• 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

JayUtah said:
No, they didn't simply work backwards and call it finished. They looked at whether the available downflooding paths could accommodate the implied flood rate. They can, and we can know this using math. Your insistence that it has to be physically demonstrated seems to presume that science doesn't exist.

Remember this?


This is what I mean when I say you're not simply "interested" or "curious." You're directly challenging the JAIC methods and findings on no better authority than that they didn't do the analysis you think they should have done, or in the way you think they should have done it. It doesn't even cross your mind that your uninformed expectations are what's wrong. That lack of introspection is why you don't get to be a real investigator.

Initially we used empirical methods to develop an engineering model for water flooding through an opening. And by "we" I mean first Leonardo da Vinci and later Sir Isaac Newton. We validated those models hundreds of years ago, and now we get to use math. Just because you don't get how math works doesn't mean everyone else has to dumb down their findings for you.
Click to expand...
That isn't my take at all. Think of the earlier analogy of the guy crashed into a tree with bald tyres on his car, faulty steering, faulty brakes, all kinds of things dropping off, no MOT, no licence. Well, it might be obvious to any reasonable passerby what CAUSED the crash, but unless it is INVESTIGATED, you will have missed, actually it was a third party drunk driver that jumped a red light and smashed into him that was the REAL cause.
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
So, first I converted everything to inches.
Click to expand...
That's certainly a choice. I kept everything in SI and converted to English units at the end.

JimOfAllTrades said:
Since the pressure of the water is linear with respect to depth I assumed that taking the pressure at the depth of the middle of the window and using that for the entire area of the window would be close enough.
Click to expand...
Not only close enough but essentially spot-on. The amount your computation is off for the upper part of the window is exactly the same amount it's off—but in the opposite direction—for the lower part. In the real world, doing this on a computer for a client, we would integrate with respect to area. But here, linearity is our friend.

JimOfAllTrades said:
And now I know where I screwed up. I typoed 6962 when I entered it into the calculator.
Click to expand...
These days we tend to do things in spreadsheets if it's for real. But yes, I habitually miskey my calculator app.

JimOfAllTrades said:
I ignored the atmospheric pressure above the water since the window has that pressure on both sides so it cancels out.
Click to expand...
Very astute. You get one of Vixen's nines.

JimOfAllTrades said:
Seawater is a little heavier than pure water by something like 3%, so the final pressure on the window should be about 40156 pounds.
Click to expand...
I used 1,025 kg/m3 which is a little lower than canonical seawater density, but we know the Baltic is less saline so that's a good enough approximation. If you use canonical seawater, the only difference in the answer is to the right of the comma and we don't care for this particular exercise.

JimOfAllTrades said:
Must have been defective windows that wouldn't hold against that. :)
Click to expand...
It's important to know the other half of the problem. The static pressure on the window is about two orders of magnitude greater than the wind loading of gale force winds.

The figure we calculated is the total pressure. It's accurate for a window oriented vertically as noted in the problem statement. But that pressure is not distributed uniformly across the pane surface. Now if we contemplate a failure mode where the glass pane breaks, total load may be enough. Here we can point out that it's at least an order of magnitude greater than the ultimate failure strength of tempered glass at around 15 mm thick and the dimensions given. That's just my in-the-head calculation. So no, we don't need to simulate it empirically when the math is conclusive. For a marginal case we would at least think about it. But here we don't need to.

But if the failure mode is elsewhere, we need to pay attention to where the pressure is concentrated. The unit pressure at the bottom edge of the window is almost twice that of the top edge. So then we have to consider failure modes that fail the window support structure instead of the glass itself.

Then also, tempered glass bends. Most glass is not very elastic. When the pane accepts a giant load like static water pressure just under the surface (James Cameron's Titanic got that part right), it bows inward. That means we have to consider rotation at the pane edges and how that will interact with the support structure. And the edges will pull in slightly, away from the bedding. All that matters.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Think of the earlier analogy of the guy crashed into a tree with bald tyres on his car, faulty steering, faulty brakes, all kinds of things dropping off, no MOT, no licence. Well, it might be obvious to any reasonable passerby what CAUSED the crash, but unless it is INVESTIGATED, you will have missed, actually it was a third party drunk driver that jumped a red light and smashed into him that was the REAL cause.
Click to expand...
Cool story. It has absolutely no relevance to how the JAIC concluded that downflooding occurred and to what degree. Your armchair musings are not how investigations actually occur.
 
Axxman300 said:
Why would anyone do that in this case?

The cause of the sinking was the loss of the bow visor and the open car ramp. Sinking a ship is a process, there is a primary cause, and a series of follow-on factors which contribute to the end result. The USS Indianapolis was struck by two torpedoes and sank in 12 minutes. The ship's water-tight compartments were compromised by the fact that the captain allowed portholes and hatches to be left open for ventilation in the crippling heat (fleet HQ had not forwarded a report of a submarine in the area). But while the open portholes and hatches were a factor in the sinking the main cause was the torpedoes.

Your other failure is the assumption that the water in the car deck somehow magically staid there, and didn't flow into ventilation shafts, stairwells, and access panels. This certainly did happen, and I don't need to test or model it for you.
Click to expand...
The JAIC ruled out ventilation flooding of any great degree. Yes the bow visor was lost. We know that. The question is, why? OK we can see in pics the accentuator arms look terribly thin when the bow visor is up. But they are hydraulic arms with two sets of locking and one bottom lock. And in any case, the visor is hardly going to be banging once it came loose.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC ruled out ventilation flooding of any great degree. Yes the bow visor was lost. We know that. The question is, why? OK we can see in pics the accentuator arms look terribly thin when the bow visor is up. But they are hydraulic arms with two sets of locking and one bottom lock. And in any case, the visor is hardly going to be banging once it came loose.
Click to expand...
And you say this from your vast experience in shipbuilding and forensic engineering?

How are you coming with the Southwest Research Institute report? Are you still working on it, or can we just assume it's over your head and you're hoping not to have to discuss it anymore?
 
JayUtah said:
For comparison, 40,000 lbs is about the weight of a charter tour bus.
Click to expand...
Strange the Heweliusz windows didn't smash in a 44 m/s hurricane wind (compare and contrast with m/s 18), capsized - complete with shoddy repairs carried out with CONCRETE - yet floated upside down for > five hours.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
And you say this from your vast experience in shipbuilding and forensic engineering?

How are you coming with the Southwest Research Institute report? Are you still working on it, or can we just assume it's over your head and you're hoping not to have to discuss it anymore?
Click to expand...
The SW lab if I recall correctly said that the deformation indicated by its analysis could be explained by shearing, which is a fracturing of the metal albeit not necessarily visible to the naked eye but a material weakness in its constitution. As with many accident investigations it can only provide statistical probability of one scenario being more compatible with observed results than others, thus, it could not rule out a detonation event either and recommended further sampling.

As you know, the. Brandenburg and Clausthal -Zellerfeld, from calculating hardness values (HV), found those samples nearer the damaged areas had higher HVs, plus the appearance of 'twinning and perlite carmelisations compatible with an explosion.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The JAIC ruled out ventilation flooding of any great degree. Yes the bow visor was lost. We know that. The question is, why? OK we can see in pics the accentuator arms look terribly thin when the bow visor is up. But they are hydraulic arms with two sets of locking and one bottom lock. And in any case, the visor is hardly going to be banging once it came loose.
Click to expand...
Where did they rule out ventilation flooding?
Do you know how big the ventilation openings sre in to a ship's machinery spaces?
Do you know how big air conditioning vents are?
 
Vixen said:
The SW lab if I recall correctly said that the deformation indicated by its analysis could be explained by shearing...
Click to expand...
Yes.

Vixen said:
...which is a fracturing of the metal albeit not necessarily visible to the naked eye but a material weakness in its constitution.
Click to expand...
No. Not even remotely close to a correct explanation.

Vixen said:
As with many accident investigations it can only provide statistical probability of one scenario being more compatible with observed results than others, thus, it could not rule out a detonation event either and recommended further sampling.
Click to expand...
The SwRI attempted no statistical analysis of the relative probabilities of alternative root causes although it did express an opinion regarding which of the possible causes was preferred. There is no numerical basis upon which a statistical model could be built. The offer of additional testing was not some sort of sympathy for the explosives hypothesis. The lab said that under the given budget and schedule it was not able to answer the client's question and specified what additional expense and effort would be needed to do so. It "recommended" no such thing.

The lab indeed ruled out explosives for one sample. However, as I explained, the failure to rule out a Sumerian ceremonial dagger in the other case does not mean much.

Vixen said:
As you know, the. Brandenburg...
Click to expand...
No Gish gallop. One at a time.

You obviously don't understand the underlying materials science. You have missed the point of SwRI's findings and instead invented some of your own. Would you like to try again, or can we just conclude at this point that access to the full report did not help you at all?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
...and, the fact waves can in theory smash strongly reinforced glass
Click to expand...
There is no such thing.

Vixen said:
...under some conditions doesn't mean this is the reason M/V Estonia didn't turtle when it reached negative stability as hypothesized by JAIC.
Click to expand...
As shown by JAIC. As far as stability goes, you don't know anything about that.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Yes.


No. Not even remotely close to a correct explanation.


The SwRI attempted no statistical analysis of the relative probabilities of alternative root causes although it did express an opinion regarding which of the possible causes was preferred. There is no numerical basis upon which a statistical model could be built. The offer of additional testing was not some sort of sympathy for the explosives hypothesis. The lab said that under the given budget and schedule it was not able to answer the client's question and specified what additional expense and effort would be needed to do so. It "recommended" no such thing.

The lab indeed ruled out explosives for one sample. However, as I explained, the failure to rule out a Sumerian ceremonial dagger in the other case does not mean much.


No Gish gallop. One at a time.

You obviously don't understand the underlying materials science. You have missed the point of SwRI's findings and instead invented some of your own. Would you like to try again, or can we just conclude at this point that access to the full report did not help you at all?
Click to expand...
OK, fair enough. SwRi from initially showing enthusiasm in their tender letter seem to have taken a more circumspect position based on as you say irredeemable signs of corrosion that negates meaningful analysis. Plus, it seems to be more of a narrative report, with a list of bibliography at the end. I had assumed there were unseen appendices of raw data but it doesn't mention any method or table of results. However, the other two reports, do (excluding the raw data used to analyse results). One would presume the data re HV would be based on scientifically established baselines as to what would be considered abnormal HV in a metallic material. Both conclude signs of an explosion consistent with what Michael Fellows, who started his career as an underwater clearance diver tasked with post-WWII surface and underwater mine and bomb clearance, qualifying in 1959, states the Neumann waves/twinning observed satisfies the legal standard in a court of law as satisfying the burden of proof that the damage to the metal was caused by a bomb. Likewise, Brian Braidwood was a Royal Navy explosives expert. Thus, one finds the treatment of these two fine gentlemen as scoundrels and blackguards peddling conspiracy theories utterly distasteful. AFIAIAC they are persons acting with integrity and professionalism and know what bomb damage and incendiary devices and their components look like. As you know, the preliminary report from a few years ago, on completion of the latest survey, stated some of the hull damage was compatible with the vessel hitting a rocky outcrop or moving against same, being some ten metres away from where it initially landed. Be that as it may. It is to be expected. However, the Arikas team said the next step would be to forensically examine the bow visor itself and this is what it seems to have been doing in the intervening three or four years. When the final report is presented, I am fully confident it will uphold Braidwood's, Fellows' and Westermann's objective and scientific findings that there are, indeed, signs of an explosion having taken place. In Braidwood's estimate, up to three of them, and at vulnerable locations along the side of the locking mechanisms and accentuating arms. with only one accentuating arm being ripped off as a result; the other likely giving way due to the sheer weight of the other successful damage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom