4 ms·
You do realise that an aqueduct carrying only water is carrying the same load as one carrying lots of ships? (maybe you do) The weight of the ships displaces ex
by Grismar 5y ago
You do realise that an aqueduct carrying only water is carrying the same load as one carrying lots of ships? (maybe you do) The weight of the ships displaces exactly the amount of water with that weight. There is of course some water movement to deal with, and there are safety margins required, in case of accidents, etc. - perhaps that was your point, but I think it's worth pointing out, if people aren't familiar with aquaducts.
- schoen 5y agoI read that once but had forgotten it until you reminded me, so thanks! I was thinking that aqueducts for drinking and irrigation water usually wouldn't be navigable because their waterway is too small (too shallow or too narrow), or, for drinking water, is sometimes covered or enclosed. Edit: For example, EBMUD has a major aqueduct coming from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardee_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardee_Dam (https://www.ebmud.com/files/cache/f49ff54bdbea934d88a2bfee4075106c_f659.jpg https://www.ebmud.com/files/cache/f49ff54bdbea934d88a2bfee40... -- none of it navigable or even close!) while SF Water has a major aqueduct coming from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Shaughnessy_Dam_(California) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Shaughnessy_Dam_(Californi... Both of these use enclosed pipelines and spend a significant portion of their journeys underground! I think L.A. has something similar. Edit 2: Yep, the enormous and also totally non-navigable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Aqueduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Aqueduct