Jump to content

Talk:Three Gorges Dam/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Pinyin name?

Under the 'Official Name' field on the right in the infobox, at the top of the article, would it not be good to include the Pinyin name (Chángjiāng sānxiá shuǐlì shūniǔ gōngchéng) next to the Chinese script name (长江三峡水利枢纽工程)? --86.5.226.63 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

edit request for disambiguation needed

It should be Maoping, Hubei please. Soranoch (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Annual Generation

The expected annual generation is given as 100 GWh. This should read 100 TWh. It is wrong by a factor of 1,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.77.150 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in figures for power generation

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam The table on the right says: Annual generation 80 GWh (290 TJ) Net generation 556 GWh (2,000 TJ) (2012)

This is inconsistent with the table: "Annual Production of Electricity". The figures in the first table are a factor 1000 too small and should be: Annual generation 80,000 GWh (290 PJ) Net generation 556,000 GWh (2,000 PJ) (2012)

Edit: Actually - based on the quoted sources - the entire section "Output milestones" is wrong. Figures need to be a factor 1000 larger and the table requires points to be replaced by comma's.

Edit 2: "when the Chinese electricity demand reached 4692.8 GWh" This seems unrealistically low as well as the electricity consumption is 91 TWh, 45 times larger than China? I suggest revision of the entire article..

Mathadon (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Moved from WT:GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Although your arguments may be logical, please cite references under your proposals to make your statements verifiable. Also, include an exact copy of what you want the corrected table to be. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the quoted references actually provide the correct figures, some seem to be wrong. I'm afraid I cannot contribute with better sources, I can only say that there are serious mistakes in this article and I hope that someone can fix them as I am not authorized to do so as this article is protected as a qualitative article. Mathadon (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the chart (picture) on the right depicts months and the Annual Production chart is the annual average. I'd have to check on the other points. Do you have references for the 91 TWh?--NortyNort (Holla) 20:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Major Order-of-Magnitude Errors !!! - Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013

There are MAJOR errors in this article. Annual production is incorrectly listed in several places as gigawatt-hours (GWh) instead of terawatt-hours (TWh). In fact, the right sidebar correctly uses TWh, which conflicts with other citations in the article. The largest number of errors occur in the section entitled "Output milestones".

Back of the envelope math demonstrates that the table is off by a factor of 1000x. However, just check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor where it clearly states "Total generation in 2009 was 79.47 TW·h, for a capacity factor of just under 50%"


Pspope212 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: Before I go start changing GWh to TWh throughout the article, are there any GWh measurements in the article which are correct? (I'm looking maybe at the 4692.8 GWh measurement in the Distribution section?) Please be as specific as you can as to what changes need to be made here so we don't correct something into being incorrect. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done: no response to above question. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
All the graphs (including the table at upper right) seem to be correctly annotated. The electricity rates in yuan/MWh are also correct. Only the numbers in the text for energy are low by a factor of 1000 (all of them as far as I could tell). Gigawatt-hours should be terawatt-hours (or change the periods in the table to commas, which may have been the original source of the confusion). Any remaining mistakes will be obvious if you bear in mind that wind power in Texas generated 31.556 TWh in 2012. (Texas isn't that much bigger than China.) Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


--Sebastien.worms (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I confirm the annual output capacity is not "about 100 GWh" but "about 100 GWh".

_ A simple calculation gives :

power capacity (GW) x 24 hours x 365 days x 1/2 (take into account it doesn't produce at full capacity all the time) :

22,5 x 24 x 365 x 1/2 = 97 200 GWh = 97,2 TWh

_ Other languages Wikipedia pages are right : "about 100 TWh annually" (ex: French : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_des_Trois-Gorges)

_ outside references :

"The Three Gorges Dam produces 22 GW (80 TWh per year) " : http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/china-may-add-hydro-power-equal-to-two.html

"Its output is estimated at 85TWh per year" : http://www.power-technology.com/projects/gorges/

Factor of 1000 too small figures for power generation (see references herein)

I have to agree that the figures for power generation are seriously wrong. With a total generating capacity of 22,500 MW (= 22.5 GW) this dam could potentially produce 100 GWh in less than 5 hours of operation. Yet, at full capacity its annual production is expected to be 100 GWh (as stated here in this article)? (This is referenced to source 30, which unfortunately is in Chinese and I am unable to reliably translate it.) However, I can give several references that indicate the wiki article understates the capacity by a factor of 1000. The wiki quoted figure, 100 GWh, is insignificant in a country, which according to the figure (graph in this article)) "Electricity Production in China", produces nearly 800 TWh of hydroelectrical power. The US Geological Survey [1] says that Three Gorges Dam annual production is "about the same as that of Itaipu Dam", which according to the Wikipedia article [2], produced 98,630 GWh in 2013. Therefore, clearly Three Gorges produces about 100,000 GWh (=100 TWh) annually, not the insignificant 100 GWh stated in this article. Further, the Mt. Holyoke website [3] states that Three Gorges Dam is expected to meet about 3% of China's electrical needs. By this wiki article's estimation (see the same chart as above) the total annual Chinese electrical production is over 4000 TWh, 3% of which is 120TWh. Again, clearly, 100 TWh was intended, not 100 GWh. This reference [4] gives the annual production at 85,000 GWh. Again, clearly 100 TWh was intended, not 100 GWh. The references do not exactly agree, but point to a range between 85 TWh and 120 TWh. The middle of this range is 1000 times larger than stated in this wiki article. Clearly the wiki article is incorrect. How many references do you need to make the correction? Rocket Laser Man (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Note that in some languages the comma and decimal point are reversed, which is probably what caused the original confusion in the text. Rocket Laser Man (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://water.usgs.gov/edu/hybiggest.html
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam
  3. ^ https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~vanti20m/classweb/website/benefits.html
  4. ^ http://www.cleanenergyactionproject.com/CleanEnergyActionProject/Hydropower_Case_Studies_files/Three%20Gorges%20Dam%20Hydroelectric%20Power%20Plant.pdf

Units?

The constant equivalence to imperial units is distracting and useless. With only one 'significant' country on the whole planet (and NOT China) using those units, it is past time imperial units were depreciated.

189.188.23.244 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) baden k.

The US is one of the main readers and contributors to this Wikipedia so the conversions are appropriate. Meters and feet should be abbreviated though.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Figures inconsistency?

Surface area 1,045 km2 (403 sq mi) Max. length 600 km (370 mi) Max. width 1.1 km (0.68 mi) avg.

There is something wrong with the numbers describing the size of the dam. Surface Area of 1000 sq. km. cannot be filled inn even if we assume the reservoir is rectangle with length 600km and width of 1.1 km. I would presume the reservoir is not rectangular so it will need somewhat bigger width. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.1.26 (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

1.1 km is the average width, I will double-check the sourcing.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Production during 2014

"Total electricity output of the world's largest hydropower project–the Three Gorges Project, has exceeded 200 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) this year, the China Three Gorges Corporation (STGC) announced on Monday." (Three Gorges project power output tops 200 bln kwh) As I understood its production during 2014, is it confirmed by other sources? Beaber

It should be was some common figure of this company, the annual production of 2014 is 98,8 TWh [1][2].Beaber (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the research, looks like TGD beat Itaipu with its 98.6 in 2013. I updated the annual generation in the TGD article. Are you saying we should wait before putting the 'record-setting' claim in the TGD article as well?--NortyNort (Holla) 02:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
These articles appeared later, according next reference [3] the production of Itaipu last year was "only" 87,8 TWh. Therefore, it should be the new record. BR, Beaber (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Good to go, looks like someone updated the text.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Three Gorges Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

correction

The section heading Three Gorges Dam#Ship lifts misleadingly implied there was more than one shiplift. So I corrected it.

A recently introduced passage asserted the maximum size of the vessels the ship lift could lift was 11,500 tons. This contradicted the sentence that immediately preceded it, and every reference from the last decade.

I checked the translation of the Chinese page the assertion referenced. I think a naive contributor made the mistake of confusing the weight of the entire caisson with the tonnage of the ship. I have worked on the articles on several other ship lifts, and this is a very common confusion. For many shiplifts we contributors can't be sure of the actual capacity, due to this kind of confusion. So I corrected this too. Geo Swan (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know much about ship lifts and noted what I thought was a change in the ship lift in the ship lift discussion above.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Three Gorges Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Will the (ambitious) ship lift ever be complete?

I wrote much of the early coverage of navigation, about eight years ago. At that time the shiplift was supposed to be completed at the same time as the rest of the dam. The rest of the dam has been completed for half a decade. There are very few reports on progress on the ship lift. So, I wonder whether rather than writing about its completion in the future tense, we should write about its design either in the past tense, or without implying specific completion dates.

It may never be complete. It is not our job to be a hagiography for Chinese megaprojects. The three gorges shiplift, even after it was downsized from carrying 10,000 ton barges to 3,000 ton barges would still have been much larger than any shiplift built in the past. It would also have the highest lift, or close to the highest lift. And its construction would be further complicated, compared with other similar engines, in that their upper and lower inlets are at fixed elevations, because they are on canals, will the upper and lower elevations of a three gorges dam could vary seasonally -- possibly by several meters or more. Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A month or so ago I read the completion was scheduled for 2015 at some point. I think it's best to stick with their targets but we have noted the failed target dates as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It's reported complete, and being tested now.[4]. Here's a picture, which we can't use.[5] John Nagle (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Trying to find out more. It definitely was built; it even shows up in Google Earth. But there's no announcement of it opening, and little or no recent press coverage. No reports of problems, just silence. John Nagle (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In the Chinese press last month it is described as "successfully tested" and "completed". I will make some updates. Often there are no project updates in English sources. The article lists the tonnage at 15,500 and says it was tested in December.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Has a video appeared yet? Once it starts lifting passenger ships, passengers will post videos. John Nagle (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Not yet, just the virtual demos.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a nice picture of the ship lift from the inside, from the company that made the brakes, at [6]. It looks like they're testing the lift system with water in the lift chamber. The connection to the river at the bottom end is still dry, so as of that March 24th, 2016 photo it's not usable yet. John Nagle (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Undid this good-faith edit [7] which said the lift mechanism used a toothed rack, rather than ropes. That may have been the plan in 2003, but, as built, it's clearly a rope system with a huge number of steel cables. See the picture linked above. Also see this translated version of a news report from Hubei.[8]. The lift has been successfully tested with a ship in it. It's not yet ready for use, though. John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

explanation

I added some new material to the ship lift section...

and was reverted, by a contributor whose edit summary told me to look to the talk page for a fuller explanation of their reversion...

I looked, and couldn't find any explanation, so I expanded that new material. Geo Swan (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh. The explanation and links are in the ship lift section above. The 2003 plan may have called for a rack and pinion drive, but what was actually built uses a huge number of steel elevator-type cables (called "ropes" in elevator terminology.) There are recent pictures of the lift, which has been in test with a ship in it. John Nagle (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I think you, or somebody, misread the references. The references I used, 2009, and 2013, do refer to the basin being suspended by a bunch of cables, but still say the basin is actually lifted by a rack. Geo Swan (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • From the 2009 article in Steel Construction:
The chamber is driven by four pinions that engage with toothed racks built into the towers. Each pinion is driven by two electric motors and is elastically mounted on a bearing bracket in the machine room (Figs. 6 and 9). All drives are interconnected via synchronizing shafts under the chamber so that if a motor in one drive station is out of action, the missing drive moment is transferred by the shafts to the affected area. The shafts are arranged in an H-form and are connected with each other on the chamber axis.
The cables aren't for raising and lowering the basin.
Between the towers the steel ship chamber (Fig. 4), which is 132 m long, is suspended from 256 ropes that are connected with counterweights via 128 double rope pulleys at the tops of the towers.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Now that's a good reference.[9] John Nagle (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The ship lift has reached "Pre-trial Navigation Inspection and Acceptance" [10] John Nagle (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Three Gorges Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Values of quantities

The International System of Units (Le Système International d’Unités) (SI) is published officially in Paris by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) and in the United States by the by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The NIST version is identical to the BIPM version, except for a few spelling and usage differences (such as metric ton instead of tonne, or meter instead of metre).

In its Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) (NIST Special Publication 811) NIST makes clear that the values of quantities should be expressed in a way that is as independent of language as possible, allowing the material to be understood by as broad an audience as possible, including readers with limited knowledge of English. Thus, NIST specifies that the values of quantities (whether in equations or in printed text) should be expressed in acceptable units, using Arabic numerals and the symbols [these are not “abbreviations”] for these units. For example: (1) “the current was 15 A”; but not: “the current was 15 amperes”; or (2) “the length of the laser is 5 m”; but not: “the length of the laser is five meters”; or (3) “the sample was annealed at a temperature of 955 K for 12 h”; but not: “the sample was annealed at a temperature of 955 kelvins for 12 hours”.

In accordance with these recommendations I have changed, in the section "Composition and dimensions," those values of quantities in the text that have been expressed as numbers plus unit names to values expressed as numbers plus unit symbols. Wikifan2744 (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the ship lift section merits its own article

I think the ship lift section merits its own article. It is said to be the largest shiplift in the world. Smaller shiplifts have stand-alone articles, why not this one.

If it is a separate article, people who are interested in shiplifts, but not the three gorges dam, can place the new shiplift article on their watchlist, without being distracted by news solely of interest to those who care about the dam. Geo Swan (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You may be right, but info about the ship lift as built is still rather scarce. There are some articles in Chinese, but machine translation of them isn't very good.[11]. The best as-built explanation of how it works seems to be here.[12] It's counterweighted, of course, which is what those 64 huge cables are for. That article says "The lift utilizes four pinions that act on tooth racks within the lifting towers. Each pinion is driven by two electric motors and lifts a series of 64 cables (74 mm [3 in.] diameter) that are attached to suspended concrete counterweights." So the lifting mechanism is apparently in those four blockish towers at the corners, which is why we're not seeing giant gear teeth out in the open. I've never seen a published description of how they deal with the variable water level at the top and bottom. There must be some elaborate gate mechanisms. Once the thing is in regular use, there will inevitably be lots of pictures of it, since it's for passenger vessels. Then we can probably have an article for the ship lift alone. John Nagle (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree. That the ship lift wasn't complete, or that we had incomplete information, does not erase the fact that this ship lift measured up to GNG years ago. What was that Greek philosopher said: "The perfect is the enemy of the Good." Let's do it now. Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Now that we finally have a good reference for how it works [13], go for it. Some of the drawings in that article need to be redrawn in simplified form for use in Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It's finally working. There is video.[14]. More information is becoming available. Good time to start a standalone article. John Nagle (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Half-hour of video with Chinese narration.[15]. John Nagle (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Article is uncritical of human displacement

The introductory paragraph mentions controversy and mass displacement, but the ensuing article is largely positive, with no mention of displacement, relocation, or other controversy related to human consequences of the dam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.16.253.239 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Three Gorges Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC) 

The water is held back by the innate mass of the individual dam sections. As a result, damage to an individual section should not affect other parts of the dam. Due to the sheer size of the dam, it is expected to withstand tactical nuclear strikes.[  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.124.23 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Problematic text under Emissions heading

The text under Emissions made some illogical or unprovable claims (that power produced by the dam replaced or reduced coal usage and emissions). Citation needed if this can be proven. Actually, coal consumption in China has steadily increased every year since before the dam was finished until usage peaked around 2014 or 2015, and the number of coal power plants has steadily increased.

The other major problem with this section is the English sources cited did not actually support the text, and the Chinese sources need English translation for verification.

To fix, the author needs to rephrase the "reduces coal consumption" and "reduces carbon dioxide" statements and provide citations that clearly support the statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123William (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Life expectancy of the Three Gorges Dam

Is it true that the Three Gorges Dam was originally predicted to last for 10,000 years, this figure later being revised down to 1,000 years, and now to 100 years? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Springnuts (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I propose to merge Structural integrity of the Three Gorges Dam into Three Gorges Dam. I think that the content in the Structural integrity of the Three Gorges Dam article consists of

  • Unsourced assertions that there is a conspiracy theory
  • Duplication of material already in the article
  • Likely unencyclopedic material concerning rumours on social media
  • A small amount of material about the integrity of the dam which should be included in the main article (at section 9.3); which will not be unreasonably enlarged or unbalanced by such material.

Springnuts (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No objections or other comments over 7 days; I will go ahead iaw WP:MERGE. Springnuts (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ODD Sentence

In the structural integrity section, it says 

"This is the first time that Chinese official media mentioned the displacement, seepage, and deformation of the Three Gorges Dam:however they did not release detailed data"

What is that supposed to mean? You can say it's the first time for virtually about anything, but why is that specific info even significant? That it needs to be noted down as a historical fact? I'm a civil engineer and "deformation" is just a very common engineering term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(engineering) You can look it up on Wikipedia for yourself but that sentence makes it sound like they are 'admitting" to some bad things when they are merely just giving a report to the public that the dam is alright for now. All dams will give way under full loads but they are designed to bounce back when the water levels goes down again. It will be MORE SHOCKING and noteworthy in my pov if the dam didn't "deform" at all as expected after the water was filled to near max levels.

And also why would they give detailed data to the general public? They already given plenty of info. (Chinese experts explained at the time that the dam was not on the edge of collapsing, and only had elastic deformation within the designed limits of about 1.4 to 26.7 millimeters) [1] - In Australia and Canada, every time there is a flood season - I have never once ever seen the Aussie media give "detailed structure data" to the general public as why would they do that? Is that supposed to be uniquely expected in China to give out full specific data in public media reports, on dam structural conditions? 49.181.141.136 (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Page appears broken when updating

I made an edit today - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/979159681 but it seems like the article is for some reason, not updating itself. Maybe a bug? Added chinese media response of them telling the critics that their reports of "deformation" was not an official admission that their dam was broken or failed and instead, that they were taking their entire reports out of context and ignorance of engineering "jargon". 49.181.141.136 (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@49.181.141.136: No it is working fine. It has PC prot which means someone (with a PC reviewer flag) has to check the edit first. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Structural integrity

All the criticism seems to stem from one person - Wang Weiluo (王維洛) - and this all seems to rely at least in part on the distorted Google Earth photographs. None of the articles suggesting there is an issue seem to be in engineering or scientific reliable sources. I suggest that they are fringe at best; and have removed them. Please restore if reliable sources can be found; or if the sources are in fact demonstrably reliable sources. Respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Three Gorges Dam

Three Gorges Dam 2405:204:2299:AA94:7583:7DA5:1265:2DA4 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Why does the text saying "Taiwan Military" have a hyperlink to the Chinese military forces? Surely there should be a link to the Taiwanese military. 137.220.71.103 (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Necessity of Structural integrity chapter

I had noticed a sub chapter called "structural integrity'. It seems written by someone who knows nothing about engineering and is somewhat embarrassing to see this written on Wikipedia. As it is purely sensational and taking what is a fairly normal benign feature and make it seem like it is unprecedented and spells immediate disaster. To explain in layman's terms, there's to be an expected range of deformation when a dam first fills up and then fill up again and designed to change shape. Not so unrealistic for cracks to appear and generally only really a problem when it's not repaired for a long while if monitored to be serious. Typical example is say 12 years without any routine maintenance. But I highly doubt the Chinese government would neglect that basic duty given the immense political significance of the dam, and so with consistent maintenance and proper management, that is not an unprecedented issue. [16] Perhaps it's the media who likes to make clickbait stories, but I had expected Wikipedia to be a bit more professional. Though to be fair, even the media outlets informing of other dams cracking and at least also give necessary context by engineering experts on why people should not be blowing this out of proportion. [17] Anyways the chapter should not even be there because there has not been a single thing there that's particularly noteworthy or unusual for a dam. All dams go though deformation and cracks and yet the article writes it as if it's unusual for it to occur, and hence is both highly unprofessional and unnecessary to have. Engineertakes89 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1195239.shtml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Three_Gorges_Dam/Archive_2&oldid=1252463235"