I've seen this model before! The Mythbusters used it in testing the myth about the escape from Alcatraz, to see where a raft released from there might end up!
One of my favorite mythbusters episodes and this model was my favorite part! I was practically obsessed with this model because I'm a fan of scale models and simulations.
So, the model costed only $2000000, and avoided building something costing nearly 1000 times more that would have caused even more in all sort of damage. I call that money very well invested. Plus, the facility have other uses.
Ideas that seem horrible to begin with should not be taken seriously. Destroy San Francisco Bay, military bases, etc , what kind of twisted mind does this appeal too?
@@henryhansen3662 as said, people loved it. If everything he promised was right, it could’ve been a beneficial project. RIP the ecosystem but again, 50s.
I’d really like to see a computer model of the same proposal and see how it compares to the results of this project. It would be interesting to see how similar they were.
Probably quite similar, for what would be the sense of building a computer model if it didn't use what is already known to compare against? Although, I also doubt that the Bay is quite the same as it was then, to begin with.
@@engerim 1) They spent 3 years testing various configurations 2) This was in the 50s It has literally nothing to do with people “these days” giving up easily. It was just a terrible idea. Please think before you let drivel like that leak out your mouth.
"Sometimes we follow bad ideas and changing your mind on new evidence and allowing other to do the same is something our world should be based no" Respect for that!
I volunteered as a chaperone when my nephew's class went to see this. This video doesn't do it justice. The place is HUGE, and the whole thing is impressive.
I think a message of 'be scientific, follow the evidence and admit when the plan isn't working' is a message that needs to be taken to heart more than ever today.
@@mervunit Well if the "plan" wasn't ever really the plan but a pretext. And the "failiure" was the intended consequence. And nothing is admitted because they refuse accountability. It is necessary to hold them accountable by force.
@@jaydengraham8303 Given we're talking about America, I would have expected it to have been torn down long ago and replaced with something that produces current value.
The work the Army Corp of Engineers do is insane, every time I hear about one of their big projects it blows me away how much work and effort it all takes.
@@serronserron1320combat engineers only make up a portion of the army Corp of engineers as strange as that seems. They sort of the combat adjunct to the engineers, like medics are to the Army Medical Corp.
As a civil engineer, I find these 'old school' models are fantastic. Computers are nice, quick and cheaper. But hands-on practical models are very valuable. It helps create a much better understanding of what you're doing. Its the same with drawing stuff by hand on those old drawing boards or placing lines (now more often 3d objects) on a screen. The old ways are less efficient, but you develop a much better understanding... and more frustration because you cant just press 'delete' to erase a line.
Whether small-scale topological models or full-scale product "components", actual fluid flow testing is still being used in engineering practices... and especially in aerospace engineering, with resulting empirical data being used for design, acceptance and anomaly resolution, or to provide data for the CFD crowd for code verification. Fluid flow testing and CFD work hand-in-hand still.
If the scale was 1000:1 horizontally and 100:1 vertically then that would change the shape/angle of anything that wasn't perpendicular to the earths surface. Would that not make a difference in the simulation from what would actually happen? All of the hills and banks and riverbed would be 10 times steeper in the model than they would be in reality. Just curious. It may not have any effect at all...
@@thomasrobinette3227 If I recall correctly from my engineering classes back in the 80s, there are cases where that kind of distortion of a model is necessary to make it produce accurate results. Part of the reason is that you can change the dimensions of the physical system but not the physical properties of the water, meaning a perfectly scaled model won't act quite like a small version of the real thing. The distortions in time and dimensions can compensate for that, and the necessary ratios can be calculated.
Finally, a RUclips on something I have personal experience with. Many years back I was Engineering Manager at a company that designed and installed many sensors on the Bay Model. (I think at some point they were changed to something yet newer, not sure of that). The sensors were to measure depth (using a bubbler system and a sensitive Setra brand transducer), velocity (electromagnetic - no moving parts), and conductivity (direct contact electrodes with an AC current excitation). The challenge was that the sensors had to be extremely small, avoid impeding water flow, and the depth and velocity sensors were measuring very, very small changes. One thing I found interesting was when calibrating conductivity sensors there. You use known solutions but usually have to keep re-adding distilled water to the test container as water evaporates. But with so much surface water in the building the vapor pressure for water was so high that the test solutions simply didn't evaporate. And here's a dirty little secret about a mistake the Corps of Engineers made long before my time there for testing mechanical velocity sensors: They made a rotating donut shaped test tank. The idea being that it could be rotated at some known speed and therefore provide water moving past a fixed point indefinitely as if it were an infinitely long straight tank (straight tanks with traveling shuttles being another method used - but obviously limited in length). But they drove the center spindle with a worm and spur gear. When they tried to stop it, well, spur gears won't drive worm gears backwards so with the weight of a ton or more of water whirling around tore the mechanism apart. They remedied that with a belt drive scheme. At our factory, we made a similar, even larger, rotating test tank out of steel just like the one at the Bay Model. But the magnetism from welding the tank together interfered with our electromagnetic velocity sensors. We tried to make a huge degaussing coil, but it didn't work well enough. So we had to remake the entire tank out of aluminum and that worked great. I remember being told, prior to our involvement, that the Bay Model had fallen out of favor for many years and then a little bit of oil was spilled in San Francisco Bay. They simulated the spill on the model to see how far up the system it would go and when. They sent clean up equipment to the predicted location in real life and the oil arrived right on time. So the model was a hero and was back in use again for awhile. The model had also been used to test what would happen if the San Joaquin ship canal was dug deeper (which it eventually was) to determine the effect of salt water intrusion up into the delta. There were also other such hydraulic models such as of the Chesapeake Bay and before that a 200 acre model of the Mississippi River near Jackson, Mississippi.
"Scientists don't coddle ideas, they crash test them. They run them into a brick wall at 60 mph and then pick through the pieces. If the idea is sound, the pieces will be those of the wall."
Science. "Having a hypothesis. Testing it. And then, when it fails, admitting that it's wrong. There shouldn't be any shame in that. Sometimes we follow bad ideas. And changing your mind based on new evidence and allowing others to do the same is something our world should be built on." -Tom Scott. Very well said! (Timestamp 3:51)
I've wanted to film here for years, and I finally made it! And this may be the first time someone's actually put a camera underwater in the Model: refraction means it's a lot deeper than it appears from the side...
TimRT Howard Its not really that wow. just 1/72 (for large scale stuff, like entire battles etc) and 1/35 models (for closer). sometimes a 1/48 aircraft getting refueled or getting more ammo here and there.
While in hydraulics a computer model is way cheaper and faster, computers are still not at the point where they could execute a 3D model of water on this kind of scale and have it give results as accurate as a massive 3D model can. This is especially true when you start taking into account stuff like, say, turbulent flow, or sediment transport.
@@Brunosky_Inc You might be right if the physical model didn't have obvious, glaring flaws. Even my ignorant ass knows that scaling vertical space, horizontal space, and time at different rates will wildly affect the results. And that's to say nothing of gravity or the square-cube law or any other confounding factors we don't know about.
@@AllUpOns They sure do, and those models account for that. I couldn't tell you the especifics since I only was taught the methods years ago and never made use of them in practice, but the basics is that in the development of these models, they are paired and callibrated with real life using dimensionless parameters. For example, while you can scale something like size, you can't (easily) scale gravity, but using those dimensionless parameters you can find some other property of the fluid you can play with in order to get it as close as analogous with reality, such as changing flow at a scale different to what you scaled size, or changing the viscosity of the fluid. I can assure you whoever builds models of these magnitude knows what they're doing. They account for what kind of scaling they need to do for every parameter in order to get as close to reality as possible, and when done right they work significantly better than many a computer model.
@@Brunosky_Inc So you were taught those methods years ago, never made use of them in practice and probably no nothing about actual computer modeling and yet you are here making claims that computers are still not at the point that they are better? You know, even though computers make incredibly strides in power every few months and we now have a.i. doing a lot of the modeling.
Being here in person feels so surreal. It almost smells like a swimming pool, and the room has the same acoustics as something like an indoor Olympic pool. It's honestly just really trippy being inside such a massive room where tens of square miles are compressed into a few square feet of plaster and water.
I’ve raced sailboats on the bay and this was fascinating for me to see in person . The tides in the bay are very tricky from a current standpoint and to see them in action was quite educational.
We had a hydrodinamic model like this in Italy, testing the dam that currently protect the harbor of Ravenna. It was fantastic. Unfortunately, it was removed to make place for a new boat maintenance area... These were great toys and made a great job for many years. It has been a pleasure to see one of them in this video.
Agreed to the ending! There's no shame in changing your mind, whether if presented with new evidence or simply realizing your thinking was incorrect. The real shame would be to avoid changing your mind for the sake of pride.
The hard part, for most people, is getting past cognitive dissonance, the discomfort felt when exposed to evidence that challenges a deeply held belief. A lot of people can’t push through it and continue to defend mistaken beliefs and reject any evidence that contradicts them.
It’s times like this where I’m super grateful that someone had the good sense to test the project and put it in the capable hands of the Army Corps of Engineers. So much money, lives, and ecosystem saved!
Ecosystem saved? Look at a series of aerial photographs from the 30s to present. Ever increasing population around, and ever increasing encroachment of industrial, pharmaceutical and biological toxins into the bay itself, thence creating a vast, lifeless Pacific for many miles west of the golden gate outfall. Throwing a couple of logs into a sucked dry stream bed isn't going to convince an endangered specie to try to navigate the toxic pit it has to swim through to get there and reproduce. Slightly nicer than your common third world Inlet, but ultimately a wasteland nonetheless.
Probably one of the few things they got right. Out here they prioritize the federally subsidized barge transportation industry downstream over the money making recreational industry upstream.
Thank you so much for this video Tom!! Over the summer, I walked to the bay model dozens of times on walks around Sausalito and never went in. Its awesome to finally know and understand what it once was.
I worked on the Chesapeake Bay model as a student intern in 1980. I think it was even bigger. I was based in Vicksburg, MS, where there used to be model of the entire Mississippi river, and many smaller but larger scale models of other water structures.
I work as a park ranger for the US Army Corps of Engineers. I have heard of this model but never seen it until today in your video. I work at a lake office and do environment education and other such projects. Being able to teach about such a grand model would be fun.
I lived in Sausalito for years and visited the Bay Model frequently. There are (or were) also fascinating displays there about the mammoth shipbuilding operations that sprang up at and around this same location in support of WWII.
+Arthur Friday I appreciate your counter-troll, where you pretend like you don't get the Bill O'Reilly joke that +Freakschwimmer and I were just referencing.
Wow, I haven't been in that place in nearly 50 years! I remember when they used it for the oil spill in the bay around 1971ish. They discovered that the oil would eventually travel through the Golden Gate, out to sea. They were able to capture a lot of the oil with this knowledge!
So very thankful that they took the necessary amount of time to figure out how catastrophic the plan would have been had it been implemented. So often actions are taken and results are dealt with in the aftermath.
I visited the model as a schoolchild in the 60s. We came from San Francisco over to Sausalito to see it. I moved away from SF as a teenager, so I haven't seen it in about 50 years. Thanks for bringing back memories.
Basically that's one of the offshoots of the aspects of the test. a raft or leaf could easily test free flowing possibilities of things. However one of the reasons why John Booth was found so quickly after his presidential murder was because in a situation like that you did not have the compass read right due to illiteracy during a river crossing and the boat beached on the wrong bank of the river.
In the Netherlands we also built such models. After the Great Flood in 1953 the Delta plan was devised and tested on such a facility, which is free to visit until today. Also other waterworks projects had their model tests, all can be seen in the waterloopbos.
@@terag0ne it's in the city of Sausalito, in Marin county, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge. It's just south of where I live in Marin, about a 20 minute drive
We still use physical models like this! Smaller scale though - they can help calibrate models and give us nice *in the right area* parameter sets to give us some start/reference information with difficult, data poorly gauged catchments and areas!
A beautiful and eloquent piece of advocacy for the philosophy of the scientific method at the end there Tom, which reminded me of why I do what I do and study what I study. Brilliant work!
Damn, I kind of wish I could have taken my grandfather to see this. He served in the COE during WW2 and went on to a career in engineering which included the world's largest artificially constructed reservoir. He passed about 10 years ago, but I like to think that he would enjoy it.
Having recently turned 33, I have already come to the realization that most people will choose convenient lies to inconvenient truths 9 out of 10 times. That 1 out of 10 times is simply so they can convincingly lie to themselves that they are the enlightened ones.
I used to work with people on similar facilities to what you have there. They are amazing people, smart and knowledgeable on their own fields and helped a lot of disaster mitigations...
This is so cool! I love stuff like this. Thanks for sharing! Even if the plan itself was unworkable, this is a really cool looking and detailed model that looks to have turned into a minor tourist attraction if nothing else. Maybe I'll have to visit it someday.
In the netherlands they build the same kind of setup mimicing the province 'zeeland' to do tests regarding the deltaworks. Since computers weren't as potent to do the computations back in the 50's - 60's as they do now. The actual facility still stands in a forest but the model sadly isn't. There is some obcure video material showing scientists working on tests on the model back in the day.
One of my fav movies 'Local Hero' has one of these modelling a Scottish bay. It also had beautiful shapely scientist in a swimsuit diving in to check a sensor.
I had heard about this model, being a sailor and Hobie Cat racer in the Bay area. I did not believe it actually existed until I saw it.... and I was in awe!
My dad was the Public Relations guy for the Bay Model for years. I've visited it many times. It makes for an interesting visit if you're in the SF Bay Area.
There is a smaller one of these at the University of Washington that is a model of the Puget Sound. I have done a few experiments with it and it has been used by police to do things like locating missing boats and bodies.
I used to live in the San Francisco Bay Area when I was a kid and there was one day where we took a field trip to the Bay Model. It was really cool to watch how the tides move in and out and how it affects everything.
"[...] admitting that it's wrong. There shouldn't be any shame in that [...]" Most of us are too stupid. And the rest are treated as worse by others for doing so.
Very interesting video! Good thing it didn't happen really, what with the reasons mentioned, plus San Francisco being earthquake prone - reclaimed land generally doesn't perform well in situations like that.
Mr.EB Do you have any idea how much of San Fran is on reclaimed land? Can't remember my sources, but there are maps that show where the shore was in 1840, and then every ten years after. I think it's a good half mile of shore that wouldn't, some say for safety reasons, shouldn't be there.
Good example of the postwar "Go-Go" years where anything was possible-- this, using nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes like building deep-water harbors and releasing natural gas, etc. Fascinating era
I’ve been here many times. It is really neat to look at. There is also a small museum there to the Bay Area WW2 history particularly the manufacturing of ships in Sausalito. There is a model of a navy oiler the model my grandfather served on.
Arthur Friday According to the Mythbusters they could have made it. And the really interesting result showed the cops were looking in the wrong place on shore for evidence of a landing place. The tide would've taken them farther down shore, away from the city.
Arthur Friday they didn't swim, they made a boat from waterproofed jackets. Myth busters used the same jackets to make a boat. Police from the escape found the same type of boat on the shore., but a lot later after the escape.
Fascinating. Didn't the Dutch have something similar, but outdoors and more general in nature? Of course, it's another of Tom's videos I'm talking about :)
So 1/10,000 of the bay is a model of the bay (in surface area). Interesting. Does the model of the bay have enough resolution to have an accurate model of the model of the bay inside it?
If so, does the model inside the model also feature a model of the model of the model? It would probably only be millimeters large, but still a visible size.
As incredibly expensive as it may be, there's something to be said about being capable of modeling something to test a theory as opposed to running a sim. When you show someone negative results regarding their pet project generated from a computer study, there will always be a cloud of suspicion surrounding your conclusions - an accusation that you "cooked the books". When you can show them a REAL MODEL, well any idiot can see how it works or doesn't, and the howls of foul are more likely to be met with derision than assent.
"this model is a testament to something else - to science. To having a hypothesis. To testing it. And then, when it fails, admitting that it's wrong. There shouldn't be any shame in that. Sometimes we follow bad ideas, and changing your mind based on new evidence, and allowing others to do the same is something our world should be built on ..." Just wanted to write that down. It seems to encapsulate the difference between science and ... that other way of thinking.
I saw it at Mythbusters video when they tested if these guys who escaped Alcatraz could've sucesfully swim to shore, and they found out new better route and swam trough it using ponton they made from raincoats similar to these from that era.
Tom Scott in 2016: To-scale model of a San Francisco Bay Tom Scott in 2026: To-scale model of planet Earth Tom Scott in 2036: To-scale model of our solar system
I love the Bay Model. It's such an odd idea, and so improbable that it has survived after its original purpose was fulfilled. It has a quality that is hard to find: a public space that is gracefully aging without being trashed by new alterations or additions, vandals, taggers and other offenses. I live nearby and I stop in probably once a year when passing through Sausalito. It's a wonderfully quiet space and there's something meditative about seeing the tiny channels with water gently flowing through them.
It would be interesting if you were able to compare the 1950's results to a modern CFD analysis. I'd be curious to see how accurate their conclusion actually was.
@@GilmerJohn Computer models are way more accurate. That is why people don't build physical models like this anymore. There are too many variables that you might miss when building a physical model. It is almost impossible to get all the conditions just right for absolute perfect accuracy like you can in a computer simulated model. You also can't alter and change the conditions on a physical model as easily as you can on a computer model.
@@pauldavis5665 computers also cant factor what it doesnt know. I'd say building a physical model off of a computer analysis of the bay would be the best we can do as of 2023 because then you can make it perfectly to scale while also having a model that adheres to the world's physics as compared to a computer simulation that adheres to almost all of them.
@@pauldavis5665 They're more accurate if all your inputs and formulas are correct. If there's an error anywhere in there, the results will be inaccurate.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
They should open this up once a week for RC naval battles.
Itd be a good source of revenue
Hypothetical Imperial Japanese Navy attack on San Francisco.
that would be really cool actually
@@mill2712 Damn bro you came in with the logic and foresight and shut that one down
@@mill2712 I really wish I could argue with you, but knowing people, you are 1000% correct
"I've got 99 problems and wild, unpredictable, catastrophic flooding is just one of them"
Maybe that's what Jay Z meant, if you know what I mean
if u havein damn problems i feel bad for u son i got 99 problems but wilde unpredictable flooding ant one. wet life seal deal
@keahistight ..... going to be ignored until it's too late.
@keahistight Re: needles etc.
Plus GRETA… ..
@@ae112 someone should've made a model of the Trump administration
I've seen this model before! The Mythbusters used it in testing the myth about the escape from Alcatraz, to see where a raft released from there might end up!
Alexis Rainbow Queen thought I remembered it from that episode too.
same here
One of my favorite mythbusters episodes and this model was my favorite part! I was practically obsessed with this model because I'm a fan of scale models and simulations.
That was my thought as soon as I saw it as well
Heh. Same here
So, the model costed only $2000000, and avoided building something costing nearly 1000 times more that would have caused even more in all sort of damage. I call that money very well invested. Plus, the facility have other uses.
Ideas that seem horrible to begin with should not be taken seriously. Destroy San Francisco Bay, military bases, etc , what kind of twisted mind does this appeal too?
@@henryhansen3662 It was the 1950's dude
@@henryhansen3662 as said, people loved it. If everything he promised was right, it could’ve been a beneficial project. RIP the ecosystem but again, 50s.
@@henryhansen3662 "Destroy San Francisco Bay" was not the idea, the idea was to...well Tom said it in the video, you did watch right?
@@kino266 even in the 50s they did not want to destroy stuff, it may be an unintended consequence.
I’d really like to see a computer model of the same proposal and see how it compares to the results of this project. It would be interesting to see how similar they were.
Probably quite similar, for what would be the sense of building a computer model if it didn't use what is already known to compare against? Although, I also doubt that the Bay is quite the same as it was then, to begin with.
yep, and find models that would avoid the problems found. People just give up too easy these days.
@@engerim 1) They spent 3 years testing various configurations
2) This was in the 50s
It has literally nothing to do with people “these days” giving up easily. It was just a terrible idea. Please think before you let drivel like that leak out your mouth.
They do both physical and CFD models in most new dam constructions. Theres gaps and advantages of both.
It probably took this, and several other physical models, to learn how to program modern computer models.
"Sometimes we follow bad ideas and changing your mind on new evidence and allowing other to do the same is something our world should be based no" Respect for that!
*on
Well as the mythbusters said, failure is always an option
Never more relevant in the the UK than right now 😂
@@danieleyles7960 or just the internet in general.
Unless it's a core belief. Then evidence is irrelevant. :-P (Not trolling, please don't be mad if you disagree!)
I volunteered as a chaperone when my nephew's class went to see this. This video doesn't do it justice. The place is HUGE, and the whole thing is impressive.
I think a message of 'be scientific, follow the evidence and admit when the plan isn't working' is a message that needs to be taken to heart more than ever today.
Especially by politicians.
unfortunately, pharma execs gotta get new yachts
@@mervunit Well if the "plan" wasn't ever really the plan but a pretext. And the "failiure" was the intended consequence.
And nothing is admitted because they refuse accountability.
It is necessary to hold them accountable by force.
@@mervunit The irony here is thicker more than molasses.
@@zteaxon7787 you cant hold someone accountable for crimes that were never committed
I'm just amazed at how large and ambitious this model is... and the fact that it's still being maintained and run after half a century.
Maintained is a stretch
@@jaydengraham8303 Given we're talking about America, I would have expected it to have been torn down long ago and replaced with something that produces current value.
most klikelly it is teaching tool now days@@ohauss
@@ohaussyup, like most malls there would have been
There are more of these across the country. There is a similar model of the Chesapeake Bay.
The work the Army Corp of Engineers do is insane, every time I hear about one of their big projects it blows me away how much work and effort it all takes.
Generally when you think of army engineers you think of sappers and latrine diggers
No, I think of an unaccountable government agency. You know how few times ACE has stood before Congress? It's a cabal of unfirable schmucks.
@@serronserron1320and sentry nests!
@@serronserron1320combat engineers only make up a portion of the army Corp of engineers as strange as that seems. They sort of the combat adjunct to the engineers, like medics are to the Army Medical Corp.
@@taureon_ and teleporters
Bay model: The standard distribution of explosions and robots in single movie to optimise revenue.
There is the North Bay, the South Bay, and the Micheal Bay...
Will B-C You forgot the murican flags! You fool!
Your comment is better than mine.
and to /prime/ audiences for sequels to continue that revenue.
What if Bey did a film about the Bay Dam collapsing in fireballs and giant robot cars and stuff... kerpow
As a civil engineer, I find these 'old school' models are fantastic. Computers are nice, quick and cheaper. But hands-on practical models are very valuable. It helps create a much better understanding of what you're doing. Its the same with drawing stuff by hand on those old drawing boards or placing lines (now more often 3d objects) on a screen. The old ways are less efficient, but you develop a much better understanding... and more frustration because you cant just press 'delete' to erase a line.
As an architect I totally agree! I would imagine this is like what hand sculpting is vs. a 3D printer...
Whether small-scale topological models or full-scale product "components", actual fluid flow testing is still being used in engineering practices... and especially in aerospace engineering, with resulting empirical data being used for design, acceptance and anomaly resolution, or to provide data for the CFD crowd for code verification. Fluid flow testing and CFD work hand-in-hand still.
If the scale was 1000:1 horizontally and 100:1 vertically then that would change the shape/angle of anything that wasn't perpendicular to the earths surface. Would that not make a difference in the simulation from what would actually happen? All of the hills and banks and riverbed would be 10 times steeper in the model than they would be in reality. Just curious. It may not have any effect at all...
@@thomasrobinette3227 If I recall correctly from my engineering classes back in the 80s, there are cases where that kind of distortion of a model is necessary to make it produce accurate results. Part of the reason is that you can change the dimensions of the physical system but not the physical properties of the water, meaning a perfectly scaled model won't act quite like a small version of the real thing. The distortions in time and dimensions can compensate for that, and the necessary ratios can be calculated.
@@mastick5106 that seems like it could make alot of sense, thx!
Finally, a RUclips on something I have personal experience with. Many years back I was Engineering Manager at a company that designed and installed many sensors on the Bay Model. (I think at some point they were changed to something yet newer, not sure of that). The sensors were to measure depth (using a bubbler system and a sensitive Setra brand transducer), velocity (electromagnetic - no moving parts), and conductivity (direct contact electrodes with an AC current excitation). The challenge was that the sensors had to be extremely small, avoid impeding water flow, and the depth and velocity sensors were measuring very, very small changes. One thing I found interesting was when calibrating conductivity sensors there. You use known solutions but usually have to keep re-adding distilled water to the test container as water evaporates. But with so much surface water in the building the vapor pressure for water was so high that the test solutions simply didn't evaporate. And here's a dirty little secret about a mistake the Corps of Engineers made long before my time there for testing mechanical velocity sensors: They made a rotating donut shaped test tank. The idea being that it could be rotated at some known speed and therefore provide water moving past a fixed point indefinitely as if it were an infinitely long straight tank (straight tanks with traveling shuttles being another method used - but obviously limited in length). But they drove the center spindle with a worm and spur gear. When they tried to stop it, well, spur gears won't drive worm gears backwards so with the weight of a ton or more of water whirling around tore the mechanism apart. They remedied that with a belt drive scheme. At our factory, we made a similar, even larger, rotating test tank out of steel just like the one at the Bay Model. But the magnetism from welding the tank together interfered with our electromagnetic velocity sensors. We tried to make a huge degaussing coil, but it didn't work well enough. So we had to remake the entire tank out of aluminum and that worked great. I remember being told, prior to our involvement, that the Bay Model had fallen out of favor for many years and then a little bit of oil was spilled in San Francisco Bay. They simulated the spill on the model to see how far up the system it would go and when. They sent clean up equipment to the predicted location in real life and the oil arrived right on time. So the model was a hero and was back in use again for awhile. The model had also been used to test what would happen if the San Joaquin ship canal was dug deeper (which it eventually was) to determine the effect of salt water intrusion up into the delta. There were also other such hydraulic models such as of the Chesapeake Bay and before that a 200 acre model of the Mississippi River near Jackson, Mississippi.
Wow you really inspired me to take up civil engineering (if that's the correct branch I presume)
Thanks Charles!
Nice story! Really like insights into things like this! :)
Thanks for leaving your insight here! Really cool.
Neat! Thanks Charles!
"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again."
"Scientists don't coddle ideas, they crash test them. They run them into a brick wall at 60 mph and then pick through the pieces. If the idea is sound, the pieces will be those of the wall."
Science. "Having a hypothesis. Testing it. And then, when it fails, admitting that it's wrong. There shouldn't be any shame in that. Sometimes we follow bad ideas. And changing your mind based on new evidence and allowing others to do the same is something our world should be built on." -Tom Scott. Very well said! (Timestamp 3:51)
I've wanted to film here for years, and I finally made it! And this may be the first time someone's actually put a camera underwater in the Model: refraction means it's a lot deeper than it appears from the side...
This is amazing!
Wut you commented one week ago on a video that was just uploaded wut
You can upload a video without publishing it.
Tom Scott 1 week ago?
How did you pin this a week ago before the video was out
As someone who builds scale model war dioramas, that is fucking brilliant to me, making that would be like a dream job.
Arthur Friday That is a long way to travel, with a lot of expense I just cant make man.
wow scale model war dioramas
TimRT Howard Its not really that wow. just 1/72 (for large scale stuff, like entire battles etc) and 1/35 models (for closer). sometimes a 1/48 aircraft getting refueled or getting more ammo here and there.
Too bad you use filthy language in an "open" forum!
Wally McAllister war dioramas dirty dirty dirty.
Has the Reber plan been computer modelled and if so, did the results agree with the physical model results?
Why would a computer model prove otherwise? They said computers would make things cheaper not more accurate right?
While in hydraulics a computer model is way cheaper and faster, computers are still not at the point where they could execute a 3D model of water on this kind of scale and have it give results as accurate as a massive 3D model can.
This is especially true when you start taking into account stuff like, say, turbulent flow, or sediment transport.
@@Brunosky_Inc You might be right if the physical model didn't have obvious, glaring flaws. Even my ignorant ass knows that scaling vertical space, horizontal space, and time at different rates will wildly affect the results. And that's to say nothing of gravity or the square-cube law or any other confounding factors we don't know about.
@@AllUpOns They sure do, and those models account for that.
I couldn't tell you the especifics since I only was taught the methods years ago and never made use of them in practice, but the basics is that in the development of these models, they are paired and callibrated with real life using dimensionless parameters.
For example, while you can scale something like size, you can't (easily) scale gravity, but using those dimensionless parameters you can find some other property of the fluid you can play with in order to get it as close as analogous with reality, such as changing flow at a scale different to what you scaled size, or changing the viscosity of the fluid.
I can assure you whoever builds models of these magnitude knows what they're doing. They account for what kind of scaling they need to do for every parameter in order to get as close to reality as possible, and when done right they work significantly better than many a computer model.
@@Brunosky_Inc So you were taught those methods years ago, never made use of them in practice and probably no nothing about actual computer modeling and yet you are here making claims that computers are still not at the point that they are better? You know, even though computers make incredibly strides in power every few months and we now have a.i. doing a lot of the modeling.
Being here in person feels so surreal. It almost smells like a swimming pool, and the room has the same acoustics as something like an indoor Olympic pool. It's honestly just really trippy being inside such a massive room where tens of square miles are compressed into a few square feet of plaster and water.
why did i read 'being here in person' as 'being here in prison' 5 times in a row, bro i need some serious sleep 💀💀💀💀
"a few square feet" the installation is over an acre in size. that's massive mate
I’ve raced sailboats on the bay and this was fascinating for me to see in person . The tides in the bay are very tricky from a current standpoint and to see them in action was quite educational.
We had a hydrodinamic model like this in Italy, testing the dam that currently protect the harbor of Ravenna. It was fantastic. Unfortunately, it was removed to make place for a new boat maintenance area... These were great toys and made a great job for many years. It has been a pleasure to see one of them in this video.
Agreed to the ending! There's no shame in changing your mind, whether if presented with new evidence or simply realizing your thinking was incorrect. The real shame would be to avoid changing your mind for the sake of pride.
Tell that to those who will cling on to using fossil fuels as if there are no long term consequences
@@parajacks4 Yes, it is stupid and willfully ignorant to do so. Nothing strange there.
The hard part, for most people, is getting past cognitive dissonance, the discomfort felt when exposed to evidence that challenges a deeply held belief. A lot of people can’t push through it and continue to defend mistaken beliefs and reject any evidence that contradicts them.
@@parajacks4 Kind of like those who keep insisting we give socialism another try?
@@CrimsonKingOkie Few people say that. Instead, people call things they don't like socialist or communist.
It’s times like this where I’m super grateful that someone had the good sense to test the project and put it in the capable hands of the Army Corps of Engineers. So much money, lives, and ecosystem saved!
Ecosystem saved? Look at a series of aerial photographs from the 30s to present. Ever increasing population around, and ever increasing encroachment of industrial, pharmaceutical and biological toxins into the bay itself, thence creating a vast, lifeless Pacific for many miles west of the golden gate outfall. Throwing a couple of logs into a sucked dry stream bed isn't going to convince an endangered specie to try to navigate the toxic pit it has to swim through to get there and reproduce. Slightly nicer than your common third world Inlet, but ultimately a wasteland nonetheless.
You mean like the Corp's dikes and levees that were guaranteed to keep New Orleans dry? Didn't work too well during Hurricane Katrina.
Probably one of the few things they got right. Out here they prioritize the federally subsidized barge transportation industry downstream over the money making recreational industry upstream.
When I'm elected president and supreme overlord of all beings I am going to bring it back and make the mistakes our forefathers refused to make
"capable"
3:54 - that hits really rough after the past couple years. I think some folks really need to hear this today.
Thank you so much for this video Tom!! Over the summer, I walked to the bay model dozens of times on walks around Sausalito and never went in. Its awesome to finally know and understand what it once was.
That ending was perfect. People should be more willing to admit to being ignorant towards something, because then you have the chance to learn.
That is so cool that that still exists! We used to have a Hydraulic Model of the Chesapeake Bay, but it closed years ago; I got to visit it in 1983. .
I worked on the Chesapeake Bay model as a student intern in 1980. I think it was even bigger. I was based in Vicksburg, MS, where there used to be model of the entire Mississippi river, and many smaller but larger scale models of other water structures.
I work as a park ranger for the US Army Corps of Engineers. I have heard of this model but never seen it until today in your video. I work at a lake office and do environment education and other such projects. Being able to teach about such a grand model would be fun.
I actually visited this place when I was in Elementary school, as part of a guided tour. Glad it's still around.
I lived in Sausalito for years and visited the Bay Model frequently. There are (or were) also fascinating displays there about the mammoth shipbuilding operations that sprang up at and around this same location in support of WWII.
Tide goes on, tide goes out. Can't explain that!
Okay, yeah, the moon does it, fine. How'd the moon get there?
+Arthur Friday I appreciate your counter-troll, where you pretend like you don't get the Bill O'Reilly joke that +Freakschwimmer and I were just referencing.
is this how magnets work?
This is a model makers wet dream. Fantastic facility.
They need to hire it out for model ship battles and races.
A Totally Ordinary Aubergine, I’m sure some of that happens with staff after hours! I mean, why wouldn’t it!
Wow, I haven't been in that place in nearly 50 years!
I remember when they used it for the oil spill in the bay around 1971ish. They discovered that the oil would eventually travel through the Golden Gate, out to sea. They were able to capture a lot of the oil with this knowledge!
So very thankful that they took the necessary amount of time to figure out how catastrophic the plan would have been had it been implemented. So often actions are taken and results are dealt with in the aftermath.
With your voice I expect you to sign off with: Tom Scott. BBC News. Sausalito.
OMG YES 🤣
I visited the model as a schoolchild in the 60s. We came from San Francisco over to Sausalito to see it. I moved away from SF as a teenager, so I haven't seen it in about 50 years. Thanks for bringing back memories.
I remeber seeing the SF Bay Model at Mythbusters, when they where testing out the Alcatraz escape..
Basically that's one of the offshoots of the aspects of the test. a raft or leaf could easily test free flowing possibilities of things. However one of the reasons why John Booth was found so quickly after his presidential murder was because in a situation like that you did not have the compass read right due to illiteracy during a river crossing and the boat beached on the wrong bank of the river.
No way!!!! I live just a few miles from the bay model and I go all the time! It’s so awesome to see you go here!
In the Netherlands we also built such models. After the Great Flood in 1953 the Delta plan was devised and tested on such a facility, which is free to visit until today. Also other waterworks projects had their model tests, all can be seen in the waterloopbos.
The waterloopbos is way more surrealistic and strange because its rusted and you have to get of the path to get to models
As a Californian, I feel like I have a duty to visit this. I can't tell if it's open to the public.
I went there maybe 6 years ago and it was. Just walked in with a fee
It is, i live near it, it’s in Marin county,
@@terag0ne it's in the city of Sausalito, in Marin county, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge. It's just south of where I live in Marin, about a 20 minute drive
i concur. absolutely true dude
@@TheGreatPOD indeed
We still use physical models like this! Smaller scale though - they can help calibrate models and give us nice *in the right area* parameter sets to give us some start/reference information with difficult, data poorly gauged catchments and areas!
A beautiful and eloquent piece of advocacy for the philosophy of the scientific method at the end there Tom, which reminded me of why I do what I do and study what I study. Brilliant work!
Damn, I kind of wish I could have taken my grandfather to see this. He served in the COE during WW2 and went on to a career in engineering which included the world's largest artificially constructed reservoir. He passed about 10 years ago, but I like to think that he would enjoy it.
Been here so many times, it's so cool. It's especially cool to see Tom Scott somewhere I've actually been.
What a memorial to the time before we went post-factual.
Disregarding facts isn't a new thing. If anything the scientific approach is the rare exception to the usual willful ignorance.
Yeah but back then we were pre-factual
+motster33
flat earthers can "validate" thier opinion? you have a strage definition of that word then...
+Penny Lane
we went what now?
He says, ironically boiling an entire period of time & billions of people down to a single sound byte.
Having recently turned 33, I have already come to the realization that most people will choose convenient lies to inconvenient truths 9 out of 10 times. That 1 out of 10 times is simply so they can convincingly lie to themselves that they are the enlightened ones.
I'm scanning the news, just so that you know, Tom. Just in case this model burns down suspiciously, just like the goat did! :P
He could make it a series, Things That Might Burn Down
I used to work with people on similar facilities to what you have there. They are amazing people, smart and knowledgeable on their own fields and helped a lot of disaster mitigations...
my father took me there as a child in the ‘60’s
Very memorable visit for a kid.
This is so cool! I love stuff like this. Thanks for sharing! Even if the plan itself was unworkable, this is a really cool looking and detailed model that looks to have turned into a minor tourist attraction if nothing else. Maybe I'll have to visit it someday.
In the netherlands they build the same kind of setup mimicing the province 'zeeland' to do tests regarding the deltaworks. Since computers weren't as potent to do the computations back in the 50's - 60's as they do now. The actual facility still stands in a forest but the model sadly isn't. There is some obcure video material showing scientists working on tests on the model back in the day.
One of my fav movies 'Local Hero' has one of these modelling a Scottish bay. It also had beautiful shapely scientist in a swimsuit diving in to check a sensor.
Pipe2DevNull Nice.
I've never seen the movie, but I probably should. I love Mark Knopfler and the Going Home theme tended to get featured quite prominently in concerts.
I had heard about this model, being a sailor and Hobie Cat racer in the Bay area. I did not believe it actually existed until I saw it.... and I was in awe!
My dad was the Public Relations guy for the Bay Model for years. I've visited it many times. It makes for an interesting visit if you're in the SF Bay Area.
There is a smaller one of these at the University of Washington that is a model of the Puget Sound. I have done a few experiments with it and it has been used by police to do things like locating missing boats and bodies.
I used to live in the San Francisco Bay Area when I was a kid and there was one day where we took a field trip to the Bay Model. It was really cool to watch how the tides move in and out and how it affects everything.
"[...] admitting that it's wrong. There shouldn't be any shame in that [...]" Most of us are too stupid. And the rest are treated as worse by others for doing so.
Thanks for making this presentation, fascinating and amazing.
This is so cool. I wonder how I've never seen any of your content until 2024.
Very interesting video! Good thing it didn't happen really, what with the reasons mentioned, plus San Francisco being earthquake prone - reclaimed land generally doesn't perform well in situations like that.
Nillie Indeed, most likely!
Mr.EB Do you have any idea how much of San Fran is on reclaimed land? Can't remember my sources, but there are maps that show where the shore was in 1840, and then every ten years after. I think it's a good half mile of shore that wouldn't, some say for safety reasons, shouldn't be there.
Reclaimed land turns to jello in a quake.
Is this about stopping the fifth Transformers movie?
If only...
SarcasticDragon Gaming that's totally what I was thinking
I keep thinking of Mythbusters' Alcatraz episode.
Good example of the postwar "Go-Go" years where anything was possible-- this, using nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes like building deep-water harbors and releasing natural gas, etc. Fascinating era
I’ve been here many times. It is really neat to look at. There is also a small museum there to the Bay Area WW2 history particularly the manufacturing of ships in Sausalito. There is a model of a navy oiler the model my grandfather served on.
I visited this model several times when I was a kid in the 1970s but I didn't really appreciate what it was for until now. Thank you.
The size of this place reminds me of the worlds largest model train layout in Hamburg, Germany
Mythbusters tested the Alcatraz threes chances of crossing the bay. Using the real tide patterns from that night. Very interesting results.
Arthur Friday According to the Mythbusters they could have made it. And the really interesting result showed the cops were looking in the wrong place on shore for evidence of a landing place. The tide would've taken them farther down shore, away from the city.
Arthur Friday they didn't swim, they made a boat from waterproofed jackets. Myth busters used the same jackets to make a boat. Police from the escape found the same type of boat on the shore., but a lot later after the escape.
Ade 1980 I know they made a boat, but ad far as propulsion was concerned, they were servants to the tide, and had no way of rowing/going against it.
that "what does we have that stock stock stock stock?" guy had me in tears.
The ending bit is very timely. Love your stuff.
This model was brought to you by Zorin Industries
Tom Hadler half our net income?
Fascinating. Didn't the Dutch have something similar, but outdoors and more general in nature? Of course, it's another of Tom's videos I'm talking about :)
The next experiment using the bay model. What would happen to San Francisco if a human the size of a lovecraftian monster jumped in the bay?
Been watching Toms videos for years but every so often RUclips manages to pull out a random old one that I missed and recommend it to me.
Amazing ! Thx for the good quality video !!
I wish you could show us the flooding
So 1/10,000 of the bay is a model of the bay (in surface area).
Interesting. Does the model of the bay have enough resolution to have an accurate model of the model of the bay inside it?
If so, does the model inside the model also feature a model of the model of the model? It would probably only be millimeters large, but still a visible size.
and are there really universes that are infinitely vast to those that inhabit them encased in every atom in every cell of everything? I need to know.
Who else is here re-watching Tom's old videos not that he's semi-retired
not a month hax pased and we already miss the monday schedule
I love that it’s being preserved as an educational resource.
2:50
I guess you can say the results were...
Damming.
You should do a piece on the Mississippi River Basin Model!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_Basin_Model
If I'm ever in that area, I totally will, it looks amazing.
I was going to suggest the same thing. There's a good 99PI episode on it.
99percentinvisible.org/episode/americas-last-top-model/
Same here.
The 99PI podcast also discussed that computer models were far cheaper and "accurate enough" but not nearly as informative as the physical models.
Tom Scott you'll just have to figure out how to get there. Use Mardi Gras as an excuse to get there if you have to.
As incredibly expensive as it may be, there's something to be said about being capable of modeling something to test a theory as opposed to running a sim. When you show someone negative results regarding their pet project generated from a computer study, there will always be a cloud of suspicion surrounding your conclusions - an accusation that you "cooked the books". When you can show them a REAL MODEL, well any idiot can see how it works or doesn't, and the howls of foul are more likely to be met with derision than assent.
It's also a great way to double-check a computer model before trying something out for real -- especially if the costs of being wrong are very large.
That ending piece about ideas being proven wrong by science and being ok with that is such an important point!
Accepting that something may be wrong is one of the most crucial aspects of science
I wanted to see the catastrophic flooding on 1/100th scale!
Cities Skylines ?
putting military bases on reclaimed land behind a dam. What could possibly go wrong ?
I now want to see a full video that shows what Reber's plan would have done to the San Francisco Bay :)
Yep! Disappointing to not "see" at least some of the worse predictions.
There is a documentary on the history of the Save the Bay Movement that covers this.
Im so glad it still exists!
"this model is a testament to something else - to science. To having a hypothesis. To testing it. And then, when it fails, admitting that it's wrong. There shouldn't be any shame in that. Sometimes we follow bad ideas, and changing your mind based on new evidence, and allowing others to do the same is something our world should be built on ..."
Just wanted to write that down. It seems to encapsulate the difference between science and ... that other way of thinking.
could you elaborate more on the results of the testing? like what exactly would have gone wrong? that would be great.
I saw it at Mythbusters video when they tested if these guys who escaped Alcatraz could've sucesfully swim to shore, and they found out new better route and swam trough it using ponton they made from raincoats similar to these from that era.
So cool! Is it open to the public?
Yes! Check their web site for opening hours and for the times of guided tours.
Yupp! Check the link Tom has in the description for days and hours they are open.
Thanks
No admission charge!
Your conclusion is gold. Thank you for that!
@@whtfl muh tv told me 2+2=5.
Tom Scott in 2016: To-scale model of a San Francisco Bay
Tom Scott in 2026: To-scale model of planet Earth
Tom Scott in 2036: To-scale model of our solar system
I love the Bay Model. It's such an odd idea, and so improbable that it has survived after its original purpose was fulfilled. It has a quality that is hard to find: a public space that is gracefully aging without being trashed by new alterations or additions, vandals, taggers and other offenses. I live nearby and I stop in probably once a year when passing through Sausalito. It's a wonderfully quiet space and there's something meditative about seeing the tiny channels with water gently flowing through them.
This is awesome. Has anyone gone back and tested the theory today with more modern science/methods/computers to compare results?
It would be interesting if you were able to compare the 1950's results to a modern CFD analysis. I'd be curious to see how accurate their conclusion actually was.
I would trust the physical model over the "computer model."
@@GilmerJohn Computer models are way more accurate. That is why people don't build physical models like this anymore. There are too many variables that you might miss when building a physical model. It is almost impossible to get all the conditions just right for absolute perfect accuracy like you can in a computer simulated model. You also can't alter and change the conditions on a physical model as easily as you can on a computer model.
@@pauldavis5665 computers also cant factor what it doesnt know. I'd say building a physical model off of a computer analysis of the bay would be the best we can do as of 2023 because then you can make it perfectly to scale while also having a model that adheres to the world's physics as compared to a computer simulation that adheres to almost all of them.
@@pauldavis5665 They're more accurate if all your inputs and formulas are correct. If there's an error anywhere in there, the results will be inaccurate.
Learning more, admitting you were wrong, and changing your mind is a critical set of skills that too many people are lacking in.
I've been to see this model several times as a kid. Gave me nostalgia seeing this vid.