Comment by NicoJuicy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by NicoJuicy | Hacker News Reader

I'm actually surprised that none of the proposals contain my idea of raising the water level.

Mostly copied from 5 minutes ago:

> Surround the boat, make a dam somehow and raise the water level.

Concrete is dry in 24-48 hours. Sand and wooden poles could be enough.

Some ideas on the how, could be found in this video, on how they created a bridge in the middle ages: https://youtu.be/nJgD6gyi0Wk

I'm pretty sure engineers could find better/faster solutions than what I'm proposing to raise the water level more quickly.

Edit: Omg, a record amount of downvotes for suggesting this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wuVxvQh9Khy7xdIpgCNfVAdo4Dq... ;)

Thanks Arrath for mentioning sheet-pile coffer dams.

Edit 2: it seems that timer crib coffer dams are supported for 10-20 meters deep and diagrapragm or cellular cofferdams are used for more than 20 meters.

This is the most precise estimate that I could find on duration of construction for a 2100 foot ( 640 meter) cofferdam with a limited workforce ( 16 days! for probably a less sophisticated cofferdam) https://engineering.purdue.edu/CEM/people/Personal/Halpin/Si...

So, while my suggestion is plausible to execute. It could take too long ( planning + execution).

I guess we'll find out if the current solution will work within the current time-frame, since they have a huge amount of dredging to do.

Do people on Hacker News genuinely think they’re able to come up with tractable ideas that wouldn’t be considered by the actual experts working on the problem?

This person wants to build a damn, someone else wants to use helicopters... waiting for other patronising armchair engineers to weigh in with other reasons why the experts have it wrong.

Glad someone else said it... nothing like a bunch of software engineers assuming they're more qualified at major maritime salvage than actual experts.

Remember elon's cave sumbarine :D

"That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me!"

- Spengler in Ghostbusters

But the parent comment was pretty gently put. I didn't read it as armchair criticism, but rather more wondering aloud. The idea of cofferdamming the ship is entirely feasible, and I too am curious about how it compares to other interventions in terms of time and effort.

Link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26587692

> He said it works in theory.

> He didn't estimate timeline, but it would take longer than a weight/crane operation. If the situation was much worse (partial capsize, somehow deeper entrenched on the coast), this might be a more plausible option. With the containers in an accessible location, it should be faster to organize a weight redistribution campaign instead. Just thinking about the logistics of safely building and deconstructing the dam made his head spin a little bit.

Armchair engineers?

Yep.

Patronizing?

I never saw it that way.

I think most people suggesting helicopters (as an example) know they are probably not feasible but are curious as to why not.

> Patronizing?

Random person on internet confused about why professional engineers haven't taken note of the idea they just came up with. It's either patronising or delusional - take your pick.

Or just bored and seek dialogue?

Or perhaps the wording was off as their (my) reason to copy-paste most if it from something they wrote a minute before that on another and highly relevant thread.

Take your pick.

+ It does work: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wuVxvQh9Khy7xdIpgCNfVAdo4Dq... ^^ and without some downsides i read first ( eg. keeping the balance of the ship or putting additional stress on the structure of the ship)

Just interested in what the problems and potential solutions are on that scale.

You ought to relax a bit. You could, theoretically, just let some random people on a techy forum geek out about disasters and engineering. Since no one is listening to us except ourselves, exactly what do you hope your scolding will accompish?

Conclusion: Both aren't delusional and seem to be possible - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26587459

But hey, thanks for your valuable feedback.

Wow, that's harsh.

If I'd explain it as using cofferdams ( temporarily structures) to raise the water instead of the traditional lowering. Is that better for you?

I'm 100% sure that using simple solutions to hard problems is not always thought off when something is not used in it's "traditional" sense.

Sometimes outsiders give another POV that could be actually useful. And sometimes it isn't.

No need to get rude for that... Perhaps try some constructive feedback on why it shouldn't work next time? :)

PS. Before you misinterpret my words again. I'm saying that the concept is simple ( raising the water level), not the execution of it. Since on this scale every solution is harder to execute.

Edit: It's already been confirmed by another poster that it should work in theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26587692 ( with pro's and cons)

For that to work, the dam has to go all the way around the boat, all the way to the bottom of the canal, and create a water-tight (or close enough) seal. That's non-trivial. And then, once the boat is unstuck, then your dam is blocking the canal, and has to be removed, all the way to the bottom, or it becomes a hazard.

Did you see the video?

Going to the bottom of the canal is "only 24" m. The video I gave before shows some ideas on how to do it.

Quick thought: A skeleton where the bottom layer is filled with wooden poles ( to stick them firmly in the ground). The rest is a construction that is quicker to create.

The ground of the "canal" could be 3D mapped for precise measurements ( a company i know does this).

And you'd need some additional meters on top of this to raise the water level.

This comment gives me serious Dunning-Kruger vibes.

Could they just push a really big wave at it to temporarily raise the water level?

Sheet-pile coffer dams are a solved problem, but it would take a good amount of time to drive all the piles. Not to mention that removing them again afterwards is not a speedy process, either.

The canal is very wide, very long, and very deep. It would take an enormous amount of mass to accomplish what you propose, and an even bigger effort to clear the debris afterwards to ensure safe passage of other ships.

Depends if you can fill the outside with poles and the inside with sand.

You can suck up the sand ( if it's even required, since normal dredging could be done afterwards) before you destroy the construction again.

If it's surrounded by poles, then you just take them out again on the end.

The construction on land can be cleaned up afterwards.

The canal is a minimum of 80 feet deep and over 254 feet wide (a lot wider actually, 254ft is the max boat beam it can handle). It's a little bigger of an issue than dropping some telephone-pole sized rods into the canal.

It's one of the most highly trafficked canals in the world, I'm certain if the solution was this simple they would already be doing it.

Using traditional things ( eg. Cofferdams) for non-traditional uses ( raising water instead of lowering) aren't always considered by the same experts.

The problems that I heard of till now are logistics and duration ( since it also has to be removed). None mentioned the depth/length since it is doable and had been done ( cofferdams, but with more planning ofc)

It could have been more plausible if the problem was worse though.

> Using traditional things ( eg. Cofferdams) for non-traditional uses ( raising water instead of lowering) aren't always considered by the same experts.

True but I guarantee you that's not the case here. Any engineer who's familiar with canals will have coffer damns in the front of their mind, because that's exactly how locks work. And besides that, it is (forgive me), kinda obvious.

I promise you the people working on this have thoroughly explored the possibility of raising the water level, probably by more means than you or I can guess.

Sometimes, obvious things have to be said first before it becomes obvious.

I don't know if they'd raised the water with cofferdams before, i checked online and haven't seen an example ( didn't knew the term at first either). I also didn't see it proposed before or mentioned in any related articles.

It's possible that it was done in the past and is a known thing among experts, but i can't really know that, can I?

I guess if you’re this convinced that you have uniquely thought up and proved this idea the only thing left is to phone them up and let them know you’ve got a solution ready to go! There’s a phone number on their website.

Who said I'm convinced that i uniquely thought of that?

What's wrong with you? This isn't your first demeaning comment.

This is literally a place where people tend to discuss/propose things on and get feedback. HN can give a unique insight of commenters that ARE experts on the topic, even while the poster is not. Not many people here see issues with that.

I think you’re the one demeaning the engineers working on it to be honest - saying you’re surprised they aren’t considering your idea.

Likely so did everyone else downvoting you.

I also said that the engineers would know better than me in the same comment. I've never claimed to be an expert and I've made that pretty obvious from the start.

While my original comment could have been worded better, which I already admitted, your reactions aren't a work of art either.

Calling it delusional and patronizing, while both methods were deemed feasible afterwards, for example. Take your pick.

My intention was always to find out the variables surrounding it and how to make it work and I think most people probably realized that. ( the "badly" worded comment only received -2 fyi, it's just more than what I'm used too)

PS. Some people also disagreed with your perception and told you literally to relax a bit. If you really want to go down that road... ( Didn't I already mention something about your demeaning comments just now?)

@chrisseaton, here's what I think :

My first comment mentioned that you misinterpreted my words. Someone else disagreed with your perception. Someone else said to relax. I pointed out multiple times, that my original comment was badly worded.

Have you even considered the possibility that you misinterpreted the original comment, where you based your toxic reactions on?

Perhaps consider that the "proposals" I'm talking about in my original comment, ARE NOT what is currently being done now in the Suez Channel by the experts (eg. Dredging). Those aren't proposals, that's what currently is being done! But what has been suggested here on the different threads of HN.

I was genuinely eager to see alternative implementations of that concept ( raising water) proposed somewhere.

I copied my example of the other thread as a proposal ( = dams), which led me to the path of water based cofferdams and some other interesting google searches, thanks to comments here.

Now... Reread the original comment and the first sentence in particular ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26586467 )

Completely uninformed guess is that what they're doing is faster and cheaper, and the "get it unstuck enough" point will be reached sooner.

> Concrete is dry in 24-48 hours.

Sure, but building a dam around the entire ship? How much concrete are you going to need, and how long would it take to build? They're pumping sand and dredging right now, today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com