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

[BuckarooBanzai]

I have had a lot of fun jousting on this thread but there are a few things I want to emphasize before signing off.

The construction of a flood bypass canal running through the central planes is a necessity to control floods in the future. This should be a dry channel in the off flood periods for usage and repair. It will cost money but not nearly as much as the current reality.

God bless all those that are suffering and let those in control take effective action so it will not happen again.

Edited October 21, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[Thaddeus]

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

Splendid summing up sir.

Can I buy you a pint?

And then go on to illustrate how you can't get two pints in to a one pint glass?

(purely for the benefit of others of course)

Edited October 21, 2011 by Thaddeus

[BuckarooBanzai]

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

Splendid summing up sir.

Can I buy you a pint?

And then go on to illustrate how you can't get two pints in to a one pint glass?

(purely for the benefit of others of course)

If you are referring to me I will certainly except a proffered pint. As to the two pints in to a one pint glass I am at a loss as is was not my post. Cheers.

[WarpSpeed]

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.

It's also compressible air versus in-compressible fluid..

[WarpSpeed]

@ 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!

What is your problem?? You have the choice to leave the thread anytime you wish no one keeps you here or coming back so go back to the "I drink too much forum" and share your perceptions with them where it may do more good..

[WarpSpeed]

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!

That's how a siphon is explained and water moving up hill...

[Thaddeus]

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

Splendid summing up sir.

Can I buy you a pint?

And then go on to illustrate how you can't get two pints in to a one pint glass?

(purely for the benefit of others of course)

If you are referring to me I will certainly except a proffered pint. As to the two pints in to a one pint glass I am at a loss as is was not my post. Cheers.

The pint stands as offered, and trust me one this one, I rarely offer.

The two pints in one glass reference was with you, and against some others that Newton would have quite happily have strangled at birth.

[BuckarooBanzai]

The pint stands as offered, and trust me one this one, I rarely offer.

Thank you Thaddeus. I think we have the same pain for what is taking place. Best Regards!

[WarpSpeed]

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?

What about it? Says the man who claims he was standing directly behind a 767 Jet engine at full throttle and only 180 meters and hardly felt anything! Once you argued that point I realized you were clueless and lost all credibility so your posts have fallen on blind eyes since then, as being nothing more then nonsensical.. I noticed it's eating you up too, the conversation is going on right around you . Kind of like that invisible jet wash..

[WarpSpeed]

I have had a lot of fun jousting on this thread but there are a few things I want to emphasize before signing off.

The construction of a flood bypass canal running through the central planes is a necessity to control floods in the future. This should be a dry channel in the off flood periods for usage and repair. It will cost money but not nearly as much as the current reality.

God bless all those that are suffering and let those in control take effective action so it will not happen again.

Now there's something we agree on..

[MaxYakov]

I have had a lot of fun jousting on this thread but there are a few things I want to emphasize before signing off.

The construction of a flood bypass canal running through the central planes is a necessity to control floods in the future. This should be a dry channel in the off flood periods for usage and repair. It will cost money but not nearly as much as the current reality.

God bless all those that are suffering and let those in control take effective action so it will not happen again.

Now there's something we agree on..

Ditto.

[MaxYakov]

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

Splendid summing up sir.

Can I buy you a pint?

And then go on to illustrate how you can't get two pints in to a one pint glass?

(purely for the benefit of others of course)

letitbe: I Googled your string and there were no results found. Please provide a link or document and stop jerking us around.

Thaddeus: QOPF Update (quality-of-posts factor) = 1 / (posts per day) * IQ * 100 / (percent-alcohol-bloodstream (where > 0, otherwise = 1))

Edited October 21, 2011 by MaxYakov

[BabySun]

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

Splendid summing up sir.

Can I buy you a pint?

And then go on to illustrate how you can't get two pints in to a one pint glass?

(purely for the benefit of others of course)

letitbe: I Googled your string and there were no results found. Please provide a link or document and stop jerking us around.

Thaddeus: QOPF Update (quality-of-posts factor) = 1 / (posts per day) * IQ * 100 / (percent-alcohol-bloodstream (where > 0, otherwise = 1))

letitbe? - it was very good hoax,how could you fall for it?Another very good one was your joke about tsunami wave on BayofThailand.

At least you are leaving no chance for illusion for others.

[ResX]

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.

Thank you mate. Anyway you just came to know about this equation lately right? FYI, there is similar formula for surface water flow that is called Manning equation. ...

[cloudhopper]

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.

Thank you mate. Anyway you just came to know about this equation lately right? FYI, there is similar formula for surface water flow that is called Manning equation. ...

ResX you seem to have memorized lots of equations but clearly don't understand which ones apply to the physical situation at hand. It's also becoming clear why you are too embarrassed to name the university where you are allowed to teach.

[Crushdepth]

Now don't get snobby :-)

[MaxYakov]

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

Splendid summing up sir.

Can I buy you a pint?

And then go on to illustrate how you can't get two pints in to a one pint glass?

(purely for the benefit of others of course)

letitbe: I Googled your string and there were no results found. Please provide a link or document and stop jerking us around.

Thaddeus: QOPF Update (quality-of-posts factor) = 1 / (posts per day) * IQ * 100 / (percent-alcohol-bloodstream (where > 0, otherwise = 1))

letitbe? - it was very good hoax,how could you fall for it?Another very good one was your joke about tsunami wave on BayofThailand.

At least you are leaving no chance for illusion for others.

I must be losing it. I liked the tsunami one better. It's OK, my QOPF is pretty hoaxy as well, but at least it has a point.

[maidu]

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.

My mom's name is Darcy, I didn't know she was a fluid mechanic whiz. And who is this Weisbach guy? Was she messing around with him in some formulated sort of way? Did they do their experiments in a bubble bath? Are there any groupies for fluid mechanic experts? If so, I wanna get a diploma (for fluid mechanics, not Groupie Sciences).

Sorry for so many questions, am just curious.

Interesting though, that with all the posts in this thread, I don't think one agrees that the boat-pushing-water-faster thing works as planned. Are those 1,000 motors still revving at full throttle? Have any bridges been shifted off their footings? Is it too late to invest in PTT?

Free beer for everyone at ThaiVIsa, and whiskey for the horses!

Edited October 22, 2011 by maidu

[kevbap]

surely a better idea would be to move all big/small boats out or off the river, they must displace huge amounts of water??? just a thought?

:jap:

[OZEMADE]

I have had a great laugh reading this stuff, it's better than watching the BIG BANG on television.

However after all of this, has anyone come up with a good idea yet.

1,000 Boats To Push Flood Waters From Chao Phraya River the guy had to be

[Crushdepth]

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.

My mom's name is Darcy, I didn't know she was a fluid mechanic whiz. And who is this Weisbach guy? Was she messing around with him in some formulated sort of way? Did they do their experiments in a bubble bath? Are there any groupies for fluid mechanic experts? If so, I wanna get a diploma (for fluid mechanics, not Groupie Sciences).

Sorry for so many questions, am just curious.

Interesting though, that with all the posts in this thread, I don't think one agrees that the boat-pushing-water-faster thing works as planned. Are those 1,000 motors still revving at full throttle? Have any bridges been shifted off their footings? Is it too late to invest in PTT?

Free beer for everyone at ThaiVIsa, and whiskey for the horses!

I went down to look at the canal under Bhumibol 1 Bridge that shortcuts a loop of the river a bit over a week ago. With the exception the 'motorised bathtubs', none of them were working hard. Some were just idling, some were pushing a bit harder than that. Saw the same scene on tv a few days later and they had revved everything up for the cameras.

Most of the boats were tied up one behind the other, so they were also pushing back onto the boat behind them. No idea if they are still there.

[Thaddeus]

Thaddeus: QOPF Update (quality-of-posts factor) = 1 / (posts per day) * IQ * 100 / (percent-alcohol-bloodstream (where > 0, otherwise = 1))

4,204.5454

[MaxYakov]

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.

My mom's name is Darcy, I didn't know she was a fluid mechanic whiz. And who is this Weisbach guy? Was she messing around with him in some formulated sort of way? Did they do their experiments in a bubble bath? Are there any groupies for fluid mechanic experts? If so, I wanna get a diploma (for fluid mechanics, not Groupie Sciences).

Sorry for so many questions, am just curious.

Interesting though, that with all the posts in this thread, I don't think one agrees that the boat-pushing-water-faster thing works as planned. Are those 1,000 motors still revving at full throttle? Have any bridges been shifted off their footings? Is it too late to invest in PTT?

Free beer for everyone at ThaiVIsa, and whiskey for the horses!

Could it be the Darcy-Maidu smoke flow in a pipe formula applies to all your questions and comments?

[AleG]

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?

What about it? Says the man who claims he was standing directly behind a 767 Jet engine at full throttle and only 180 meters and hardly felt anything! Once you argued that point I realized you were clueless and lost all credibility so your posts have fallen on blind eyes since then, as being nothing more then nonsensical.. I noticed it's eating you up too, the conversation is going on right around you . Kind of like that invisible jet wash..

My underlining, here you are just plain making things up, let's see what I actually said:

Indeed, I've actually stood 200 meters or so behind an airliner taking off and although the wind and heat are awesome I wasn't blown away.

...

Awesome> Definition: Extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension, or fear.

Yet you turn that into "hardly felt anything!"

Anyway, how about you substantiate your assertion about the Earth's rotation pulling rivers towards the equator? Let's see what that does to your credibility.

[ResX]

I have had a lot of fun jousting on this thread but there are a few things I want to emphasize before signing off.

The construction of a flood bypass canal running through the central planes is a necessity to control floods in the future. This should be a dry channel in the off flood periods for usage and repair. It will cost money but not nearly as much as the current reality.

God bless all those that are suffering and let those in control take effective action so it will not happen again.

It is a slight diversion but I promise for your own good. Not mine

I started to join this forum since I was trying to tell Thailand average citizens that your Critical Success Factor (CSF) to deal with future flood events lies on the Bhumibol & Sirkit dams. Somehow I landed here. I hate to mitigate flood. My expert area is control the sources via flood control reservoirs.

I have been to these two dams about 10 years ago. During my visit I was presented by the dams engineers about how they operate the Bhumibol & Sirkit dams. During that time, I was already an expert in the operations of flood control dams in particular in power generation and flood control dams. So I was able to judge how good your flood control strategy being adopted that time. My judgement was it was clear that the two dams had the element of flood control associated with their SOPs. It was clear initiative by the dams managements to bring down the dams water levels prior to flood seasons. Every year. Without miss. As I could see from their presentations. Unless they lied to us.

Thing has changed lately about the way the two dams were operated. I don't know why. But the way the Bhumibol dam was operated just before the flood season for this year is unthinkable. You can check it yourselves that the reservoir had almost reached to its maximum storage capacity by 1st Oct 11. That is why the dam had to release a lot of water during heavy rainfall prior to this flood event. I have written a lot about this issue in the other thread. I don't want to repeat it again. One thing I want to conclude is if your government does not regulate the major dams operations the you will face the same problem again in future.

At least for this year flood event, the Bhumibol & Sirkit dams were not be beaten by odd alone.

[MaxYakov]

Thaddeus: QOPF Update (quality-of-posts factor) = 1 / (posts per day) * IQ * 100 / (percent-alcohol-bloodstream (where > 0, otherwise = 1))

4,204.5454

At least someone else besides rubi, longway and me is running some numbers on something! Care to disclose the values that you plugged-in for our amusement?

Edited October 22, 2011 by MaxYakov

[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.

Let me attempt to answer my own question about idealized control volume model for CH river. You can see it is doable but it is not as starlight forward as it appears to be. I have tried to mention this many times in the past that conceptual in one thing. Procedure is another thing.

It is not as simple as some of you might want to think.......

We have to put to put free surface flow equation for the outlet. Free surface flow equation in its simplest form Q=cLH^3/2. For Q= 4,861m3/s and H=2 m, then cL =1,718.6. Thus, the discharge at outfall becomes

Q=1,718.6 H^3/2

Assuming we can maintain the discharge of the pump at 1000m3/s. Then the water level near the "outfall" will reduce since outfall is greater than incoming flow. The excess amount of water is actually drained out from a stripe of water from from the tunnel that is positioned at the gradient of 0.5m every km. After the water level at outfall reaches 1.50m above sea level, the outfall becomes 4,861m3/s again since, i.e. back to square one.

Q= 1,718.6 *(1.5^(3/2) + 1000 = 4,861m3/s

I don't calculate how much time it takes but, eventually a flat water surface that has elevation 1.50m above sea level will be created and extended over the last 1km of the tunnel (If I get my maths correctly here). We have just successful to drain out about 1km stretch 0.5m down. That is it. the remaining 499km of tunnel cannot be altered.

If one thing that by putting a boat at one cross sectional are can increase the speed of the whole river then it is flaw. Only limited stretch will be effected. The area that has control volume that can be influenced by increase in discharge at the bottle neck of the flood plain. That is why I can't tell whether the current practice can make significant impact. Obviously the impact that one may want to see is what he or she wants to see. Even the initiative can change the rate of river flow but the impact towards flood level is the minimum, in practical point of view the operation has failed.

All the flood plains can be represented by many sub sections of this model, put together. When flood mitigation engineers want to build flood control and flood mitigation structures for any flood plain they simplify the model for that particular flood plain only. For each sections the modeling parameters that might changes are :(1) the slope, (2) controlled volume and, (3) area of that flood plain (4) hydraulic gradient and (5) "outfall" discharge flow rate (6) The expected incoming flow.

Edited October 22, 2011 by ResX

[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

Or possibly longer now...

Thai floods to last four to six weeks more: Government

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20111022-306459.html

[EyesWideOpen]

It would seem that this thread is becoming a bit pedantic, with posters using modeling equations. I myself am a bit more of a seat of the pants kind of guy . So here is what I suggest. Step away from the keyboard, and go down to the Chao Phraya riverbank in Bangkok. Then after seeing the massive scope of the river, and the rapid rate it is flowing at, ask yourself if a few tour boats at anchor in the river, with their engines slightly above idle, are going to make the slightest bit of difference.......

[MaxYakov]

It would seem that this thread is becoming a bit pedantic, with posters using modeling equations. I myself am a bit more of a seat of the pants kind of guy . So here is what I suggest. Step away from the keyboard, and go down to the Chao Phraya riverbank in Bangkok. Then after seeing the massive scope of the river, and the rapid rate it is flowing at, ask yourself if a few tour boats at anchor in the river, with their engines slightly above idle, are going to make the slightest bit of difference.......

Can't get the seat of my pants to go to the river these days (afraid I'd have to swim back). Haven't seen a modeling equation all day.

Edited October 22, 2011 by MaxYakov