Hello /sci/ community, good evening.

I noticed that Texas was going through some awfully solvable flooding issues.
>The obvious solution is stilts of some kind.

The issue is that conventional stilts crush, bend, and break under the immense hydrodynamic forces and debris impacts from flowing flood water.

Think of the water like bowling balls. The kinetic energy (KE = 1/2 mv2, where m is mass and v is velocity) of fast-moving water and entrained debris imparts high impulsive loads on the hard, somewhat brittle building materials typically used in civilian construction, leading to structural failure via cracking, buckling, or erosion.

There is a solution to this.
>I'll call it water flow polarization.

The direction and velocity vector, not just the depth, can be managed through strategic landscaping to channel the water toward the stilts in a controlled manner, ensuring it approaches at angles and speeds optimized for interaction with HYDRODYNAMIC stilts.

Conventional stilts can be engineered with streamlined, pointed profiles (e.g., teardrop or airfoil-inspired cross-sections) to minimize drag coefficients and reduce pressure differentials, and you can incorporate sacrificial impact-absorbing plates or energy-dissipating cladding on the leading edges to mitigate peak forces from debris.

The way that water flow polarization would work is by deploying low-cost stone berms or gabion stacks arranged in curved or helical arrays to redirect flood water into a spiral or vortical flow pattern. This induces self-interacting turbulence, where eddies and counter-rotating flows within the spiral dissipate kinetic energy through viscous shear and internal friction, effectively counteracting the net downstream momentum and reducing the resultant force on the stilt structures.

Then, with a reduced flow rate, the water should be more manageable and easily directed with smaller, thin, concrete walls.

If you like this idea, just know that I have many more technologies that I'm developing.
>Just giving this one out to help people.

The problem you're seeking to solve is an ancient one with centuries old solutions. I live in an area that gets annual coastal floods and yes, the houses in the problem areas are on stilts. I periodically see ducks swimming in the streets but I don't see people's houses being destroyed. It's a solved problem that only sees catastrophic results in areas that haven't implemented known solutions because they don't typically see floods.

>>16726310
>teardrop or airfoil-inspired cross-sections
This would work great if the flow is (close to) laminar and in a predictable direction. Bridge supports are built in a similar manner. But under standard flood conditions You'd like your stilts to be as close to circular as possible.
Oh, but you have a rebuttal:
>>16726310
>The way that water flow polarization would work is by deploying low-cost stone berms or gabion stacks arranged in curved or helical arrays to redirect flood water into a spiral or vortical flow pattern.
These types of solutions, but much simpler, are already in use, especially in coastal environments. Literally all you need to do to mitigate the vast majority of the force of an incoming tide is to install concrete pillars in an alternating, layered pattern so the energy is divided and then transferred into a series of columns.

I'm not trying to shit on your dreams or anything, but as I said floods are only a problem in places that don't regularly see them. The solutions exist if you look around.

>>16726309 (OP)
Just coexist with the water?

>>16726309 (OP)
Flooding is a solved issue, you just need someone to pay for the solution which isn't feasible. It's not economically possible to protect every area from any possible flood.

>>16726309 (OP)
just let god kill his formerly chosen people

>>16726504
After the Great Flood, the Lord told Noah that He promised to never again flood the entire Earth. As a sign of this promise, He invented the rainbow so it could appear with rain as a reminder to humans of His covenant with them.
Given the current use of the rainbow, maybe God has changed his mind.

>>16726309 (OP)
High density housing along rivers that regularly flood will solve the problem for a time.

>>16726504
Texans were never chosen.

>>16726321
Wow, thank you for your thoughtful response.

Actually, I believe your statement, although highly informed and probably true, might be a logical fallacy.

There are endless possible innovations. The skill ceiling of innovation is literally endless. In the 1800s, many thought that no new inventions would ever arise, and they never would have if people quit trying.

>The problem you're seeking to solve is an ancient one
Colleague of Science, I would encourage you be a little more open minded to new possibilities. We live in a vastly different world with very new types of thinking.

The information age has educated a new generation that thinks very differently, they just don't have their confidence yet. They're about to revolutionize everything. I'm just a few years ahead of my time.

>>16726309 (OP)
You’re an idiot you know that. Do you know how powerful storms are and how unpredictable they are?

You know what never mind. It’s not even worth explaining.

>>16726321
Rebuttal time.

In regions with infrequent flooding, cost-effective variants of my design could be implemented, such as barriers concealed in ditches or low-lying areas until activation. These could operate for short durations, mere weeks, before requiring refurbishment. Utilizing water pressure to inflate barriers made from recycled rubber or plastic composites would provide a sustainable, low-maintenance solution. Insurance providers could be incentivized to fund these initiatives, as they would substantially reduce overall claim payouts through proactive risk mitigation.

I assure you, there is no justification for flooding to impose billions in costs on taxpayers and policyholders. Flood insurance premiums should be significantly lower, and infrastructure developments should prioritize permanence and resilience.

Of course, entrenched practices persist for historical reasons, but those stem from eras predating the end of pre-automation resource scarcity.

In a decade, automatons will outnumber humans, based on my mathematical projections.
Prepare for widespread workforce displacement.

>>16727571
What if you're wrong?

>>16727571
A billion dollars would stack 68 miles high.
We WASTE 68 BILLION Dollars on flooding each year.

What you're telling me is that it isn't worth spending millions to save billions, but also to save people's homes.

People put their entire lives into their homes, and to just allow a percentage of people to get swept away in unacceptable.

You will just assume that I'm wrong and move on if you're lazy and arrogant.

>>16727580
Let’s use your same question against you.

What if your wrong?

>>16727571
I'm sorry, $74.1 billion damage to infrastructure alone.

>>16727587
I'm not a coward. I'm making a highly educated guess, and I'm right about 90% of the time.

>>16727591
Right 90% of the time? Look man it’s time to get out of your head and snap back into reality. I don’t want you to go schizo. None of this stuff matters. Go get drunk and have some fun.

You can’t beat Mother Nature. Storms are designed to destroy things. That is a storm’s purpose. Always will be.

>>16727606
Except I really can. You just don't think I can, because you can't.

I have a design that works. I guess I'll get to own this one.

>>16727567
>There are endless possible innovations.
Sure. We can take that as a given. But innovation comes from a thorough understanding of the solutions we have available. Diverting water systems and minimizing flood damage is something we've become exceedingly good at. I'd recommend you do some research on how we go about these thingsto check if your proposed solution actually outperforms known solutions.

It's not a "closed mindedness" problem as much as it is a "let's not reinvent the wheel" situation.

>>16727578
>barriers concealed in ditches or low-lying areas until activation. These could operate for short durations, mere weeks, before requiring refurbishment. Utilizing water pressure to inflate barriers
There is some precedence for similar (but not the same) concepts. Wave attenuators essentially use a floating anchor to "reflect" a wave back into itself causing destructive interference. Caissons often use pressurized air with waves in the water driving a pneumatic piston to pump water out from the inside. Inflatable dams exist.

There's a lot of very sophisticated solutions out there. The issue with implementing in places where floods are rare is being able to ensure these systems would still be operational after years of sitting dormant. If they aren't, them you've wasted money creating a false sense of security.

>>16726309 (OP)
the answer is beavers. you're dumb as fuck.

>>16726309 (OP)
Solution to Texas Flooding Issues:

>Flood sirens
>Don't buy a property in a flood zone
>Don't be a retard who ignores flash flood alerts in a flood zone

It is that simple

>>16727964
Thanks professor.
>I've conceptualized a new tire that never goes flat, I can apply the same technique.

There is a concept of electro-computational materials I've been developing. Can't wait to show everyone.

>>16726309 (OP)
don't build homes on flood plain, not even 100 year flood plain
that's literally it

>>16727588
how does some water damage infrastructure

>>16726309 (OP)
Migrate to blue states. Vote and ruin the country even more. Already happening btw. People leaving red states because of abortion laws or some other BS, and inexplicably vote Republican again in their new place. Americans are retarded.

>>16726309 (OP)
>Think of the water like bowling balls
Assume a spherical flood in a vacuum.

>>16728310
Economic incentives are more influential.
People move to a place so that they can eat and have children.
>The blue states charge more for food and encourage people to not have chidlren.

>>16726309 (OP)
Start with not voting for politicians who think climate change is a hoax.

>>16728604
water doesnt cause warming

>>16728839
but a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, and an atmosphere with more water vapor can make more precipitation, more precipitation leads to more intense flooding

>>16728949
>and an atmosphere with more water vapor can make more precipitation,
Yeah so thats where we store the water in the air and not in someones lungs.

>>16728078
This lol. That section of the Guadalupe is heavily used for recreation, and as such the natural processes that would mitigate such flooding have been eliminated. Putting in manmade devices that will just lead to further degradation which will require more manmade solutions. Natural wetlands, a spread out and diverse floodplain, an established riparian zone, all would be much more effective over 50 years than a steel bank. There are no beavers in that section of the State, but you're onto the right idea.