• 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.
JayUtah said:
Or so you say. But since it wasn't in open seas to demonstrate what you claim would have happened had it been, it's not evidence of what you claim would have happened.
Click to expand...

The direct comparison with the Herald of Free Enterprise is the ferry ro-ro, Jan Heweliusz . However, the Jan Heweliusz was in open sea and this is how it ended up, as the Estonia should have, had it been a simple flooding of the car deck with water.

It is astonishing that someone who professes to be a master of shipbuilding, architecture and engineering did not know of this elementary principle.
 

Attachments

  • Das-Wrack-der-Jan-Heweliusz-verfaellt.jpg
    Das-Wrack-der-Jan-Heweliusz-verfaellt.jpg
    113.1 KB · Views: 3
  • Faehre-Jan-Heweliusz-vor-Ruegen-gesunken (1).jpg
    Faehre-Jan-Heweliusz-vor-Ruegen-gesunken (1).jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 3
  • Faehre-Jan-Heweliusz-vor-Ruegen-gesunken.jpg
    Faehre-Jan-Heweliusz-vor-Ruegen-gesunken.jpg
    82.5 KB · Views: 3
Vixen said:
The direct comparison with the Herald of Free Enterprise is the ferry ro-ro, Jan Heweliusz.
Click to expand...

As far as you're able to determine, it's a direct comparison. What if it isn't, for reasons you don't know about?

It is astonishing that someone who professes to be a master of shipbuilding, architecture and engineering did not know of this elementary principle.
Click to expand...

It's astonishing that you believe every ship that sinks has to obey your simplistic understanding of practical buoyancy in ship construction. Yes, by all means keep doubling down on the notion that you're infallible and that everyone else in the world is bluffing.

I assume now we have to go back through all the examples of ships sinking that we covered before, and all the different circumstances and outcomes, because all you've done is raised the same long-debunked point for the umpteenth time, with no recollection of any of the discussion that went before.
 
Vixen said:
The direct comparison with the Herald of Free Enterprise is the ferry ro-ro, Jan Heweliusz . However, the Jan Heweliusz was in open sea and this is how it ended up, as the Estonia should have, had it been a simple flooding of the car deck with water.

It is astonishing that someone who professes to be a master of shipbuilding, architecture and engineering did not know of this elementary principle.
Click to expand...

I have entirely ceased to believe you're doing anything but keeping the pot boiling with this repeated garbage.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Their point being that if the sample hadn't been heat treated in the lab then signs of heat treatment must have been present before it got to the lab. You then seized upon this, assuming they meant such heating could only normally be achieved in a lab, and went galloping off in all directions with it. Your basic misunderstanding led to goodness knows how many posts about welding. None of it matters. You just didn't understand what they meant.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you are claiming metallurgy credentials and you are trying to get us to believe people can temper steel on their bathroom floor.

Tempering is a heat treatment technique applied to ferrous alloys, such as steel or cast iron, to achieve greater toughness by decreasing the hardness of the alloy. The reduction in hardness is usually accompanied by an increase in ductility, thereby decreasing the brittleness of the metal. Tempering is usually performed after quenching, which is rapid cooling of the metal to put it in its hardest state. Tempering is accomplished by controlled heating of the quenched work-piece to a temperature below its "lower critical temperature".
Click to expand...
Wiki
 
Vixen said:
The discussion wasn't 'how hot can welding systems burn'. We were discussing why Clausthal-Zellerfeld said assuming Braidwood's sample had not been heated to 700°C then XYZ follows. The significance of the 700°C is to do with at what temperature causes a change in the inherent structure of the steel.
Click to expand...

Your claim was the temperature could only be reached in a lab. You further claimed welding couldn't melt steel.
 
JayUtah said:
Nonsense: a simple yes or no doesn't suffice, because my whole point is that such simplistic scenario-mongering as you insist upon doesn't provide useful knowledge. A boat sinks for exactly and only one reason: it has lost buoyancy. The reasons why it might lose buoyancy are many and varied. In the case of Viking ships, yes, they will sink if they ship too much water, which can happen if they roll too far, if they ship water over the bows, or if water enters via the notoriously leaky seams, or any other of a dozen other scenarios I can imagine. The Vikings knew this, which is why bailing the ships is such a prominently-mentioned aspect of their narratives.

The real point remains how you are being confronted with the knowledge and experience of people who have designed, built, and operated large oceangoing vessels as part of their professions, as well as studied professionally the failures in those endeavors that occasionally befall us. Yet you -- who have done none of these things -- rely almost exclusively on your own ill-informed say-so to attempt to make your point. Explain why a reasonable person should not dismiss your arguments as arrogant crackpottery.
Click to expand...

I don't know why no one has cited the sinking longboat (?) in Erik the Viking yet. Sadly, I couldn't find a clip, but surely that would settle all these issues.
 
Vixen said:
It did not sink. It lay on its side.
Click to expand...
Yes, it sank otherwise it would be afloat

Had it been in open seas it would have floated belly up
Click to expand...

What is your evidence it would have floated 'belly up'?
Ships very rarely float 'belly up' they sink.

up until eventually the air pressure of the superstructure was sucked out by water entering every cavity.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. How would 'air pressure' be 'sucked out'?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It was on the bottom of the sea.
Click to expand...

heh. A good piece of sophistry there to hide the fact it was a very different sinking from the Estonia

The fact you feel the need to gild the lily, as it were, is a dead cert indication you know perfectly well the two cases are entirely different from each other, or you wouldn't need to resort to such an outrageous attempt to obfuscate the matter.
 
Vixen said:
It did not sink. It lay on its side. Had it been in open seas it would have floated belly up until eventually the air pressure of the superstructure was sucked out by water entering every cavity.
Click to expand...

Dear ******* god. A) how do you know that for certain. B) so what if it did, that proves nothing. C) do I need to show video of the Andrea Doria going down on her side again?
 
Vixen said:
heh. A good piece of sophistry there to hide the fact it was a very different sinking from the Estonia
Click to expand...

What do you think made it different?

...such an outrageous attempt to obfuscate the matter.
Click to expand...

You're the one citing it as evidence of what you claim would have happened had the facts been different. Do you understand what evidence is?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You know, the answer 'Depends' in answer to a question is what drives tutors mad.
Click to expand...

Are tutors so stupid as not to realize that sometimes, "It depends," is the appropriate answer to a question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom