8 ms·
Drain it. Seriously. Any other response is either unrealistically expensive/complicated or reckless. Sure, the Italian company could maintain it if they aren'
by sentenza 11y ago
Drain it. Seriously.
Any other response is either unrealistically expensive/complicated or reckless.
Sure, the Italian company could maintain it if they aren't attacked by ISIS, but that is a big if when failure is immanent.
- bjackman 11y agoRemember that the sluice gates are seized. Obviously they should still drain it but it's not as simple as making the call.
- foota 11y agoHow could they drain it?
- hyperion2010 11y agoDig an alternate channel.
- foota 11y agoI'm not sure it would be quite so simple. The article mentions the reason that they can't just open one gate is because the asymmetric draining would be harmful to the dam. It's possible that any sort of adhoc draining would adversely affect the dam. Not to mention quickly building a secure tunnel to handle the water pressure at that depth sounds like no mean feat.
- acveilleux 11y agoThat's called a spillway BTW and the problem with spillways is erosion and the energy of the water. So spillways have to be made of reinforced concrete or similarly strong materials when the local rock isn't hard enough and they have to be shaped to dissipate the energy. The spillway of the Mosul dam is made of concrete the problem with it appears to be that it allows too high a water level for the dam in its current shape even when fully open.
- techdragon 11y agoI would imagine siphoning might be a simple enough process and could be setup in multiple places along the dam to avoid the asymmetric draining issues mentioned further in the discussion here on hacker news.
- tim333 11y agoYou can syphon up about 30ft. The dam is 371 ft.
- Blaque 11y agoCan you explain why a syphon won't work over 30ft?
- Errsher 11y ago"This siphon effect relies on atmospheric pressure to allow the pressure and pressure potential energy to drop as the water travels upward inside the sealed pipe. But eventually the pressure of the rising water reaches zero and no further reductions in pressure and pressure potential energy are possible. That failure of the siphon effect occurs when the water is about 30 feet (10 meters) above the higher container. You can't use a siphon to lift water higher than 30 feet because above that height, an empty region will develop at the top of the pipe and stop the siphon process." http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20080512104921 http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physi...
- mikecb 11y agoWhat about running the tube over the dam and down to a lower level than it originates? Then gravity(?) does the trick?
- sangnoir 11y agoIt would only work if the difference between the water level and the top of the wall is less than rouhgly 30ft (as per xkcd). The bottom line is, the siphon will not work if it has a vertical water column taller than 30ft (water weight per unit area becomes greater than opposing atmospheric pressure)
- rwallace 11y agoWould it suffice to just take a stick of dynamite to one of the seized gates?
- adrianN 11y agoWhat could possibly go wrong?
- rwallace 11y agoYou (and at least one other) reacted as though I had claimed such an action would come with a guarantee nothing could go wrong. Which is, to put it bluntly, a rather stupid reaction given that: 1. I didn't make a claim. I asked a question. 2. According to the experts, the clock is currently ticking down on a million lives with no idea of how much time is left, so your implied suggestion of doing nothing (which is the implied suggestion when you summarily dismiss a line of thought while providing nothing in its place) is... well, how exactly would you describe the suggestion of just letting a million people die, had it come from someone else?
- adrianN 11y agoIt just seems to me that using explosives on a structure where collapse is imminent in order to fix it sounds like the most dangerous idea one could possibly have.
- rwallace 11y agoFirst of all, according to what the experts are saying, the most dangerous idea one could possibly have is your idea of doing nothing - that guarantees the worst-case outcome. Second, one would normally expect the force required to break the dam to be orders of magnitude larger than that required to open a sluice gate. Obviously this isn't a normal situation, but then, what are the figures? If a stick of dynamite isn't the appropriate tool, exactly what would it take to open the gates? Third, if you could say 'we are going to try this at such and such a time, everyone be prepared' that would be far better than having it fail at an unknown time. Fourth, now that I think of it, even deliberately blowing up the dam at a known time would be better than letting it fail at an unknown time. Fifth, I'm sure there is some relevant idea or consideration I haven't thought of, that someone else could think of if they put their mind to doing so.
- masklinn 11y ago> Drain it. Seriously. Easy to say when the sluice gates are stuck and the dam represents more than 10% of the country's already way under demand electricity production.
- afarrell 11y agoWhere is that electricity going? Mosul? If it is, then shutting it down would cut off an enemy's economic resources and force them to choose between an angry population and attacking a fortified position against air superiority. Yes, being without electricity does great harm to the civilian population, but less harm than a massacre-by-flood.
- throw7 11y agoWell, immediately getting back to grouting the base would be the first order of business. Second, fixing the jammed sluice gate. We need an analysis and timeline of the above and time is something it seems we don't have.