RE: [asa] Re: Slug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 1:45 PM
> To: glennmorton@entouch.net
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Slug
> I have no problem admitting that I did not know that the
> break that filled the Mediterranean was not at the current
> strait. But why will you insist on a 1000 m deep break when
> even what you quote indicates 1000 feet?

Typo. In China, we deal in meters, and I got used to that. I screwed up.

I will grant that,
> with the Mediterranean basin nearly full, the flow could have
> slowed to 15 mph. Will you recognize that a 1000-foot head of
> water must flow faster? If a terrorist were to blow up Hoover
> Dam, would the flow be no more than 15 mph? Would an ocean
> rather than a lake influence the flow?

The fastest measured waterflow on land that I have been able to document is

>
> You try to correct my figure for the flow at Niagara. The
> river above the falls flows at 40 km/hr, faster below the
> falls. Both places there is water behind pushing and water
> before holding the flow back. At the edge of the falls the
> velocity is 68 km/hr with the water less than 10 m deep.
> That's because there is nothing pushing back. Were the head
> greater, would the speed of the flow be affected?

While I thought I had heard a very fast velocity during the break spoken
about on a television program about the Messinian dam break, in the
scientific literature I have been unable to find any evidence for vastly
higher velocities. My database has no such information and I have lots of
info on this period of geologic history.

I asked a canoeing board about it and got this reply from a Tom Cloud:
From the American Red Cross CANOEING first edition 1956
page 351: "For many years the engineers of the United
States Geological
Survey have been instructed to report maximum stream
velocities in
excess of 20 feet per second. (Easily done by lowering a
little
propeller-device into the water). From 1929 through 1954
only 6 reports
were received :
1) 22.11fps (15mph) Little Colorado @ Grand Falls, AZ
2) 22.4 15.2 Potomac @ Chain Bridge D.C.
3) 22.26 15.1 Brazos River near Waco, TX
4) 24.59 16.7 Caney Fork near Rock Island, TN
5) 20.23 13.76 North Santiam near Detroit, Oregon
6) 23.98 16.3 Iron River near White Pine. Michigan

I then found this in the literature:

" "Less than 1 percent of the total measurements exceeded 13
feet per second. The highest velocity known to have been recorded
with a current meter by the U.S. Geological Survey was 22.4 feet
per second in a rockbound section of the Potomac River at Chain
Bridge near Washington, D.C., on May 14, 1932. Velocities of 30
feet per second (20 miles per hour) have been reported but were not
measured by current meter. No greater values are known."
Luna B. Leopold, A View of the River, (London, England: Harvard
University Press, 1994), p. 33

Now, I have seen higher values cited on the web, but they appear not to have
been actual measurements. If you know of a higher velocity actually measured
by some physical means, I would be delighted to stand corrected.

Now, I just did some more research and I think your 68 km/s value you told
me privately is absolutely false. Why? Becaue I think that value applies
only to the velocity of the water after it falls over the gorge. The river
velocity is much smaller.

"The sheer force of Niagara Falls is absolutely breathtaking. The speed of
the 12,000 year-old Niagara River at the crest of the Horseshoe Falls is 20
miles per hour, with approximately 600,000 gallons of water flowing over the
width of the crestline every second. The height of the Horseshoe Falls is
173 feet to the plunge pool at the base of the
Falls."http://www.profsurv.com/archive.php?issue=72&article=1008

And

The speed of the Niagara River at the crest of the Horseshoe Falls is 20
miles (32km/h) per hour. The height of the Horseshoe Falls is 53 meters (173
feet) ...
www.iaw.on.ca/~falls/cataract.html

And

The speed of the Niagara River at the crest of the Horseshoe Falls is 20-22
miles per hour (32-35km/h). Ninety (90%) percent of all the river water
flows ...
www.iaw.on.ca/~falls/faq.html

Or from the USGS
"In the Niagara River, spawning occurs in May andJune at water temperatures
of 61-64°F.In typical spawning areas in theriver, the current velocity is
approximately 0.7 ft per sec;"
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:DdLbVFqqUA8J:www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/at
las/volumes/volume10.pdf+USGS+niagara+river+velocity&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=
1

That is about 1/2 mile per hour.

Now, one can't have a 68 km/hr (42 mph) in a river that is running at only
20 mph unless there are big gaps in the water or it is applying to the speed
with which the water hits the bottom of the falls. So, can you document
from a credible source your claim that the velocity must be higher. From
all I have seen the maximum water velocity on earth is around 20-25 mph
because of friction--remembr that word?

I think your misconception of the speed of Niagara falls is another
misconception on your part. Maybe instead of wanting me to be wrong you
should listen to me a bit more.

>
> And yes, I want you wrong. To that end I have pointed out
> that some of the objections you make to a Mesopotamian flood
> apply to your Mediterranean flood, with perhaps a little
> longer walk. But neither of us has proved a contradiction in
> the opposing views. It's probably time to desist. Dave

Well, I am glad that you acknowledge that you want me to be wrong. You are
honest and I can appreciate that. Indeed, I love it when people are brutally
honest rather than being illogical or polite. However, you keep spouting
scientific nonsense like the speed of the falls is 68 km/hour. Think about
it. The river flows less than 20 mph but you want the water at the crest to
be going 3 times that amount? That make a big space problem. The water
must thin or the water must break and there be gaps between walls of water,
or it must be a fiction.

Yes, it is a longer walk for my flood than for Dick's. But is the
alternative that you want (that the flood is false) really such a boon to
Christianity? If it is false, we have this great big important false story
in our sacred text for which we should be embarassed, but apparently aren't.
If it is false, I would feel it is as embarassing as those Hindu texts which
claim that 24000 years ago mankind was on the moon.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:29:37 -0500