Subj : Re: peeves was: Eagle Cam To : Barry Martin From : Nancy Backus Date : Fri Nov 22 2019 03:28:18 -=> Quoting Barry Martin to Nancy Backus on 11-Nov-2019 09:54 <=- NB>>>> So one might have to choose between the view or having protection NB>>>> from flooding... Maybe a somewhat transparent barrier.....? BM>>> That could be interesting if the water in the Mississippi was clear: BM>>> would be interesting to see the fish swimming in the flood waters, BM>>> though might just see catfish and they're not all that pretty, NB>>> I was thinking more of the transparency being useful during non-flood NB>>> stages.... being able to see the view despite a barrier in place... BM>> I had thought that also -- guess just went for the year-round views. NB>> OK... :) BM> To me it would be interesting to see what was "under there": what's BM> going on below the river's surface. Probably most of the time not too BM> much, expecially close to the edge/shore; I'd think the fish would be BM> holed up for safety in a pool, logs and debris further out in the main BM> channel, plus LIS the water is rather dirty so couldn't see too far. Agreed on all of that... interesting to see what was beneath the surface, but likely that one wouldn't be able to see very much or very far... BM> As for above-river views, all the way from nothing happening to eagles BM> catching fish, the various river traffic..... True... the river traffic would be interesting to me... along with the eagles fishing.... So often, I'm driving over a bridge, and the guardrails and all keep me from being able to see much if anything of what is happening on the river or bay I'm crossing.... BM>> And transparent might have some other problems. Glare from the Sun, BM>> like when reflected off a window. Also birds might fly into the BM>> barrier: haven't noticed the use here but along some of the Austrian BM>> highways are acoustic barriers. Most are optically solid (can't see BM>> through -- might eliminate distractions for the driver but annoying to BM>> us passengers taking pictures!) but some have windowed panels. Most BM>> if not all of the panels will have the silhouette of a small flying BM>> bird to keep the real birds from flying into the clear panel. NB>> True.... hadn't really thought of those issues.... And, I quite NB>> sympathise with the (tourist) passengers wanting to take pictures but NB>> being hampered by the acoustic barriers... those are going up all over NB>> around here, too... :) BM> We have a few new ones associated with the I-74 Bridge Project. The BM> old bridge I frequently use to get across I-74 had essentially chain BM> link barriers to keep pedestrians from throwing stuff or jumping on to BM> the highway below. The new bridge has essentially solid panels with a BM> wave design at the bottom half so can't see through. Upper half of the BM> panel is visually open -- forgot what is used. They probably consider it to be safer.... maybe even nicer looking (forgetting about people maybe wanting a view).... ;) BM>> I'm not sure how clean the Mississippi is normally when it hasn't BM>> picked up the flood debris. If reasonably clean in normal conditions BM>> might be interesting to incorporate a viewing window to see below the BM>> surface. (Should have thought of that when they were proposing items to BM>> incorporate with the new I-74 Bridge!) NB>> That could be interesting as long as the water isn't too murky.... :) BM> Yes; LIS above, I think the river water is rather visually opaque so a BM> viewing port wouldn't work. Probably true.... oh, well, it was a nice idea as long as it lasted... :) NB>>> So we'll just hope that the heads put together to study this do NB>>> think of all the factors, and come up with good solutions... :) BM>> I'm thinking more like most factors, but yes. Would be even more BM>> costly but a secondary flood wall to protect should (when!) the primary BM>> one fails. Like when the HESCO Barrier failed and flooded downtown BM>> Davenport: if had sandbags or some other wall along the sidewalks BM>> probably could have contained most of the flood. Streets probably BM>> would have been flooded but the insides of the buildings might have BM>> been dry. NB>> Potentially could be (have been) a solution to protect the NB>> buildings... I wonder what other factors might make it not so good NB>> a solution, though.... :) BM> Right: lots of details I have no idea about. The news has shown BM> manholes and drains as mini-fountains in the flooded roads, plus warn BM> people not walk walk through flooded streets as the manhole covers BM> covers could have come off and they'd fall into the hole. Yup, something else to be watching out for... ;) BM>>> If by some stretch of the imagination I came up with a potential BM>>> solution I'd submit. NB>>> That could be useful... ;) BM>> So far no great ideas. Of course I'm only really thinking about it BM>> when the topic comes up here..... NB>> So you'll need a pad to jot down brilliant insights that appear as NB>> we discuss things.... BM> Well, there's always paper and pens here at the desk and yes I do make BM> notes of things as they pop in. So far nothing even remotely BM> brilliant for flood control. Oh, well... you never know, though... ttyl neb .... You don't get once-in-a-lifetime offers like this every day. --- EzyBlueWave V3.00 01FB001F * Origin: Tiny's BBS - http://www.tinysbbs.com (454:1/452) .