Baltimore question

Is Baltimore a dangerous and filthy place?

  • Yes

    Votes: 108 96.4%

  • No

    Votes: 4 3.6%
  • Total voters
    112
#779
#779
OrangeTsar said:
So? The pylons can be added at any time even AFTER bridge construction. They are separate structures
Click to expand...
someone was upset that this bridge didn't have something that postdated its construction, I pointed out how it was unreasonable. adding them after is a completely separate issue.

on adding the pylons maybe maybe not. bridges, especially long span bridges like that, are highly highly specialized pieces. like maybe a dozen firms world wide that regularly do that type of design work, yet alone construction.

a couple limiting factors would be:
1. the required width of the waterway.
2. erosion/silt build up studies. adding structures would either increase erosion, and risk washing out the structure, or cause unsafe silt build up which would push the bridge, and or restrict the water way faster. either could be designed around, but it wouldn't be as simple as dropping some sheet metal and filling with riff raff.
3. Structurally changing the moments on those bridges could have HUGE impacts. currently/before the accident those columns are "held" down at wherever the foundations are. The columns and the bridge spans would have been designed to move around those points. and yes those bridges need to move. if you build up a structure intended to protect those columns you are moving up where those columns are pinned in place. adding those protections would very likely change the location where loads are transferred from the column. I would imagine raising that point makes the bridge a LOT more rigid, which could be really really bad, unless you redesign the whole bridge.
4. Complete guess because I have never designed a bridge, but I am imagining they have to factor the weight and movement of the water around those columns into the design. you suddenly take that away via a rigid protection and you have likely completely changed the loading on the bridge structure. you may think "less loading on the bridge, less problems". but I would imagine the bridges are built to "lean into" (figuratively not literally) the weight of the water. you take that resistance away and the bridge could tend to push itself out of whack. again it can be designed around, but its not a simple or straight forward process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, ClearwaterVol, Orangeburst and 2 others
#787
#787
volfanhill said:
Why would you not? It's pretty obvious it is. Take off the tinfoil hat
Click to expand...
I’m just having a hard time buying it. I admittedly know zero on how a ship of this magnitude operates. But the timing of the power loss and the veer to the right to hit directly on just seem unreasonable to me. Maybe I’ve just been on Twitter too much today?
 
#788
#788
davethevol said:
Well, if they didn’t have train tracks, how else did he meet to square off with Cornpop (he was a bad dude) before marching for civil rights?
Click to expand...

There better still be memes about that BS decades from now. Good ole Corn Pop and his band of Dog Face Pony Soldiers.

Then Biden went and marched for Civil Rights on the way to sponsor 1991 crime bill that put black men in jail for decades for selling weed...or having a $20 crackrock in their pocket. That was really part of his plan to educate those poor Negroes while they were pulling 10year bids...so that when they got paroled they could " read and do math just like the white kids."

The garbage leftist MSM paints Trump as a racist despite the fact that Jesse, Al, and the NAACP literally put a medal around his neck for his contribution to black folks....

Meanwhile Biden is a well documented lifelong racist responsible for 10s of thousands of black men doing hundreds of thousands of extra years in prison over nonviolent drug offences...who has soundbytes galore of himself on camera saying and doing the most objectively racist crap a white politician could ever do...and that same media wants to paint the moron as a champion of black folks everywhere.

This kind of spin is why the majority of Americans do not trust a single word from the media anymore. They are blatantly FOS
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, tbh, SlipKidVol and 5 others
#789
#789
BP4Prez said:
I’m just having a hard time buying it. I admittedly know zero on how a ship of this magnitude operates. But the timing of the power loss and the veer to the right to hit directly on just seem unreasonable to me. Maybe I’ve just been on Twitter too much today?
Click to expand...
Yes. Stop.
 
#790
#790
I drive over a bridge all the time with nearly the exact dimensions of this Baltimore bridge. Hard to imagine such a structure going down so easily when you're on it. Rip
 
#791
#791
McDad said:
Ought to call it, "The Married Lady".

Those never go down.
Click to expand...
And even though she loves the smell of French perfume
And even though she walks around in high-heel shoes
Well, all I know is I'm the one who pays her a price
Man, she's no lady, she's my wife

Lyle Lovett
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#795
#795
LouderVol said:
someone was upset that this bridge didn't have something that postdated its construction, I pointed out how it was unreasonable. adding them after is a completely separate issue.

on adding the pylons maybe maybe not. bridges, especially long span bridges like that, are highly highly specialized pieces. like maybe a dozen firms world wide that regularly do that type of design work, yet alone construction.

a couple limiting factors would be:
1. the required width of the waterway.
2. erosion/silt build up studies. adding structures would either increase erosion, and risk washing out the structure, or cause unsafe silt build up which would push the bridge, and or restrict the water way faster. either could be designed around, but it wouldn't be as simple as dropping some sheet metal and filling with riff raff.
3. Structurally changing the moments on those bridges could have HUGE impacts. currently/before the accident those columns are "held" down at wherever the foundations are. The columns and the bridge spans would have been designed to move around those points. and yes those bridges need to move. if you build up a structure intended to protect those columns you are moving up where those columns are pinned in place. adding those protections would very likely change the location where loads are transferred from the column. I would imagine raising that point makes the bridge a LOT more rigid, which could be really really bad, unless you redesign the whole bridge.
4. Complete guess because I have never designed a bridge, but I am imagining they have to factor the weight and movement of the water around those columns into the design. you suddenly take that away via a rigid protection and you have likely completely changed the loading on the bridge structure. you may think "less loading on the bridge, less problems". but I would imagine the bridges are built to "lean into" (figuratively not literally) the weight of the water. you take that resistance away and the bridge could tend to push itself out of whack. again it can be designed around, but its not a simple or straight forward process.
Click to expand...
You raise good points of which I was not aware. Apparently this is not as simple as I assumed
 
#796
#796
hog88 said:
It wasn’t an accident and I highly doubt it was intentional. There are extremely few accidents in transportation, only varying degrees of negligence.
Click to expand...
I classify accidents as falling within the world of negligence the other option is intentional torts which are clearly not accidents.
 
#797
#797
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#799
#799
BP4Prez said:
I’m just having a hard time buying it. I admittedly know zero on how a ship of this magnitude operates. But the timing of the power loss and the veer to the right to hit directly on just seem unreasonable to me. Maybe I’ve just been on Twitter too much today?
Click to expand...
Apparently.
 
#800
#800
ClearwaterVol said:
I classify accidents as falling within the world of negligence the other option is intentional torts which are clearly not accidents.
Click to expand...

An accident is something completely unpreventable, deer runs out in front of you, tree falls on you, lightning strike ext. Pretty much everything else is preventable and caused by negligence or mistake (which most mistakes are caused by negligence at some level).

I think in almost 30 years I've ruled 1 maybe 2 incidents unpreventable.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top