Eh, I think it's pretty cool. Plus, it's probably not something I would have heard about otherwise and it's OT season.
Very OT: Norwegians to build Ship Tunnel
No football, no basketball, no hockey, early season baseball. So, I ask you, what the hell are we SUPPOSED to talk about?
Apparently not Norwegian shipping tunnels involving mountain excavation.
Go here: http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/
It is like you made this post, unwittingly, about your own post. Maybe not the worst ever but, judging from the reception, still fairly bad.
And it makes me think of all sorts of other oddly matched things, like train canals and car landing strips and airplane tracks....
I can't tell if this guy is fucking around or not.
[Edit: He is only one guy.]
You must have missed the dog's infected ass-blisters or whatever they were.
I think the one about a dog's anal glands was worse.
I seriously broached this topic at dinner a few nights ago when our dog emitted a funky smell.
My spouse: "Where did you get this information"
Me: "MGoBlog, I think"
Lighten up, Francis. Or is your name Troll? Either way, stop being an asshole.
No, no, didn't you see his disclaimer? "Guaranteed to offend." You are all just waaaayy too sensitive, you overly PC pansies. Dude is clearly a badass, and you just can't handle how real he keeps it.
You should be tarred and feathered for that comment.
is that racist!
someone did not check the link.
It appears to have spurred a robust discussion that is well over my head*, your own comment notwithstanding
*(aquatic pun very much intended)
take a chill pill and ease of the throttle.
edit: Hmm. Apparently I'm very late to this party.
...of this blog as a blog for intelligent, rational people who happen to have am irrational devotion to the same university in all things, sports being the most obvious.
posts about engineering marvels that don't degrade to a stupid debate about corporate yibble yabble and government hoobalidoo are part of the reason why I like this blog.
I think it's damn great.
The displacement limit seems artificially low based on the dimensions of the tunnel itself. Certainly the overhead clearance, beam, and draft numbers cited would afford passage to a larger ship, but there's no mention of curvature that would affect ship length, or not.
I can only think of factors such as navigation outside of the tunnel itself that would limit a ship of greater than 16,000 tonnes.
Is it possible that the addition of a ship and the displaced water inside the tunnel could cause air pressure fluctuations that would be dangerous if too high?
I have no experience in these types of considerations, but certainly this is solvable problem with high-speed rail where clearances are much tighter.
being open. Maybe if the ship went through there incredibly fast it might cause a problem. But they probably have an extremely slow speed limit (less than 10 knots).
I realize displacement and draft aren't exactly correlated, but they're somewhat related. An Arleigh-Burke destroyer is roughly half that displacement (about 8,000 tons, highly dependent on fuel load) and draws about 32-ish feet. No sane ship captain with that big a ship will go where they only have seven feet between hull and bottom, and then you have to consider tides, too. Personally I'm actually surprised the tunnel could fit a 16,000 ton ship. I'm sure they're thinking mostly flat-bottomed ships, but still.
relatively narrow beams, and a lot of equipment both above and below the waterline - thus the 32 foot draft. This canal will probably be used largely for passenger ferries, barge-type craft, and the smaller coastal freighters common in Europe. So, the depth they're building it for is probably pretty safe.
I don't know what a Burke destroyer is but anything that can destroy Burke must be incredibly powerful.
The great lakes seaway has a minimum draft of 27 feet, which lakers use every inch of when full. 32 isn't enough for the largest tankers or container ships, but even the 1000-footers (with a capacity of 50,000+ tons) on the lakes here could take that tunnel without issue.
How long is this supposed to be? That would be the biggest issue, I would think.
I may just have to cruise Norwegian and check it out. Ya know, Vikings and what not..
As a Naval Architect I can say that the dimensions indicate it's meant for not the largest ocean-going ships. 148 feet high and 115 ft. wide would definitely not accomodate most cruise ships and large tankers for example. Also, with that width, they would probably need some sort of breakwaters to make sure there aren't signficant wave action coming through the tunnel that could cause the ship to hit the side by accident. I'm also assuming that there are not significant tides there that could cause the depth of the water to vary too much.
How does one "breakwater"? Is it similar to breaking wind?
I would assume that there would be a lock at each end to eliminate the tidal variations and waves.
Norway. Home to Black Metal and crazy ass construction ideas. It's pretty cool though.
Cool! I like tunnels! I like boats! Combining the two should be sweet! But I imagine it's gonna be tough to hold your breath through the entire tunnel like is required in normal tunnel transit.
So does my dog...
To make this less OT, we could point out that Michigan has a very strong Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering department.
Also, Mark Huyge, former football player, is a Naval Architect.
I'm no expert in correlation and logic but seems to me that Norweigan shipping tunnels are directly related to our offensive line production this season.
Erik Magnuson agrees
1,000 points to you sir
that has a hockey arena built inside a mountain?
If weather is the issue, they are going to need to protect the approaches to then tunnel .... And have lots of fun with pinwheels, propellers, wind chimes, and other noise makers up and down it.
According to one or two other papers, the earliest that they plan to start - if approved - is 2018 and they expect it would take about four years to complete. Interestingly, there are already a few small-scale versions of this which accommodate barges - I've seen the Canal du Midi in France, as an example, and that will accommodate small craft and river barges. This project in Norway is makes for a fascinating read though, and it would be neat to see it happen.
But what's the point? The Norwegian sea and North sea flow into each other
Yea I don't see why this is necessary to build. It would take a whole, I don't know, 20 miles to go around the peninsula. Is saving that little time worth all the money and risk to build the tunnel?
Either way, as an engineer, excited to see how it's being done.
EDIT: I guess the North Sea waters are rougher than I thought. Looks like a big reason is safety, with dozens of accidents and deaths caused near this coastline over the decades.
Somebody posts a random OT about something interesting, and like clockwork one after another regular chimes in with informed, authoritative commentary about something I didn't know anything about before. I pick up a bit about naval engineering and Norway's dangerous coastline, in addition to information about zone blocking and the difference between 3-tech and 5-tech. I should figure out a way to make this tax--deductible as an educational expense.
I hear the engineering-theme thread on Norwegian shipping tunnels over at Eleven Warriors is even more insightful and erudite.
Our country is overflowing with money and this is just the kind of crazy infrastructure project that could only really happen here. I guess it makes some kind of sense given that it could open water ways for the fishing/fish farming industry and hopefully prevent some accidents/deaths. However, I think most countries would prioritize other projects with that kind of money.
Not often Norway gets mentioned on MGoBlog, but this is two mentions in just over a week.