I never said any such thing!!!! But in an odd way, you have hit the nail
on the head as to why the bridge could never have been used for a
hydraulic ram (more below).

A 'head' of water can be provided by a pipe bring the water some distance
as we've both already agreed. It CAN also be provided by a waterfall or
even a header tank (not that I mentioned any means of how the drop was
achieved to the ram despite what you erroneously thought).

But to go back to that bridge which is high above an irrigation channel.
As you probably know, irrigation channels are a body of slow moving water
and they are on very gently slope. Just how far upstream do you think the
inlet pipe would need to be to provide a head for a hydraulic ram situated
that high above the water on that particular bridge? That bridge never
held any ram because as we both know, there needs to be that 'drop'. How
many miles would a pipe have been run back up that irrigation channel to
allow a drop to run a ram sitting up on that bridge?


1. it has not been established that this is, in fact, an irrigation ditch
(probably initially constructed as a drainage ditch) or its characteristics.

2. Nobody, until now, mentioned that the hydraulic ram was itself located on
top of the bridge deck. It was said the bridge could have "held" a
hydraulic ram. Just like it could hold a pump IN the water.

3. your "nope" sounded as if you were disagreeing with the described nature
of a hydraulic ram.

sounds like you are changing your story again.