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

[Vixen]

Can you explain the scenario and reasoning behind the question:

Person A being the coach driver using a passenger coach to smuggle from Person B who asks you to stop but then takes a knife to your tyres when you don't causing a road accident and injury to your passengers. The OP asked why would Person A (=Sweden) want to cover up the cause of the accident? I asked would Person B (= Russia) be 100% liable, or does Person A (Sweden) have some vicarious liability?

Captain_Swoop asked why not just beat up Person A? How can you if Person A has covered the whole thing up and is your own government?

Go on, pretend you still don't understand.

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps you should have looked it up before posting about boiling water on a stove. The relevance of your boiling water analogy depends strongly on the answer. Would it take more or less energy to heat a gram of water from 20° to 100° C or a gram of steel? How much more or less?

We were talking about the ability to cause deformation in metal compatible with a detonation. GlennB thinks that because a mig welder works at 6,000°C, there's the answer.

 

[whoanellie]

What a ridiculous analogy. People know nothing about Finland at all.

Do the Finns know nothing about Finland? What about the Swedes? Do they not know where Finland is?

 

[Vixen]

It isn't the claim that heat from welding caused the deformation.

Welding is given as an example of high temperature effects being found in the components.

So the mig welding brouhaha was just a non sequitur?

 

[whoanellie]

We were talking about the ability to cause deformation in metal compatible with a detonation. GlennB thinks that because a mig welder works at 6,000°C, there's the answer.

You didn't answer my question. Does it take more energy to heat a gram of water or a gram of steel?

 

[JayUtah]

Take it up with JayUtah as he is the one who insists one must be a licensed engineer to discuss the Estonia sinking.

I made no such claim.

I have never claimed any expertise.

You literally claimed to be a scientist. Twice. Largely you just make statements and arguments that would ordinarily require expertise to give them authority, and expect those arguments and statements to be taken at face value even when they are trivially disprovable.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What a ridiculous analogy. People know nothing about Finland at all. They think we are 'near Canada', maybe 'a part of the UK' or a part of Russia (well, technically, my grandparents and great - and great-great were born 'Russian', before then, 'Swedish'), we developed mobile phones and Nokia because we have 'a lot of mountains and needed to communicate' (nope, only up far north do we have any real mountains) the list is endless. Does it bother me? No. I told you before, you cannot measure expertise in terms of paper qualifications. My school was like something out of the Glass Bead Game or the Squid Game: we were all pitted against each other leading to ferocious competition. In the exams it really just meant that people like myself who could absorb a lot of information and retain it long enough to do well in exams did so, but means sweet nothing at all beyond the school gates, which I left behind a long time ago.

This is gibberish and doesn't answer, or even address my question.

What is it with your obsession?

With getting you to support your arguments you mean?

I am confident there are people with doctorates in astrophysics who are totally ignorant about Finland; it doesn't cancel out their doctorate, so your analogy is a stupid one.

I...what? What do you think the point of my analogy was? Do you even understand what an analogy is?

It wasn't to do with people who have degrees making claims about Finland, it was to do with people claiming to have relevant expertise(note: This does not mean being a expert).

As I said before, I never claimed to have expertise.

You claimed you are a scientist. You have claimed that, in comparison to you or just in general people "obviously" don't know what they are talking about. Stop trying to weasel out of this. Your sematic games are laughable.

It was people like yourself demanding to know what paper qualifications I had, with the sole aim of taking the piss out of them.

Seriously, no one is demanding to know what paper qualifications you had (We asked, which is not the same) and it certainly isn't to take the piss out of them. Your martyr complex is really going strong isn't it?

The point is that to make some of the claims you have been making shows a fundamental lack of understanding of various topics. When people ask you if you have ay relevant knowledge of say, physics, it isn't to make fun of you ut to ask why you feel that you can pontificate on matters you clearly do not understand.

Reprehensible conduct but what we have come to expect.

Oh stop with the holier than thou attitude. It's irritating even when the person isn't a giant hypocrite but in your case it's simply ridiculous.

Back to the topic matter in hand.

Which is, at least in part, your ability to analyse claims. What is the null hypothesis? I'm not going to stop asking you know, your obvious cowardice is plain to see.

 

[Myriad]

I don't know the answer. However, as an experienced professional proofreader of scientific papers, I do know that "changes respectively destruction of the cementite lamellas in the perlite" is not a grammatically correct or coherent description of a property or a change of properties of a material. Most likely, the first two words belong to some other list item or heading and were erroneously attached to the phrase beginning "destruction." Which strongly suggests that the entire list was copied and pasted blindly without comprehension.

It's a translation from the German, which can trip up English speakers in respect of sentence structure. It is from this web page here.

So you did, in fact, copy and paste without any comprehension!

Exactly.

 

[GlennB]

We were talking about the ability to cause deformation in metal compatible with a detonation. GlennB thinks that because a mig welder works at 6,000°C, there's the answer.

My introduction of mig welding into the discussion is shown below. You're very confused, it seems to me. Or lying deliberately.

To even get to temperatures above 700°C artificially you need to be in a laboratory. There is no way 'welding' would cause the type of deformation as seen here. Professor Westermann was being purely descriptive and was not giving an opinion as all she did was microscopically examine the bow visor for deformations and its type.

Astonishing crap. Mig welding reaches 1650°C and arc welding much higher. Mig welding is a DIY/hobbyist activity for some.

 

[phiwum]

What? These guys left the stuff lying around. Some of it was in a perfume bottle, killing one woman - a member of the public whose boyfriend picked it up and gave it to her - and seriously injuring a policeman, as well as the intended victims. It is pure luck that the perfume bottle didn't get smashed thus contaminating anybody who even stepped on it. How anyone can interpret this reckless act as benign or of no great consequence is astonishing.

Yes, terribly reckless.

But not risking the lives of 250k people.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

Phiwum likened it to having poison ivy in his or her backyard.

Again, either you lie or you are an incompetent reader. Not really worth correcting this misstatement, since other readers know what I said and neither dishonesty nor poor reading comprehension are amenable to correction.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

No in every shipyard, engineering works, and car body shop.

You an buy welding set for very little money and do it at home.

But if you do, your home is officially a laboratory and must register with the relevant agencies. Duh.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We were talking about the ability to cause deformation in metal compatible with a detonation. GlennB thinks that because a mig welder works at 6,000°C, there's the answer.

No we are talking about the temperature of the metal, you claimed that anything above 700 degrees would only be found in a lab.

Deformation is a separate matter.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So the mig welding brouhaha was just a non sequitur?

No. you claimed that for the metal to show exposure to high temperature it would need a 'detonation'

All the parts were welded, that means they were heated to above 1500 degrees.
No 'detonation' required for the temperature.

 

[Mojo]

Person A being the coach driver using a passenger coach to smuggle from Person B who asks you to stop but then takes a knife to your tyres when you don't causing a road accident and injury to your passengers. The OP asked why would Person A (=Sweden) want to cover up the cause of the accident? I asked would Person B (= Russia) be 100% liable, or does Person A (Sweden) have some vicarious liability?

Captain_Swoop asked why not just beat up Person A? How can you if Person A has covered the whole thing up and is your own government?

Go on, pretend you still don't understand.

You asked. “What if Person A happens to be your own government?” Your question assumes that Person A is Person B’s government. According to your argument these are the same entity. Why would it need to sink a ship to send itself a message?

 

[zooterkin]

My question was a rhetorical one to help enable GlennB consider how misconceived his view is that the heat of a mig welder of 6K° is equivalent to heating up steel to the same temperature.

Perhaps you could tell us how the specific heat capacity of water compares with that of steel?

This is something you can look up for yourself on google.

It's something you clearly haven't looked up yourself, or you'd realise why your question to GlennB was misconceived.

 

[Axxman300]

Here's how the wreck lies in juxtaposition of the starboard hole to the rock bed.

This would have been visible when the documentary guy filmed the hole last year, which implies he's incompetent or dishonest. This whole exercise seems to be a waste of time. The hole is a stress fracture caused by impact with the sea floor, not a bomb.

Sure, they will head back out next year and dive the wreck to gather more data but the sequence of events which sank the Estonia will not likely change.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I actually reached down my copy of Elementz of Materials Science & Engineering, flipped through the sections on multiphase materials then put it back. First time I opened it since I guess 1985.

Of course it doesn't matter. Vixen has gone directly from having no grasp of what welding is to throwing microstructure terminology at us to bamboozle us with whatever she's googled. Doesn't matter at all. We're just bickering over fragmentary and ambiguous bits of description of damage given in press briefings.

The bottom line hasn't changed at all. There's no evidence the Russians sabotaged the Estonia and it would have been an idiotic way to go about settling with some smugglers if they had.

 

[Steve]

I actually reached down my copy of Elementz of Materials Science & Engineering, flipped through the sections on multiphase materials then put it back. First time I opened it since I guess 1985.

Of course it doesn't matter. Vixen has gone directly from having no grasp of what welding is to throwing microstructure terminology at us to bamboozle us with whatever she's googled. Doesn't matter at all. We're just bickering over fragmentary and ambiguous bits of description of damage given in press briefings.

The bottom line hasn't changed at all. There's no evidence the Russians sabotaged the Estonia and it would have been an idiotic way to go about settling with some smugglers if they had.

Can't help but wonder what kind of cretins Vixen associates with IRL that makes her think such utter crap will be accepted here.

 

[whoanellie]

Can't help but wonder what kind of cretins Vixen associates with IRL that makes her think such utter crap will be accepted here.

Good question!