• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth
#2
Let me focus first on the science/engineering behind the following statements:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The most devastating comment on the project comes from Dr. Tad S. Murthy: "I like this (Setusamudram) project but there is a flaw. The entrance to the channel should be re-oriented towards the eastern side. Otherwise, there is a chance that it may create a deepwater route for another devastating tsunami. This may cause huge destruction in Kerala." Let me explain why the warning should be taken seriously.

During the last tsunami, the Ramar bridge (at a high elevation) from the rest of the shoal accumulations acted as a natural barrier preventing the direct devastation of the entire Indian coastline south and southwest of Nagapattinam.

This shows the spread of the massive displacement of waters displaced by the plate tectonic event at Aceh. The spread was dosing the southern Tamil Nadu coastline, circled the entire Sri Lanka island and moved partially into Kerala and towards the Ramar bridge. This circling around Sri Lanka occurred because the Ramar bridge acted as a natural shoal barrier preventing the inflow of waters.

If a Setusamudram channel is dug through the bridge, it will act as a channel for the waters to flow directly into the entire southern Indian coastline beyond Dhanush-kodi and into the coastline of Kerala right into the Konkan region. The devastation will be incalculable.

This clearly shows how Ramar bridge (Ram Setu) had acted as 'a high wall' and, in fact, saved most of the coastline west and northwest of Dhanushkodi from devastation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


DID the immersed sandbank (which is what the "Ramar Bridge" is) in fact have any appreciable effect on the tsunami or its severity? And will a 300 m shallow channel cut into it, have any effect on that?

I frankly don't see how. Elsewhere I read that this channel is only going to be deep enough to allow 10 ton cargoes to go through, which maybe means a ship drawing maybe 10 m?

Let us assume that the channel is 300 m wide, and it is 20 m deep. That's 6000 square meters area, increased from the present 3000 square meters. A net increase of 3000 sq.m.

Compare that to the area needed for a 1m increase in water height over a coastline of, say, 300 km. That would be 300,000 sq. m.

So let us assume that the tsunami zips through the channel at 1000 m/sec. (ha ha!) It will then, according to the Law of Conservation of Mass, crash ashore at an awesome 1000*3000/300,000 = 10 m/s = 22.37 mph. With a height of 3 feet. Devastating all of South India with its sheer mass of garbage.
But really, the channel is perpendicular to the path of any "expected" tsunami - viz, ones from the Aceh fault.

And - the channel is actually in the lee of Sri Lanka. So exactly WHERE is the tsunami coming from?

Let's see - the velocity through the channel must be the component (at about 80 degrees) of the backwash from the tsunami hitting the TamilNadu coast.

So - the 1000 m/s must be UCos(80) where U is tsunami speed hitting the TN coast. So U is at least 5758 m/s = 12,882 mph. Oh, yeah! And we should be worried about the 23 mph, 1 m high wave lapping ashore on the Kerala coast, shouldn't we?

IOW, I must be missing something huge. What is it?




Messages In This Thread
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by narayanan - 03-10-2007, 08:25 PM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-10-2007, 09:02 PM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-11-2007, 01:00 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-11-2007, 01:43 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-11-2007, 02:31 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-11-2007, 07:31 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-11-2007, 08:59 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-11-2007, 10:02 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-11-2007, 01:25 PM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-11-2007, 03:27 PM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-11-2007, 04:19 PM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-11-2007, 10:13 PM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-12-2007, 01:24 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-12-2007, 06:11 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-12-2007, 06:25 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-12-2007, 08:30 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-12-2007, 10:22 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-13-2007, 04:09 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-13-2007, 05:15 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-13-2007, 05:55 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-13-2007, 09:04 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-13-2007, 10:37 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-15-2007, 12:34 AM
Sethusamudram Project Facts Vs. Myth - by Guest - 03-22-2007, 07:59 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)