• 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:
I misremembered what Braidwood's report said. I located the report and rectified what the wording actually was. For some reason, Braidwood's report is ignored whilst people prefer to focus on whether it is possible to heat metal to 700° outside of a laboratory.
Click to expand...


No. It was only because you made the ludicrous claim that temperatures of 700° could not be generated outside of a laboratory....

....that various people decided to use their own experience and knowledge to show you just how wrong, and how totally unfounded, your claim really was.

If you were simply to concede that you'd been wrong to claim that this sort of temperature could only be achieved in a laboratory, we could all then move on. So: how about it?
 
LondonJohn said:
No.

Maybe go back and re-read my post which includes the photo of that Roman shipwreck. A photo which shows that the ship must have sunk in exactly the orientation it had at the surface - ie a horizontal bow-stern attitude, keel down.

That was a wooden boat (though the wood has long since completely rotted away). It didn't capsize. It didn't topple its contents into the water. It didn't float upside down. It did sink. ceteris paribus (LMAO)
Click to expand...

I asked you for the reason that Greek ship sank and received no reply.

It should be patently obvious that your earlier example of bunging '40,000 tonnes of iron ore' onto a boat will sink it.

That is hardly the normal conditions we are talking about. The fact heavy objects that are heavier than the air it displaces will sink a boat does not mean Archimedes principle is now cancelled just because someone thinks they are being clever by overloading the boat to contrive a false principle that 'boats sink to the bottom' if they capsize. It is a sleight of hand and as practised by snakeoil salesmen. Any particular reason you have tried for a second time to introduce a deception?
 
LondonJohn said:
No. It was only because you made the ludicrous claim that temperatures of 700° could not be generated outside of a laboratory....

....that various people decided to use their own experience and knowledge to show you just how wrong, and how totally unfounded, your claim really was.

If you were simply to concede that you'd been wrong to claim that this sort of temperature could only be achieved in a laboratory, we could all then move on. So: how about it?
Click to expand...

Oh so are you claiming you did not see the superseding post setting out the exact wording in full?
 
Vixen said:
Take a simple rowing boat, wood frame, operated by oars. There are no leaks.
Any imbalance or inflow of water, the boat simply capsizes toppling its contents into the water. It doesn't sink, it floats upside down ceteris paribus.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this?

ZA4cqZll.jpg


66FIhDQl.jpg


Sx6NFrwl.jpg
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Exactly at Swedish midnight, the captain nowhere in sight; I think you would have to be a naive investigator to focus solely on the bow visor and failing investigate anything else, especially when 34 of the survivors reported a series of three bangs (including Sillaste, although Linde says one) and/or a collision.

Fact is, it is not the first time there have been issues with a bow visor. On all other occasions the vessel simply got repaired on returning to port.
Click to expand...


No. It's already been established that you really know little or nothing about a) the scientific method; b) the rationale behind the official investigation into the Estonia disaster; c) why the value in survivors' testimony in this case is strictly limited to what they directly saw or heard; and d) why it's inappropriate (to the point of being improper) to accept survivors' inferences (eg "a collision").

The investigators concluded that this ship sank because of a chain of failures that started with the fatigue/stress failure of the bow visor's bottom lock because..... that's the conclusion to which the evidence unequivocally - and solely - pointed.
 
junkshop said:
This is a very specific claim. I'm sure you can provide evidence that 34 survivors all reported 'a series of three bangs', right?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
It's all in the part I thread. It was cut because it was so long. Note the 'and/or'.
Click to expand...

My apologies, I did miss the 'and/or'. Let me try again: i'm sure you can provide evidence that 34 survivors all reported 'a series of three bangs, and/or a collision', right?
 
Vixen said:
Take a simple rowing boat, wood frame, operated by oars. There are no leaks.
Any imbalance or inflow of water, the boat simply capsizes toppling its contents into the water. It doesn't sink, it floats upside down ceteris paribus.
Click to expand...

What the :confused: I have purposely sunk a row a boat before when I was a teenager with friends. With water, without capsizing it, just to do it because we were bored.
 
Vixen said:
Exactly at Swedish midnight, the captain nowhere in sight; I think you would have to be a naive investigator to focus solely on the bow visor and failing investigate anything else, especially when 34 of the survivors reported a series of three bangs (including Sillaste, although Linde says one) and/or a collision.

Fact is, it is not the first time there have been issues with a bow visor. On all other occasions the vessel simply got repaired on returning to port.
Click to expand...

This time it didn't.
 
Vixen said:
I misremembered what Braidwood's report said. I located the report and rectified what the wording actually was. For some reason, Braidwood's report is ignored whilst people prefer to focus on whether it is possible to heat metal to 700° outside of a laboratory.
Click to expand...

This has been covered already. You made a claim about what was said in the report. Your claim was wrong, and shown to be wrong. As you are now accepting that your claim was wrong, might I suggest that we move on, lest we suffer another involuntary exodus to AAH?
 
Vixen said:
I asked you for the reason that Greek ship sank and received no reply.
Click to expand...


It was Roman. And you did get a reply. Go back and read more carefully.



It should be patently obvious that your earlier example of bunging '40,000 tonnes of iron ore' onto a boat will sink it.
Click to expand...


So you'd presumably also agree that "bunging" around 10,000 tons of seawater onto a ship will probably sink it?



That is hardly the normal conditions we are talking about. The fact heavy objects that are heavier than the air it displaces will sink a boat does not mean Archimedes principle is now cancelled just because someone thinks they are being clever by overloading the boat to contrive a false principle that 'boats sink to the bottom' if they capsize. It is a sleight of hand and as practised by snakeoil salesmen. Any particular reason you have tried for a second time to introduce a deception?
Click to expand...


What the heck are you talking about? The Roman ship in question was carrying a cargo of amphorae. That's the sort of thing that cargo ships generally did in Roman times. The ship wasn't overloaded until it took on so much water that the combined mass of water + amphorae exceeded the buoyancy limit of the vessel, whereupon it sank. Straight downwards to the seabed. In exactly the same orientation & attitude as it had had at the surface: horizontal from bow to stern and along each crossbeam, and keel-low.

Similarly, the Estonia was not overloaded when it was just carrying its own mass plus vehicles and passengers. But when it additionally took on a huge mass of water (via the compromised bow opening), it reached a point where the combined mass of ship + passengers + vehicles + seawater exceeded the buoyancy limit of the ship*. And can you hazard a guess as to what happened next...?


* In the case of the Estonia, it's a little more complicated, owing to the destabilisation of the ship's attitude as the seawater on the vehicle deck rushed from side to side and bow to stern. But the general principle still holds just fine.
 
And still, by far the vast majority of boats and ships do not turn over when they sink and even those that do sink very quickly.

bYZPKDnl.jpg


Iqz1pz2l.jpg
 
In fact, sail boats usually capsize because they are carrying too much sail for the wind conditions and the skipper isn't experienced or fast enough to react to or read the conditions.
In effect they are blown over.

seI7j3Wl.jpg
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Take a simple rowing boat, wood frame, operated by oars. There are no leaks.
Any imbalance or inflow of water, the boat simply capsizes toppling its contents into the water. It doesn't sink, it floats upside down ceteris paribus.
Click to expand...


I have a simple rowing boat operated by oars. It's metal, not wood, which is more similar to Estonia.

I also have a small dock on a tidal body of water, which would allow me to experiment at will with plenty of depth to sink the boat at high tide, and still recover it easily at low tide.

I have a bucket, with which I can progressively fill the boat with water in whatever unbalanced manner you specify.

I have a video camera.

What test would you like me to perform, what outcome do you predict, and what would you like to bet on that outcome?

Make it worth my while. The water's getting colder by the day, this time of year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom