• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
OK, fair enough it is part of the hull but with it being designed to triple lock, it is not properly explained how it came apart at three points.
Click to expand...
So let's see, we have in the JAIC report at least the following (I probably missed a section or two...) :

3.3 Bow visor and ramp installation
8.6 Damage to the visor and ramp attachment devices
11.3 The DIANA II incident
12.1 Determination of sea loads on the visor by model tests
12.2 Numerical simulation of vertical wave loads on the bow visor
12.3 Estimate of maximum wave loads on the visor for the conditions at the accident
12.4 Predictions of wave-induced motion
12.7 Investigation of visor attachment
13.2.5 Separation of the visor
13.5 Failure sequence of bow visor and ramp
15 STRENGTH EVALUATION OF THE VISOR AND THE RAMP ATTACHMENTS
Then we have supplement 1 & 2 to the report
And of course the technical part report from 1995.

You make a clear statement above that "it is not properly explained how it came apart at three points." Explain to the thread, with references to the relevant chapters in the JAIC documentation, what is missing.
 
Here_to_learn said:
So let's see, we have in the JAIC report at least the following (I probably missed a section or two...) :

3.3 Bow visor and ramp installation
8.6 Damage to the visor and ramp attachment devices
11.3 The DIANA II incident
12.1 Determination of sea loads on the visor by model tests
12.2 Numerical simulation of vertical wave loads on the bow visor
12.3 Estimate of maximum wave loads on the visor for the conditions at the accident
12.4 Predictions of wave-induced motion
12.7 Investigation of visor attachment
13.2.5 Separation of the visor
13.5 Failure sequence of bow visor and ramp
15 STRENGTH EVALUATION OF THE VISOR AND THE RAMP ATTACHMENTS
Then we have supplement 1 & 2 to the report
And of course the technical part report from 1995.

You make a clear statement above that "it is not properly explained how it came apart at three points." Explain to the thread, with references to the relevant chapters in the JAIC documentation, what is missing.
Click to expand...
It was all gone through in great detail previously.
Vixen knows all this.
 
Vixen said:
Being dropped from a height.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, I just explained that to you. And the answer is that gravity doesn't make the vertical case different from the horizontal case. You're welcome.

Vixen said:
I did all that, plugging in the relevant calculation figures...and was heavily punished as a result.
Click to expand...
No.

You asked an AI to try to solve the problem for you. But because you have a poor grasp of the problem and couldn't instruct the AI suitably, you got back a nonsensical answer. As nearly as we can reconstruct your prompt, you asked it for the "pressure"—what you wanted was hydrodynamic drag—on a ship falling 85 meters through water. Not surprisingly you got back an answer telling you the hydrostatic pressure at a depth of 85 meters. That has zilch to do with drag or the velocity of a sinking ship, but you were too ignorant to know that. You proffered that solution as your brilliant slam-dunk against your critics.

You were punished because you didn't follow the forum rules governing the use of AI, and for no other reason.

But since you still think you've somehow solved the drag problem, tell us about it. I gave you a thorough explanation for gravity as it relates to the collision mechanics. Be as thorough for us, please. Show us the formula or model that you "plugged" the relevant values into. What are those values? Please prove that you understand the physics.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I knew it had nothing to do with Bjorkman and was a research project graphic but if you really needed to know which uni, you could look it up for yourself or do a search.
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with Björkman?

I guess that explains why @Vixen posted the graphic that is available only at Björkman's web site, containing the text and arrows that were added by Björkman and are absent from the Jasionowski paper (University of Strathclyde) that contains the image Björkman modified by adding the text and arrows.

Oh, and did I mention that the graphic posted by @Vixen is bit-for-bit identical with the graphic seen at Björkman's web site? Why yes I did. I guess you'd have to be a certain variety of triple niner to think the graphic you posted (bit-for-bit identical to Björkman's but obviously different from the University of Strathclyde graphic and every other graphic that has ever been mentioned within this thread) has nothing to do with Björkman.
Vixen said:
I remembered the important detail that it was a uni project and nothing to do with Bjorkman. The poster wanting me to go back years searching was just being mischievous. You asked where I saw it and I went to the trouble to find out via my screenshot folder and was able to tell you via Bing lens it was from Heiwa site and credits Strathclyde. What thanks do I get? None at all. Just cheap jibes.
Click to expand...
Thank you for admitting you copied your graphic from the Heiwa web site.

That Heiwa web site is Björkman's web site.

I guess you'd have to be a certain variety of triple niner to think a graphic available only at Björkman's web site has nothing to do with Björkman.
 
Vixen said:
OK, fair enough it is part of the hull but with it being designed to triple lock, it is not properly explained how it came apart at three points.
Click to expand...
"Not properly explained" according to whom?

Vixen said:
Braidwood does offer an explanation, together with physical evidence (photography taken directly from the official video) as to how the side lock came off.
Click to expand...
And that explanation is ... ?

Vixen said:
This is more of an obvious answer than a couple of wave load impacts?
Click to expand...
If I recall Braidwood's claim correctly, it requires the use of explosives for which there is no evidence. That makes it a pretty unparsimonious answer. As for the "couple of waves" straw man, that has been addressed at length.

Vixen said:
The issue should perhaps have been addressed.
Click to expand...
Conspiracy theorists want nothing more than to have their claims "addressed" by the experts no matter how facially improbable or nonsensical those claims may be. It's attention-seeking and a ploy for personal validation, not science.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
If there was no hull breach - and the car deck is well above the waterline - why didn't it just turn over, like the Heweliusz - instead of floating on its side.
Click to expand...
Why should it have?

Vixen said:
There are no JAIC calculations showing this.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. You keep referring to Björkman's nonsensical "GOM" and his misuse of the intact-hull roll mechanics, and parroting his argument that JAIC abrogated its duty by not duplicating Björkman's error or presuming he was correct.

Vixen said:
Instead it seems to work backwards saying this must have happened and that must have happened based on an end theoretical formula, i.e., the windows on deck 4 "must have smashed".
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. Once again you're conflating the stability behavior with the buoyancy behavior.
 
Last edited:
Consider the three Destroyers lost in Typhoon Cobra in WW2.

Spence, Hull, and Monaghan were sunk after they rolled and pitched and water flooded down their funnels and extinguished their boilers. Without power, they were unable to control their heading, turned broadside on and were rolled past the point of recovery and swamped by the waves causing the machinery spaces to flood through vents, intakes and the funnels.
Hickox and Maddox pumped seawater into their empty fuel tanks, adding enough extra stability to ride out the storm with relatively minor damage.

In the case of USS Spence: Her rudder jammed hard to starboard, and she capsized and sank with 317 men drowned and only 3 survivors after hoses parted while attempting to refuel from New Jersey. Fuel tanks had to be deballasted to accept fuel as the ship had insufficient to weather the storm. Only 6 survived from Monaghan and 62 from USS Hull

As an aside, the carrier Monterey was nearly taken down by its own aircraft as they crashed into bulkheads and exploded during violent rolls starting a hanger fire.
One of those fighting the fires aboard Monterey was President ( then Lieutenant) Gerald Ford.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Consider the three Destroyers lost in Typhoon Cobra in WW2.

Spence, Hull, and Monaghan were sunk after they rolled and pitched and water flooded down their funnels and extinguished their boilers. Without power, they were unable to control their heading, turned broadside on and were rolled past the point of recovery and swamped by the waves causing the machinery spaces to flood through vents, intakes and the funnels.
Hickox and Maddox pumped seawater into their empty fuel tanks, adding enough extra stability to ride out the storm with relatively minor damage.

In the case of USS Spence: Her rudder jammed hard to starboard, and she capsized and sank with 317 men drowned and only 3 survivors after hoses parted while attempting to refuel from New Jersey. Fuel tanks had to be deballasted to accept fuel as the ship had insufficient to weather the storm. Only 6 survived from Monaghan and 62 from USS Hull

As an aside, the carrier Monterey was nearly taken down by its own aircraft as they crashed into bulkheads and exploded during violent rolls starting a hanger fire.
One of those fighting the fires aboard Monterey was President ( then Lieutenant) Gerald Ford.
Click to expand...
- Is that Hull over there?
- No, that is Monteray.
- Isn’t that Californa?
- No, that was another hull.
- But how about the hull of Estonia?
- No, Hull is in England.

This thread is so confusing...
 
Here_to_learn said:
So let's see, we have in the JAIC report at least the following (I probably missed a section or two...) :

3.3 Bow visor and ramp installation
8.6 Damage to the visor and ramp attachment devices
11.3 The DIANA II incident
12.1 Determination of sea loads on the visor by model tests
12.2 Numerical simulation of vertical wave loads on the bow visor
12.3 Estimate of maximum wave loads on the visor for the conditions at the accident
12.4 Predictions of wave-induced motion
12.7 Investigation of visor attachment
13.2.5 Separation of the visor
13.5 Failure sequence of bow visor and ramp
15 STRENGTH EVALUATION OF THE VISOR AND THE RAMP ATTACHMENTS
Then we have supplement 1 & 2 to the report
And of course the technical part report from 1995.

You make a clear statement above that "it is not properly explained how it came apart at three points." Explain to the thread, with references to the relevant chapters in the JAIC documentation, what is missing.
Click to expand...
Ah, the Diana II. It was found to need repairs, etc., as of Jan 1993. But you'll note in the JAIC Report, it confirms the bow visor for the Estonia was locked* as of the start of the voyage. As if one ship needing maintenance means it follows that it's exactly the same problem for others. The Diana II likely wasn't locked properly and the captain saw it opening from the bridge, so no harm done.

*A triple mechanism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom