• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Alright,

Just to expose the stupidity of these questions.


Take an empty plastic bottle with its lid on. Chuck it into a container of water. Does it float?
Answer. It sinks or it floats, depending on the specific density of the plastic in question, the amount of plastic used in said bottle and the volume of water displaced.

Now half fill it with water and screw on lid. Chuck it in. Does it still float? Why?
Almost the same answer.
It sinks or it floats, depending on the specific density of the plastic in question, the amount of plastic used in said bottle, the amount of water in the bottle and the volume of water displaced.

Now fill it completely with water. What happens and why?
Answer. It sinks or it floats, depending on the specific density of the plastic used.

Something like this? :rolleyes:

Edit. Answers with the assumption that the specific density of the lid is the same as that of the plastic used.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
...or the ad hominem, 'Who do you think you are?'-type
Click to expand...

Yes, they are exactly that. But in your case it's not ad hominem, because so many of your arguments are pat declarations of what you believe to be the case, with no other authority cited for it. You argue as if what you already believe on any subject is an incontrovertible fact. And you often double down on those declarations even when the contravening facts are staring you right in the face. So yes, those questions are designed to discover the basis upon which you can claim so much expertise (and yet be so wrong).

...and thus, I shall not be giving any of them the dignity of a response.
Click to expand...

Then don't expect your critics to give you the dignity of respect. If this thread is just going to continue to to be you ignorantly pontificating for page after page, expect to be treated with no more dignity than a dog treats his chew toy.
 
Vixen said:
[Björkman's] factual statements about Estonia seem bang on the nail to me.
Click to expand...

You aren't competent to determine that. Plus, his willingness to distort and misstate facts is well documented. You haven't explained how he can lie about every other engineering topic he involves himself in, yet somehow magically remains a competent authority on this engineering topic.

Elementary principles...
Click to expand...

But wrong ones, hoping you won't find out.

...easily calculable.
Click to expand...

Which you still can't calculate yourself, and require others to spoon-feed you the (pseudo-)science.

Has it ever occurred to you that his models are "elementary" and "easily calculable" so that they appeal to rubes like you? That's classic conspiracism: spoon-feed people simplistic (but wrong) explanations that contradict the conventional narrative, knowing that the reader will consider himself slightly smarter than the average person because it seems to ring true without having to do any heavy lifting.

Hans Hoffmeister of Hamburg University...
Click to expand...

...was previously discussed at length. Well, at length by a few of us. You chose not to come along.

Completely different from the JAIC who had three years' advantage.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. What was my answer?

Objective, scientific, provable.
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha! First-order single-plane FEA is all of that? Oh, Vixen, you are so out of your depth. Hoffmeister's FEA results are acceptable, insofar as the methods of the time allowed. But the conclusions drawn upon them are by no means the slam-dunk you think they are. You're giving them the weight you think they should have not because you understand the science, but because Hoffmeister drew a different conclusion than JAIC. As long as someone supports your agenda to trash the JAIC, it's good objective science -- to you.
 
Vixen said:
Justice Sheen who issued the The Herald of Free Enterprise Report[/URL] 1987, himself said the The Herald of Free Enterprise would have...
Click to expand...

He said no such thing. And you quote the part of the report where he says he can't be sure of the thing you're accusing him of being sure of.

I'll leave the reader to judge which of us is 'ignorant of physics',
Click to expand...

You clearly are. You attempted a few easy physics problems, but didn't know how to do any of them. You're still at the stage where you're confused about what units measure what and how to convert between metric magnitudes.
 
Vixen said:
Er, more than 90° means it is no longer above the surface.
Click to expand...

False. I mean colossally false. You still haven't figured out the difference between stability and buoyancy. A ship can roll to any angle, and some part of it will remain above the surface -- just as its roll angle can be zero and some part of the ship will be below the surface and some part above it.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Hoffmeister agreed with JAIC just not the exact order of the locks failure.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Hoffmeister concluded that over-stressing was the cause of failure, not some satchel charge. The FEA he performed is crude by today's standards, but reasonably commensurate with what any other practitioner could have accomplished without specialized computing resources. It is, however, not sufficient to establish a different failure sequence as the only one supported by evidence.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct; spatial reasoning is not a universal skill, but it can be measured.

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°.
Click to expand...

So Vixen owes us a drawing of what she thinks a ship at a roll angle of 90° looks like on the surface, and an explanation of why that drawing is physically correct. Because right now what she's claiming comes across as jaw-droppingly misinformed.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Where in the official report does it say it would have turned right over?

Your quoted section doesn't say it.
Click to expand...

Mr Justice Sheen is a wig who sits on the Queen's Bench. He does not do street slang like, 'turtled' and nor does he speculate. He just gives the facts. His legal fact found was that the The Herald of Free Enterprise had already turned more than 90°. What did you think would happen next? That with some magical power it would right itself? Please refer back to the boat buoyancy test video for a demonstration of what happens next.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
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°.
Click to expand...

Consider this: you (upright at 90°) are skateboarding along a road with a flat surface, when you come to a cliff edge. Your skateboard now tilts over 90°. Which direction do you think you will go next if you had no time to change it?


Imagine the surface of the water is a straight horizontal line. Your boat tips more than 90° to port or starboard. What happens next assuming no intervention?
 
Vixen said:
Mr Justice Sheen is a wig who sits on the Queen's Bench. He does not do street slang like, 'turtled' and nor does he speculate. He just gives the facts. His legal fact found was that the The Herald of Free Enterprise had already turned more than 90°. What did you think would happen next? That with some magical power it would right itself? Please refer back to the boat buoyancy test video for a demonstration of what happens next.
Click to expand...

There is a long way between more than 90 and completely inverted.
As soon as there wasn't enough buoyancy to keep it afloat it would sink.
We can read in the report that the HOFE had stopped turning when it sank.

What does the boat buoyancy test have to do with anything?
 
Vixen said:
Consider this: you (upright at 90°) are skateboarding along a road with a flat surface, when you come to a cliff edge. Your skateboard now tilts over 90°. Which direction do you think you will go next if you had no time to change it?


Imagine the surface of the water is a straight horizontal line. Your boat tips more than 90° to port or starboard. What happens next assuming no intervention?
Click to expand...

It fills with water and sinks?

What does the skateboard have to do with it?
 
Vixen said:
Mr Justice Sheen is a wig who sits on the Queen's Bench. He does not do street slang like, 'turtled' and nor does he speculate. He just gives the facts. His legal fact found was that the The Herald of Free Enterprise had already turned more than 90°. What did you think would happen next? That with some magical power it would right itself? Please refer back to the boat buoyancy test video for a demonstration of what happens next.
Click to expand...

He says the Herald seems to have remained in that attitude for about a minute before it touched the bottom. So it is very clearly not his view that momentum, for example, would cause the ship to continue to roll over. It had stopped rolling. That is what he describes.

We know what you assume would happen next, but we also know that your assumptions are not based on any knowledge of how ships behave or why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom