User talk:HJVerhagen

Welcome!

Hello, HJVerhagen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Darwinek (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Johan van Veen

Thanks for creating Johan van Veen.

A New Page Patroller Boleyn just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

Please WP:INLINECITE your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

issue resolved. HJVerhagen (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Armourstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breakwater. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, HJVerhagen

Thank you for creating Shields formula.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000:

Thanks HJVerhagen (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Johannis de Rijke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IJ.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volkerak

Hello, again. I just wanted to make sure I understand something you said about the purpose of the Volkerakdam:

"The main reason to build the Volkerakdam was to separate Haringvliet from the southern inlets (Brouwershavense Gat and Oosterschelde) to prevent strong currents at the site of the tidal divide."

It is quite easy to understand the separation of the Haringvliet and the Volkerak and Hollands Diep from the perspective of separating watersheds, as you described to me on the talk page. You'd want to keep the more polluted Rhine water out of the Oosterschelde, and the saltwater out of the Rhine estuary. I still have the question I'd asked you, earlier, that I'm not sure was directly answered. And that was from the perspective of closing sea gates (zeegaten), how did closing the Volkerak help in the construction of the Brouwershavense Gat and OOsterschelde? What would have happened in the Volkerak, for instance, had they tried to construct those primary dams first? I did watch the Youtube video, BTW. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for all these separation dams is to prevent that the tidal prism of the individual gaps increases due to the closure of one of them. For example if one closes the Brouwersdam without the Grevelingendam the water from the Oosterschelde will fill the basin of what is now Grevelingenmeer. As a consequence the tidal Prism of the Oosterschelde will increase, and thus also the max flow in the closure gap for the Oosterschelde. This will make that gap wider and thus more difficult to close. And because all that water will flow over the relatively shallow tidal divide near where is now the Grevelingendam, it would cause heavy erosion.

The same story can be told regarding the Brouwershavense Gat and Haringvliet. To prevent filling Haringvliet after closure from Brouwershavese Gat the Volkerakdam was build.

Just before starting the construction of the Oosterscheldedam the area the tidal prism of the Oosterschelde was increased because the Krammer-Volkerak area was added hydraulically to the Oosterschelde. This caused extra current in the Zijpe. Because it was intended that this would last only for a short period, it seemed an acceptable solution. However, because of the decision not to make a dam in the Oosterschelde, this situation lasted much longer. And heavy shore protection works were needed along the Zijpe to strengthen the shoreline in that area.HJVerhagen (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, now I understand. It's interesting that your last paragraph was going to get at something I was going to talk about. It would seem that the order you'd do this would be Grevelingendam-Philipsdam-Volkerakdam. But the Philipsdam came much later than either. I assume this was because of lack of political will as opposed to anything technical, because it otherwise doesn't make sense to do it Grevelingendam-Volkerakdam-Philipsdam. As you pointed out closing the Volkerak before closing the Krammer directed the Oosterschelde's tides up through the Zijpe-Krammer-Volkerak and probably did all kinds of erosion and scouring throughout that stretch.

And speaking of the Zijpe, I initially wondered why the Philipsdam wasn't built across this waterway, and it would seem to make more sense to have it both at the narrowest part of the water and for added protection from the sea. But I believe the answer I read was that the village of Bruinisse wasn't unfettered access to the Oosterschelde estuary. Apparently, considerations for the locations of these works often included the local economies of these fishing, oeyster and mussel villages and to retain their access to seawater and tides. In fact, I think this was one of the significant reasons for building the Oesterdam. Had there been the political will and money to construct futher west into the Oosterschelde, that perhaps would have been even better for the fishing villages and towns seaward the dam.

Anyway, thanks again for all your help! Criticalthinker (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you might want to explain a way we could incorporate the definition of a "wantij" into these articles to explain dam construction on the English language wikipedia articles, as I've been unable to find any direct English translation for the concept. It make the process of closing coastal "holes" much easier to understand. My best understanding of them is that they'd be described as (mostly) underwater watershed or drainage basin divides. I feel like the consistent definition across the current articles as a "place where tidal currents" meet isn't as clear in the English language since management of the tides is part of water management done much more rarely here than in a place like the Netherlands. We simply don't have a lot of specific vocabulary for various aspects of this process. Criticalthinker (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know an English term for Wantij (in German they use the term "Wattenhoch". In English texts I personally use the term "tidal divide", but as far as I know this is not a generally accepted term. The phenomenon occurs behind barrier islands in meso and macro tidal coast (like in the Dutch and German Waddensea). I assume behind the US barrier islands along the east coast this phenomenon should also occur, but I have no information about this; publications of NOAA on tides along the Intracoastal Waterway do not mention it. In the mouth of the Columbia River on the US west coast behind Sand Island one should certainly have a "Wantij" in the channel between Fort Canby and Ilwaco, resulting in a location with a lot of siltation. HJVerhagen (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]