now.. Also going to use some rice bags as well in certain situations in the house to block off the toilets and sinks for example.

Rubbish? How about your assertion that all Northern Hemisphere rivers flow South and Southern Hemispheres flow North because of the Earth's rotation?

[letitbe]

Given that Reynold number =20 what do you think the flow is laminar? How about Re =2000 will the flow is still laminar?

In fluid mechanics, the Reynolds number Re is a dimensionless number that gives a measure of the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces and consequently quantifies the relative importance of these two types of forces for given flow conditions.

Just what are you applying these Re numbers to?

Look I have a doctorate in physics and can assure you thatyou are all missing the point about fluid mechanics and the dynamics of a movingsolid state sytem such as flood water. I this case Henson’s law no longerapplies as was proved by a research paper I presented at national physicsassociation in New Yorks annual conference (google Henson’s law as disproved byDr Alfred Herbitson at New York physics convention 2004). As my paper clearly proved the normal vectorsFR = V*H squared do not apply and need to be replaced by FR = V*(.85)*H whichthen means normal friction and increased flow no longer apply. Thisconclusively proved you can have all boats in universe and it wont makeslightest difference to resultant force S=square root of N x P - G

Where S= Stupidity of a many Thai or other politician N is nonsense and P ispossible loss of face of a Thai which could result from him or her justadmitting they don’t have a clue and Gis gullibility shown in spades of many Thais to believe anything a higher Thaisays which of course is a very high figure. The same can also be said of many politiciansand public in the west

[Thaddeus]

Try taking the potential energy at point A and subtracting the kinetic energy at point B. The loss is Resistance. A laminar flow is one that has little loss over distance. Are you starting to get the picture now? If not have a couple of more tokes.

You must get the statement from goggles. Let me continue. Such loss can be expressed using Darcy-Weisbach equation

Delta H = fLV^2/(2gD).

FYI, I used to give lectures to Bachelor Degree students in this subject.

Maybe you are an expert at plumbing but the Darcy-Weisbach formula is all about liquid flow in a pipe. Do you know the difference between a pipe and a river? Please explain why you are using Darcy-Weisbach which is inappropriate to river flow. By the way, it is Google not goggles.

Mate, give it up, when it becomes a dick waving exercise, the biggest dicks always win.

Can we have a discussion now on why the emptiest vessels make the most noise.

With graphs.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Try taking the potential energy at point A and subtracting the kinetic energy at point B. The loss is Resistance. A laminar flow is one that has little loss over distance. Are you starting to get the picture now? If not have a couple of more tokes.

You must get the statement from goggles. Let me continue. Such loss can be expressed using Darcy-Weisbach equation

Delta H = fLV^2/(2gD).

FYI, I used to give lectures to Bachelor Degree students in this subject.

Maybe you are an expert at plumbing but the Darcy-Weisbach formula is all about liquid flow in a pipe. Do you know the difference between a pipe and a river? Please explain why you are using Darcy-Weisbach which is inappropriate to river flow. By the way, it is Google not goggles.

Mate, give it up, when it becomes a dick waving exercise, the biggest dicks always win.

Can we have a discussion now on why the emptiest vessels make the most noise.

With graphs.

Reverberation!

I will take your advice and stop my dick waving.

Edit: Stop dick waving

Edited October 21, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[letitbe]

Try taking the potential energy at point A and subtracting the kinetic energy at point B. The loss is Resistance. A laminar flow is one that has little loss over distance. Are you starting to get the picture now? If not have a couple of more tokes.

You must get the statement from goggles. Let me continue. Such loss can be expressed using Darcy-Weisbach equation

Delta H = fLV^2/(2gD).

FYI, I used to give lectures to Bachelor Degree students in this subject.

Maybe you are an expert at plumbing but the Darcy-Weisbach formula is all about liquid flow in a pipe. Do you know the difference between a pipe and a river? Please explain why you are using Darcy-Weisbach which is inappropriate to river flow. By the way, it is Google not goggles.

Mate, give it up, when it becomes a dick waving exercise, the biggest dicks always win.

Can we have a discussion now on why the emptiest vessels make the most noise.

With graphs.

look you might be a total beer swilling typical forang here like me and rest but some people like to enter into a meaningful and philosophical discussion instead of spending our time ogling gogo girls. I am not one of those preferring to use up most of my time ogling my wife and playing with my family but please let those who want to do so without insulting them Now back to my point this time hopefully with slightly better grammar and less joined up words

Look I have a doctorate in physics and can assure you that you are all missing the point about fluid mechanics and the dynamics of a moving solid state sytem such as flood water. I this case Henson’s law no longer applies as was proved by a research paper I presented at national physics association in New Yorks annual conference (google Henson’s law as disproved byDr Alfred Herbitson at New York physics convention 2004). As my paper clearly proved the normal vectorsFR = V*H squared do not apply and need to be replaced by FR = V*(.85)*H which then means normal friction and increased flow no longer apply. This conclusively proved you can have all boats in universe and it wont makeslightest difference to resultant force S=square root of N x P - G

Where S= Stupidity of a many Thai or other politician N is nonsense and P is possible loss of face of a Thai which could result from him or her just admitting they don’t have a clue and Gis gullibility shown in spades of many Thais to believe anything a higher Thai says which of course is a very high figure. The same can also be said of many politicians and public in the west

[BuckarooBanzai]

You must get the statement from goggles. Let me continue. Such loss can be expressed using Darcy-Weisbach equation

Delta H = fLV^2/(2gD).

FYI, I used to give lectures to Bachelor Degree students in this subject.

Maybe you are an expert at plumbing but the Darcy-Weisbach formula is all about liquid flow in a pipe. Do you know the difference between a pipe and a river? Please explain why you are using Darcy-Weisbach which is inappropriate to river flow. By the way, it is Google not goggles.

Mate, give it up, when it becomes a dick waving exercise, the biggest dicks always win.

Can we have a discussion now on why the emptiest vessels make the most noise.

With graphs.

look you might be a total beer swilling typical forang here like me and rest but some people like to enter into a meaningful and philosophical discussion instead of spending our time ogling gogo girls. I am not one of those preferring to use up most of my time ogling my wife and playing with my family but please let those who want to do so without insulting them Now back to my point this time hopefully with slightly better grammar and less joined up words

Look I have a doctorate in physics and can assure you that you are all missing the point about fluid mechanics and the dynamics of a moving solid state sytem such as flood water. I this case Henson’s law no longer applies as was proved by a research paper I presented at national physics association in New Yorks annual conference (google Henson’s law as disproved byDr Alfred Herbitson at New York physics convention 2004). As my paper clearly proved the normal vectorsFR = V*H squared do not apply and need to be replaced by FR = V*(.85)*H which then means normal friction and increased flow no longer apply. This conclusively proved you can have all boats in universe and it wont makeslightest difference to resultant force S=square root of N x P - G

Where S= Stupidity of a many Thai or other politician N is nonsense and P is possible loss of face of a Thai which could result from him or her just admitting they don’t have a clue and Gis gullibility shown in spades of many Thais to believe anything a higher Thai says which of course is a very high figure. The same can also be said of many politicians and public in the west

:lol:

[hyperdimension]

Are the boats still running? There should be a close eye kept on Plodprasop's bank accounts.