It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

River built OVER a River in Germany - AMAZING

page: 3
47
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by goldentorch
 


I had never heard of either of these beauties. Thanks for sharing!




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by 1curious1
 


My pleasure.
Double the pleasure.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
In fact.. the very same feat was achieved with the building of the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct in Wales in 1805 by Telford! I know because I walked across it last year on my way up Offa's Dyke path....

"The aqueduct, built by Thomas Telford and William Jessop, is 1,007 ft (307 m) long, 11 ft (3.4 m) wide and 5.25 ft (1.60 m) deep. It consists of a cast iron trough supported 126 ft (38 m) above the river on iron arched ribs carried on nineteen hollow masonry piers (pillars). Each span is 53 ft (16 m) wide. Despite considerable public scepticism, Telford was confident the construction method would work: he had previously built at least one cast iron trough aqueduct – the Longdon-on-Tern aqueduct on the Shrewsbury Canal, still visible in the middle of a field, though the canal was abandoned years ago. Part of what was originally called the Ellesmere Canal, it was one of the first major feats of civil engineering undertaken by Telford, by then a leading civil engineer, supervised by Jessop, the more experienced canal engineer. The iron was supplied by William Hazledine from his foundries at Shrewsbury and nearby Cefn Mawr. It was opened on 26 November 1805, having taken around ten years to design and build at a total cost of £47,000 (£2,930,000 as of 2011).[3]"

en.wikipedia.org...

Enjoy!



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by toocoolnc
I think what makes this quite remarkable is the fact that we dont see feats of engineering like this everyday.


Well, no. Things like this are so last millenium...


Originally posted by toocoolnc
Truth is, most advanced technologies are kept out the mainstream so that when they create something as remarkable as this, we accept the fact that we are moving forward. But how fast?

Truth is, we are far advanced in technology by a minimum of 50 years.

They would never be able to pull of blue beam or whatever if we realised what technology they actually have.

Thats why in todays world, technology is released slowly into the mainstream


Really? Because over the last 10-15 years, tech has grown massively, funnily enough sicne the end of the Cold war when all the funky tech they had invested for planting bombs 2cm away from the enemies groin suddenly needed to be justified, so they commercialised it and subsequent tech was then developed outside the remits of "national security".

Nonsense such as "tech is 50 years ahead" and "blue beam" are just that, nonsense. Granted, they already have Ultra HD TV screens, but they are 60 ft wide. They haven't sussed how to make them smaller, yet.

Just like when HDTV was invented in the 70's, but they couldn't make them small enough to be useful

But to say that there is some big pile of tech out there that "they" are sitting on, releasing it drips, is totally ignoring the [actual pace of change. If a company develops a tech, they want it to market as quick as possible. Why? To get their money back ASAP and so they don't get beaten to the punch by someone else. It makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER for people to sit on tech that is so-called "50 years advanced".

You only ever see people claim in this on the web in dusty corners of discussion forums, usually, I bet, by people younger than 20, with no understanding of technology or both.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Looks pretty cool, but at the end of the day, couldn't that 500 Million Euro have been spent on more important things??? Like feeding the homeless, or making sure people are still able to survive?

Downer troll is downer..........



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I've been over this one on my school sponsored walk of 14 miles many moons ago





posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Would have been cooler if they had gone under...LOL

Kidding great story!



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CeeRZ
 


Hehehe...
That is nothing new!

The Roman's built one of those in 40 AD!
It is called Pont du Gard.
See more info here.


edit on 2011-8-2 by tomten because: Added video



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
500 million euro's, why not just give greek construction workers 500 million euros to do this since they are the experts anyway and they need the money obviuosly



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
This would seem cool if it didnt cost so much to make and waste so many peoples time and money.

Was this needed? does it serve a purpose?

It just seems like a huge waste of time/money/upkeep. based off the information i got.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I just want to tell that I been there and seen it.

Quite amazing.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Does this not seem a bit like the reality we live in now?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
This is nothing new, what it is called is an aquaduct and they have been around for hundreds of years.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
how does this works, i mean how does the water on top flow, wouldnt it find its level and move to a lower area ie the main river?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Definitely an awesome feat. It's amazing to see what people can do with the talents that God has given them. But, the concept is by no means new. As I would hope we all know, the ancient Romans built aqueducts that are actually not too dissimilar from this new bridge.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 8-8-2011 by jeramie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Engineering can't be this hard. Its about how they deal with elevation. Pictures tell it all.

Main river is 122ft


Aqueduct water is 173ft


You can see the boat that lift up that go to the water bridge.


All that money goes just to lift boats across the water bridge. I don't know what to think about that. 500 mill euro could do better for something else.
edit on 11-8-2011 by whiteblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Oh please, this has nothing in common with the roman aqueducts (a technological marvel by themselves) beside the name. Some people seem to forget that weight grows disproportionally to size!



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by CeeRZ
 


its amazing to think that that this was planned so long ago they should have one of these through a city street



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Would be easily outdone and more amazing if it was a bascule bridge that somehow didnt lose water.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   


A ship always displaces an amount of water that weighs the same as the ship, regardless of how heavily a ship may be loaded.


True its called Archimedes’ principle of buoyancy but your reason is wrong, The weight still exists it doesn’t go away it depends as another poster said on whether it is a closed system or not, the engineers would not have to worry about the weight of the boats for another reason and that is the neglible weight of the boats, the density of water is around 1000Kg/M^3 or a one meter cube of water weighs one tonne , now calculating the weight of water on the bridge at a volume of roughly 9*4.25*918= 35113.5 cubic meters which gives a weight the bridge has to hold of 35113.5 Metric Tonnes . Given that most engineering projects are designed with massive safety limits say 50% you could sail the HMS Invincible down this thing at it wouldn’t flinch. A German pleasure cruiser is nothing in comparison. So even if it was a closed system and no mass flowed out of the system it wouldn’t make a difference to the engineers designing it. So you are right but your reasoning is wrong.

And this comment :


the vessels do NOT add any mass to the canal - why ? because sluices at each lock on the canal keep the water level constant at all times


Is just ridiculous.

edit on 31/8/11 by Jon Quinn because: addition



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join