Page 1 of 1

2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:32 pm UTC
by keithl
Image

title text: "Once they selected the other proposal, we could have kept shopping ours around, but we would had to modify it include an aqueduct over their canal, which would be totally unreasonable."

They also rejected my proposal, for a tunnel UNDER the isthmus, with locks descending from sea level to the caverns below. If we go deep enough, the tunnel can be extended circumferentially around the entire planet, with additional locks under North and South America (a straight line in approximately the same direction as the comic's route), and continuing over the poles to Asia. Keep in mind that the above-sea-level isthmus canal runs from NNW to SSE from Atlantic to Pacific.

All the traffic in the cavern canal must run in the same direction, of course. There will be heated debates between the clockwisers and the counterclockwisers.

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:43 pm UTC
by laurint
Why would it be unreasonable? See for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdeburg_Water_Bridge

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:49 pm UTC
by Reka
Cueball wrote:Once they selected the other proposal, we could have kept shopping ours around, but we would had to modify it include an aqueduct over their canal, which would be totally unreasonable.

Is it just me, or are there some words missing from this? "...but we would have had to modify it to include..."

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:59 pm UTC
by keithl
Of course, another Panama Canal could ascend a spiral through millions of locks all the way up to geostationary orbit. The "space ship elevator" could deliver comsats to orbit without the pesky rockets or unobtainium carbon nanotubes.

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:52 pm UTC
by dtilque
If we divert the N-S canal through the 4th dimension, we could avoid the bridge-over or tunnel-under question altogether. Of course, then it'd probably get in the way of someone's hyperspace bypass....

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:16 pm UTC
by buffygirl
Reka wrote:
Cueball wrote:Once they selected the other proposal, we could have kept shopping ours around, but we would had to modify it include an aqueduct over their canal, which would be totally unreasonable.

Is it just me, or are there some words missing from this? "...but we would have had to modify it to include..."


I came here to post exactly this -- Randall, what's up with the typos??

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:47 pm UTC
by Mikeski
Why would it need an aqueduct? Intersections work for automobile traffic. Just make a four-gated lock in the middle where they cross.

Side benefit: now it's also an arctic-pacific, arctic-atlantic, antarctic-pacific, and antarctic-atlantic canal, too. No more long trips around Brazil or Canada.

At least for ships small enough to turn in the middle of the intersection. Or for ships with thrusters that can pirouette in place.

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:00 pm UTC
by rhomboidal
This is ridiculous. Using the natural tunnel linking the Arctic and Antarctic through the Hollow Earth would be super faster.

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:24 am UTC
by rick.s
Mikeski wrote:Why would it need an aqueduct? Intersections work for automobile traffic. Just make a four-gated lock in the middle where they cross.

Side benefit: now it's also an arctic-pacific, arctic-atlantic, antarctic-pacific, and antarctic-atlantic canal, too. No more long trips around Brazil or Canada.

At least for ships small enough to turn in the middle of the intersection. Or for ships with thrusters that can pirouette in place.



Just wait until there are several canals meeting in one place. Then you could have this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Five_Interchange, only with water instead of asphalt. Actually, it would be cool to see a large cargo ship fully loaded with containers 140' overhead.

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:42 am UTC
by JohnTheWysard
I was at that (contentious) meeting. The committee agreed with my objection to the proposal, on the grounds that it should logically have been routed along the length of the Continental Divides of the two continents. (Look, if you're going to do a project in the worst way possible, it should be the WORST way, not some namby-pamby approximation!)

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:23 am UTC
by qvxb
His parents bribed the admissions director of the Engineering School he attended.

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:04 am UTC
by dtilque
Mikeski wrote:Why would it need an aqueduct? Intersections work for automobile traffic. Just make a four-gated lock in the middle where they cross.


But then you get into the argument about whether it should be a traditional intersection or a roundabout. With an overpass, it could be a cloverleaf interchange.

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:08 pm UTC
by x7eggert
They could make a tunnel through the Panama lake (not googling it's true name).

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:40 am UTC
by Mikeski
dtilque wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Why would it need an aqueduct? Intersections work for automobile traffic. Just make a four-gated lock in the middle where they cross.

But then you get into the argument about whether it should be a traditional intersection or a roundabout. With an overpass, it could be a cloverleaf interchange.

A roundabout?

Cons: British and American ships ramming each other as they go 'round opposite ways. Having to synchronize the adjacent locks' water levels to let two ships in at once. Having to stop and wait for the locks, when the point of a roundabout is not to have to stop.

Pros: A canal with a valid reason for a lighthouse right in the frickin' middle of it.

I'm for it.

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:38 am UTC
by gcgcgcgc
Also the Suez canal should really run from Capetown, South Africa to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy...

You could solve the problem of the canals being too narrow for boats to turn at the intersection by making the intersection into a rotatable wheel with canals through, with lock gates at the four entry points.

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:02 am UTC
by gcgcgcgc
I wonder if this is the "Anal Panama" route mentioned in https://xkcd.com/1632/ ?

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:12 am UTC
by keldor
Mikeski wrote:
dtilque wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Why would it need an aqueduct? Intersections work for automobile traffic. Just make a four-gated lock in the middle where they cross.

But then you get into the argument about whether it should be a traditional intersection or a roundabout. With an overpass, it could be a cloverleaf interchange.

A roundabout?

Cons: British and American ships ramming each other as they go 'round opposite ways. Having to synchronize the adjacent locks' water levels to let two ships in at once. Having to stop and wait for the locks, when the point of a roundabout is not to have to stop.

Pros: A canal with a valid reason for a lighthouse right in the frickin' middle of it.

I'm for it.


If you're going to have a roundabout, do it right. Look! This one satisfies both the clockwisers and counterclockwisers!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon)

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:09 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
And for the changes in levels

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:05 am UTC
by teelo
They even rejected my idea for The Fall from Total Recall!

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:00 pm UTC
by pkcommando
qvxb wrote:His parents bribed the admissions director of the Engineering School he attended.

Not only does his school not even have a Calvinball team, the fact it isn't an Olympic sport makes those 40 gold medals on his athletic résumé somewhat dubious.

Re: 2127: "Panama Canal"

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:48 pm UTC
by Ranbot
Mikeski wrote:Why would it need an aqueduct? Intersections work for automobile traffic. Just make a four-gated lock in the middle where they cross....
At least for ships small enough to turn in the middle of the intersection. Or for ships with thrusters that can pirouette in place.

gcgcgcgc wrote:You could solve the problem of the canals being too narrow for boats to turn at the intersection by making the intersection into a rotatable wheel with canals through, with lock gates at the four entry points.

Right. For at least 150 years railroads directed railcars with turntables, which were inspired by previous wagon turntables. You just need a water/canal version for boats.
Image