Subj : peeves was: Eagle Cam To : Nancy Backus From : Barry Martin Date : Fri Nov 22 2019 08:15:00 Hi Nancy! 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. NB> Agreed on all of that... interesting to see what was beneath the NB> surface, but likely that one wouldn't be able to see very much or NB> very far... Probably not; the dirtier the water the less light passes, so even if something interesting to look at down there might not be able to see unless added lighting. Oh well, was an idea. BM> As for above-river views, all the way from nothing happening to eagles BM> catching fish, the various river traffic..... NB> True... the river traffic would be interesting to me... along NB> with the eagles fishing.... So often, I'm driving over a bridge, NB> and the guardrails and all keep me from being able to see much if NB> anything of what is happening on the river or bay I'm NB> crossing.... Plus keeping an eye on the road! Guardrails and barriers are good for somethings but bad for others. 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. NB> They probably consider it to be safer.... maybe even nicer NB> looking (forgetting about people maybe wanting a view).... ;) I'll admit to gawking while going over that bridge - as long as no other traffic I need to be concerned about. There's a road (the old I-74) and right next to it the expansion (the old I-74 will be widened) but barricaded off as working on it plus I think some is parking for the various workers plus staging of some building materials, etc. 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. NB> Yup, something else to be watching out for... ;) Some houses and maybe businesses along the River in low-lying area have some sort of a one-way ball valve in their sewer line: allows sewerage to flow to the street lines but not the other way in to the house. Once in a while a news item about the valve failing and the rather disgusting flooding of the basement. 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. NB> Oh, well... you never know, though... I'm figuring more like a 99.9% chance I'll not come up with anything but there's always that 0.1%! ¯ ® ¯ Barry_Martin_3@ ® ¯ @Q.COM ® ¯ ® .... Studies show 51% of Americans are in the majority. --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47 þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462 * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1) .