• 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 waves are going aft because of the wind. For the bow visor to lift up and go forward it would need some kind of mechanism becuase it is either stronger than the waves/wind or it is not. If not stronger than the waves/wind it would simply remain firmly shut. if stronger, how could a wave/wind cause it to shut in order to 'bang'?
Click to expand...

When the visor was loose it was left hanging on the top of the ramp. It could slip forwards but not drop off because it was hooked. Each wave smashing into it pushed it back against the ship.

You posted diagrams showing the broken visor hanging on the ramp. Why are you still acting confused?
 
Vixen said:
Oh please. How do waves pound against a 55 tonne piece of solid steel and cause it to create 'multiple bangs'?

The waves are going aft because of the wind. For the bow visor to lift up and go forward it would need some kind of mechanism becuase it is either stronger than the waves/wind or it is not. If not stronger than the waves/wind it would simply remain firmly shut. if stronger, how could a wave/wind cause it to shut in order to 'bang'?
Click to expand...

Wind is nothing to do with it in that they are blowing the ship. Waves are however powered by the wind..

The ship is moving forward at 18 kts, the waves are moving towards the ship, the force of the many thousands of tons of ship against the many thousands of tons of wave will the bow visor against the hull. As the hull rides up the wave the force reduces and the visor can move back to it's position.
Hammering the connectors many thousands of times over 15 years eventually caused one of them to fail. That would put extra stress on the other connections causing them to fail.

Pushing too fast into a head sea will cause the ship to slam hard in to some of the waves as it rides up one then falls in to the trough the bow 'dives' and takes a real hammering. This can damage the hull of a ship, even one designed to take it. There is an entire chapter dedicated to this in volume 3 of the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship.

Watch this video of a Destroyer forcing through the waves to get ahead of the Carrier it is escorting, see how on every 4th wave or so it dives?

Notice the flare and rake of the bow, it is designed to try and minimise diving. Compare it to the shape of a ferry.

If the Estonia was forcing itself in to 6 meter waves then the bow diving makes the effective height of the wave much more than 6 meters and it amplifies the force of the impact.

Wave height in the video is around 6 meters.

 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Oh please. How do waves pound against a 55 tonne piece of solid steel and cause it to create 'multiple bangs'?

The waves are going aft because of the wind. For the bow visor to lift up and go forward it would need some kind of mechanism becuase it is either stronger than the waves/wind or it is not. If not stronger than the waves/wind it would simply remain firmly shut. if stronger, how could a wave/wind cause it to shut in order to 'bang'?
Click to expand...

because the ship weighs many thousands of tons and the wave has a force of many thousands of tons.

Why do you think it would go 'forwards'? the wave would force it up and back in to the hull, as the bow rises the force of water reduces and the bow drops back to it's resting position.

Gravity is the mechanism.

You have not the slightest idea of the forces involved.
 
Vixen said:
Why are bows designed to be the shape they are? To cut through the water.
Click to expand...

Yes, what is your point? (pun intended)

There is still a lot of force involved. If you force a ship in to a heavy sea then it will dive in to some of the waves, that puts a huge force on to the hull, even ships designed to take it like Frigates and Destroyers built for patrolling in Atlantic winters can be damaged.

What do you think it will do to a bow held on by a few fasteners?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Wind is nothing to do with it in that they are blowing the ship. Waves are however powered by the wind..

The ship is moving forward at 18 kts, the waves are moving towards the ship, the force of the many thousands of tons of ship against the many thousands of tons of wave will the bow visor against the hull. As the hull rides up the wave the force reduces and the visor can move back to it's position.
Hammering the connectors many thousands of times over 15 years eventually caused one of them to fail. That would put extra stress on the other connections causing them to fail.

Pushing too fast into a head sea will cause the ship to slam hard in to some of the waves as it rides up one then falls in to the trough the bow 'dives' and takes a real hammering. This can damage the hull of a ship, even one designed to take it. There is an entire chapter dedicated to this in volume 3 of the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship.

Watch this video of a Destroyer forcing through the waves to get ahead of the Carrier it is escorting, see how on every 4th wave or so it dives?
Notice the flare and rake of the bow, it is designed to try and minimise diving. Compare it to the shape of a ferry.

If the Estonia was forcing itself in to 6 meter waves then the bow diving makes the effective height of the wave much more than 6 meters and it amplifies the force of the impact.

Wave height in the video is around 6 meters.

Click to expand...



:thumbsup:
 
Vixen said:
Why are bows designed to be the shape they are? To cut through the water.
Click to expand...

url


The forces involved in pushing the Estonia into a sea that rough would be apparent to anyone with any experience. You're argument from incredulity only goes to prove your ignorance.
 
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...

No see, we aren't claiming that Greenwich are wrong, we're saying that YOU are wrong. Muzzle Velocity is not the velocity of a projectile in flight. You do realise that those are two very different things right? I mean you should know, because we've been very clear in explaining that to you.

Either you're being deliberately obtuse, in which case you're intellectually dishonest, or you're genuinely too stupid to realise what we are actually saying to you, in which case why should anyone even bother with you?

I mean we aren't saying that the muzzle velocity for the cannon is incorrect. It might well be perfectly accurate. What we are saying is that muzzle velocity is not velocity of the projectile. It's really not that difficult.
 
Here's a confusing thing; the Estonia had engines rated at over 23000 horsepower, but I have a little car with about 60 hp and it can go about 4 times as fast. If Estonia had a bow designed to cut through the water how come it couldn't do like a bazillion miles per hour? It's bewildering.

Is it possible that the water exerts some kind of opposing force on the ship even though it's just a liquid and the ship has a bow designed to cut through it?
 
Last edited:
Don't talk stupid Jack_by_the_hedge. Next you'll be saying that muzzle velocity doesn't remain constant through the whole flight of the projectile, or that Putin wasn't head of the KGB, or that Mr Skylight is just a general alarm and not specifically the fire alarm, or that Anders Bjorkman isn't competent, or that water isn't the best thing to combat a diesel fire.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Vixen why are you using parody sites as sources?
Click to expand...

Do keep up. Finnish expert Harri Ruotsalainen made a presentation to the Estonian government via a survivors committee expressing the 'dodgy vehicle was pushed out of the ship' and as this seemed to tally with a popular theory I reproduced the summary in Hikipedia. Don't hiki the small stuff.
 
Latest update - New damage found

Here's today's progress report:

26.09.2021 M / S Estonia: The robot (ROV) has filmed damage to the bow near the ramp's attachments that previous investigations missed. Now divers are being sent down to investigate the damage. 80 meters diving depth is planned with 20 min bottom time. Photo: Sander Punamäe

https://twitter.com/AndersJallai/status/1442032997734223876?s=20

What the military divers did a few days after the accident. But the Accident Investigation Board was never allowed to see that film.
 
Vixen said:
Do keep up. Finnish expert Harri Ruotsalainen made a presentation to the Estonian government via a survivors committee expressing the 'dodgy vehicle was pushed out of the ship' and as this seemed to tally with a popular theory I reproduced the summary in Hikipedia. Don't hiki the small stuff.
Click to expand...
The "popular" theory you reproduced was intended as a joke. Explain why you're citing to parody sites. You didn't know it was a parody site, did you? You thought it was additional support for some other theory you were presenting as a serious claim.
 
JayUtah said:
The "popular" theory you reproduced was intended as a joke. Explain why you're citing to parody sites. You didn't know it was a parody site, did you? You thought it was additional support for some other theory you were presenting as a serious claim.
Click to expand...

It is not a joke. It is presented as satire but there are people who are convinced this was the scenario.
 
Vixen said:
It is not a joke. It is presented as satire but there are people who are convinced this was the scenario.
Click to expand...

That 'nuclear waste' dissolved the bow of the ship?

Do you think that is remotely likely?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom