This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Untitled edit
I calculated the kinetic energy of the falls using the figures provided in the text and the formula
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)
Kinetic energy edit
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? edit
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. edit
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.--Kevmin § 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.
- ???
Come on, man. Don't be a square. TCO (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)