3 ms·

So putting the technical critique aside, are you blaming the BBC for accurately reporting how the canal functions?

zamadatix 2mo ago
I think they were saying "That BBC documentary shows or exposes very shallow thinking skills <of those involved with designing the canal> at this timestamp". not "<of those making the documentary for not correcting the design of the canal>" That said, I can't quite understand the complaint. It's either take the freshwater out of the lake and into the ocean or take the ocean water into the lake (or invest build the entire length without using natural bodies). The former seems to make a lot more sense and is effectively what's supposed to happen with water eventually anyways.
- DoctorOetker 2mo ago
  No connection to a lake is necessary, imagine 2 locks in parallel both connected to the same low water level canal section "on the left" and both connected to the same high water level canal to the right (its not necessary to have 2 locks in parallel, its just easier to demonstrate the scheme doesn't require significant energy consumption): Imagine one lock is currently filled to the high level, while the other is currently filled to the low level. The locks have been closed. As you let water from the high lock flow into the low lock through Archimedes screws, those screws can lift a weight, until they have equilibrated at the midpoint of the high and low water levels. But you have raised the weight and can now use that to power the draining of the lock that has only halfway sunk in level, by pumping its water to the lock that has only halfway risen. Apart from friction there is no energy consumption. Slow quasistatic transfer drives the friction energy consumption to 0. In practice you want to use an "extra" weight to attain higher pump speeds, and then recover the kinetic energy. That will consume more friction energy, but a small number of solar panels suffice, the energy is not used to lift water, but to overcome friction (haste makes waste).
  - zamadatix 2mo ago
    It's not about the mechanics of the water transfer. About half the canal itself IS the man made lakes. The ships need to come in from the ocean, float in through the lock, and then continue course over the lakes. Prior to the rivers being damned to make the lakes, they just emptied into the ocean directly. No net new fresh water is being created, we're just holding it up for a bit so we didn't have to build as much canal. If anything, we're diverting more of that aater away from the Atlantic and towards the pacific than would normally have drained in that direction by doing this.
DoctorOetker 2mo ago
I don't have the resources / time / interest to verify if: A) the BBC retardedly misreports how the Panama Canal is operated today, or if B) they correctly report how the Panama Canal is operated retardedly which is why I phrased it that way... I am only interested in the physics, not the politics...
- sigmarule 2mo ago
  Surely figuring this out would be a very marginal increase in time spent on writing your large post and series of responses.
  - DoctorOetker 2mo ago
    not really, when physics is ready knowledge and when I don't care about the politics (i.e. who the retards are). but I wouldn't protest if you clarify an issue you seem or pretend to care a lot about...

I think they were saying "That BBC documentary shows or exposes very shallow thinking skills <of those involved with designing the canal> at this timestamp". not "<of those making the documentary for not correcting the design of the canal>" That said, I can't quite understand the complaint. It's either take the freshwater out of the lake and into the ocean or take the ocean water into the lake (or invest build the entire length without using natural bodies). The former seems to make a lot more sense and is effectively what's supposed to happen with water eventually anyways.

DoctorOetker 2mo ago
No connection to a lake is necessary, imagine 2 locks in parallel both connected to the same low water level canal section "on the left" and both connected to the same high water level canal to the right (its not necessary to have 2 locks in parallel, its just easier to demonstrate the scheme doesn't require significant energy consumption): Imagine one lock is currently filled to the high level, while the other is currently filled to the low level. The locks have been closed. As you let water from the high lock flow into the low lock through Archimedes screws, those screws can lift a weight, until they have equilibrated at the midpoint of the high and low water levels. But you have raised the weight and can now use that to power the draining of the lock that has only halfway sunk in level, by pumping its water to the lock that has only halfway risen. Apart from friction there is no energy consumption. Slow quasistatic transfer drives the friction energy consumption to 0. In practice you want to use an "extra" weight to attain higher pump speeds, and then recover the kinetic energy. That will consume more friction energy, but a small number of solar panels suffice, the energy is not used to lift water, but to overcome friction (haste makes waste).
- zamadatix 2mo ago
  It's not about the mechanics of the water transfer. About half the canal itself IS the man made lakes. The ships need to come in from the ocean, float in through the lock, and then continue course over the lakes. Prior to the rivers being damned to make the lakes, they just emptied into the ocean directly. No net new fresh water is being created, we're just holding it up for a bit so we didn't have to build as much canal. If anything, we're diverting more of that aater away from the Atlantic and towards the pacific than would normally have drained in that direction by doing this.

DoctorOetker 2mo ago

I don't have the resources / time / interest to verify if: A) the BBC retardedly misreports how the Panama Canal is operated today, or if B) they correctly report how the Panama Canal is operated retardedly which is why I phrased it that way... I am only interested in the physics, not the politics...

sigmarule 2mo ago
Surely figuring this out would be a very marginal increase in time spent on writing your large post and series of responses.
- DoctorOetker 2mo ago
  not really, when physics is ready knowledge and when I don't care about the politics (i.e. who the retards are). but I wouldn't protest if you clarify an issue you seem or pretend to care a lot about...