Archaeologica.org

Bollocks! No untouched river's bed/track stays the same.

Never said it did.

Roy.

Digit wrote:

Bollocks! No untouched river's bed/track stays the same.

Never said it did.

Yes you did: "if the flow rate was high enough, any such canal would keep its bed clean, after all, that is what a river does." But apparently you forgot.

If you don't use THC, science recommends a regular vitamin B intake to slow down the symptoms of aging.

That's correct, it would keep its bed clean.

Roy.

Digit wrote:That's correct, it would keep its bed clean.

So you did say it. But it is 'reiner Theorie'. Pure theory. Unattainable in practice. Because water dynamics don't like to comply with wishful thinking IRL.

I said it would keep its bed clean if the flow was sufficient, i made no mention of track, meanders etc etc etc.
As I am fed up with your foul mouth tirades I'll leave you swear on your own by telling you that also the Egyptians could have built such water communications, that two types are/were possible and neither require locks, and also that your countrymen have built such in this country.
Now swear away!

Roy.

To stop that kind of behavior by the river is what levees are for.
They keep the flow in a desired, often narrow, channel.
Since we no longer have the appreciation for the good side of flooding we build them both to protect the adjoining land from floods and to slow down silting and maintain depth for shipping.
But you do need some flow.
I don’t know a minimum speed or volume.

Speed is often a by product of volume kb, increase the volume and the speed will rise.
Velocity is a peculiar phenomenom with water, if you double its velocity you increase its ability to move heavier objects by the power of 4.

Roy.

I rather doubt that the Egyptians put all that much thought into it. They were sailing shallow draft vessels - not battleships.

The Britsh inland canal system Min uses 'narrow boats'. Originally they were horse drawn but now normally diesel engines.
They were fixed by law to a beam not greater than 7ft and a draft when laden of about 3ft, their length varied but normally about 50ft, these sizes were imposed to standardise on the lock size.
A single horse could pull a total weight of near 20 tons at about four miles per hour.
Battleships not needed.

Roy.

Minimalist wrote:I rather doubt that the Egyptians put all that much thought into it. They were sailing shallow draft vessels - not battleships.

"They were sailing shallow draft vessels" to and from India and beyond?
Open sea navigation requires a considerably stouter, read: bigger and heavier, structural strength than inland sailing does. So open seafaring ships would by necessity draw deeper than their purely inland brethren would. Therefore "shallow draft vessels" is very relative.

The Ra I and II and the Kon-Tiki all drew just over a foot and a half. Slight, you may say, but it was 3/4 times as much as the heaviest reed boats and balsa rafts on the inland waterways that these boats were derived from. "Shallow draft vessels" is very relative.
It is unlikely that the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and Chinese would have navigated the high seas in "shallow draft vessels".

I thought we were talking about "canals," R/S.

The Romans unloaded ships at Ostia Antica and sent the cargoes upstream on barges because the Tiber had navigation problems during most of the year.

Is there any evidence that the Egyptians considered the idea Min? It would have been within their capabilities, but would they move enough in the way of trade to make the effort worthwhile?

Roy.

Minimalist wrote:I thought we were talking about "canals," R/S.

The Romans unloaded ships at Ostia Antica and sent the cargoes upstream on barges because the Tiber had navigation problems during most of the year.

So where was Ramses' Ostia Antica-on-the-Red-Sea?

http://www.angelfire.com:80/ms/ancecon/index.html

I owe this to Min, as it is a link off the site he posted re: ”Canals For Shipping.”

RS may want to note point 7.
Although it was not for the storm surge protection that he alluded to.


As far as weather or not the amount of trade would have made worth wile,
Darius evidently thought so.
Even though he no longer needed it militarily, he finished the build.

And this canal, like the current one, was meant as a short cut for ocean going ships.
Those ships may have been over built for the trip through the canal, but that trip was not their purpose.
This canal was not a self contained network.
It would have to take what ever came its way as they were "just passing through."

As an engineer I noted with interest the reference to the 'dry lock'. When people speak of locks they normally mean the 'pound lock' but there are in fact three forms, in addition to the two already mentioned the third is the 'flash lock'.
I also wonder if the possible use of locks as mentioned by kb is due to the fact that the northern end of the Red Sea has a higher sea level than the the eastern end of the Med. If the Egyptians had been aware of that a lock less canal was possible, so were locks, if used, used to cover a mistake, or to conserve water I wonder?

Roy.