Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[Kid Eager]

That's the only explanation that I can see, given that Vixen has been shown video of an actual sinking (beneath the waves, not grounding) of a largish ship that never passes a 90 degree capsize. I think she misunderstands the idea of 'turning turtle', taking it to mean sinking while leaning over at a significant angle?

It's hard to tell what she thinks any more.

Indeed - and it's not accidental, either.

 

[whoanellie]

Perhaps Vixen's cockney friends have some idiosyncratic meaning of the term 'turn turtle'.

 

[Myriad]

Perhaps Vixen's cockney friends have some idiosyncratic meaning of the term 'turn turtle'.

It's proof the Estonia must have been shelled!

 

[Steve]

That's the only explanation that I can see, given that Vixen has been shown video of an actual sinking (beneath the waves, not grounding) of a largish ship that never passes a 90 degree capsize. I think she misunderstands the idea of 'turning turtle', taking it to mean sinking while leaning over at a significant angle?

It's hard to tell what she thinks any more.

At what point in this belabored discussion were you able to tell what Vixen actually thinks about the sinking of the Estonia?

 

[junkshop]

At what point in this belabored discussion were you able to tell what Vixen actually thinks about the sinking of the Estonia?

In you question you assume an action that, given the avaliable evidence, I am unconvinced that the subject of your enquiry has performed.

 

[whoanellie]

I really have very little idea what you're on about here. The one thing I do know is that you've been misrepresenting me left, right and centre.

Now, now LJ. A lady would never, ever do that.

 

[Kid Eager]

In you question you assume an action that, given the avaliable evidence, I am unconvinced that the subject of your enquiry has performed.

Your sentence just caused a divide by zero error. [Zoidberg]You did bad and you should feel bad[/Zoidberg]

 

[junkshop]

Now, now LJ. A lady would never, ever do that.

Heaven forefend, such a suggestion is simply indecent!

[Junkshop fans themselves vigorously, in an attempt to stave off a fit of the vapours.]

 

[junkshop]

Your sentence just caused a divide by zero error.[Zoidberg]You did bad and you should feel bad[/Zoidberg]

I feel bad. ^[1]

Please forgive me, I know not what I do. <sup>[2]

[1]</sup> Superbad.
^[2] This is a lie, I know what I do, and do it unashamedly.

 

[whoanellie]

Heaven forefend, such a suggestion is simply indecent!

[fx Junkshop fans themselves vigorously, in an attempt to stave off a fit of the vapours.]

FIFY

 

[junkshop]

[fx Junkshop fans themselves vigorously, in an attempt to stave off a fit of the vapours.]

FIFY

You have deaded me, you rotten swine!


ETA: That's right, sod your Hitchhiker's and Python references, I'm going old school!

 

[Vixen]

Among the most curious bits of her deep understanding of nautical stuff is the following:

(1) If the bow visor had fallen off, the ship wouldn't have sunk without turtling.

(2) Ships sink only after collisions, explosions or other sources of holes in the hull.

(3) If the bow visor had been blown off (rather than fallen off due to ripples in the water), then the Estonia would have sunk and not turtled.

Source: Archimedes.

Not quite. The issue is rapidity of sinking. By all accounts, the car ramp was only open 10° at the top at a height of 5m for the car deck. The car deck itself is two metres (six feet) above the water line. There are now questions as to whether the car deck was flooded at all in the proportions mentioned, given that the inner doors appear to be intact, firmly shut and undamaged.

 

[Vixen]

So, the "massive hole" in the starboard (which others have said is largely above the waterline) could have sunk the Estonia.

But the much larger hole formed when the bow visor fails couldn't have sunk the Estonia even in conditions with 6m waves[1].

I wonder how much water that "massive hole" would let in. What would the expected rate of flow be, even assuming that the thing was entirely below the waterline? How many gallons of water would be required before Estonia finally sinks due to the ingress of water from that massive hole? (Here, I'm assuming, contrary to evidence, that the hole was there prior to sinking and was below the waterline.)

Obviously, this is an open question to anyone who can give a back of the envelope estimation. It seems to me that the massive hole is a bit small to explain such a reasonably fast sinking, but, like Vixen, I'm just going with my gut. I'd be interested in whether I'm wrong.

[1] From memory, someone can correct me if I exaggerate the wave height.

You keep ignoring that the tear extends below the waterline. Two other holes have also been found, yet to be analysed.

One wave in ten will be a superwave, so if the average wave height in the storm was 4m to 6m then there will have been some as high as ten metres, possibly higher. They would need to reach 2+5 = six to seven metres at least.

 

[Vixen]

I hadn't read this when I posted my query above.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that Vixen won't answer your question. So, if you have the answer, I'd be interested in seeing it.

He won't accept it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...There are now questions as to whether the car deck was flooded at all in the proportions mentioned, given that the inner doors appear to be intact, firmly shut and undamaged.

There are already questions like this one: Vixen, what is your reference for your claim that the report assumes the car deck doors were not closed and intact?

Do you have any answer or can we just regard the two intact doors as a red herring?

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps Vixen's cockney friends have some idiosyncratic meaning of the term 'turn turtle'.

*emails Dick van Dyke to get his take on it*

 

[LondonJohn]

Not quite. The issue is rapidity of sinking. By all accounts, the car ramp was only open 10° at the top at a height of 5m for the car deck. The car deck itself is two metres (six feet) above the water line. There are now questions as to whether the car deck was flooded at all in the proportions mentioned, given that the inner doors appear to be intact, firmly shut and undamaged.

"There are now questions....". A tell-tale nebulous phrase. I'm guessing that these "questions" are coming from the partisan conspiracy-theory groups that you're so closely allied with?

 

[LondonJohn]

You keep ignoring that the tear extends below the waterline. Two other holes have also been found, yet to be analysed.

One wave in ten will be a superwave, so if the average wave height in the storm was 4m to 6m then there will have been some as high as ten metres, possibly higher. They would need to reach 2+5 = six to seven metres at least.

That line between the blue paint and the white paint is not the waterline. Not even close to the waterline.

Please, have even a rudimentary look at photos of the Estonia before making these sorts of embarrassing claims.

 

[LondonJohn]

One wave in ten will be a superwave, so if the average wave height in the storm was 4m to 6m then there will have been some as high as ten metres, possibly higher. They would need to reach 2+5 = six to seven metres at least.

1) Where did you get this "one wave in ten will be a superwave" from?

2) Once again, you fail in your attempt to analyse the situation. You're assuming (it would appear) that the ship remained in a horizontal bow-to-stern attitude throughout. But for a ship sailing headlong into swell, that's very far indeed from the case. In fact, once the ship sails over the high point, it will point downwards significantly as it travels down towards the trough. So that it actually "digs in" to a fair degree into the following swell. And this would be more than enough, in and of itself, to guarantee that huge volumes of water would enter through the bow opening.

And in passing, there's also the bow wave effect to consider (though this effect would have been dwarfed in this instance relative to the effect I described above). After all, the Herald of Free Enterprise managed to take on enough water - onto a car deck that was some way above the waterline - in almost flat seas to sink it within just two minutes. And the primary reason was the bow wave, in which the act of the bow pushing through water caused water levels at the bow to rise up significantly above sea level.

 

[phiwum]

Not quite. The issue is rapidity of sinking. By all accounts, the car ramp was only open 10° at the top at a height of 5m for the car deck. The car deck itself is two metres (six feet) above the water line. There are now questions as to whether the car deck was flooded at all in the proportions mentioned, given that the inner doors appear to be intact, firmly shut and undamaged.

If the state of the car deck precludes rapid sinking, then any alleged explosions at the bow visor are irrelevant to the sinking too.

Hence, you must be all in on the claim that at least one hole sufficient for a massive ingress of water is to blame. You can now focus on that and ignore explosions at the bow as well as intentional opening of the bow. This would be progress of a sort.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk