Thick a two short rebars.

You can take the stoopid out of the damn but you can't take the stupid out of the damned socialists.

it reminds me of the Aberfan joyfest. Lord Robens and the dark dumboes.

I wonder why they don't close all the nuclear power generators before they start making these damn repairs. Think of the money they could waste.

I gave up half way through. This has to be one of the worst technical presentations I have ever seen. I'm sure the guy was on top of all the facts, just a pity he didn't structure his explanation for the rest of us.

Wasn't it a Reagan dam?

Couldn't face enough of the video to reach any connection with Aberfan.

And where does nuclear power come into it? (I do recall Lady Marshall observing that there was so much rebar in the Sizewell B structures that she couldn't see how there was room for the aggregate to get through).

So: How thick should concrete be at the bottom of a four hundred and sixty foot waterfall? Or should I structure the question for the rest of your head? When will you get it together, please.

You will never get planning permission for this and the water bill will be huge. Brian

Stupid question. It depends on what is behind it.

not helped by the fact that I am 2 minutes in, and I still haven't the f*ck idea what the actual subject is

Oh now we are shown a weather forecast - Why?

Nope 3 minutes in, I have given up

was this some jerk trying to sell us an overpriced product? That's what videos full of waffle usually are!

tim

Not just me, then.

I'd assumed it was a genuine (if poor) attempt to comment by someone who had been somehow involved at Oroville. I infer from Weatherlawyer's post that towards the end he *might* be saying something like

"Look how thin the spillway concrete was at the point where it failed".

But we know it must have been inadequate, othewise it would not have failed.

The interesting question is *why* it failed.

Had it been subjected to "beyond design basis" loading? (like Fukushima) Were the design assumptions unreasonable, or flawed? Were there design errors? Were there errors in the input assumptions (for example geological conditions)? Was it built to design? Did the constructors *deliberately* deviate from drawings? Did the constructors think they had followed drawings, but in fact failed to for reasons perhaps out of their control? Did the dam operators take the slipway beyond its design intent?

Early pictures seemed to show that the spillway had been undermined before it failed. ie there is errosion above the failure point.

Bit of a rock and hard place. With a reservior getting dangerously full and likely to get fuller, which would you choose? A large but controlled release down a spillway that may not withstand it. Or a lesser release and high probabilty that the dam will fail...

Nice to find someone who had been watching developments with it. From what little I could see of the cross sections of the spillway ramp the concrete looked rather thin (decent thickness of rebar or not.)

That's better than the Ikea joke but what isn't?

What happened with the dam is that with the usual nepotism or simony endemi c in a socialist state, money was diverted like water. Then due to the turb ulence and further rapacious neglect all sorts of further problems develope d so that with the weather playing catch-up after several years drought, th e s*it hit the turbines.

At a thin enough point turbulence in the outflow walked the delamination of the concrete upwards but the flow fell off just in time to stop the tearin g out of the surface before it got to the top.

Elsewhere, inside the lake and on the other outflow, the rock subsurface cr umbled. The sociopaths running the Water and electric company services had to have a clause in the contracts of employment forbidding the taking of pi ctures. They sacked several emergency workers for putting some online.

That is what happened in a nutshell.

I was wondering why they didn't put that geo-something carpeting? along the spillway or weld a load of steel plates together and drop on the ramp. Wasn't all they had to do: Stop the water washing it away?

Not exactly an edifying effort nor an inspired command of the calamity as far as publicity ran, it ran amok untethered and violently prodded up the jacksy. Just goes to show that when the actors get into politics the show must go badly.

Rather a lot of water going down the spillway, 1000 cu metres a second? Anything not *VERY* securely fixed wouldn't stay there and any tiny gap wouldn't stay a tiny gap for long.