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

[rogerdee123]

In order to help out those 1,000 boats .....

I think we need the Thai Airways planes flying in circles over Bangkok and one by one swooping down over the Chaopraya blowing the exhaust from their engines (jet wash) onto the Chaopraya thus speeding up the flow .....

Where is the science and Aviation Minister when we need him?

You're late, Max already beat you to it ..

great minds think in similar ways :jap:

[BuckarooBanzai]

Jet-wash at about 100 meters.

Yeah good thing for her she was hunched over with a concrete wall to support her, still she never got the full jet wash as the jet was immediately moving down the runway away from her so it never got to maximum throttle but it was still blowing considerably when it was nearly airborne even, which demonstrates just how much trust it was producing once it was at full throttle, which has always been the key, full throttle....

Have you ever flown on a plane? A pilot will almost always use full throttle as a runway is of limited distance. What is the pilot doing in your mind, accelerating slowly so as not to disturb the passengers?

Edited October 22, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[WarpSpeed]

Jet-wash at about 100 meters.

Yeah good thing for her she was hunched over with a concrete wall to support her, still she never got the full jet wash as the jet was immediately moving down the runway away from her so it never got to maximum throttle but it was still blowing considerably when it was nearly airborne even, which demonstrates just how much trust it was producing once it was at full throttle, which has always been the key, full throttle....

Have you ever flown on a plane? A pilot will almost always use full throttle as a runway is of limited distance. What is the pilot doing in your mind, accelerating slowly so as not to disturb the passengers?

Yep I'm done with this discussion it's right on par with getting the same simpletons to understand as the flowing river models.. No, never been on a plane nor in any sort of race car so I have no clue about full throttle RPM's, corner apexes, momentum, flow rates or anything I took a Chinese junk over from the new world ..

Edited October 22, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[BuckarooBanzai]

Jet-wash at about 100 meters.

Yeah good thing for her she was hunched over with a concrete wall to support her, still she never got the full jet wash as the jet was immediately moving down the runway away from her so it never got to maximum throttle but it was still blowing considerably when it was nearly airborne even, which demonstrates just how much trust it was producing once it was at full throttle, which has always been the key, full throttle....

Have you ever flown on a plane? A pilot will almost always use full throttle as a runway is of limited distance. What is the pilot doing in your mind, accelerating slowly so as not to disturb the passengers?

Yep I'm done with this discussion it's right on par with getting the same simpletons to understand as the flowing river models.. No, never been on a plane nor in any sort of race car so I have no clue about full throttle RPM's, corner apexes, momentum, flow rates or anything I took a Chinese junk over from the new world ..

I tend to believe you!

[siampolee]

Surely the final consensus of opinion must be " it didn't work.".

Edited October 22, 2011 by siampolee

[bkkjames]

No no, it did work, but nobody noticed.

[WarpSpeed]

Yeah good thing for her she was hunched over with a concrete wall to support her, still she never got the full jet wash as the jet was immediately moving down the runway away from her so it never got to maximum throttle but it was still blowing considerably when it was nearly airborne even, which demonstrates just how much trust it was producing once it was at full throttle, which has always been the key, full throttle....

Have you ever flown on a plane? A pilot will almost always use full throttle as a runway is of limited distance. What is the pilot doing in your mind, accelerating slowly so as not to disturb the passengers?

Yep I'm done with this discussion it's right on par with getting the same simpletons to understand as the flowing river models.. No, never been on a plane nor in any sort of race car so I have no clue about full throttle RPM's, corner apexes, momentum, flow rates or anything I took a Chinese junk over from the new world ..

I tend to believe you!

I knew you would ..

[WarpSpeed]

Surely the final consensus of opinion must be " it didn't work.".

My understanding of the final consensus of those who are in the know is that it does/could work and is having some effect just that this situation is so overwhelming in any case that no amount of human intervention is going to seem to work on the surface of it..

[Buchholz]

Surely the final consensus of opinion must be " it didn't work.".

My understanding of the final consensus of those who are in the know is that it does/could work and is having some effect just that this situation is so overwhelming in any case that no amount of human intervention is going to seem to work on the surface of it..

In regards to the OP:

project would help drain water three times faster

it absolutely failed.

[WarpSpeed]

Surely the final consensus of opinion must be " it didn't work.".

My understanding of the final consensus of those who are in the know is that it does/could work and is having some effect just that this situation is so overwhelming in any case that no amount of human intervention is going to seem to work on the surface of it..

In regards to the OP:

project would help drain water three times faster

it absolutely failed.

Yes, based on what time frame? How does anyone know in the end it won't have done that? We are still in the middle not the end...

Edited October 22, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[Buchholz]

Surely the final consensus of opinion must be " it didn't work.".

My understanding of the final consensus of those who are in the know is that it does/could work and is having some effect just that this situation is so overwhelming in any case that no amount of human intervention is going to seem to work on the surface of it..

In regards to the OP:

project would help drain water three times faster

it absolutely failed.

Yes, based on what time frame? How does anyone know in the end it won't have done that? We are still in the middle not the end...

They've had the boats in for days. Is the movement of the river's waters three times faster than when they didn't have boats in?

.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Buchholz

[BabySun]

They've had the boats in for days. Is the movement of the river's waters three times faster than when they didn't have boats in?

.

Mr.B! Are you sleeping?

River is moving five times faster!

Big flood is coming down!

[WarpSpeed]

My understanding of the final consensus of those who are in the know is that it does/could work and is having some effect just that this situation is so overwhelming in any case that no amount of human intervention is going to seem to work on the surface of it..

In regards to the OP:

project would help drain water three times faster

it absolutely failed.

Yes, based on what time frame? How does anyone know in the end it won't have done that? We are still in the middle not the end...

They've had the boats in for days. Is the movement of the river's waters three times faster than when they didn't have boats in?

.

Hmmm I don't know is it? But also is that what they were saying? Or as I suggested was it a time frame and who's to say if it's valid or not?

[Tokay]

We can only hope the genius who masterminded this amazing plan, will be put in charge of designing, building, and operating, Thailand's first nuclear power plant.

With some info from Wikipedia, a few years in school where you're taught to memorize, and with a little black magic, anything is possible in Amazing Miracle Thailand!

[rubl]

They've had the boats in for days. Is the movement of the river's waters three times faster than when they didn't have boats in?

Hmmm I don't know is it? But also is that what they were saying? Or as I suggested was it a time frame and who's to say if it's valid or not?

Not really sure it's related, or even mentioned as possible effect, but

"Situation improving in Nakhon Sawan City

Nakhon Sawan City Mayor Jittakasem Nirojthanarat yesterday reported that flood waters in the municipality had lowered by 1.2 metres and expected them to recede completely by October 26"

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Situation-improving-in-Nakhon-Sawan-City-30168334.html

Maybe all those boats pushed enough water? Or is it simply the bits and pieces of land around the ChaoPhraya having been covered by upto three meters of water? Who will say? By the end of this year when all have dried up a bit it will be said the government was successful in draining the water

Edited October 22, 2011 by rubl

[WarpSpeed]

All I know is I seriously want to import several thousand of these immediately anyone in?

You stand upright and dangle your feet in ones with built in waders or you can wear them separately like this one and sit in it so it keeps you dry and out the crap water. Endless possibilities market wise.

[WarpSpeed]

They've had the boats in for days. Is the movement of the river's waters three times faster than when they didn't have boats in?

Hmmm I don't know is it? But also is that what they were saying? Or as I suggested was it a time frame and who's to say if it's valid or not?

Not really sure it's related, or even mentioned as possible effect, but

"Situation improving in Nakhon Sawan City

Nakhon Sawan City Mayor Jittakasem Nirojthanarat yesterday reported that flood waters in the municipality had lowered by 1.2 metres and expected them to recede completely by October 26"

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Situation-improving-in-Nakhon-Sawan-City-30168334.html

Maybe all those boats pushed enough water? Or is it simply the bits and pieces of land around the ChaoPhraya having been covered by upto three meters of water? Who will say? By the end of this year when all have dried up a bit it will be said the government was successful in draining the water

Like I said, who's to say?

[MaxYakov]

They've had the boats in for days. Is the movement of the river's waters three times faster than when they didn't have boats in?

.

Mr.B! Are you sleeping?

River is moving five times faster!

Big flood is coming down!

By now I would hope Mr. B would be sleeping. He probably had an exhausting posting day.

Five times faster? Would that be in terms of volume rather than in terms velocity? If it would just stay within it's banks ...

Some selected Lord Kelvin quotes:

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."

"Radio has no future."

Writing to Niagara Falls Power Company: "Trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current."

"They never will be able to use dirigible balloons as a means of conveying passengers from place to place. ..."

Was he operating out of his area of expertise or using bad judgment or simply didn't do the basic research that would be required in order to make an educated statement about anything (aka guessing)?

[ResX]

Note that recirculation means the water somehow has to travel backward towards high pressure region.

I didn't say you are wrong. You just need to elaborate further what is the mechanism that makes the water moves back to high pressure region. This is your argument anyway. Not mine.

No ResX it "somehow" circulates from high pressure region back to the low pressure region and the mechanism that causes this has already been painfully elaborated in multiple previous posts on this thread by me and others.

Circulate means it moves in circle. It doesn't really matter how you draw the circulation vector for water, it is impossible for you to complete the loop without any of the velocity vector traveling back in the direction of high pressure region. It is impossible mate.

[cloudhopper]

Circulate means it moves in circle. It doesn't really matter how you draw the circulation vector for water, it is impossible for you to complete the loop without any of the velocity vector traveling back in the direction of high pressure region. It is impossible mate.

No kidding? Is that what they teach at your university? Maybe this can help but I doubt it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_ring

[MaxYakov]

Note that recirculation means the water somehow has to travel backward towards high pressure region.

I didn't say you are wrong. You just need to elaborate further what is the mechanism that makes the water moves back to high pressure region. This is your argument anyway. Not mine.

No ResX it "somehow" circulates from high pressure region back to the low pressure region and the mechanism that causes this has already been painfully elaborated in multiple previous posts on this thread by me and others.

Circulate means it moves in circle. It doesn't really matter how you draw the circulation vector for water, it is impossible for you to complete the loop without any of the velocity vector traveling back in the direction of high pressure region. It is impossible mate.

I posted this Combined Wakes Paper the other evening. A scan of it doesn't mention anything about water moving backwards in a loop (except, perhaps, implicitly though mention of a vortex ring):

Abstract---The propeller wake from a ship may be important for an understanding of ship wakes in radar images. Interpretation of wake imagery promises to be useful in wide area maritime surveillance using satellites. A rotating propeller creates a wake, which can be visualized as a rotating horizontal column of water with both linear and angular momentum. This slowly broadens astern due to eddy diffusion as water surrounding the column becomes entrained within the wake. Purely linear momentum and purely angular momentum wakes are quite well understood both in theory and in practice. The purpose of this paper is to examine the combination of these wakes as occurs for a ship's propeller. The result is illustrated by applying it to the Queen of Alberni ferry.

Physical insight is what I'm looking for, but I'm not so sure loopbacks/recirculation are part of it because it is not mentioned explicitly, anyway, (vortex ring) in this paper:

Quote from Paper:

The theory of turbulence is still a research topic because the full equations are non-linear and the behavior of a parcel of fluid depends on non-local conditions within the turbulent flow. To obtain solutions to simple problems, dimensional analysis is often used [6]. Another approach is to assume self-similarity [7]. This implies that various parameters of interest are similar throughout the wake apart from scale factors. Self-similarity is consistent with some experiments and tends to lead to power law behavior [5]. A problem with these methods is that they do not provide much physical insight.

Quote from Paper:

Turbulent flows are described by the Navier-Stokes equation, which is non-linear. Water is approximately a Newtonian fluid so that dissipation can be described by a simple viscosity term. The non-linear behavior is associated with inertial terms and this is responsible for the chaotic type of fluid motions in a turbulent wake. Viscosity attenuates these chaotic motions. At high Reynolds numbers, the inertial terms completely dominate the wake and energy dissipation only occurs at small scales or far down the wake where the mean velocity is small and R 1. In turbulence theory, the characteristic length used in R could be the size of an eddy or the wake width.

Quote from Paper:

In the purely swirling wake, the flow just aft of the propeller disk is in the form of a horizontal rotating cylinder of fluid. To a first approximation the initial angular velocity within this cylinder is constant as fluid is entrained by eddy diffusion and the wake broadens, angular momentum at the edge of the cylinder is transferred to the entrained fluid; the angular velocity of the new fluid will be increased, while that in the original cylinder will be decreased. Because the process resembles normal diffusion (of vorticity), it is reasonable to suppose that the angular velocity, will eventually adopt a Gaussian profile in the radial direction.

Note: The definition of 'entrained' as it's used in the above seems to be: Trapped and suspended in hydraulic fluid

Anyway, the paper is at least an external reference and illustrates the apparent complexities of wake turbulence analysis. If a vortex ring exists (cloudhopper) and it has a significant negative contribution overall to prop wash water velocity in the direction of river flow how would we quantify it?

Is anyone (not necessarily you, ResX, cloudhopper) making assertions without some minimal attempt at substantiation any better than the Minister of S & T with his claims?

Edited October 23, 2011 by MaxYakov

[whybother]

I posted this Combined Wakes Paper the other evening. A scan of it doesn't mention anything about water moving backwards in a loop:

<snip>

Sorry, didn't read all the attached, but does it refer to propellers in a fixed location, or propellers pushing a boat through the water?

[bkkjames]

I have an idea; since you guys seem on the ball-what would you do to fix the current flooding problem?

[whybother]

I have an idea; since you guys seem on the ball-what would you do to fix the current flooding problem?

I start off by telling people what's happening.

I'd use all available canals to get the water to the sea in a controlled manner. (Have they actually started using the Bangkok canals yet?)

I'd find experts that could give me an idea of how quickly and how much water is coming down from the north so I could use the information to predict how high the water should get.

[maidu]

The way to test the idea is to measure flow speed before the boats' motors are throttled, and then measure flow speed after. You could add measurements for volume also. The stickler is, Thai authorities aren't versed in science and probably don't have much/many scientific/measuring tools at hand. Thailand largely runs on belief systems (religion, occult, appearances, pomp, pronouncements by VIPs) rather than science and reality.

I see the 1,000 boat idea this way: The Chao Praya, its final KM's, is essentially a flat body of water. Any turbulence on its surface (caused by boat propellers) will speed a comparative tiny amount of surface water for ten or twenty meters, until it hits a wall of water at its same level, and quickly eddies down to the river's ambient speed. The overall gain in momentum is zero. The only people benefiting are those selling fossil fuels for the boats, and perhaps the boat owners who may be getting paid for the ridiculous spectacle. Those within sniffing distance are having a bunch more pollutants added to the air.

[MaxYakov]

I posted this Combined Wakes Paper the other evening. A scan of it doesn't mention anything about water moving backwards in a loop:

<snip>

Sorry, didn't read all the attached, but does it refer to propellers in a fixed location, or propellers pushing a boat through the water?

Good question! I would say propellers pushing boat through water in the paper. I should think that moored boats would have same or very similar prop wash characteristics depending on the velocity of the water they're floating in and its direction relative to the boat's longitudinal axis.

Imagine the scenario of a boat moored in mid-channel of a river with a 15 knot current under full power and pointing directly upstream. What would be different (regarding the prop wash and wake) from that of a boat making 15 knots under full power in an ocean having a 0 knot current and with the same surface wave height as the river (other than that fuel expenditure in this case may be performing some useful work)?

Edited October 23, 2011 by MaxYakov

[ResX]

I have an idea; since you guys seem on the ball-what would you do to fix the current flooding problem?

I start off by telling people what's happening.

I'd use all available canals to get the water to the sea in a controlled manner. (Have they actually started using the Bangkok canals yet?)

I'd find experts that could give me an idea of how quickly and how much water is coming down from the north so I could use the information to predict how high the water should get.

You can't find anybody here, I think. Go to Irrigation Department of Thailand. I think that department shall know it pretty well by now.

[ResX]

Circulate means it moves in circle. It doesn't really matter how you draw the circulation vector for water, it is impossible for you to complete the loop without any of the velocity vector traveling back in the direction of high pressure region. It is impossible mate.

No kidding? Is that what they teach at your university? Maybe this can help but I doubt it...

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Vortex_ring

This "formation of localized vortex" cannot reside well with your hypothesis that there is no net momentum change as a result of putting the propeller in line with the direction of natural flow of the river. Rather opposite is true. It supports the argument that there is an increase in velocity of water at propeller exit.

The only mean that the propeller can produce such vortex is it has successfully produced much higher localized velocity at one particular region at the exit in such a way that this localized pressure falls below ambient air pressure. Vortex is formed since the ambient air is sucked by localized vacuum pressure. In this case you have to agree most of the water that covers by swept volume of the propeller has increased its velocity. Alternatively you have to believe a complete vacuum state has been created by the propeller at its exit. In this case we shall know it by now.

I have explained what kind of recirculation that resides well with your hypothesis. True it can happen. I have seen and even touch the so call recirculation as a result of this kind of phenomenon. I have explained how it could happen. I don't want to repeat it again. But then you can't draw the conclusion that this is the only scenario without knowing the geometry of the location where the propeller is located. No you can't.

[cloudhopper]

This "formation of localized vortex" cannot reside well with your hypothesis that there is no net momentum change as a result of putting the propeller in line with the direction of natural flow of the river. Rather opposite is true. It supports the argument that there is an increase in velocity of water at propeller exit.

No one is arguing that there is no increase in velocity at propeller exit. As the article showed, all of that high speed water that interacts with the stationary water results in a circular flow (which eventually dissipates as heat) without imparting any net momentum into the stationary water. No central core of higher speed water remains after a short distance - it all eventually interacts with the stationary water, and all of that kinetic energy added to the water results in circular flow, no other type. So the direction of thrust is irrelevant as is any direction the body of water this occurs in might be moving relative to the land.

[slapout]

Many of the questions asked/proposed on this forum topic can be answered by flow profiles (proven) in laboratories and computer models, and several decades of experience by pipeline/oilfield companies. Granted they work with a enclosed conduit/pipeline, but precise measurement, friction affect, flow, fluid viscosity effect, pressure, temperature, etc are taken into account. Someone has already mentioned that a real answer may come via theoretical physics computer modeling. If the fluid was contained within the river channel and this was regarded as 1/2 of a pipe, answers could possibly be approximated by comparison to existing profiles used in fluid flow by various companies who deal with same. But as I have mentioned before, the numbers and measurements bandied around are suspect at best.

The problem and solution proposed by the individual who proposed the boat/prop/flow, was an example of an half intelligent individual making a proposal which is virtually non provable, or an ignorant person who did not have a clue.