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

[Vixen]

Vixen, are you claiming that you know more about the physics of ships and ship sinking than everyone else here? Are you claiming that you are competent in your knowledge of physics?

Why do you consider Anders Bjorkman a reliable expert despite his knowledge of physics being so poor he doesn't think nukes or space travel are possible?

His factual statements about Estonia seem bang on the nail to me. Elementary principles, easily calculable. Hans Hoffmeister of Hamburg University had no problem in calculating the Finite Element stress thresholds of each of the locks on the bow visor. Completely different from the JAIC who had three years' advantage.

Objective, scientific, provable.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

His factual statements about Estonia seem bang on the nail to me. Elementary principles, easily calculable. Hans Hoffmeister of Hamburg University had no problem in calculating the Finite Element stress thresholds of each of the locks on the bow visor. Completely different from the JAIC who had three years' advantage.

Objective, scientific, provable.

But you have no ability to correctly judge if he is correct. That's the point that's been made over and over again. If you are not an expert, you should rely on expert knowledge, and that's totally fine. However when you use someone like Bjorkman, who is a total lunatic who can't do basic physics properly as an expert, the non experts will not believe what he is saying because he has such a poor track record on these general subjects, and the experts will pull apart his claims. That's exactly what has happened here.

ETA: Also continuing your usual theme, you only answered one of my questions, and badly at that.
You have no basis on which to judge if his ideas are correct. You do not have the relevant knowledge to understand his ideas and computations. You can't prop up his supposed expertise from a place of zero expertise yourself.

 

[erwinl]

Yes. Repeatedly.

ETA: She even threw a massive hissy fit when Jay and I pointed out that no, she isn't.

I know, I distinctly remember that mess.

But I wanted to hear it from Vixen.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Er, Justice Sheen who issued the The Herald of Free Enterprise Report 1987, himself said the The Herald of Free Enterprise would have turned over completely but for the sand bar on its port.

Nonsense. You quote the report and it simply does not say that at all.

It says;

It is not possible to say whether the ship reached more than 90° while still floating or whether this was only when she reached the sea bed. There is some reason for thinking that the ship floated more or less on her beam ends for about a minute before finally resting on the sea bed.

There is absolutely nothing in there which says the ship would have turned over completely. Unless you have some weird definition of "more than 90°" where it means the same thing as "turned over completely" then your reading comprehension seems to be awry.

And you challenge us to decide whether the accident investigators or the ship's assistant purser know more about the physics of ships sinking. Hilarious.

<edit to add> I guess I should ask: You are aware that "on her beam ends" means the ship was on its side. right?

 

[Vixen]

Nonsense. You quote the report and it simply does not say that at all.

It says;


There is absolutely nothing in there which says the ship would have turned over completely. Unless you have some weird definition of "more than 90°" where it means the same thing as "turned over completely" then your reading comprehension seems to be awry.

Er, more than 90° means it is no longer above the surface. It is no longer an acute angle but an obtuse one. What does a ship do when it flips to its side and within minutes ceteris paribus?

To make it simple for you: what is a boat designed to do?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Are you claiming expertise on boat sinking?

 

[Vixen]

Are you claiming expertise on boat sinking?

It is as elementary as day turning into night or Monday following Sunday.

Take an empty plastic bottle with its lid on. Chuck it into a container of water. Does it float?

Now half fill it with water and screw on lid. Chuck it in. Does it still float? Why?


Now fill it completely with water. What happens and why?

Here endeth the lesson for today.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Er, more than 90° means it is no longer above the surface. It is no longer an acute angle but an obtuse one. What does a ship do when it flips to its side and within minutes ceteris paribus?

To make it simple for you: what is a boat designed to do?

Can you get out of the habit of using that passive aggressive "Er," crap to try to imply people who disagree with you are stupid? That would be super.

More than 90° means the ship had listed more than 90°. It has **** all to do with whether the ship is above the surface or not.

What a ship does after that depends on multiple factors, none of which are a daft mantra about not being able to float on its superstructure.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is as elementary as day turning into night or Monday following Sunday.

Take an empty plastic bottle with its lid on. Chuck it into a container of water. Does it float?

Now half fill it with water and screw on lid. Chuck it in. Does it still float? Why?


Now fill it completely with water. What happens and why?

Here endeth the lesson for today.

I am awestruck. Do you teach a naval architecture degree course as a sideline?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It is as elementary as day turning into night or Monday following Sunday.

Take an empty plastic bottle with its lid on. Chuck it into a container of water. Does it float?

Now half fill it with water and screw on lid. Chuck it in. Does it still float? Why?


Now fill it completely with water. What happens and why?

Here endeth the lesson for today.

That is...wow.

Who needs to do any complex mathematics or physics calculations for buoyancy? Just model it with a plastic bottle!

You're joking, right?

Buoyancy calculations are not elementary. Physics of sinking are not elementary. I don't understand them, and I doubt you do either.

Did you, or did you not, claim to be a scientist? Do you still claim that you are a scientist?

 

[Disbelief]

His factual statements about Estonia seem bang on the nail to me. Elementary principles, easily calculable. Hans Hoffmeister of Hamburg University had no problem in calculating the Finite Element stress thresholds of each of the locks on the bow visor. Completely different from the JAIC who had three years' advantage.

Objective, scientific, provable.

Bolding mine. If it is easily calculable, why have you never provided calculations when requested?

 

[Steve]

It is as elementary as day turning into night or Monday following Sunday.

Take an empty plastic bottle with its lid on. Chuck it into a container of water. Does it float?

Now half fill it with water and screw on lid. Chuck it in. Does it still float? Why?


Now fill it completely with water. What happens and why?

Here endeth the lesson for today.

Is this yet anther properly cited, referenced, and confirmed fact explaining the sinking of large sea-going ferries?

Oh, and at what point in this fascinating experiment does the bottle *turn turtle*?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Er, Justice Sheen who issued the The Herald of Free Enterprise Report 1987, himself said the The Herald of Free Enterprise would have turned over completely but for the sand bar on its port.

Section 9.3

In addition, the critically acclaimed account of the accident by Stephen Homewood, in Zeebrugge: A Hero’s Story writes:



Goodreads says:



I'll leave the reader to judge which of us is 'ignorant of physics', 'embarrassing', 'pathetic', 'full of bat iguano' and 'you don't know what you are talking about' for him- or herself. It's amusing you feel so incredibly threatened by me you are reduced to hurling childish abuse. I am flattered.

Where in the official report does it say it would have turned right over?

Your quoted section doesn't say it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Legal bod, Mr. Justice Sheen, is on mine. Thörnroos' and Mäkelä's side, albeit in retrospect.

What does that mean?

 

[Steve]

Bolding mine. If it is easily calculable, why have you never provided calculations when requested?

Vixen is a scientist! Scientists don't need no stinking calculations!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... more than 90° means it is no longer above the surface.

I am genuinely curious about this remark. I realise that some people find it easy to imagine objects in 3D while others find it confusing, and I do wonder if this is an example of that.

In my mind I can picture a ship lying on its side, listing somewhat more than 90°, and sitting at various depths in the water. But I cannot picture whatever it is that Vixen has in mind which must be below the surface if the list is any greater than 90°.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why would the Finnair incident of 1987 have been suppressed until 2014, or the Swedish government smuggling of former Soviet Union espionage secrets in 1994 until 2005?

Compare and contrast how the The Herald of Free Enterprise and the recent Scot Carrier incidents are both immediately under prosecutor investigation. Criminal proceedings were brought against The Herald of Free Enterprise owners, Townsend Thoresen, who changed their name to P&O ferries as a consequence. The Herald of Free Enterprise in addition to not bothering with shutting the car ramp regularly in order to achieve a high turnaround, also had a habit of boarding an excess number of passengers, unlike the Estonia on the night running at about half capacity.

Think about it, the Swedish government immediately announced that 'No-one is to blame' as did their hastily convened JAIC who stuck rigidly to the 'bow visor hit by strong wave' line from Day One. Instead, an easily disprovable claim it was a design fault (cf Hoffmeister, University of Hamburg report) leaving the victims' relatives zero means of redress.

You do not think that the slightest bit odd?


Cui bene?

The culprit of course!

What does the Finnair incident have to do with it? It was not 'suppressed'

What does the smuggling have to do with it?

Herald of Free Enterprise command crew survived. There was obvious culpability. With the recent collision, we don't know yet apart from two crew members were over the limit for alcohol so they will be prosecuted.

JAIC report does apportion responsibility but any criminal proceedings would not be their responsibility. Same with HOFE, the enquiry did not prosecute anyone.

 

[Andy_Ross]

His factual statements about Estonia seem bang on the nail to me. Elementary principles, easily calculable. Hans Hoffmeister of Hamburg University had no problem in calculating the Finite Element stress thresholds of each of the locks on the bow visor. Completely different from the JAIC who had three years' advantage.

Objective, scientific, provable.

Hoffmeister agreed with JAIC just not the exact order of the locks failure.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Er, more than 90° means it is no longer above the surface. It is no longer an acute angle but an obtuse one. What does a ship do when it flips to its side and within minutes ceteris paribus?

To make it simple for you: what is a boat designed to do?

A boat is designed to float the right way up. Tip it on it's side and it will fill with water and sink.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It is as elementary as day turning into night or Monday following Sunday.

Take an empty plastic bottle with its lid on. Chuck it into a container of water. Does it float?

Now half fill it with water and screw on lid. Chuck it in. Does it still float? Why?


Now fill it completely with water. What happens and why?

Here endeth the lesson for today.

What do you think that demonstrates?