If you want a high level technical discussion - rise to the level of the body of research and thorough evidence in totality and fully recognize the body of what has been researched and presented. Otherwise I would rather not engage.
Given this, let's just take one issue at a time.
Let's leave out "crayons", and "idiot contractors" getting paid while assuming they were supposed to do something...euphemisms.
Did you read post 3705? Where the DSOD Inspector stated they found voids in the spillway by "soundings" (drummy patches)? Did you read the following statement by the DSOD inspector "No treatment is proposed until they are damaged by a heavy flow"?
(1) The cavity size to create a "drummy" echo sounding on the spillway concrete has to be of enough significant "void" volume to provide the dB acoustic response back through concrete to be heard. Do you agree or disagree? (yes/no)
(2) The DSOD Inspector found more than one area (acoustic drummy patches) that generated the significant enough dB acoustic response back through the concrete to be heard and noted. Do you agree or disagree? (yes/no)
(3) The DSOD Inspector identified that an action ("treatment" and/or remedy) was only going to be acted upon "until they (acoustic drummy patches) are damaged by a heavy flow". Do you agree or disagree? (yes/no)
(4) If DSOD - the Inspectors, who should be identifying the corrective actions that should be taken to the dam owner/operators (DWR) - are being told that "nothing will be done until these areas are damaged", does this in any way identify to you that something is severely wrong with the curtailing the authority of the Inspectors? Do you agree or disagree? (yes/no)
Thus, would this give you any indication as to the pattern of operations and decisions that identify how serious problems develop and are not effectively investigated by DWR/DSOD - agree or disagree?
Correction: Post 3707 (3705 was the “reply to”).
I have refrained from commenting in many instances in past posts: But I will now bring a few to light.
How can a person demonstrate competency in a subject discussion when acting as if they are "joining in" on a technical discussion "on par", when the statement of using LIDAR infers incompetency in the subject matter at hand? (Post 3659) jpal: "A high res 3D profile of the dam should be generated from terrestrial Lidar"
The best digital processing of LIDAR data has a resolution of 3.9 inches (even without the additional grass vegetation modulation of the data since it is "reflected light based readings"). To detect any "differential settlement" profiles in a one, two, or multiple year span (two separate readings to compare against), you must have millimeter accuracy. Only satellite Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) has the ability to measure to millimeters. I would say that a millimeter range near 0.03937 inches is much more definitive than 3.9 inches (99x).
Learn what you are talking about before joining in as if you know.
PavewayIV revealed this insight "clue" in that he was unable to find LIDAR mappings of a dam (post 3573). That's because you cannot get the accuracy to measure the precision settlement that is necessary from the course LIDAR method. (see Svartevatn dam measured using Satellite InSAR with rates defined in millimeters).
Another subject:
You wanted to discuss a technical array of microprocessor based sensors to emplace in the new spillway. Fine. When presented with very detailed and technical challenges to high-reliability systems regarding modern day microprocessors, supporting supply electronics, and the C++ compilers & execution code tree verifiability... No response. I didn't even bring up the survivability issues with arresting ESD life & degradation protection from lightning discharges that undoubtably occur from thunderstorms that could strike near the spillway.
If a person wants to enter into a discussion at a level that they come across in detail to discuss - Learn what you are talking about - or if you need help, engage to ask questions to come up to speed.
Hi EarthResearcher333.
I apologize if you have found some of my posts annoying. That’s not my objective. The most robust explanation for any phenomena is the one that can sustain the highest level of scrutiny. I have offered some alternate perspectives that may or may not be valid, and are certainly subject to scrutiny, as you have done here. I will attempt to refrain from euphemisms such as “sharpest crayon in the box” if that bothers you.
I agree with all 4 of your points in post 3714.
As to your last point, IMHO a key reason DWR doesn’t act upon recommendations of DSOD is based on the acronyms themselves. DSOD is the Division of Safety Of Dams, which is just one of many divisions of DWR, the Department of Water Resources. A Division of a Department cannot effectively regulate it’s parent organization. Engineering staff of both DWR and DSOD (within DWR) share the same job classifications and promotional opportunities. It is unrealistic for an engineer in DSOD to come down hard on DWR knowing that they may be promoted there next year.
DSOD and DWR need to be separated. I don’t think anyone on this forum would disagree with that, but there’s the question of what a more effective regulatory structure would be. Other states must do this differently.