This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
River is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
The paragraph on "Brahm's law" (which, notwithstanding the fact that the source cited spells it that way, should probably be called "Brahms's law, after its discoverer, Albert Brahms) misstated it by saying that the mass of an object that can be moved by a flow is proportional to the sixth power of the speed of that flow. I have changed it to reflect what the source actually says, that it is the submerged weight that is proportional to v6. (Isn't submerged weight proportional to specific gravity minus one, to reflect buoyancy?) I am not a hydraulic expert, but I am skeptical of this "law", which Brahms published in 1757, based on his observations in an actual river (which probably had a fairly homogeneous set of rocks): (1) It seems to me that a larger object would be moved more easily than a smaller object with the same mass. (2) I would also think that a smooth and round stone would be more difficult to dislodge than something rougher. As Yairh, has pointed out, above, we do not cover the science of rivers very well. I think all this could be better covered in a separate WP article on fluvial dynamics, which, unfortunately, I am completely unqualified to write. Peter Chastain (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
No, the law is right. Empirically we see many small streams blowing fine sand along, but rarely do boulders get rolled. This law also assumes individual, free stones in a large stream, rather than larger stones having pressure increase upon them because they're in a narrow gap that is tending to increase upstream pressure.
I know nothing of Brahms' law, as I'm not a geographer or hydrologist. AIUI, he derived it from observation. However Airy's law was derived from its principles (later, but independently). It's still taught todayrecently as an example of dimensional analysis in a general physics or fluid dynamics course. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This article really ought to be brought up to GA status in my view. As a starter for that I am proposing to try and get consensus on the images illustrating it. There has been much debate in the past mostly at times when the article has become overwhelmed with a clutter or often poor quality images that just happened to be of rivers. I am proposing that we develop a consensus on what the images should show and, having agreed that, we then look to agree which images satisfy the those criteria. As a starter for ten I am proposing that:
At the top a superb quality image of a river that will knock'em dead in the aisles.
a young river just forming, perhaps from a glacier
a torrential mountain stream
a meandering river
a great continental river (Amazon, Nile, Mississippi etc.)
a river delta
a river in flood
a river in drought
an ephemeral river filling for the first time that season.
a braided river
a sink hole
an underground river (perhaps emerging from a cave)
a polluted river
a mill race
an in-river hydroelectric plant
white water kayaking and/or rafting
commercial shipping on a navigable river
a river bore
river organisms (plants and animals)
Any additions, comments or suggestions on the process suggested and the list please. VelellaVelella Talk 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Some of the ideas you set out for images are already implemented in river ecosystem (though I don't favour stripping that article to get good images for this one). The article should be developed with an eye on "river ecosystem" as a companion article. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
PS Are there still plans to move forward with this article? I'd be keen to be involved, although I need to finish my phd first! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chogg (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I was looking for the parts of a river here (their names and definitions and verbs of how the water behaves in each, like it "discharges" at the "river mouth", etc) and finally I found that an excellent such list exists under stream. However, I think that such a list would be a very useful addition to have in this article, as it where people would normally look for it. HoverfishTalk 16:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)