Talk:Dry Falls

Untitled
I calculated the kinetic energy of the falls using the figures provided in the text and the formula


 * $$ E_t = \begin{matrix} \frac{1}{2} \end{matrix} mv^2 $$

Mass is nine cubic miles per hour; Velocity is 45 miles per hour (although a 65 mile per hour figure is also given, making this a conservative calculation.

Nine cubic miles is 37.5 cubic km. Assuming one cubic m of water weighs 1000 kilograms, that's 3.75x1013 kg

Divide by 3600 to get kg per second: 1.04x1010

45 miles per hour is approximately 20 metres per second.

0.5 x 1.04x1010 x (20x20)

= 2.08x1012 Joules

As this figure is calculated per second, it is identical to 2.08x1012 Watts, ie, 2.08 Terawatts.

World electricity consumption in 2001: 1.7 TW World electricity consumption in 2005: 2.0 TW

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppe42 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. Eglue (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Kinetic energy
Other editors have questioned the following content here and at Talk:Missoula Floods. I have removed it until a better source can be located. The cited source is a blog. Blogs do not satisfy my reading of WP:ATT and WP:RS.Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The kinetic energy of the floodwaters as they flowed through Dry Falls was approximately 2 terawatts (TW) - enough power to provide electricity to the entire globe.1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsiegmund (talk • contribs) 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We reach here a sort of circular loop: the blog post in question in act used the calculation described above for the kinetic energy figure. Perhaps a better source should be found, as discussed at Talk:Missoula Floods. Ppe42 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Other falls?
I was wondering if Frenchman Coulee or Potholes Coulee would also be considered dried waterfalls. How do they compare in size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.50.136 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

image placement.
Yes it is a great picture, but that doesn't mean it gets to ignore the guidelines for image placement in articles. The pages on Mt Rainier, Mt Adams, Glacier Peak all cover majestic natural features, and all follow image placement guidelines.-- Kev min  § 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I want it to do combat with and tear up the slimy, smarmy wimpiness of modern pictures. But actualerrly...your willingness to chat with me says there might be a kindred spirit.  Keep talking...maybe I can leer you into reader advocacy.  Into actually caring about what granny reads versus arbcom or admins or jimmy or any of that happy horseshit.




 * TCO (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ummm, could you please rephrase that for me, I really dont know if I am understanding what your comment is about. Though from what I think I understand, it actually doesn't address the image placement.-- Kev  min  § 23:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't you think it had a sweeping grand-ness before? That you even talk to me shows some...hint of independence.   Soon you will have to put the pig mask over your head like that guy in Brazil.  And cut me up.  But will you remember what it was to be free?  TCO (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The picture is still very pretty, and now its easier to actually read about what is in the picture. Im sorry, I dont buy the "part of the evil cabal" portion of your posts.  you can look at my contributions and see where I spend most of my energy.-- Kev  min  § 23:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it, manly man. Soon you will have to permaban me.  But you are OK for putting up for me for a conversation.   And I can F-rip any orifice of the peeps who are into form over function.  Kiss you, before I die.  TCO (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you got the idea that I have the ability to ban anyone, but it looks like you are currently imbibing or on something so I will discontinue the conversation for now.-- Kev min  § 23:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, man. Don't be a square. TCO (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was a 90's kid, and don't be square was from before the 80's. Which still doesn't address the image at all.-- Kev  min  § 00:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)