Comments on: CALIFORNIA’S BIG SQUIRT

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 09 May 2009 23:41:21 +0000

Yes, the spell check sits in front of the keyboard.

(Or you could get FireFox which comes with a spell check for text boxes)

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:42:45 +0000

Is there a spell check on this thing? I keep making stupid spelling errors.

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:41:29 +0000

Since the cost of energy was aparently no object, perhaps they would freeze the water into giant bullet shaped molds to cut down on losses an improve accuracy.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:12:28 +0000

Distributing something by means of shooting it through the air is quite an old idea. In the early days of the British postal (mail) service, it was suggested that mail be placed in hollow artillery shells and fired from one location to the next.

By: JMyint

JMyint — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:08:26 +0000

Oh gee, it would have only been about a billion dollars in todays money. The average cost of pipeline in the US is about $11,000 per mile, so you could build about 90,000 miles of pipeline for the cost of this thing. Did these magazines have someone who looked for crazy ideas to publish when they needed filler or did they just have someone on staff just make stuff up on the spot.

By: beagledad

beagledad — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:28:42 +0000

With enough Mentos, this might be a way to transport large quantities of diet soda from one location to another . . . .

By: rsterling78

rsterling78 — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:34:06 +0000

I suppose that in 1951, word of that new-fangled “pipe technology” as a means of transporting water was not widely known about.

How about transmitting electricity via a series of lightning bolt-hurling Tesla coils positioned one mile apart?

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:36:03 +0000

I just think it would be really neat if the pumps were sequential, not continuous. It would be like a giant version of those dancing fountains at casinos.

By: John M. Hanna

John M. Hanna — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:53:36 +0000

All you’d have to do after this is cover California with a giant plastic sheet and you’d have the world’s biggest Slip n’ Slide!

By: Toronto

Toronto — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:45:53 +0000

“Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We’ll be flying at an altitude of 12,000 feet on this short hop to San Diego, and if I may… HOLY ORVILLE! What the Hell was that? Turn on the wipers, quick!”

By: Rick Auricchio

Rick Auricchio — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 01:15:09 +0000

Amazing.

The idea of “flatter trajectory over the plains” shows he has no grasp of physics. You need a high trajectory to get distance.

Evaporation losses?

Impact on aviation?

Sheesh.

By: StanFlouride

StanFlouride — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:14:08 +0000

This is the first time that just reading the idea and looking at the picture has made me laugh out loud.
Obviously the guy has never used a hose in the wind.

This was AFTER Hoover Dam and the California Water Project were built so the idea would be redundant at best.

By: Eli

Eli — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:55:24 +0000

Obviously designed by someone with no understanding of hydraulics and the spread of water from nozzles. And assuming that they made catch basins large enough to reduce loss from splashing and diffusion of the stream in the air, we’d still be looking at thousands of these things just to move water a a hundred miles. The power consumption would be incredible.

By: Urban

Urban — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:00:34 +0000

How could anyone think this would be cheaper or lose less water during transit than ordinary aqueducts, even assuming artistic license in making the catch areas smaller than needed?
And I don’t think southern California had a surplus of water to use in this fashion anyway, then as now it was needed in Los Angeles.

By: Githyanki

Githyanki — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:56:12 +0000

The cradle will fall?

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:00:30 +0000

And what happens when the wind blows?