• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
The camera faces away from the car ramp so is unlikely to be seawater spray coming in over the top of the ramp.
Click to expand...

Whère are you getting the highlighted from? I have just reread your linked page and can't find it. I was under the impression that the drawing of water coming in around the ramp was based on this camera feed.
 
Vixen said:
You had better contact the Maritime Museum...
Click to expand...

Why are they responsible for your error? You tried to smugly "correct" your critics, but it turns out they are quite able to provide references to show they are correct.

Just once I'd like to hear you say, "I'm sorry, it appears I was wrong and I retract the claim." Do you really consider yourself infallible?
 
Vixen said:
The point being discussed is Finnish Expert Harri Ruotsalainen's recently state view int he press that a fire on the car deck should be ruled out as part of the investigation is based on a theory that one of the cargo containing highly inflammable/toxic materials was letting off fumes, so a member of the crew may have had the bright idea of trying to push the vehicle into the sea via the car ramp. The evidence for this are some burnt looking panels ont he car rmap, the 'Mr Skylight 1 and 2' messages that were definitely played over the tannoy, the sheer amount of pumps in operation as witnessed and the confirmation of at least two crew members of seeing a load of water splashing the cctv monitors in the car deck. In addition, the stern ramp had been opened slight at the top suggesting someone was letting fumes escape.

Of course, as with most fire alarms, there may not have been any fire at all but someone had triggered a fire warning and seems to have set of the fire pumps. In addition, the 'water flooding into the car deck' may well just have been the drencher system in operation.
Click to expand...


This is several sorts of wrong. There is no (credible, reliable) evidence whatsoever of any fire on the Estonia that night. The ship sank because the poorly-designed/constructed and poorly-maintained bow visor failed and detached from the ship, dislodging the bow ramp in the process, and thereby allowing huge masses of seawater to rush into the vehicle deck.

I feel like we've been down this blind alley several times before.
 
Vixen said:
You had better contact the Maritime Museum in Greenwich without further ado - :train tout suite:train - to urgently let them know that their animated graphics for the kiddies are all wrong. Let them know post-haste that you know someone on an internet forum called LondonJohn who can fix it for them.

Let us know how you get on!
Click to expand...


Oh dear.
 
Vixen said:
M / S Estonia: The divers stopped diving after three minutes on the bottom. Poor visibility is stated. Sometimes visibility can quickly deteriorate in the Baltic Sea due to underwater currents that stir up the loose deep bottom. A new attempt will be made later. Meanwhile, the robot goes down again. Source: Postimees

https://twitter.com/AndersJallai/status/1442125961386860549?s=20
Click to expand...


The sort of underwater currents moving silt/mud on the seabed that might, just perhaps, at some point have caused the wreck of the Estonia to shift its position on the seabed, such that the damage sustained when it originally hit the seabed - together with the part of the seabed which created that damage - were now visible (where they hadn't been visible back in 1994-96)?
 
Vixen said:
The German Expert Group call it the 'Drencher system', with a capital 'D'.

One piece of evidence is the water splashing all over the car monitor camera lens. These cctv monitors are almost 16 feet high and reach Deck 4. The camera faces away from the car ramp so is unlikely to be seawater spray coming in over the top of the ramp.
Click to expand...


Ah yes. Because anyone who understands even the most basic fluid dynamics knows that when large churning volumes of water rush into a (virtually) closed container from one side, there's little or no chance that any splashing or spray would/could ever contact a camera lens that was facing away from the point of ingress.

:rolleyes:
 
Hey, Vixen,

Further to my previous question about the direction of the camera, look what I found on your linked page:

estoniaferrydisaster.net said:
... water hit the lens of the video camera transferring pictures from the partly open bow ramp to the monitor in the engine control room ...
Click to expand...


So I ask again, where did you get that the camera faced away from the ramp?
 
Vixen said:
As you can see, that explains both a sprinkler and a 'deluge' system. If there is a wide open area, such as a shopping mall or a large open car deck 155 metres long, it might make sense to contain a lorry on fire, rapidly spreading, by turning the deluge system on to pre-empt it.
Click to expand...


1) If (theoretically) it was a diesel fire, it might be a very bad idea indeed to pour water onto it.#

2) This is all moot in any case, because there wasn't a vehicle fire - or any other fire - on the Estonia on the night she sank.
 
Vixen said:
As you can see, that explains both a sprinkler and a 'deluge' system. If there is a wide open area, such as a shopping mall or a large open car deck 155 metres long, it might make sense to contain a lorry on fire, rapidly spreading, by turning the deluge system on to pre-empt it.
Click to expand...

No, you would not do that on a ship unless it was a last resort. You would try to contain it and isolate it. Can you think of a reason that a shopping mall isn't a the same as a ship and why the system might be different?
 
Vixen said:
But they definitely cite 'Drencher' system as though they thought it was a brand.
Click to expand...

It isn't, but it's a type of system. I can speculate why they might have capitalized it, but I doubt that would be useful. We're on the same page with respect to how the system worked.

so it was a valve (drencher/deluge) system and not a sprinkler.
Click to expand...

They all use valves. The difference, as you probably noticed, is whether the piping to the head is wet or dry. Sprinklers use wet piping behind the heads and each head has its own (usually heat-activated) valve. Upstream there's a cutoff valve that must be closed when the fire is extinguished. Deluge and drencher are synonymous terms in piped fire-suppression systems. (There's also a water deluge system used in contexts like rocketry, but that's irrelevant here.) Those use dry piping and upstream remote-controlled valves to send fire-suppression water to any of several sections. So yes, you want to be able to push a button and spray water through any of several heads.

But again this is groping for some reason other than, "The bow fell off." They want to advance the possibility that fire suppression efforts necessitated by possibly illicit flammable cargo was the "real" cause, akin to USS Lafayette (née SS Normadie). Operating a high-volume fire-suppression system where the free-surface effect its a concern would be the last resort, not the first resort. If the alleged fire had grown to such a hazard that it risked destabilizing the ship, I would think there would have been more direct evidence of such a fire. The hypothesis here infers the fire from a number of observations, each of which has a more prosaic explanation.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Not my idea.

Hikipedia

You have to admit, the Swedes immediately wanted to cover the whole thing with concrete.
Click to expand...


I'm SORRY? You're actually using a spoof Wikipedia site called "Hikipedia" as a source now?

Do you have any understanding whatsoever of the importance of primary sources and trusted sources when it comes to research and analysis?
 
So did any of the survivors mention a fire on the car deck?

If there had been a fire on the car deck I feel like someone who was there at the time, and then interviewed (some of them multiple times) about what happened, might have mentioned a fire on the car deck.
 
LondonJohn said:
I'm SORRY? You're actually using a spoof Wikipedia site called "Hikipedia" as a source now?
Click to expand...
From the Hikipedia article on coronavirus:

"The coronavirus mainly causes diarrhea, wanting Corona , greed for money, lowering state development aid, general disregard for minority or Western ethics, soft exercise of power, and segregation from the rest of society like lepers. Another symptom of the coronavirus is hoarding. When someone gets the coronavirus, the body’s immune system tells you to buy more stuff."

Oh dear. This is what happens when you copy and paste from a quick Google search without doing any sort of checking of the source you're copying and pasting from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom