Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

george

1,000 Boats To Push Flood Waters From Chao Phraya River

1,009 posts in this topic

Say there ResX just curious what university?

edit - sorry, which university?

I'm not an academician. Not in Thailand.

Let me try to build up a simple idealized model regarding the subject we are currently discussing. We know that the current flow of CP river is 420 X 10^6m3 (4861m3/s). Assuming we can build a surface water tunnel (2km wide) right from Bhumibol dam up to the river mouth. The total distance is 500km (I just made up a number). At the Bhumibol side, water level elevation is 250m above sea level. Near river water level elevation is 2 m from the upper flow level and exactly zero from the riverbed. The water velocity for full laminar flow is 1.22m/s (it is definitely laminar anyway) . Don't worry I have calculated it for you the water velocity is correct. Note that too that the only driving force that that moves a huge amount of water is PRESSURE GRADIENT, assuming you can take for granted gravitational acceleration is there. :D.

I ask you a question: Why the water moves from the Bhumibol dam to its river mouth? If you answer because of the gravity, then I will give you half of the scores. Why? Because the water inside the glass of the Bhumibol staff does not make up the river mouth. The right answer is because of the present of pressure gradient 250 meter for every 500km horizontal distance (Hydraulic gradient =0.5m/km) and nothing stops the water to flow down due to gravitational force.

We let the water flow undisturbed. It flows down in harmony at the speed of 1.22m/s as long as 4,861m3/s is supplied by the Bhumibol dam. Let us start it from here the effect adding kinetic energy to the flow. First experiment. Let put the pump at the outlet. Let us assume the pump has discharge capability of 1000m3/s. I don't to put a boat for this test to prevent the other the other debated subject to enter into this conceptual discussion. What will happen next?

Anybody wish to try? Note that the actual scenario is definitely not as simple as this idealized model. But the Physics laws do not change just because the system of equations become more complex.

No prize for the right answer.

Hint: Please don't solve using the second order differential equation and using Navier -Stokes Equations. They are not required to solve this type of problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"equilibrium will be eventually restored by that mechanism and zero percent of that energy will add to the net downstream energy"

So please explain why, when these boats are no longer anchored or tied to other boats that are anchored, they will start to move upstream.

An untied boat will move in reaction to the thrust. When thrust is removed the boat will come to rest after a few boat lengths, not coast for miles. The water thrust aft by the prop will also quickly stop moving aft and curve away from the thrust line as I already described because it is not contained in any way. It makes no difference if this takes place on a lake or a river nor the direction of thrust or whether the boat is tied or not. The flow rate of the river simply cannot be increased by this method as all of the kinetic energy added either flows in a circle or is dissipated as heat.

"The boats will move in reaction to the thrust" Correct! Newton's Third Law of Motion. Exactly my point.

So when the boats are anchored, the "thrust" as you call it cannot push the boats upstream. Where does it go? It goes into the water and pushes it downstream. This is Newton's Second law: the acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force and inversely proportional to the mass.

You say this water will stop moving aft and will curve away from the thrust line. Why? This is Newton's First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. In this case the "body" is water molecules colliding with slower water molecules.

Finally, a consequence of the law of conservation of energy that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. So the fast moving water molecules bash into the slower ones, giving them some energy. The fast ones slow down, the slow ones speed up.

It may look like "dissipation" but in fact the energy is still in the water - it has simply spread out, and the water is moving quicker, although after a few metres it'd be hard to detect. But the ability to detect this minute increase in speed is not the issue.

The issue is that the water will be moving quicker.

The other aspect of this discussion is the effectiveness of this theory. I think we can all agree that the minute amount of extra energy being added to the river is so small compared to the huge mass of water that it has to act upon, that its effectiveness in reducing flooding is virtually zero - not quite zero, but very close.

On the other hand, if some people are sleeping a little happier in their semi-submerged homes believing that the government is doing everything it can to help them, then that is a good thing. Let the boats carry on, let the people feel happier.

And now, :mfr_closed1:

:intheclub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic should be closed: they came they tried and had no effect (that anyone can see). Are they still using the boats to push the water? No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a bunch of wanke_rs you lot are

100% correct. they have totally hijacked and destroyed the thread. ResX has gone from not knowing anything at the start to now seeming to profess to hold a PhD in hydrodynamics. The whole thread for the last 15 pages is complete arse. It is like being in a pub watching a bunch of pi**heads trying to solve the question to life and the Universe. Utter drivel and the thread should have been moved to the farang pub forum days ago.

I think you are right,mate.I also think,that ResX holds phd.

Close to but yet there. Master degree is a little bit too low, since to date 2 phd students used to seek my advice in their works. A few phd holders asked my advice too. But in one specific area that I'm very good at about surface water flow management.

To correct the statement that one of our friends made about me. No I did not learn about hydro dynamics over the last one week. I can recall it correctly. It is exactly 31 years 6 months.:D

I was being flippant about your qualifications ResX. If what you say is even remotely true then I am afraid it just makes matters even worse. If you possess any form of scientific background then you would not make such ridiculous statements, assumptions and "just making number up". Your approach to the entire problem concerning the OP is completely absolutely wrong, and the assumptions you make and attempt to solve the problem using the most basic and fundamental maths and equations proves without doubt you have no grasp on the complexities involved with the solution of the problem. Because of that it is a waste of bandwith, time and energy wading through the thread. I can only come to one of two conclusions, a) you are trolling to try and wind people up by continuing to come up with non applicable physics and statements, or you really believe that you are on to something...you are not. Sorry, this is hard, but it's fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"equilibrium will be eventually restored by that mechanism and zero percent of that energy will add to the net downstream energy"

So please explain why, when these boats are no longer anchored or tied to other boats that are anchored, they will start to move upstream.

An untied boat will move in reaction to the thrust. When thrust is removed the boat will come to rest after a few boat lengths, not coast for miles. The water thrust aft by the prop will also quickly stop moving aft and curve away from the thrust line as I already described because it is not contained in any way. It makes no difference if this takes place on a lake or a river nor the direction of thrust or whether the boat is tied or not. The flow rate of the river simply cannot be increased by this method as all of the kinetic energy added either flows in a circle or is dissipated as heat.

"The boats will move in reaction to the thrust" Correct! Newton's Third Law of Motion. Exactly my point.

So when the boats are anchored, the "thrust" as you call it cannot push the boats upstream. Where does it go? It goes into the water and pushes it downstream. This is Newton's Second law: the acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force and inversely proportional to the mass.

You say this water will stop moving aft and will curve away from the thrust line. Why? This is Newton's First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. In this case the "body" is water molecules colliding with slower water molecules.

Finally, a consequence of the law of conservation of energy that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. So the fast moving water molecules bash into the slower ones, giving them some energy. The fast ones slow down, the slow ones speed up.

It may look like "dissipation" but in fact the energy is still in the water - it has simply spread out, and the water is moving quicker, although after a few metres it'd be hard to detect. But the ability to detect this minute increase in speed is not the issue.

The issue is that the water will be moving quicker.

The other aspect of this discussion is the effectiveness of this theory. I think we can all agree that the minute amount of extra energy being added to the river is so small compared to the huge mass of water that it has to act upon, that its effectiveness in reducing flooding is virtually zero - not quite zero, but very close.

On the other hand, if some people are sleeping a little happier in their semi-submerged homes believing that the government is doing everything it can to help them, then that is a good thing. Let the boats carry on, let the people feel happier.

And now, :mfr_closed1:

:intheclub:

You get it all right here mate. This is no longer the debating issue as I suggested a few days back. If anybody believes that it it only works for the first 10m and after that the water velocity returns to its original velocity, then he or she manages to destroy energy. This is a new innovation that we cannot comment. It is too advanced beyond the boundary that we can comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"equilibrium will be eventually restored by that mechanism and zero percent of that energy will add to the net downstream energy"

So please explain why, when these boats are no longer anchored or tied to other boats that are anchored, they will start to move upstream.

An untied boat will move in reaction to the thrust. When thrust is removed the boat will come to rest after a few boat lengths, not coast for miles. The water thrust aft by the prop will also quickly stop moving aft and curve away from the thrust line as I already described because it is not contained in any way. It makes no difference if this takes place on a lake or a river nor the direction of thrust or whether the boat is tied or not. The flow rate of the river simply cannot be increased by this method as all of the kinetic energy added either flows in a circle or is dissipated as heat.

"The boats will move in reaction to the thrust" Correct! Newton's Third Law of Motion. Exactly my point.

So when the boats are anchored, the "thrust" as you call it cannot push the boats upstream. Where does it go? It goes into the water and pushes it downstream. This is Newton's Second law: the acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force and inversely proportional to the mass.

You say this water will stop moving aft and will curve away from the thrust line. Why? This is Newton's First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. In this case the "body" is water molecules colliding with slower water molecules.

Finally, a consequence of the law of conservation of energy that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. So the fast moving water molecules bash into the slower ones, giving them some energy. The fast ones slow down, the slow ones speed up.

It may look like "dissipation" but in fact the energy is still in the water - it has simply spread out, and the water is moving quicker, although after a few metres it'd be hard to detect. But the ability to detect this minute increase in speed is not the issue.

The issue is that the water will be moving quicker.

The other aspect of this discussion is the effectiveness of this theory. I think we can all agree that the minute amount of extra energy being added to the river is so small compared to the huge mass of water that it has to act upon, that its effectiveness in reducing flooding is virtually zero - not quite zero, but very close.

On the other hand, if some people are sleeping a little happier in their semi-submerged homes believing that the government is doing everything it can to help them, then that is a good thing. Let the boats carry on, let the people feel happier.

And now, :mfr_closed1:

:intheclub:

You get it all right here mate. This is no longer the debating issue as I suggested a few days back. If anybody believes that it it only works for the first 10m and after that the water velocity returns to its original velocity, then he or she manages to destroy energy. This is a new innovation that we cannot comment. It is too advanced beyond the boundary that we can comprehend.

There you go again! You seem to think that by applying a certain amount of energy your water system will retain that energy in the form of its forward momentum for ever. You are displaying a total lack of understanding of any of the laws of momentum, energy and thermal dynamics. Stop Trolling!post-4641-1156693976.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a bunch of wanke_rs you lot are

Too deep for you nocturn? Feeling left behind :rolleyes: , I'm guessing yes :whistling: ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody believes that it it only works for the first 10m and after that the water velocity returns to its original velocity, then he or she manages to destroy energy. This is a new innovation that we cannot comment. It is too advanced beyond the boundary that we can comprehend.

No energy is destroyed

all of the kinetic energy added either flows in a circle or is dissipated as heat.

This is not a new innovation but it is apparently beyond your comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a bunch of wanke_rs you lot are

100% correct. they have totally hijacked and destroyed the thread. ResX has gone from not knowing anything at the start to now seeming to profess to hold a PhD in hydrodynamics. The whole thread for the last 15 pages is complete arse. It is like being in a pub watching a bunch of pi**heads trying to solve the question to life and the Universe. Utter drivel and the thread should have been moved to the farang pub forum days ago.

Oh dear, another one who'e feeling left behind and whinging about it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"equilibrium will be eventually restored by that mechanism and zero percent of that energy will add to the net downstream energy"

So please explain why, when these boats are no longer anchored or tied to other boats that are anchored, they will start to move upstream.

An untied boat will move in reaction to the thrust. When thrust is removed the boat will come to rest after a few boat lengths, not coast for miles. The water thrust aft by the prop will also quickly stop moving aft and curve away from the thrust line as I already described because it is not contained in any way. It makes no difference if this takes place on a lake or a river nor the direction of thrust or whether the boat is tied or not. The flow rate of the river simply cannot be increased by this method as all of the kinetic energy added either flows in a circle or is dissipated as heat.

You keep focusing exclusively on the thrust that a prop creates on a boat in motion and completely disregarding the volume of water pushed past a stationary boat by the propellers..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elevation which can be artificially reproduced with an a accelerant such as a pump..

Quite so because water is incompressible however in our case of the moored boats both intake and output of the 'pump' remain within the river. The effect is then creating a depression in river elevation at the pump intake and creating an upward bulge at the outlet. The high pressure bulge forces water outward in ALL directions equally and the accelerated water flows in a 3D loop back into the depression created upstream at the intake. Zero water is accelerated directly downstream for any significant distance - it ALL curves back toward the low pressure area.

That only applies in magnitude in a static body of water not in a flowing river as the water continues to flow downstream with momentum just at a quicker pace, there will be some backflow but it is minimal in relation to the added downstream flow...

Agree with WarpSpeed. Additionally, water 'flows into a 3D loop back into the depression upstream of the intake'? Are we talking meteorology here? Would that be tropical depression? The law of inertia have been suspended as well to support this? The accelerated water has mass, velocity and direction. If it didn't, boats could not be propelled efficiently, or at all.

I've been out of it folks due to a sprained ankle. Have been loosely following things and have been working on my energy model which is based on an ideal situation, to reduce nattering, what I consider, unimportant details. I don't want to post all the details/math in this post, but will give a summary:

500 boats delivering 1000 HP at propeller output (not at shaft input and addresses ONLY the Chao Phraya river - not the other two).

This simplifies/eliminates distractions such as fuel-to-engine efficiency, propeller efficiency, etc which I consider to be separate issues.

Recent flow-rate for Chao Phraya at 420 x 106 m3/day

Speed of Chao Phraya river used: 1 m/second - This is an estimate and, perhaps, too low/slow.

Changes in this value are a square factor by the kinetic energy formula and will have a large affect the total KE of the river and the total KE percentage increase by the total 500,000 HP (at propeller output, not engine HP).

========> Kinetic energy of river is increased by about 15%

Note: If most of the kinetic energy added is directed with the current flow and there is minimal loss of energy due to transformation to heat and energy does not 'disappear', then (since the mass of the water has not changed) the energy increase of the river water can only be manifested only as a higher velocity of the river water.

Incidentally, given the above parameters, several of you could apply the KE formula to validate the 15% result. HP-to-Joules conversion that I used is: 1 HP = 746 Joules (from an internet converter).

500,000 HP, directly into the Chao Phraya has got to have some effect, wouldn't you think? I let you folks kick around what that effect would/might be.

Comments?

Well done Max!! :clap2::thumbsup: Tried to hold down the fort while you were gone, good to have you back take care of that ankle..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 788   Posted · Hidden by metisdead, October 21, 2011 - colors

========> Kinetic energy of river is increased by about 15%

Note: If most of the kinetic energy added is directed with the current flow and there is minimal loss of energy due to transformation to heat and energy does not 'disappear', then (since the mass of the water has not changed) the energy increase of the river water can only be manifested only as a higher velocity of the river water.

500,000 HP, directly into the Chao Phraya has got to have some effect, wouldn't you think? I let you folks kick around what that effect would/might be.

Comments?

Kinetic energy of river is increased by about 15% - No it isn't. You are taking a massively simplistic view of the dynamics of the river. So does that mean by getting 4000 boats with a 1000hp output we can increase the Kinetic energy of the river by over 100% (120% in fact)??

If most of the kinetic energy added is directed with the current flow (The current flow is not linear) and there is minimal loss of energy due to transformation to heat (you are making an assumption that you cannot make - did you look at the photo of the Thermai imaging of prop wash?) and energy does not 'disappear' (wrong terminology, it will transform, you will have all the wannabe pseudo geeks jumping on you saying "energy can't disappear"), then (since the mass of the water has not changed) the energy increase of the river water can only be manifested only as a higher velocity of the river water (no and certainly not to any practical, measurable purpose, and that is the whole point. In this case that academic miniscule changes that a mathematician could maybe come up with at the end of 1 week or month in front of a chalk board would show no practical benefit or measurement is possible).

500,000 HP, directly into the Chao Phraya has got to have some effect, wouldn't you think? No!

Oh, my aching ankle! All this red is making me think of blood. I'll address your comment later when I've overcome my nausea.

Yes, impossible to respond to that intermixed rubbish..

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe they're using the wrong kind of boats. What they should be using is 1,000 stern wheel paddle steamers.

.

I see many well intentioned efforts in this thread at calculating the river flow characteristics. I note also that the Thai government has a large hydrology department devoted to the study and management of Thailands river systems, although they don't seem to have much to say on the present situation. The fact is that this kind of flooding is beyond the scope of simple calculation. The only realistic way to predict the progress of this kind of flooding is to look at records of previous flooding events and to extrapolate from that.

There's another aspect of this situation that seems to have attracted little attention so far. If the water treatment and sewage treatment works of a city are inundated you can rapidly find yourself without either drinking water or working sewers. In a city of 12m people that's not a good thing. Also, I know that the MRT was designed to resist flooding events, but if the flooding gets out of control this too could be in danger.

All good points...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic should be closed: they came they tried and had no effect (that anyone can see). Are they still using the boats to push the water? No?

They said they were keeping it going for at least a couple of weeks more from this news.

Water Drainage by Boats to Continue until Month's End

Officials expect that the strategy of using boats' propellers to accelerate the drainage of water out to the sea will be required through the end of October due to runoffs from the North and rain, which will continue to cause water levels to rise.

tanlogo.jpg

-- Tan Network 2011-10-17

footer_n.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 791   Posted · Hidden by metisdead, October 21, 2011 - colors

========> Kinetic energy of river is increased by about 15%

Note: If most of the kinetic energy added is directed with the current flow and there is minimal loss of energy due to transformation to heat and energy does not 'disappear', then (since the mass of the water has not changed) the energy increase of the river water can only be manifested only as a higher velocity of the river water.

500,000 HP, directly into the Chao Phraya has got to have some effect, wouldn't you think? I let you folks kick around what that effect would/might be.

Comments?

Kinetic energy of river is increased by about 15% - No it isn't. You are taking a massively simplistic view of the dynamics of the river. So does that mean by getting 4000 boats with a 1000hp output we can increase the Kinetic energy of the river by over 100% (120% in fact)??

If most of the kinetic energy added is directed with the current flow (The current flow is not linear) and there is minimal loss of energy due to transformation to heat (you are making an assumption that you cannot make - did you look at the photo of the Thermai imaging of prop wash?) and energy does not 'disappear' (wrong terminology, it will transform, you will have all the wannabe pseudo geeks jumping on you saying "energy can't disappear"), then (since the mass of the water has not changed) the energy increase of the river water can only be manifested only as a higher velocity of the river water (no and certainly not to any practical, measurable purpose, and that is the whole point. In this case that academic miniscule changes that a mathematician could maybe come up with at the end of 1 week or month in front of a chalk board would show no practical benefit or measurement is possible).

500,000 HP, directly into the Chao Phraya has got to have some effect, wouldn't you think? No!

Oh, my aching ankle! All this red is making me think of blood. I'll address your comment later when I've overcome my nausea.

Yes, impossible to respond to that intermixed rubbish..

So let me get this straight. You guys claim to be trying to solve an incredibly complex mathematical problem (by using the most basic of models, most ridiculous assumptions and blatant ignoring of systems that would affect the outcome), but you can read a statement from Max in Black and a response from me in Red. The mind truly boggles. IQ's definitely in double figures.

Share this post


Link to post

100% correct. they have totally hijacked and destroyed the thread. ResX has gone from not knowing anything at the start to now seeming to profess to hold a PhD in hydrodynamics. The whole thread for the last 15 pages is complete arse. It is like being in a pub watching a bunch of pi**heads trying to solve the question to life and the Universe. Utter drivel and the thread should have been moved to the farang pub forum days ago.

I think you are right,mate.I also think,that ResX holds phd.

Close to but yet there. Master degree is a little bit too low, since to date 2 phd students used to seek my advice in their works. A few phd holders asked my advice too. But in one specific area that I'm very good at about surface water flow management.

To correct the statement that one of our friends made about me. No I did not learn about hydro dynamics over the last one week. I can recall it correctly. It is exactly 31 years 6 months.:D

I was being flippant about your qualifications ResX. If what you say is even remotely true then I am afraid it just makes matters even worse. If you possess any form of scientific background then you would not make such ridiculous statements, assumptions and "just making number up". Your approach to the entire problem concerning the OP is completely absolutely wrong, and the assumptions you make and attempt to solve the problem using the most basic and fundamental maths and equations proves without doubt you have no grasp on the complexities involved with the solution of the problem. Because of that it is a waste of bandwith, time and energy wading through the thread. I can only come to one of two conclusions, a) you are trolling to try and wind people up by continuing to come up with non applicable physics and statements, or you really believe that you are on to something...you are not. Sorry, this is hard, but it's fair.

So instead of ranting and accusing, how's about posting your own counter equations and theories for debate instead? Clearly you have them as you must be using something to make such abrasive and steadfast claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic should be closed: they came they tried and had no effect (that anyone can see). Are they still using the boats to push the water? No?

The topic somehow bothers you? Don't come back then no need to waste your time or bandwidth just to post a nonsensical comment. The forum is for 'discussion' we are discussing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 794   Posted · Hidden by metisdead, October 21, 2011 - colors

Kinetic energy of river is increased by about 15% - No it isn't. You are taking a massively simplistic view of the dynamics of the river. So does that mean by getting 4000 boats with a 1000hp output we can increase the Kinetic energy of the river by over 100% (120% in fact)??

If most of the kinetic energy added is directed with the current flow (The current flow is not linear) and there is minimal loss of energy due to transformation to heat (you are making an assumption that you cannot make - did you look at the photo of the Thermai imaging of prop wash?) and energy does not 'disappear' (wrong terminology, it will transform, you will have all the wannabe pseudo geeks jumping on you saying "energy can't disappear"), then (since the mass of the water has not changed) the energy increase of the river water can only be manifested only as a higher velocity of the river water (no and certainly not to any practical, measurable purpose, and that is the whole point. In this case that academic miniscule changes that a mathematician could maybe come up with at the end of 1 week or month in front of a chalk board would show no practical benefit or measurement is possible).

500,000 HP, directly into the Chao Phraya has got to have some effect, wouldn't you think? No!

Oh, my aching ankle! All this red is making me think of blood. I'll address your comment later when I've overcome my nausea.

Yes, impossible to respond to that intermixed rubbish..

So let me get this straight. You guys claim to be trying to solve an incredibly complex mathematical problem (by using the most basic of models, most ridiculous assumptions and blatant ignoring of systems that would affect the outcome), but you can read a statement from Max in Black and a response from me in Red. The mind truly boggles. IQ's definitely in double figures.

It's not your response in red, it's your 'can't be arsed' way of intermixed quotes that requires way too much time and effort, you avoided using, to suit your own convenience just to weed through them and single them out to respond to. It's a crap way to answer a post by making someone else put in extra effort just to respond because you can't be arsed to post correctly or aren't Internet savvy enough to respond correctly... Poor forum etiquette as some would say.

Share this post


Link to post

Warpspeed

"extra effort" LMAO!

Look, I am not going to even attempt to throw any equations or maths at you. I have said much earlier on that I studied Physic and pure maths. The reason I am not willing to get involved is that you cannot simplify the problem. To make as many assumptions and exclusions as you are (along with the other Three Musketeers) you are discussing a problem that bears no relationship at all to the subject of this post. For the third time I have said this on this thread, it would take a professional applied mathematician between a week and a month of solid work to come up with a 'number' relating to what is happening at 'the river moutn' in terms of 'extra water' that may or may not be spewing out.

This is roughly how I envisage any two of the 'four Musketeers' on this thread, and shows all the reasons why this thread should now be banished to the farang pub forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Riveting discourse you're providing and yes in a debate such as this it is inconsiderate and inconvenient "extra effort" required just to respond to YOUR individual post. If it isn't then WHY didn't you put in the maximum amount of effort to make your point properly :rolleyes: . Instead you put in the minimum amount of effort..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

A sound grasp of Physics and Maths and a huge dose of Common Sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

Ban! :redcard2: Too much logic applied!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ If its all so difficult to calculate how do you know that there is no effect?

A sound grasp of Physics and Maths and a huge dose of Common Sense.

:cheesy: :cheesy: None of which you've applied or shared with us in this thread..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.