Water Bridge - and a puzzle

Joined
10 Apr 2004
Messages
1,767
Reaction score
1
Country
United Kingdom
72157191.jpg


Even after you see it, it is still hard to believe !
Water Bridge in Germany .... What a feat!
Six years, 500 million euros, 918 meters long.......now this is engineering!
This is a channel-bridge over the River Elbe and joins the former East and West Germany, as part of the unification project. It is located in the city of Magdeburg, near Berlin. The photo was taken on the day of inauguration.

To those who appreciate engineering projects, here's a puzzle for you armchair engineers and physicists. Did that bridge have to be designed to withstand the additional weight of ship and barge traffic, or just the weight of the water?
 
Sponsored Links
As they displace their own weight in water, nothing need be allowed.
If their was a lock at each end of the bridge, then the extra weight would have to be allowed for, as the displaced water would be contained.
 
I thought they displaced their own VOLUME of water. :confused: .......who`s gonna google Archimedes :LOL:..........anyways Barnes Wallis should`ve got that one too
 
Sponsored Links
if they float they displace their own weight of water

if they sink they displace their own volume.

p.s. it is usually considered an advantage for boats to float
 
It's called an Aquaduct, and they have been built for thousands of years. Rome built thousands of them. Many for simply moving water, but many actually carried boats to allow the joining of rivers and canals.

In fact many canals in the UK have such structures along their route.

I agree it is impressive engineering, but not too outstanding I am afraid.
 
Cant see the VIN engine identification number plate anywhere, what if it was stolen and cloned into another vehicle? How could you tell? :eek:
 
tim west said:
This is also impressive and it's over here in the UK

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/falkirk/falkirkwheel/index.html[/QUOTE]

I have seen that link before, and it's really impressive - in fact it's high on my list of places I want to visit and see for real in the next few years.

Back to my original post and question, yes of course you're all correct, boats displace water equivalent to their weight. But where to? It's spurious, and in the grand scheme of things the quantities very small, but I wonder in light of the recent flooding how far shorter the waters would have reached if there were no boats or other objects in the rivers?
 
That's why some people have been talking about the distinct lack of dredging over the last few years.

If this was a yearly event, would the rivers have a greater capacity?
 
securespark said:
That's why some people have been talking about the distinct lack of dredging over the last few years.

If this was a yearly event, would the rivers have a greater capacity?

Securespark, dredging rivers and channels would oly be effective on water volume if the river was dredged the entire length of any possible higher than ordinary water flow and this would not be possible for 90% of rivers due to navigation limitations. Further, where would the millions of tonnes of debris be put each year, as this would have to be a continuous process as rivers would soon replace the dredged material with silt, as they do naturally.

The real solution is to build natural banks around floodplanes, ones that are made from Earth and on which nature is allowed to claim with trees etc, then designate thes eflood planes as "common land" to prevent construction on them, and allow nature to take it's course (no pun intended there).

In the long term this is the only solution, not only here but in all countries where the flooding of rivers is a major and regular event.
 
Stulz said:
where would the millions of tonnes of debris be put each year, as this would have to be a continuous process as rivers would soon replace the dredged material with silt, as they do naturally.
muck spread it over fields, makes terrific fertilizer.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top