JimH wrote:
"tak" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
tak wrote:
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

A water bridge for boats built over a river. Pretty amazing!

http://www.funonthenet.in/content/view/223/31/

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,990878,00.html
Google NYS Erie Canal (1 version) for examples nearer to home.




Can you imagine the weight of bridge structure, water & boats.
I wouldn't want to spend too much time under it.

boat adds absolutely no weight to this bridge... physics 101

Prove it...!!


Think about what causes a boat to float (or anything to float). His point
will come to you. Or Google displacement
T


You are absolutely right. It is all about displacement. And as said
earlier the theory is very basic and discussed in High School physics.

An earlier claim (by bassy) that the load is static is also wrong due to
varying degrees of pedestrian traffic on either side of the bridge and
possible wakes caused by boats traveling at higher speeds.

I though bassy was structural design engineer. ;-)

Uh, let's just say RELATIVELY static, okay? I mean, ****, Jim, if you
want to pick nits, then NO load is EVER static.

George F wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...


Prove it...!!


Hey- dumfuk-
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Your petty, childish name calling does nothing for your crediblilty.
Care to prove the point, or just blindly think you are correct?

tak wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
tak wrote:
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

A water bridge for boats built over a river. Pretty amazing!

http://www.funonthenet.in/content/view/223/31/

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,990878,00.html
Google NYS Erie Canal (1 version) for examples nearer to home.




Can you imagine the weight of bridge structure, water & boats.
I wouldn't want to spend too much time under it.

boat adds absolutely no weight to this bridge... physics 101

Prove it...!!


Think about what causes a boat to float (or anything to float). His point
will come to you. Or Google displacement
T

That's not proof. First of all, you need to ensure, and prove that the
displaced water is moved OFF OF THE BRIDGE. If there are gates at
either end, then it isn't.

Relatively static? Nope.

Hey, I was/am not nitpicking. Do you see the amount of foot traffic
that bridge handles on both side of the canal?

JimH wrote:
Relatively static? Nope.

Hey, I was/am not nitpicking. Do you see the amount of foot traffic
that bridge handles on both side of the canal?

As I said, if you take static literally, there is NO SUCH THING as a
static load, get it? Let's take a block of concrete sitting on this
bridge. Static? Nope, not if you take it literally. It will gain
moisture (thus mass) when it rains or is humid. It will lose moisture
(thus mass) when it is dry. So, this being cyclic in nature, if you
were to pick nits, it would be dynamic. Is this of VERY little affect?
Depends on the amount of original mass intended for this bridge. Let's
say our block weighs 2 million tons. The amount of dynamic load from
the moisture, drying cycle is almost imperceptable, thus for all
intents and purposes, we assume and design the load as static. Okay,
let's now assume the block weighs a few ounces. Is the moisture now
insignificant? Nope, not by a long shot. THEN we would assume that load
to be dynamic and design the structure for such. Hence: The dynamic
loads applied to that particular bridge by people walking across it are
insignificant because of the massive static load of the water. I'd bet
a lot of money that the only dynamic loads assigned to their analysis
would be wind, earthquake, ponding from rain, snow, and other
significant live loads like if the water rises during rainy seasons,
etc.

Spin it anyway you want Bass, but you remain wrong, including on the
displacement issue. And you do not account for the ever changing
forces caused by boat wakes.

But believe what you want.

BTW: I have never heard of picking nits. Is that a local saying?

JimH wrote:
Spin it anyway you want Bass, but you remain wrong, including on the
displacement issue. And you do not account for the ever changing
forces caused by boat wakes.

But believe what you want.

BTW: I have never heard of picking nits. Is that a local saying?

nitpicking? Never?

It's not what I believe, it's what is right! The "ever changing forces
caused by boat wakes" is irrelevant. The bottom of the raised canal is
a shear plane, and thus has been designed as a diaphram.

JimH wrote:
JimH wrote:
Spin it anyway you want Bass, but you remain wrong, including on the
displacement issue. And you do not account for the ever changing
forces caused by boat wakes.

But believe what you want.

BTW: I have never heard of picking nits. Is that a local saying?



--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

Spin it anyway you want Bass, but you remain wrong, including on the
displacement issue. And you do not account for the ever changing
forces caused by boat wakes.

But believe what you want.

BTW: I have never heard of picking nits. Is that a local saying?

Nit Picking and Picking nits are both fairly common expressions.

--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
news
JimH wrote:
JimH wrote:
Spin it anyway you want Bass, but you remain wrong, including on the
displacement issue. And you do not account for the ever changing
forces caused by boat wakes.

But believe what you want.

BTW: I have never heard of picking nits. Is that a local saying?



--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

Spin it anyway you want Bass, but you remain wrong, including on the
displacement issue. And you do not account for the ever changing
forces caused by boat wakes.

But believe what you want.

BTW: I have never heard of picking nits. Is that a local saying?

Nit Picking and Picking nits are both fairly common expressions.

--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

Nitpicking certainly is. I have never before heard anyone use the
expression 'picking nits' though.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:47:36 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
news
JimH wrote:
JimH wrote:
Spin it anyway you want Bass, but you remain wrong, including on the
displacement issue. And you do not account for the ever changing
forces caused by boat wakes.

But believe what you want.

BTW: I have never heard of picking nits. Is that a local saying?



--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

Spin it anyway you want Bass, but you remain wrong, including on the
displacement issue. And you do not account for the ever changing
forces caused by boat wakes.

But believe what you want.

BTW: I have never heard of picking nits. Is that a local saying?

Nit Picking and Picking nits are both fairly common expressions.

--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

Nitpicking certainly is. I have never before heard anyone use the
expression 'picking nits' though.


You need to get out and do some traveling - meet some people and talk to
them.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************