Victoria's water problem.

[Groggy]

I suggest this is worth a discussion at the least, if only to find the flaw - is there one?

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LzXrmioDk9U&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LzXrmioDk9U&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Waldo]

I've got a better solution.

Now, bear in mind I haven't done any environment impact statement or cost analysis (now when does that matter - just ask Dudd) but I reckon we put in a north, south, east and west pipeline from CUB and Lion Nathan breweries etc. in all major capital cities with pipes running straight into the plumbing of all households.

The infrastructure is there already in place. All we need to do is unite as one and lobby your local representatives in local, state and federal politics.

We don't need the okay from the breweries as this is a super tax on them and once Dudd comes on board he will recognise that we should all share in the liquid gold this great nation produces.

Bears thinking doesn't it? :beer:

[m2c1Iw]

Great idea hook it into the Goulburn Valley Pipeline and keep pushing it North. That way you Mexicans will stop pinching all the water from the Murray. :D

Vote #1 for Topher I say.

[Lignum]

Heard him on the radio this afternoon. Put up a good argument. Will be interesting to hear the feedback from the "experts" :)

[Sebastiaan56]

Interesting, I wonder if there is the political will? 5.5 million tax payers (as predicted) will certainly focus the mind.

I watch "Vasili's Garden" when I can. There are lots of people with flourishing gardens in Melbourne but they are very careful with water. But if you've ever lived off a water tank you know about being careful with water.

[Gingermick]

there will be some argument about the effects on the mouth of the streams.
But 200m of head over 360km is less than 1m per 1000m, and when i find some more info on friction and minor losses in large pipes, I shall return, but off to work now :cool:

[Groggy]

The Tasmanian Government seem to have decided to oppose it on the principle that Tasmanian farmers are short of water. This ignores the fact that their problem is one of distribution and not availability, and that selling their water would in fact go a long way to paying for the distribution of it in their State. :cool:

[Jim Carroll]

Sometimes logic gets in the way of a very good plan.

Definatly pass this one on.

[rhancock]

Sometimes physics gets in the way of a good story...:(

[Groggy]

Sometimes physics gets in the way of a good story...:(What is the problem with the proposal Richard, I can't see it?

[rhancock]

I'm a civil engineering student, but I didn't like the water units we studied a couple of years ago, so I'm going to need to think hard about it, and I'll also see if I can get a professional opinion from a pipeline expert at work. Basically, I don't see how a 200 m head is going to be enough to push water through a 360km pipe, and back up the 75 m+ from the lowest point of the pipe, at the far end, mainly because of friction losses in the pipe. I'd need to do the calculations, but 200m doesn't sound like much. That's a really vague answer, so if anyone's got better calculations I'd be happy to defer to them!

[RETIRED]

At the speed it would be moving at I don't think friction will be that much.

[Lignum]

Richard, he was on the radio yesterday (MTR) and the one addition he made, was because of a confidentiality agreement (that has now expired) he couldn’t include in the video that the water will be pumped from a higher point around 450mt. He did name it, but as usual my memory is like a sieve and I have forgot. Maybe someone else heard it and can fill us in.

[rhancock]

At the speed it would be moving at I don't think friction will be that much.

Friction increases with speed of flow, doesn't it... Here's (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hazen-williams-water-d_797.html)the relevant equations if anyone's got the time to convert it all to American.

[Gingermick]

I remember Friction loss was equal to FLV² on (2*g*d)
F=friction factor
L length
V velocity
g 9.81m/s²
and D the diameter of the conduit.
But friction factor is hard to get, needs to be calced experimentally.
We could lay gravity pressure pipe at 2 in a thousand, and it was 250mm, 1200 pipe has way less friction, so I'm not clever enough to find out if it could work,
Where the dehydrated hydrographer when you need him, AlexS?

[Sebastiaan56]

How many K's are we talking? Its hard to imagine that no pumping will be required. Stringing a bluddy great big pipe across the Bass Strait will require passengers on the ferries to duck when it goes under the pipeline..... How many tankers will have to go around the strait? Plus which we all know its uphill to the equator :D

[Honorary Bloke]

It's not all that far-fetched. The city of Phoenix, Arizona, gets much of its water from the Colorado River. The water is carried to the city in open aqueducts (what have the Romans ever done for us? :D) spanning several hundred miles in total. Even with the high evaporation loss in the desert, it is economically worthwhile.

This idea is certainly worth a look.

[journeyman Mick]

Assuming that 10m of water = 1 atmosphere = 14.7psi then:
200m of head = 294psi
450m of head = 661psi

The water will definitely come out the other end, no questions. The frictional losses will slow it down, but the water will flow. I'll leave it for those with a better head for maths to work out the frictional losses.

Mick

[Sebastiaan56]

Well the water pipeline from Prospect reservoir is about 2m in diameter. It supplies western Sydney so any pipeline would need to be as big or bigger.