How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA

On Sunday, 12 March 2017 23:24:09 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA

You can take the stoopid out of the damn but you can't take the stupid out of the damned socialists.

it reminds me of the Aberfan joyfest.
Lord Robens and the dark dumboes.

On Sunday, 12 March 2017 23:32:05 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 23:24:09 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA

You can take the stoopid out of the damn but you can't take the stupid out of the damned socialists.

it reminds me of the Aberfan joyfest.
Lord Robens and the dark dumboes.

I wonder why they don't close all the nuclear power generators before they start making these damn repairs. Think of the money they could waste.

On 3/12/2017 11:24 PM, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA


I gave up half way through. This has to be one of the worst technical
presentations I have ever seen. I'm sure the guy was on top of all the
facts, just a pity he didn't structure his explanation for the rest of us.

On 3/12/2017 11:53 PM, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 23:32:05 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 23:24:09 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA

You can take the stoopid out of the damn but you can't take the stupid out of the damned socialists.

it reminds me of the Aberfan joyfest.
Lord Robens and the dark dumboes.

I wonder why they don't close all the nuclear power generators before they start making these damn repairs. Think of the money they could waste.

Wasn't it a Reagan dam?

Couldn't face enough of the video to reach any connection with Aberfan.

And where does nuclear power come into it? (I do recall Lady Marshall
observing that there was so much rebar in the Sizewell B structures that
she couldn't see how there was room for the aggregate to get through).

On Monday, 13 March 2017 00:15:37 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 3/12/2017 11:24 PM, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA


I gave up half way through. This has to be one of the worst technical
presentations I have ever seen. I'm sure the guy was on top of all the
facts, just a pity he didn't structure his explanation for the rest of us.

So: How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty foot waterfall?
Or should I structure the question for the rest of your head?
When will you get it together, please.

You will never get planning permission for this and the water bill will be
huge.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty
foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA

On 3/13/2017 1:24 AM, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Monday, 13 March 2017 00:15:37 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 3/12/2017 11:24 PM, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA


I gave up half way through. This has to be one of the worst technical
presentations I have ever seen. I'm sure the guy was on top of all the
facts, just a pity he didn't structure his explanation for the rest of us.

So: How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty foot waterfall?

Stupid question. It depends on what is behind it.

Or should I structure the question for the rest of your head?
When will you get it together, please.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 3/12/2017 11:24 PM, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty
foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA


I gave up half way through.

not helped by the fact that I am 2 minutes in, and I still haven't the ****
idea what the actual subject is

Oh now we are shown a weather forecast - Why?

Nope 3 minutes in, I have given up

was this some jerk trying to sell us an overpriced product? That's what
videos full of waffle usually are!

tim

On 3/13/2017 10:02 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 3/12/2017 11:24 PM, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and
sixty foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA


I gave up half way through.

not helped by the fact that I am 2 minutes in, and I still haven't the
**** idea what the actual subject is

Oh now we are shown a weather forecast - Why?

Nope 3 minutes in, I have given up

was this some jerk trying to sell us an overpriced product? That's what
videos full of waffle usually are!

tim



Not just me, then.

I'd assumed it was a genuine (if poor) attempt to comment by someone who
had been somehow involved at Oroville. I infer from Weatherlawyer's post
that towards the end he *might* be saying something like

"Look how thin the spillway concrete was at the point where it failed".

But we know it must have been inadequate, othewise it would not have failed.

The interesting question is *why* it failed.

Had it been subjected to "beyond design basis" loading? (like Fukushima)
Were the design assumptions unreasonable, or flawed?
Were there design errors?
Were there errors in the input assumptions (for example geological
conditions)?
Was it built to design?
Did the constructors *deliberately* deviate from drawings?
Did the constructors think they had followed drawings, but in fact
failed to for reasons perhaps out of their control?
Did the dam operators take the slipway beyond its design intent?

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:34:03 +0000, newshound wrote:

"Look how thin the spillway concrete was at the point where it failed".

Early pictures seemed to show that the spillway had been undermined
before it failed. ie there is errosion above the failure point.

Bit of a rock and hard place. With a reservior getting dangerously
full and likely to get fuller, which would you choose? A large but
controlled release down a spillway that may not withstand it. Or a
lesser release and high probabilty that the dam will fail...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Monday, 13 March 2017 14:31:33 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:34:03 +0000, newshound wrote:

"Look how thin the spillway concrete was at the point where it failed".

Early pictures seemed to show that the spillway had been undermined
before it failed. ie there is errosion above the failure point.

Bit of a rock and hard place. With a reservior getting dangerously
full and likely to get fuller, which would you choose? A large but
controlled release down a spillway that may not withstand it. Or a
lesser release and high probabilty that the dam will fail...

Nice to find someone who had been watching developments with it. From what little I could see of the cross sections of the spillway ramp the concrete looked rather thin (decent thickness of rebar or not.)

On Monday, 13 March 2017 08:06:17 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
You will never get planning permission for this and the water bill will be
huge.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty
foot waterfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0g43iI9kA

That's better than the Ikea joke but what isn't?

What happened with the dam is that with the usual nepotism or simony endemic in a socialist state, money was diverted like water. Then due to the turbulence and further rapacious neglect all sorts of further problems developed so that with the weather playing catch-up after several years drought, the **** hit the turbines.

At a thin enough point turbulence in the outflow walked the delamination of the concrete upwards but the flow fell off just in time to stop the tearing out of the surface before it got to the top.

Elsewhere, inside the lake and on the other outflow, the rock subsurface crumbled. The sociopaths running the Water and electric company services had to have a clause in the contracts of employment forbidding the taking of pictures. They sacked several emergency workers for putting some online.

That is what happened in a nutshell.

On Monday, 13 March 2017 14:31:33 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:34:03 +0000, newshound wrote:

"Look how thin the spillway concrete was at the point where it failed".

Early pictures seemed to show that the spillway had been undermined
before it failed. ie there is erosion above the failure point.

Bit of a rock and hard place. With a reservoir getting dangerously
full and likely to get fuller, which would you choose? A large but
controlled release down a spillway that may not withstand it. Or a
lesser release and high probability that the dam will fail...

I was wondering why they didn't put that geo-something carpeting? along the spillway or weld a load of steel plates together and drop on the ramp. Wasn't all they had to do: Stop the water washing it away?

Not exactly an edifying effort nor an inspired command of the calamity as far as publicity ran, it ran amok untethered and violently prodded up the jacksy. Just goes to show that when the actors get into politics the show must go badly.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer wrote:

I was wondering why they didn't put that geo-something carpeting? along
the spillway or weld a load of steel plates together and drop on the
ramp. Wasn't all they had to do: Stop the water washing it away?

Rather a lot of water going down the spillway, 1000 cu metres a
second? Anything not *VERY* securely fixed wouldn't stay there and
any tiny gap wouldn't stay a tiny gap for long.

--
Cheers
Dave.