How exactly will Taiwan torpedo the dam?

"T3" wrote in message
. com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made
that
the
structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine
dams
mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to
surmise
that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to
resist
the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course,
we
could
get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of
the
structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I
believe
you
have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185
meters
and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom
measurement
in
the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing
cross
section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case,
but
it
will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually
provides
the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built).

You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain
cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project*
is
the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam
structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera.

I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip
in
terms of actual numbers. And as i told you above, yes, assuming a linear
relationship between the toe and crest of the dam is not going to be
completely accurate--but it does provide a pretty good working number in
the
absence of any actual dimensions for cross sectional structural depth at
various ordinates. If you have those precise numbers, please provide
them.


Overall, you've overestimated the volume of concrete used in the dam
itself by at *least* a factor of two.

Show why, and be specific; the 26 mil cm figure is the only one I came
across in a quick search.


That throws all of your other guesswork right out the window.

LOL! Coming from a guy who postulated the use of a shaped charge
(giggle-snort!) to penetrate said dam, the use of the term "guesswork"
is
a
real hoot...

Now, when you can show that the Taiwanese have a possible realistic
retaliatory strike capability that allows them to actually breach that
puppy, show us; otherwise your claims remain in Rambo Land.

Brooks


Kevin, they don't even have to come close to breaching it. Weaken it,
water
is relentless, it'll find a way through....
T3

This is all about posing a credible military threat. You are right in saying
they don't have to breach it--much easier to take out the generating
station, or substations, powerlines, locks, etc. Those things are all
conceivable. Breaching it, as a military reponse to a PRC invasion/attack,
is not.

Brooks