Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Vixen]

Is that true of all the countries in Europe?

Is it your claim the the PM is a puppet of the military?

You didn't answer my question.

No, I said nothing about a military junta.

 

[Steve]

One of these statements is not like the other.

Except to Vixen. Vixen can see no difference between them.

 

[Steve]

No, I said nothing about a military junta.

Which is probably just as well because Captain_Swoop did not ask you about a military junta, did he now?

 

[Andy_Ross]

A head of state occupying a fixed-term of a few years will have advisors in the defence services and these are often long-serving generals who have the intelligence services advising them in turn.

In the USA these military chiefs and high appointees are appointed by the current POTUS. For example, Republican Bush appointed General Powell. Ditto the Supreme Court Judges. In Europe, the prime ministers in monarchies such as the UK or Sweden are stuck with the generals, admirals and high court judges that come with the job.

In the UK the Prime Minister is delegated the power to command the armed forces by the Queen. Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) is the professional head of the British Armed Forces and is appointed by the Prime Minister. Currently he is Admiral Sir Tony Radakin.

He can be replaced or removed by the PM.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Each structure would need to be assessed on its own merits and what it is being used for. The lower windows are traditionally port holes but there is no edict that says they have to be.

There is a research paper here into the various issues, which mentions Estonia.

Janne Heiskari
On the design criteria of large insulating glass structures in cruise
ships

A random document you found with a quick google?

Did you read it?
What does it say?

 

[LondonJohn]

Hey Vixen: if a wind is described as "south-westerly", and I throw a few small pieces of tissue paper up into the wind, in which direction will the paper travel?

 

[Axxman300]

It is measurable. In respect of Estonia, the height of the waves was nothing exceptional on the night of the disaster:

EFD

Except there are eye-witnesses who reported that the waves were breaking OVER the bow, crashing against the superstructure.

And height is relative to the pitch and roll of the ship.

You are really bad at this.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Except there are eye-witnesses who reported that the waves were breaking OVER the bow, crashing against the superstructure.

And height is relative to the pitch and roll of the ship.

You are really bad at this.

If needed I can again post videos of ships pitching in to waves that break over the bows even though the waves are not as tall as the bows.

 

[Axxman300]

Did Sweden make a regional power play after the fall of the Soviet Union? Did power-mad Swedish generals get together and seize the moment to force the world to drive comfortable, sporty, fuel-efficient cars, buy modular furniture, wear comfortable sweaters, have children get a quality education, consume a healthier diet, and learn to ski?

How did this fail?

 

[Axxman300]

If needed I can again post videos of ships pitching in to waves that break over the bows even though the waves are not as tall as the bows.

It would be lost on the wrong person.

 

[LondonJohn]

Take a minute to reflect why storms at sea (or even inland) are measured in terms of

1. wind speed
2. direction

Take a moment to understand the direct proportional relationship between wind speed and the effect it has on waves.

Thus if you know windspeed over 25 m/s causes waves to smash a window of a ship, then you, as a designer, ensure your windows are reinforced to withstand wind speeds of 41 m/s , or within 99.9 percent probability range it will never get that high.


Of course water is heavier than air but air acting on water meets a resistance that is proportionate to the power of the wind driving it, thus a windspeed of 40 m/s does not cause a similar speed of 40 m/s in a wave. Sometimes only one parameter is needed (wind speed) for you to know the type of force this will create in a wave.

In a recurring theme, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Your "understanding" of this subject is something that perhaps an 8-year-old might think.

There are many factors which impact upon wave/swell height and speed. Wind is one of the most significant factors, but there are many others.

But let's for a moment pretend that waves are caused solely by wind.

Now, you seem to hold the (ignorant) belief that there's a simple 1-to-1 conservation of momentum & conservation of energy in action: to wit, you believe that if a) a wind of a certain velocity will hit a given object (here, a window on a ship) with a certain kinetic energy, then b) the waves that have been "caused" by that wind must necessarily also hit that object with the same kinetic energy. And you suppose that what the wave "gains" in mass (compared with the air in the wind) it will "lose" in velocity (i.e. that the wave will travel so much more slowly compared with the wind, that the wind and the wave will both ultimately have the same KE).

Right? That's essentially what you believe, and what you're trying to lecture us on, right?

You (and everyone in this thread) will be astonished when I tell you you're absolutely wrong. As I said, your "analysis" in this matter is on a par with that of a young child. It's embarrassing to witness - all the more so because you're trying, in a rather pompous style, to "teach" this subject to the thread participants.


To get to the proper explanation requires (you'd be amazed to hear) pretty complex maths. But perhaps one easy takeaway for you - and a pretty good pointer as to how/why your "explanation" was sooooooo far wrong - is two words: stored energy.

See: when wind blows across a body of water (and let's stick with the pretence that ocean waves are caused only by wind, for the purposes of this explanation), it imparts energy to the water surface (and those air molecules slow down slightly as a result). But there are trillions of trillions of other air molecules in the wind which can also transfer energy to the same water molecules (and water is non-compressible). So as the wind blows across the ocean, the molecules of water close to the surface are receiving more and more energy from the air molecules of the wind, and the water molecules are storing that energy. When that happens over, say, a 200-mile expanse of ocean, billions of air molecules will have transferred a great deal of accumulated energy to each of those water molecules. As a result, the stored KE in the moving water - AKA a wave or swell - ends up being many, many orders of magnitude greater per unit of perpendicular cross-sectional area than the KE of the wind itself.


I dunno - maybe 1) get a proper education in maths and physics, and then 2) do some proper reading on the subject..... before attempting to lecture other people on this sort of thing. It's absolutely pitiful, and very boring.

 

[JayUtah]

Each structure would need to be assessed on its own merits and what it is being used for.

Correct. Have you been trained to do that, since it's work that requires a licensed professional?

There is a research paper here into the various issues, which mentions Estonia.

No, it's an academic thesis that focuses on one small issue. It's obviously the unread result of a quick Google search. The paper presents an integrated structural model for double-pane windows with a gas that separates the two panes. This construction increases thermal insulation properties, but has different structural properties from single-pane glass. The thesis studies the structural property of one very specific kind of contemplated window.

The only mention of MS Estonia is to note that if windows of the type modeled in the thesis had been subjected to the same static loading that broke the ordinary windows, they would have withstood the load for longer. Static loading is a function of submergence. Wave loading is dynamic.

This thesis has little if anything to do with the general design and validation principles of windows on seagoing vessels.

 

[Marras]

There are plenty of research papers on the subject.

Once again you send others on a wild goose chase to find sources for your claims.

 

[Here_to_learn]

As you know, in Sweden and Finland the home intelligence services come under the Police (Säpo and SuPo).

What does that have to do with anything?

Hirschfeldt might have 'interviewed' some guy from the KSI but that was not included in his investigation.

Yes it was. Show a source that support your standpoint. My point is supported by his report.

As was pointed out in this link here:

"Hirschfeldt in an interview 2021 says he now regrets having destroyed all of his materials in this case. He provided interesting information about his "investigation" into the transport of military equipment in Estonia. Göran Persson suddenly limited the investigation directives and omitted KSI, which was probably the body responsible for the transports. IOW KSI was exempt from the investigation and of course being secret services would have classified everything, anyway."

That is just you quoting yourself. You do not have any source for your statement. And I pointed that out the last time you posted it also:

[With regards to the rest of your fantasies they have absolutely no value since they (as is your norm) lack all sources and references.

So show your source. And note that I've listened to the interview, so I know what he said.

If the investigation was as transparent as you claim, why the need to destroy all of Hirschfeldt's documents, as opposed to storing them, albeit confidentially?

He didn't destroy all of the documents. If you had listened to the interview you would have known.

BTW nobody said it was 'illegal' as the KSI has a licence to do what it will in the course of achieving its operations.

So exactly what does this mean then:

Thus the organisation behind the smuggling can not be held accountable to the Riksdag and thus does not have to answer to the citizens of the kingdom.

You end by repeating the same incorrect and unsupported statements.

However, the point is, despite being democratically tasked with investigating the two discrete incidents of smuggling Russian materiel, Hirschfeldt actually had his hands tied as the KIS remained outwith his investigation, for whatever reason, good or bad, legal or illegal, right or wrong. But one can hardly call it democratically carried out.

And wrong again. That was not what he was tasked with, and not what he did.

 

[Here_to_learn]

In the UK the Prime Minister is delegated the power to command the armed forces by the Queen. Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) is the professional head of the British Armed Forces and is appointed by the Prime Minister. Currently he is Admiral Sir Tony Radakin.

He can be replaced or removed by the PM.

And just to add to that - the same is of course true in Sweden, "överbefälhavaren" is appointed by the government.

 

[Andy_Ross]

He didn't destroy all of the documents. If you had listened to the interview you would have known.

This has been one of Vixen's claims since the start of the thread.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And just to add to that - the same is of course true in Sweden, "överbefälhavaren" is appointed by the government.

Churchill was famous for sacking and appointing generals, the idea that the elected governments of European countries have no say over who runs the military is laughable,.

 

[Vixen]

Did Sweden make a regional power play after the fall of the Soviet Union? Did power-mad Swedish generals get together and seize the moment to force the world to drive comfortable, sporty, fuel-efficient cars, buy modular furniture, wear comfortable sweaters, have children get a quality education, consume a healthier diet, and learn to ski?

How did this fail?

No, they were an alliance with the CIA. See the big picture. Russia was and continues to remain a significant threat to the west (from our perspective). The fight for hegemony is one that remains strong, albeit we have had 'peace time' since the mid-1940-s and the Cold War supposedly ending circa 1991. But scores remain to be settled. Just as Europe has been in a constantly evolving state of numerous small tribes, then small duchies (cf the Holy Roman Empire) then small nations )cf The German Empire mark I), this goes back as far as the Thirty Years War for hegemony f the Baltic States. US citizen Einseln, of Estonian 'heritage' was installed in Estonia for a reason, and Sweden has its finger in the pie in its support of independece of the former Soviet bloc countries. This tension hasn't gone away (cf Ukraine). To claim politics has nothing to do with Sweden/USA espionage of Russian state secrets, recklessly using a passenger ferry and members of the public as a human shield, which the Russians would have seen as collatoral when moving to stop the threat to their national security. Whichever side you are on, it is an unavoidable truth that those victims of the Estonia accident are almost certainly a result of 'politics' and the subsequent cover up denying the victims' families any closure but cruelly palming them off with a cock and bull story about a 'design fault in the bow visor', just as it happened with those 1950's airmen who went 'missing' in their DC-10's and Sweden knew what had happened all along.

 

[Vixen]

In a recurring theme, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Your "understanding" of this subject is something that perhaps an 8-year-old might think.

There are many factors which impact upon wave/swell height and speed. Wind is one of the most significant factors, but there are many others.

But let's for a moment pretend that waves are caused solely by wind.

Now, you seem to hold the (ignorant) belief that there's a simple 1-to-1 conservation of momentum & conservation of energy in action: to wit, you believe that if a) a wind of a certain velocity will hit a given object (here, a window on a ship) with a certain kinetic energy, then b) the waves that have been "caused" by that wind must necessarily also hit that object with the same kinetic energy. And you suppose that what the wave "gains" in mass (compared with the air in the wind) it will "lose" in velocity (i.e. that the wave will travel so much more slowly compared with the wind, that the wind and the wave will both ultimately have the same KE).

Right? That's essentially what you believe, and what you're trying to lecture us on, right?

You (and everyone in this thread) will be astonished when I tell you you're absolutely wrong. As I said, your "analysis" in this matter is on a par with that of a young child. It's embarrassing to witness - all the more so because you're trying, in a rather pompous style, to "teach" this subject to the thread participants.


To get to the proper explanation requires (you'd be amazed to hear) pretty complex maths. But perhaps one easy takeaway for you - and a pretty good pointer as to how/why your "explanation" was sooooooo far wrong - is two words: stored energy.

See: when wind blows across a body of water (and let's stick with the pretence that ocean waves are caused only by wind, for the purposes of this explanation), it imparts energy to the water surface (and those air molecules slow down slightly as a result). But there are trillions of trillions of other air molecules in the wind which can also transfer energy to the same water molecules (and water is non-compressible). So as the wind blows across the ocean, the molecules of water close to the surface are receiving more and more energy from the air molecules of the wind, and the water molecules are storing that energy. When that happens over, say, a 200-mile expanse of ocean, billions of air molecules will have transferred a great deal of accumulated energy to each of those water molecules. As a result, the stored KE in the moving water - AKA a wave or swell - ends up being many, many orders of magnitude greater per unit of perpendicular cross-sectional area than the KE of the wind itself.


I dunno - maybe 1) get a proper education in maths and physics, and then 2) do some proper reading on the subject..... before attempting to lecture other people on this sort of thing. It's absolutely pitiful, and very boring.

No, the idea that a 25 mph wind force is the same as a wave also being 25 mph as a result thereof, is YOUR logical misunderstanding!

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, the idea that a 25 mph wind force is the same as a wave also being 25 mph as a result thereof, is YOUR logical misunderstanding!

But we know it's not the same. waves still exist for a while after a gale has died away, they will still do damage to a ship if it pitches in to them.
It is the act of the ship's bow plunging in to a wave as it pitches that does the damage. That's why ships slow down when they are heading in to a big sea.