• 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

Gross tonnage is a measurement of the ship's usable volume. It is computed from rough ship dimensions in feet using scaling coefficients appropriate to the ship type, then divided by 100. The resulting figure was once given the units of "vessel tons," but is now considered effectively unitless, which is why Wikipedia doesn't give it any. It has almost nothing to do with the ship's mass or weight. Displacement, on the other hand, best gives the weight of the ship. But it is generally only specified for warships.

If you're going to set yourself up as a judge over people who investigate shipping accidents, @Vixen, it would help if you learned something about ships.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
And the Heweliusz windows didn't likewise smash, in 44 m/s hurricane force winds? <sfx Brummie accent> Yes, mate.
Click to expand...
Assume standard atmospheric conditions and a window 1.5 m wide × 3 m tall. Assume the wind blows directly against the window. Compute the wind load on the window, ignoring compressible flow. For bonus points, compute the wind loading if the wind is blowing at a 45º angle. Conversely, assume the ship with that same window is submerged in seawater so that the top edge of the window is 2.5 m below the surface. Compute the hydrostatic pressure against the window, assuming the interior is dry.

If you cannot back up your cutesy bluster with numbers, we have no use for you.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I got the basic specs from wikipedia:


Car-Passenger Ferry
  • 155.43 m (509 ft 11 in) (as built)
  • 157.02 m (515.16 ft) (1984 onwards)
24.21 m (79 ft 5 in)
5.60 m (18 ft 4 in)
9
1 A
  • 4 × MAN 8L40/45
  • 17,625 kW (23,636 hp) (combined)
21.1 knots (39.1 km/h; 24.3 mph)
  • 2,000 passengers
  • 1,190 passenger berths
  • 460 cars

[th]
General characteristics

[/th]​
[td]Type[/td] [td]Tonnage[/td] [td]Length[/td] [td]Beam[/td] [td]Draught[/td] [td]Decks[/td] [td]Ice class[/td] [td]Installed power[/td] [td]Speed[/td] [td]Capacity[/td]
Click to expand...
So is it 15,598 tons or 3,006 tons?

Do you know the difference between Dead Weight and Gross Tonnage?

We went in to great detail on this previously explaining how tonnages for cargo ships are rated and calculated and what they mean.
 
Last edited:
Every once in a while, someone asks questions I can answer.
zooterkin said:
Did you even read the whole of the first sentence of the post you just quoted?
Click to expand...
zooterkin said:
Can you read the posts? What do they say?
Click to expand...
zooterkin said:
Could you, just for once, try to make your reply in some way connected with the post you're replying to? Maybe, also, read and understand the post you're quoting, and demonstrate that by actually addressing the points it makes?
Click to expand...
Apparently not. Probably not. She doesn't know. She could try, I suppose, but her record shows she is unlikely to succeed. A Simonton gap makes it impossible for her to understand what others are saying, which explains why she is unable to address the points being made.
 
Vixen said:
Mojo writes:



Er, the bow visor is a huge 55 - 64 tonne chunk of solid steel, the Atlantic lock, is tiny in the grand scheme of things. We were OBVIOUSLY talking about the WEIGHT of the thing given the CONTEXT of a survivor passenger witness (Paul Barney) saying he felt a shudder that made him fall off the bench he was sleeping on. An Atlantic lock knocking against the hull is barely going to awake a seagull. The Atlantic lock is way down near the bulbous bow so is hardly going to make anyone feel like something has collided if it falls off. So, having had the weight of the Atlantic lock at the recent forefront of my mind at the time, I carelessly wrote its weight erroneously as the weight of the entire shebang that was causing collision/explosion type reports amongst some of the passenger survivors. In addition, this was acknowledged. So much for the ridiculous claim I was too 'embarrassed to admit to a mistake'.
Click to expand...
So why did you say that the visor had a mass of 15kg, and why, instead of admitting that this was a mistake and the visor was actually much bigger than that, then say that "With the casing it weighs 55 tonnes"? What evidence do you have for the existence of this massive "casing"?
 
Andy_Ross said:
We went in to great detail on this previously explaining how tonnages for cargo ships are rated and calculated and what they mean.
Click to expand...
We went into it recently when we evaluated her laughable attempt to do basic physics regarding ships sinking. She gave "15,000 tonnes" to her AI as the mass of the ship to be used in physics calculations. I explained to her at the time that this was gross tonnage and that it has nothing to do with weight. An ordinary person would thereafter know to stop using that figure as the weight or mass of the ship. In education circles we call this the "transfer of learning"—a student's ability to remove a fact from the context in which it was presented and apply it in other relevant contexts. It expresses a greater understanding of the subject than rote recall. Maybe our resident Triple-Niner might attain the status of C student by applying a bit more effort.
 
Mojo said:
So why did you say that the visor had a mass of 15kg, and why, instead of admitting that this was a mistake and the visor was actually much bigger than that, then say that "With the casing it weighs 55 tonnes"? What evidence do you have for the existence of this massive "casing"?
Click to expand...
Why would it even need a casing? It's not as if people were going to need to take it home to work on it in their living rooms with “home DIY welding kits”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom