• 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:
The JAIC itself says that the ship could not have capsized by seawater flooding the car deck alone.
Click to expand...


So?

Let's see your calculations. You've now acknowledged that they're possible and necessary, so show the work.
 
Vixen said:
Your fundamental problem here is that you think you can win an argument by browbeating.
Click to expand...

Pointing out your arrogance is not browbeating. Do you honestly believe that you can just pick some profession you've never studied or practiced and, with valid authority, tell everyone how it should be done? You are acting as if that's what you believe.

Fact is, the sinking of the Estonia is a current affairs issue that has recently been reopened...
Click to expand...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with you pretending to tell engineers how to do their work.
 
Vixen said:
Your fundamental problem here is that you think you can win an argument by browbeating.


Fact is, the sinking of the Estonia is a current affairs issue that has recently been reopened and you cannot shoo people away from asking perfectly valid questions about it.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to paint your critics as attempting to silence you. It's laughable on its face to anyone reading the thread and it's highly rude.

Your constant evasions are not doing you any favours. Now, will you answer my latest questions please?
 
Vixen said:
... In the case of the JAIC it made the assumption that water must have flooded in at an enormous volume at great speed as the car deck filling with water even at a 40 degree list would not be enough to cause the vessel to capsize. It made the assumption that all the windows in the superstructure (decks 4 - 8_ and the dividers must have been smashed by the waves, now coming in at port (the direction the ship had now turned). However, it does not give us any of its workings of how it reckons any of this happened.
Click to expand...

Have you read the report yet? Doesn't seem like it. You can still read it if you want not to be wrong forever.

https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt12_2.html#4

Also, where on earth did you get the notion that anyone thinks the waves broke in on the port side?
 
Vixen said:
That is because the video was filming the ship from behind giving it the optical illusion of moving forwards from my viewpoint, which would have made it the port side leaning over.
Click to expand...
:dl:
I did put a question mark next to it.
Click to expand...
There you go again. There is no question mark.
Vixen said:
Crumbs.

The Oceanos flooded because seawater got into its watertight compartments in the engine room, which is in the hull.

wiki


It didn't turn turtle as it was bottom heavy with water.

*Looks like it was listing on its port side, not starboard side.
Click to expand...
 
Myriad said:
So?

Let's see your calculations. You've now acknowledged that they're possible and necessary, so show the work.
Click to expand...

I don't need to calculate anything as I don't believe the Estonia did float on its superstructure as the JAIC claims, whilst its windows filled with water.

New calculations by VINNOVA in 2008 and as agreed by the Swedish bods, show that it needed to have an inflow of almost three times as much seawater than JAIC state and a displacement of air of nearer 83% for the Estonia to have sunk like that.

Calculations of the two studies don't match

Meanwhile, Jaan Metsaveer, a shipbuilding engineer and emeritus professor at Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech), who also sat on the JAIC, said that official calculations show that the MS Estonia had a reserve buoyancy (the volume of a ship above the waterline, which can be made watertight, thus increasing the vessel's buoyancy – ed.) of 4,500 tonnes.

This covers two meters above the waterline, which can carry an additional weight of 4,500 tonnes. Thus, 4,500 tonnes of water flowing under the car deck was enough to sink the whole ship in any location.

However, it is also possible for a part of the ship to lose reserve buoyancy, for example, the stern sections. The result is that the stern sinks significantly deeper and the bow rises higher, so that 4,500 tonnes is above the water-line.

Margus Kurm says he does not agree with this estimation. "Swedish marine scientists have concluded with their calculations, simulations and model tests (done by Swedish state agency Vinnova) that the ship would not have sunk until its entire superstructure, and 83 percent of the hull, is filled with water. This means that 11,000 tonnes of water had to flow under the car deck, not the 4,500 tonnes referenced. "

Vinnova conducted the tests in 2008, by which time software used in simulations was better than that available in 1995.

"Don't these kinds of disagreements between scientists prove the need to gather as much evidence as possible, including investigating the wreck on the seabed?" Kurm asks.

Professor Mihkel Kõrgesaar agrees that the calculations made in 2008 are more likely to be accurate. At the same time, he said that in the same way, later calculations say that the ship ought to have stayed afloat, but as it didn't no one really knows how it actually came to sink.
Click to expand...
ERR
 
Vixen said:
...I do not make false claims...
Click to expand...


Yes, you do:

Vixen said:
...I did put a question mark next to it.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't:

Vixen said:
Crumbs.

The Oceanos flooded because seawater got into its watertight compartments in the engine room, which is in the hull.

wiki


It didn't turn turtle as it was bottom heavy with water.

*Looks like it was listing on its port side, not starboard side.
Click to expand...


ETA: Ninja'd
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I don't need to calculate anything as I don't believe the Estonia did float on its superstructure as the JAIC claims, whilst its windows filled with water.
Click to expand...

Calculation is how you prove your belief is fact. You have the process backwards.

New calculations by VINNOVA in 2008 and as agreed by the Swedish bods...
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. What was my answer?
 
JayUtah said:
Pointing out your arrogance is not browbeating. Do you honestly believe that you can just pick some profession you've never studied or practiced and, with valid authority, tell everyone how it should be done? You are acting as if that's what you believe.



Which has absolutely nothing to do with you pretending to tell engineers how to do their work.
Click to expand...

I haven't told anybody to do anything. Don't shoot me, I am just the messenger.
 
Vixen said:
Do you think you could stick to the topic of the thread?
Click to expand...

If you feel my post is off-topic, report it for moderation. Don't insinuate things instead for rhetorical value.

Your arguments, whether sounding in psychology or in physics, are predicated almost entirely on statements you make from your own ken that would ordinarily otherwise require some degree of specialized knowledge. When pressed, you cannot demonstrate that knowledge -- although sometimes you toy with suggesting you have it. Nor can you reconcile your declarations with the knowledge demonstrated by others or found in the relevant literature. If you don't want the basis of your say-so questioned, don't make arguments that boil down to "Because I say so."
 
Vixen said:
I haven't told anybody to do anything. Don't shoot me, I am just the messenger.
Click to expand...

You literally told us that engineers could just approach problems the way you did in school while taking tests. A very significant part of your entire argumentative strategy in this thread is to point out that various people did things wrong, because in your wisdom it should have been done differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom